Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1852-03-17
mo. XVIII.

s. But no. to insist upon this, there is the
most indi.putable evide nee, in his subse-
quent history, that he was slave tolder,
and very great one. Men-servants ana
maid.servants m are enumerated in the lists
Of his property, Gen. 10: 16, and "a 80.
Some of them were given him BY Pharaoh;
others by Abimelecb, Gen. 20: IA. In all
these passages the original words are ebed
and shiphchah. The title adon, slave owner,
is given to Abraham, Gen. "a: 8, 10, IL,
27, So, &c. He had home-borh slaves, and
slaves bought with money, Gen. IA: IA, and
IS: 8, and II: 10, 10, %, n. Some idea
of their vast number may be formed from
the fact, that he had, at one time, 3lS home
born slaves capable of bearing arms. Few
if any American shareholders have equal.
ed him in the amount of this kind of prop.
erty, which they have possessed. Now if
slave-ho]dlng be sinful, he must have been
criminal in no ordinary degree. If It be
robbery, then was he a wholesale robber;
and as such, ne must have been an object
of aShorrence to the God of justice. Was
this his character, as represented in the BIZ
bic ? Surely it cannot be necessary to oc-
cupy time in proving, that "faithfuI Abra.
ham," "the father of all them that believe"
''the righteous man from The East "ths
servant of Goo, ""the friend Of God. was
not rob5er! He is every where describ.
ed as most eminent saint; alike distin-
guished for his faith and his works. He
experienced, in remarkable degree, tho
favor of that God, who made covenant
with him, and promised that IN him should
all the families of the earth be blessed
No intimation is given, that he displeased
God, in any measure, by holding slaves
IF God had but limited to him, that his con-
duct in this respect was sinful, we may be
sure, that he who was ready to give up his
beloved Isaac at the Divine command.
would not have hesitated to give up his
slaves. Now il siavc-holding be such sin
in itself, as it is represented to be, by those
who hold that man cannot have property in
man is it credible that God should leave
him in utter darkness On the subject, while
he was so deeply implicated in the evil.
and that too when he had called him out of
his country, for the express purpose OF es-
tablishing the true church in his family p
This will appear the more remarkable, when
we remember, that God made many COM
munications to him, and charged him,
"Walk before me, and be thou perfect. -
So far from intlmating that slavery was
wrong, God gave it his express sanction by
requiring that circumcision, the seal Of the
covenant, should be administered by him
10 his slaves. What would be thought of a
robber solemnly administering sacrament
to his victims, at the very time when he was
engaged in plundering them?
There is not one particle ofevidense, that
Abraham held his slaves merely for their
own benefit. On the contrary, they are
mentioned in connexion with bis other prop
erty, as if the whole were held by the same
tenure. We are told, Gen. %: 35, that
God gave them to the patriarch as bles-
sing to him. This proves at once, that they
were held by him for his own advantage,
and that such possession of them was not
sinful. Would any good man estesm it a
blessing TO possess the treasures Of wick
edness 2' There is every reason to believe
that, to some of them at least, liberty would
have been an advantage he cannot there
fore be justified in holding them in bondage.
on any other supposition, than that he had
right of property in their services.
Yours respectfully,
NOVANGLUs.