Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1835-1838, 1836-08-23

nation of it which follow" We readily
admit, that if God does condemn all the
parts of which slavery consists, he condemns
slavery itself. But the dratter Of the ad-
dress has made no attempt to prove that
this isactua.y done in the sacred scriptures.
That many Of the attributes Of the system
as established by law in this country, are
condemned, is indeed very plain; but that
slavcholding in itselfis condemned, has not
been and cannot be proved. The writer,
indeed, says, 1.-The Greek language had a
word corresponding exactly, in Specification,
with our word servant, but it had none
which answered precisely to our term slave.
How then was an apostle writing in Greek,
to condemn our slavery? How can we ex-
pect to find in scripture, the words Slavery
is SINFUL when the language in which it is
written contained no term which expressed
the meaning of our word slavcry?" Does
the gentleman mean to say the Greek lam
guage could not express the idea that slave
holding is sinful Could not the apostles
have communicated the thought that it was
the duty ofmasters to set their slaves free -!
Were they obliged from paucity OF words to
admit shareholders into the Church? We
have no doubt the writer himself could, with
all ease, pen declaration in the Greek lam
guage void of all ambiguity, proclairnlng
freedom to every slave upon earth, and de.
nouncing the vengeance OF heaven upon
every man who dared to hold afellow crca-
ture in bondage. 1t is not words we care
for. We want evidence that the sacred
writers taught that it was incumbent On
every Shareholder, as matter of duty, to
emancipatc his slaves (Which no Roman or
Greek law forbade and that his refusing
TO do so was heinous crime in the sight Of
God. The Greek language must be poor
indeed if it cannot convey such ideas.
Another answer is given by DR.. Chan
ming. "Slavery," he says ':in the age ofthe
apostle, had so penetrated society, was so
intimately interviewer with it, and the mate
rials of seryile war were so abundant, that a
religion, preaching freedom 10 its victims,
would have armed against Itself the whole
power Of the State. OF consequence Paul
did not assail it. He satisfied himself with
spreading principles, which, however slow
ly, could not but work lis destruction. 10
the same effect, DR.. Wayland says, "the gos-
pei was designed, not for one race or one
time, but for all men and for all times. 1t
looked not at the abolition Of this form of
evil for that age alone, but for It's universal
abolition. Hence the important object of
lis author was to gain it a Judgement in eve
ry part of the known world so that, by its
universal diffusion among all classes ofsoci-
city, it might quietly and peacefully modify
and subdue the evil passions Of men and
thus, without violence, work revolution in
the whole mass Of mankind. In this man.
ncr alone could its object, a universal moral
revolution, be accomplished. For if it had
forbidden the eriz, without subduing the prin-
ciple ifit had proclaimed the unlawtulness OF
slavery, and taught slaves to resist the oP-
preston of their masters, it would instantly
have arrayed the two parties in deadl y hos
tiGty throughout the civilized world It's an
nounccmcnt would have been the signal OF
servile war ;and the very name Of the
Christian religion would have been forgot
ten amidst the agitations Of universal blood
shed. The fact, under these cIrcumstan-
ces, that the gospel does not forbid slavery,
affords no reason to suppose that 1t does not
mean to prohibit it, much less does it afford
ground for belief that Jesus Christ intend
I'd to authorize it's
Before considering the EGte of this rca-
soning, it may be we'll to notice one or two
important admissions contained in these ex-
tracts. First, then, it is admitted by these
distinguished moralists, that the apostles did
not preach religion proclaimmg freedom
to slaves; that Paul did not assail slavery !;
that the gospel did not proclaim the unlaw-
fuIness Of fslaveholding 1T did not forbid it.
Ths'is going the whole length that we have
gone in our statement of the conduct Of
Christ and his apostles. Secondly, these
writer's admit that the course adopted by
the authors of our religion was the only
wise and proper one. Paul satisfied HIM
self, says DR.. Charming, with spreading
principles, which, however slowly, could not
but work its destruction. DR.. Wayand says
that if the apostles had pursued the oppo-
site plan of dcnouncing slavery as crime,
the Christian religion would have been ruin
ed its very name would have been forgot.
tel. Then how can the course ofthe mod
crn aboltionists, under circumstances so
nearly similar, or even that Of these rcver-
end gentlemen themselves be right? Why
do not they content themselves with dong
what Christ and his apostles did? Why
must they proclaim the unlawtulness OF
slavery? Is human nature so much alter
cd, that course, which would have produ.
ii q,