Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1861-11-08

| the Ianuanit's anu uo avs ~ 49, ~
ties. VIVA, is the comiiodity lha, is passed
in the bargain Does ile Cat'fani'e pass
himself as the commodity? IT So then the
slavery arising under the law Is the result
of voluntary contract, and cannot lie au-
,hority for the involuntary bondage OF the
negro about which the gentleman is reason-
ing. That slavery did sometimes arise
among the Jews In this way, u manifest
from the Gibeoniies, Joshua ix: ID, ~.
They became voluntary servants that their
lives might be spared in the destruction OF
the Canaunitcs that God had commanded.
But should it be said that the Canaaniles
did no, sell themselves, but the slaves that
they owned; then there is no evidence that
the negro answers to the specification "na-
tons around you," for there is no evidence
that the Canaanites enslaved each other.
If the slavery referred to here, is proof for
any slavery now, it is as good for any other
race as the negro and the writer, II he
has proved anything, has established the
right Of enslaving his own children, no, the
negro.
But look at the writer's own inierpreta-
ton of the Jewish laws of slavery. One
law is, Thou shalt not deliver unto his
master the servant that has escaped; y
Dieut. xiii: Is. This fefers, the writer
of the letter says, to a slave escaping from
a heather master to Hebrew, not TO the
slaves fleeing from one Hebrew to another.
Granting this, it follows that the law OF
Moses foi bids the right of slavery beyond
the Hebrew nation, for certainly, II il was
a recognized right for the heather to hold
slaves, then the law forbiddng the return Of
the fugitive TO his heather master, was
against an acknowledged right. But we
cannot suppose God would have given
such a law 1t follows then, if the writer
has rightly interpreted the laws of Moses,
that they did not recognize the right Of
slavery beyond the nation of the jews.
Yet he has, in bis letter, quoted them as
: Standing authority for slavery in the South
ern States. IN 1861. ! hope the writer will
show us in his next letter, how the laws Of
the Jews can be authority for slavery in the
Southern States, which contain prohibit
ton Of slavery beyond their own nation.
But we pass to the writer's proof Of his
position from the New Testament Christ
said not a word IN condemnation of slavery,
and therefore he approved it, and of course
/, he approves southern slavery. This is the
reasoning. Granting that Christ did not
say anything against slavery, if the silence
sanctions slavery at all, il sanctions il just
as it was at that time. | need say to the
learned author of the letter, that the Co.,
100000 of slaves OF the Roman empire at
that time, we're not all negroes, but Of all
nations. over whom the Roman conquest
had extended. Now win the gentleman ac-
cent of his own reasoning, and say we have
ii this silence OF Christ, authority for the
indiscriminate slavery Of any and all ma
: tons Does he mean to charge his Saw
Jour with the silent doctrine, that slavery
in he Roman empire in his time, had the
Divine authority? Divine authority for
the master to cut up and feed his fish with
the bodies of his slaves, TO make them fight
with wild beasts for the sport of the multi
tude, and to reduce the educated and re.
fined Greek and Sythean female to state
of coneublnages Such was the practical
slavery Of which our Saviour " said not a
/ word" and Of course sanctioned, If the
high official of the church has reasoned cor
rectly.
II is said that these things were abuses
of slavery, and not sanctioned in the sys-
: tenn? | reply They were allowed by tie
law of slavery, and it is no abuse of sys-
tenn TO do what its laws allow. The system
is abusive that rests on such laws, but it
cannot be an abuse of law TO live up to il.
Second, granting that these things we're
abuses of slavery, Christ's silence sane
toned them if it sanctioned slavery. Sup
pose ] should adopt the writer's reasoning,
and say, Christ rebuked the Pharisees for
their corruptions of the law Of Noses in
tithins, hut said not word in condemna-
ton of the corruption Of the law of slavery,
therefore he sanctions them, would he call
it good reasoning? He must if his is good
for the support Of his position.
But we have still more interesting
proof of bis position fiom Chrisl's history.
" He fulfilled the laws of the old Testament,
and the Jewish christians were jealous of
the law" We do not doubt the fact that
Christ fulfilled the laws of the Old Tesla
mcnt, but it is not so clear, that there is
any proof here of scriptural authority
for negro slavery in the Southern States"
What law of slavery did Christ fulfil !?
That regulating Hebrew servitude That
allowed only of hired service; and the
writer says that is no slavery" Was IT
n Han It,. L