Year: 1859

And that any institution formed In accord
ance with law of God, was supported by
the principle involved in that law. There
fore, if Slavery ever was supported by Di,
vine 'aw, Slavery, existing by similar law
now, must, of necessity, be supported by
that law; for the principle involved in the
law is eternal. ......, ,.


And further, if the Book had been repeal
ed, there was sufficient in the 4th and 10th
Commandments to show that Slavery was
recognized there. For the Jews were COM
manded, in the 4th Commandment, not to
suffer their man-servant" nor their ''maid-
servant" to labor on the Sabbath-day. And
| in the 10th Commandment, the order was
not to covet thy neighbours man servant nor
his maidservant. We argued here that the
right of property was recognized, from the
fact that man-servant and maid-servant
were persons of employment under the au-
thority of the master, or proprietor of the
house, or they could not be coveted of him.
We don't find the stranger, spoken of in the
4th Com. .nandment, coming up here as an
! article coveted, from the fact that he was not
an article that denoted property of profit.
Only that, that is property, in some sense of
the word, can be coveted 1t was further
argued, that if the master had any title or
right to the labor of the servant, he had a
right to dispose of or sell that right and title
to whom he might choose, in the absence of
any law to the contrary; and that if there
ever was a time when all the balance of the
Book was repealed, the Commandments were
the only existing law, and they certainly con-
tanned no prohibition Therefore, if lie had
any right to the service, he had an equal
right to exchange that right for any other
property he might wish to exchange for
This seems to us to be the only logical deduc-
ton. And the wife, being, in one sense of
the word, the property of her husband, was
subject to be coveted though not a property
to be sold, for she was only property as a
wife and if sold. would have to be sold as
wife property, and that could not be done
without producing adultery, and that was
prohibited by the law. "Thou shalt not
commit adultery. ."-SeUenM Commandment


Mr.. Taunton tried to make capital out of
Ex. XXI, 16: " And he that stealeth man
and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand
he shall surely be put to death" On this,
we presume, he will find none to battle with,
for all condemn man stealing. A point of
difference may arise, with regard to what
man-stealing consists of. Stealing is the
taking Of the right, or property of another
against the will of the rightful owner of that
right or property.


And if we illegally, and by acts hidden
from the law, become in possession of hui
man being, properly owned by another, we
might term it man-stealihg. But, if by any
of the means, by which the God of creation
has made it justly possible for human being
20 be deprived of liberty, and we become in
possession Of the property right in that be-
ing, it cannot be termed man-steaing.


Now, if the Slaves of the United States
have been obtained by one Of those means
we have found pointed out in Divine law,
they are held, virtually, by the principles Of
that law. m"


The Slaves of the United States were first
bought Of the heather, and surrounding ma
tons, as well as of the stranger that came
and dwelt among them. "Both thy bond
men and thy bondmaids shall be of the hea-
then that are round about you" Secondly !:
They have been born slaves. "The wife
and her children shall be her masters. -
Thus we see the striking similarity in the
means by which the slaves under the Mosaic
Law, and those under the laws of the States
were obtained


We did not introduce any portion of the
oregoing argument as favoring the reopen
ing the slave trade, for we are, for reasons
not necessary to adduce here, uncompromis
ingly opposed to that, ''all things are not ex-
pcdient that are lawful in the sight of God
But we simply introduced it to show the
striking similarity in the way the slaves were
obtained, and recognized under the two laws.


Again, Mr.. Taunton complains of the Fu-
gitive Slave Law Of the United States, and
quotes Dcut XIII, Is: "Thou shalt not
deliver up unto his master the servant that
has escaped from his master unto .hee."


This was not o law designed to effect indi-
vidnals Of the same government; for, if such
was the case, as Mr. Taunton, "on the fence
vet" appears to think, the law, in itse.f,
would be nullity, and God would show a
want of good faith, with regard to the p,o-
pie to whom he gave the law and the right
to purchase slaves 1t would appear as tho
God designed getting them to buy, for the
purpose of having the master loose his mon
ey, the former owner make it, and the slave
receive liberty. And God would seemingly,
in the same law both establish and abolish
Slavery. a Therefore, such cannot be the
meaning of the law. But the idea conveyed
in the text is, it must be some one fleeing to
the Jews from somewhere else, -" escaped
from his master unto thee. We might quote
authority here to sustain this view of the