The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1851-05-01
DUTIES MEN OWE TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT.
ICoNTINUED

| ICoNTINUED
To the EdRo, ofthe National Era:
In my last proved that Slavery per Sc was
| contrary to both Testaments In my present
communication | purpose to show that Il never
had the sanction Of the Supreme Lswgver y
that "our Lord and his Apostles denounced it,
and that obedience to the Fugitive Slave Law is
dsobedience to God.
And first, God never sanctioned Slavery in the
| family Of the patriarch Abraham. The Scrip
| lures affirm that Abraham had servants in his
| house, and bought with his money! And it is
readily admitted thst God expressed no dssatis-
faction with him upon that account. But before
any proof can be derived from this admission,
il must be shown that the servitude practced in
the family of Abraham was the same in its ele-
mentary principles as that praotioed among the
slaveholding States of these United States. And
secondly, that the words CANA, ebed, and 0plah,
which is rendered bought, maH-ssrUaR', and mad
s>rpani, do truly mean buying male or female
slave in the modern sense Of the word. And
thirdly, it is necessary to show that the Almisses
sanctions everything which he permits TO exist
under the regulation Of law And here we admit
that Slavery in its worst forms did exist in all
the nations among whom the patriarohs dwelt,
and that slsve-catching was the ostensible object
for which they frequently made war with each
other. But that that kind Of slavery ever did
exist among the patriarchs is what we deny, and
| purpose to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
And suppose that Slavery did exist in the fam
| lily Of Abraham, how could it be justified on that
ACCOUNT Surely some things existed among the
| patriarchs, under the regulation Of law, which
was suffered only on account of the hardness Of
| their hearts" Such was polygamy and il can
not be shown that the Almighty sanctioned the
| one system more than the other But granting,
for the sake of argument that some kind of SER
vitude did exist in the family of Abraham, was 1t
such as to leave the impression that God recog-
missed them as the chattel property Of Abraham
| He that is eight days old shall be circumcised
among you, every man child in your generations,
he that is born in the house. or bought with money
of any stranger which is not Of thy seed Gen.
xvii, 7, 10. In this place Jehovah interferes on
behalf Of those men and children, and he recog-
Misses them as entitled to the same religious train
ing and privileges as Abraham's natural descend
ants But II does more. Circumcision was q sign
Of the covenant existing between Abrsham aud
God, emitting him to q sufficient inheritance for
| his present purpose in the land in which he was
a stranger, sure Inheritance for his offspring in
| the land Of Canaan, and the salvation Of God in
Christ Jesus. And he who wss eircumcised was
| regarded an heir in this blessed inheritance.
! They were by this recognised to own property ;
ns vusse isr,eHvr VT onuIusouni suouru nave
| been his heir.-Gen. Nv, q 3. This was not sane
| tl0DluR hDTAnhlb Cuhtttl Iikut III hib ScTNhuIs
| IL Abraham were a stakeholder then the "Su-
preme Lawgiver" made merciful interference
on behalf of his slaves They had all the rights
| of q freeman. But 80 far was the Supreme Law
| giver from sanctioning Abraham's rights to these
| men as his chattes, and so far was Abraham from
| claiming them, that | affirm Abraham TO have
been the only abolitionist in the then known
world, and that under the appreciation Of the Su-
preme Lawgiver. ] rest my proof Of this upon
the circumstances relating to Abraham aud his
servants, and the meaning Of the Hebrew words
| cana, ebed, and. amah and here my appeal is to
the Hebrew scholar While acknowledge that
the Hebrew word CANA freqently means to buy, in
the common acceptation Of buying 1t does not
| always, nor generally, mean so and this being
| So the fair and only true method Ia to render 1t
according to the connections and circumstances in
| which it Is found. This verb means most COM
monty to pay ransom for prisoner Of war, or
to purchase q captive from captivity; and in this
sense God is represented as redeeming or buying
his people. IL Is the same verb which occurs in
Isaiah ri, H. and xiii, as also Dem. XXI ::
{" Is he not thy Father, that hath bought thee %
And perhaps In more than thousand places IL it
used In this sense II is also the same verb which
in Gen w. /, is rendered, 81 have gotten man
from the Lordn Now, while the other words do
sometimes mean servant In the common accepta-
ton Of that word, yet they are more frequently
used to denote the ambassador Of prince, the
subjects Of Government or King, aud not un-
frequently the soldiers composing the armies ola
prince. Thus in 2 Sam. IL, 1884, the soldiers
composing the armies Of Ish-bosheth and David
are called their servants (sbsds) Now, let all
the circumstances of the case be taken into con-
sideration. They are these The ostensible OBJ
jects for which the petty kings living around
Abraham went to war; was to cltch slaves, or, If
you will, kidnap. They claimed absolute con-
troll over their lives and all that was theirs
These were heathens. Abraham was taught in
the school Of Jehovah better lessons And what
conclusion 30 fair, 30 rational, and 30 consistent
with the circumstances, and above oil, with his
religion, than that tho servants were men re-
deemed from Slavery by Abraham's money, who
settled around him, and whom they afterwards
acknowledged and cause for their Chief Magis-
trate, and whose holy and heaven'born faith they
loved professed and initiated; whose God be-
came their God, and with whom they associated
themselves for mutual defence
Upon what other principles can we explain the
embassy OF Eliezer to the family Of Major, In
Mesopotsmia Was he treated as a slave, or as
the ambassador Of prince7 Upon what other
principle can we explain his recovery Of Lot and
others from captivity, with an army Of 3ls men7
Did they q gbt like slsves7 They fought for
their God, their country, and the cause OF free
dom. This was q cause worthy Of the "Father
OF the Faithful worthy the religion he professed
and the God he adored Abraham had many
faults, for he was man That he was slave
holder we deny and that he was not, We have
proven, no as to satisfy my own mind that have
brightly interpreted the word Of God Then, 80
far was the Supreme Lswgiver from sanctloning
Slavery, that his sanction Is given to Freedom and
Freedoms cause and Dr. Lord will have TO look
beyond the patriarchal age for the Supreme Law
giver's sanction Of Slavery per Sc.
2. But Dr. Lord claims the sanction Of the
Supreme Lawgiver, In that Divine economy which
he gave to the Hebrews" aud In his extreme
modesty he claims this fact as open and undis'
puted the record and proof Of 1t are In the
copy Of the Biblen
Now, we have In our possession q copy Of the
Bible and We utterly deny the assertion that Sls-
very per &c is sanctioned In that Divine economy
"given TO the Hebrewsn We read In our Bible Of
a class Of men who were allowed to sell their ser
vices for = limited portion Of time to Others and
of another class, who might have been sold for
limited time for their crimes but neither class
was recognised ~ the chattel property Of those
thus entitled TO their services. And we read OF
the Supreme Lswgivsr giving laws preventive
Of the abuse Of the authority Voluntarily vested
In the hands Of the master by the individual VINO
might have sold bis services, and who by 50 DONG
became the servant Of another. BY these laws q
man was prevented from being able to sell his de-
sceudsuts. or even himself, into perpetual slavery
The bondman Of Hebrew lineage could not serve
ovar Ar years nor any other over foray-aius
| Ana We shall hallow the fftisth year, and pro-
claim liberty throughout all the land, TO all the
inhabitapts thereofn-Lev XIV, 10. | am aware
that the sdvoostss Of Slavery claim that the 4oth