Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1850-05-08
MAY 8, 1850

1DNESDAY, MAY 8, 1850.
erence to these two particulars separately.
Let US first examine, and see whether ii
q any repeating force, and secondly,
er ii enacts prohibition of holding
distinct things are here enunciated.
first place, law is enacted. This is
Ing. And then this is spoken OF, in
|;ion with another thing, which is
"the law and the prophets" The
and the prophets were in full force at
lime this enunciation was made, and he
uttered it had just before declared his
en.ion not to destroy them. He makes
hew enactment, and then speaks of it in
connection with what before existed. What
modifying efec. does this mention, which
is made of the former code, have upon the
former code? The expression used is, ''.hIs
is the law and the prophets" From the
way the North talk on this subject, for
they do not reason upon it at ally we should
al first be led to suppose, that they under
stood the expression ''this is the law and the
prophets,' to mean, this is substituted in the
|Place Of the law and the prophets. The law
and the prophets, which have been in force
hitherto, | now supersede by this law,
which kfnact in their stead. The law and
The prophets were the law before. This
is the law and the prophets now.
Were this the proposition which the
North affirm, much of the embarrassment,
which now lies in the way Of replying to
them, would be removed. Blu. this is more.
than they intend The North alledge that
this enactment left the Decalogue standing,
but demolished the appended law. We
cannot perceive on what ground such dis
lnc'lon is made. Either this enactment
swept away all previously existing divine
laws, on relative duties, or else ii confirmed
all such laws. We apprehend that there is no
middle ground. Identity is affirmed, or con-
srast is expressed. If the former; then the
expression, ",his is the law,o is equivalent
to saying, the law now enacted, is that
which was the law before. ii The latter
tns expression, ''lhis is the law,n expresses
strong contrast, and affirms, this IS the law
in contradlslnction TO what was the law be-
fore.
We adopt the former view, and think
that the expression, 'for this is the law
points US to an examination of the law, thai
we may discover the exact nature of the
oneness which is affirmed 10 exist.
On referring to the law, we find that il
Consists Of specific enactments, which are
particulars uader this new general law
This enactment, which is now made in these
words, "All things whatsoever ye would
that men should do 10 you, dc ye even so to
them," comprehends the whole range OF
dnties, which we owe to our fellow men.
1t is so framed as not by possibility TO omit
one single one of them, and yet it does not
mention single one Of them. The law,
however, which is referred to, contains
many of these duties as specific enactments.
Can it then be doubted, that when this gen.
eral law was enacted, and it was said of it.,
.:.his is the law" lha. the mention thus made
of the law, acted as confirmation on the
law?
But further: the enactment Of this law,
did no. destroy the previously existing laws,
was the general law, under which they were
all included because i, could not destroy
those particulars, without destroying itself.
A general law has no force but in rela-
lion to the particulars which range under
it. The particulars included under it, il en-
Joined by virtue of its general enactment.
How then can it be said that this general
enactment destroys these particular enact
ments, when he that enacted it, says that j,
is the same with those particular enactments?
This new enactment then, repealed none
of the laws which were previously in exist
ence, on the subject of mans duty to his
fellow man first, because the lawgiver de-
clared that ii was one and the same thing
with them, and secondly, because if he had
no. so declared, it could not repeal them
without SO far repeating itself.
1t is agreed between North and South,
.ha. this law does not exert any repeating
effect on the Decalogue. The repeating
power of its enactment is alledged to fall on
laws which were enacted in pursuance to
the DecaIogue. Such only of these laws
are in question, as lave respect to the duty
which man owes to his fellow man. And
this new enactment has been shown to con-
firm all of that class. If then the law quot
ed from Levlticus is one which comes with
in its purview, it confirms it. This law
aulhorlses the purchase Of heather slaves,
and the indefinite retention of them in bon
dage. II is one which involves the matter
OF doing, or not doing, to others as we
would have them do to us. Blu. the law
gIver says that whatever laws previously ex-
listed on this subJe were conformed TO this
rule. 1t follows then, that buying and re-
tanning heather slaves in perpetual bondage,
is doing TO others ss we would that they
should do unto US. Upon the supposi,lon
claimed, that this law enacted all relative
duties, and that it destroyed some of the
laws on relative duties, we are reduced to