Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1861-03-07

over the way, has very politely taken us to
task for 'tpalpaJle and gross misrcpresenta-
tion." And appealing to his readers, asks
grayely, 'who can repose the least confidence
in the statements Of Grotius,-P" For de-
secting any mistake we make, in either ar
gument, or in our references to authors, We
shall thank him. And as for the style and
temper, we must leave that to every mans
taste and in thisease to the Editors trade.
We respect ours)lP and therefore, as ap-
pears from the kitd'aotice Of our friend, we
have actually erred III our reference to an
author, we promptly make the .ameactc hon
orabk.
We had not the commentary of Mathew
Henry before US, but We quoted from an
author before us in whom we had confidence.
We presumed he understood Henry, and
quoted him fairly.
| We know every writer, who has occasion
to refer to compilations, runs the risk to
which we were exposed. We are willing to
stand corrected, till zoe shall hare time to con-
ssh Henry.
In regard to Scott, we have to reply very
differently Any man, who has candor
: enough to compare an author with himself,
and learn from himself the sense in which
he uses his own terms, will never quote
Scott as an advocate of American Slavery.
Scott used the term Stare when referring
I to the limited sevitude Of the Hebrews,
whether of ssyep. years or longer. Lot US
soc whether Scott approved of such Slare,s
Z as ours. ii.t,r.t t.,-.i ust
Il See Notes on Rev. 10. 49, Speaking o.
f the infamous indulgences of Rome, he adds
g Even almost infinitely more atrorious, thar
= the Infamous sIdUe trade" Again, in prac
i tical observations, on the the Same passage
IS he says: ''As some truly honorable anC
e philanthropical persons have done agains
+ the accursed Stare trade" Scott had not tn
: moral obliquity to call the slave trade dccnvs
ed, and yet approve Slavery, such as ours
its offspring. i
Again, Notes on FIX. 2l. 'eThe Israelite
|, sometimes sold themselves, or their childre
'e through poverty; magistrates sold som
persons for. their crimes. In these ,ca5I
a Slavery had been, introdiccd-and God di
- not see good, in the judicial law, totally +
w prohibit this, and several other things, whicl
are not e9yessb1e - the perfect demands Q
+ the moral law" aAgain, he says: This dis
tinction, carefully attended to, will accoun
G. for many things, toleratedin the Mosaic law
of which are condemned in the New Testamen,
and moi only these, but, in the moral law c
n slowing our neighbor as ourselves. The
are not sanctioned, but merely Suffered be
- cause ofthc hardness of tho people hearts.
of Again, he says, "We should not, however
judge of the practice itse!f by these 'acticac
" regulations, but by the law of love. Sla,
cry, like war, may in some cases, in tn
", ". present state of things, be lawful; far II
We crime phi.ch forfeits life, no doubt forfeit
Vt liberty and it is not inconsistent even wit
NJ the moral law, for criminal to be sold an
u treated as slave, during term of tim
.o proportional to his offence" But tn
&C. Jewish cxpositors ION whose authority SON
learned men build very much) both here an
Us all through these laws, make so many di'
80 30 tinctions, additions, and exceptions, thc
O. they almost abrogate the very statute
I'd which they profess to elucidatc "
x Our friend quotes Scott on Lev. %, 44-4t
of o1 But why does he italicise, the word slave
to since Scott has not and not italicise pei
to mitted as it is in Scott? Wequote from
by Boston Edition, 1880. Let us quote Scott
no ''rhe Israeites were permitted to keep slave
70 of other nations. And farther "But
O. was also allowed in order that in this mar
ner the Gentiles might become acquante
~ with true religion Was this not, afte
n all, if Scott be right, kind of Missionar
en- institution2 And will our friend call a
ly this, and more, ffom Scott, 't,oaddle" ?
~ The argument in such epithets is unanswe
or able. 5"
It's In regard to our references on the subje'
" Nc of the Jubilee. we might add authors
ed greater weight than Scott or Henry. The'
n were general commentators ofthe Bible. 81
they were not writer's on Hebre,o la,o, pr
%s hs perly. We perhaps erred in quoting the
re re at all. Puffendorf, Vattel, Grotius, Era
nt- mus, and others on the continent, wei
ng writers on la,o. Blackstone, &C., We
~ ~ English writer's on la,o. In this sense v
We said, "We have never seen respectful
ms writer on Je,oish ld,o." Now, most of Il
'ly authors we quoted were of this character.
We may add Gosenius, one of the mo
,e ,er celebrated standard Hebrew Lexicographe
w of Continental Europe, who asserts in refe
ence to the term that it set all free. Ais
tt, Prof Robinson, of SAndoysr Theo. Seminar
Banks Theological Dictionary, &C., &C.
ms ms Should any friend discover any erro
even tho least, we shall thank him for i
for we write for truth, and in vindication
of the Bible, humanity, liberty and the righ
les of man. And We shall promptly al
or honestly and openly correct ourselv
or. when we see our mistake, lot the discove
lu- como from whom, or from what quarter
III q n ..sA - d. s 10