Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1835-1838, 1836-08-30

gives no sanction to the oppression oi
the Roman emperors, or to the petty vexa'
tions Of provincial officers. The argument
urged from scripture in favour of passive
submission, is not so exactly pan.lel with
the argument for slavery, as DR.. Canning
supposes. They agree in some points, bui
they differ in others. The former is foun-
ded upon false Interpretation of Rom.
xiii. ID; it supposes that passage to
mean what it does not mean, whereas the
latter is founded upon the sense which Dr.
c. and other opponents Of slavery, admit to
be the true sense. This must be allowed
to alter tine case materially. Again, the
argument for the laW(ulness of slavehod-
ing, is not founded on the mere injunction,
"Slaves obey your masters" analogous to
the command, "Let every soul be subject
to the higher powers" but on the fact that
the apostles did not condemn slavery; that
they did not require emanci patton. and that
they recognised Shareholders as Christian
brethren. To make Dr.. Channing's argu.
ment of any force, it must be shown that
Paul not only enoined obedience to des.
potic monarch, but that he recognized
Nero as Christian. When this is done,
then we shall admit that our argument IS
fairly met. and that it is just as true that he
sanctioned the conduct of Nero as that he
acknowledged the lawfulness Of slavery.
The truth on this subject is so obvious
that it sometimes escape unconsclously from
the lips of the most strenuous abollnonlsts.
Mr.. Birney says, /" He would have retained
the power and authority Of an emperor;
yet his expressions, his cruelies would
have been suppressed; his power would
have been put forth for good and not for
evil."& Here every thing is conceded.
The possession Of despotic power is thus
admitted not to be a crime, even when 1t
extends over millions of men, and subjects
their lives as well us their property and
services to the will of an individual. What
becomes then of the arguments and denm-
Citations of slavcholding, which is dcspotlsm
| on small scale Would MIR. Birney
continue in the deliberate practice of
crime worse than robbery, piracy, or mur.
der1 When he penned the above senti-
ment, he must have seen that neither by the
law of God nor of reason is it necessarily
sinful to sustain the relation of master over
our fellow creatures; that if this unlimited
authority be used for the good of those
over whom it extends and for the glory OF
God, its possessor may be one Of the best
| and most useful Of men. 1t is tile abuse ut
this power foc base and selfish purposes
which constitutes criminality, and not Its
simple possession:
The consideration Of the Old Testament
economy leads us to the same conclusion
on this subject. 1t is not denied that slave.
ry was tolerated among the ancient people
of God. Abraham had servants in his
family who were bought with his money"
Gen. xvii. l3. "Abimeleck took sheep
and oxen and men servants and maid SER
wants and gave them unto Abraham" )"
Moses, finding this institution among the
Hebrews and all surrounding nations, did
not abolish it. He enacted laws directing
how slaves were to be treated, on what
conditions they were to be liberated, under
what circumstances they might and might
not be sold he recognizes the distinction
between slaves and hired servants, (Deut.
XIV. 1O; he speaks of the way by which
these bondmen might be procured; as by
war, by purchase, by the right of creditor
ship, by the sentence ola Judge, by birth !;
but not by seizing on those who were free,
an offence punished by death.t The fact
that the Mosaic institutions recognized the
lawlulness of slavery is point too plain to
need proof and is almost universally ad-
mitted. Our argument from this acknowl-
edged fact is, that if God allowed slavery
to exist, if he directed how slaves might be
lawfully acquired, and how they were to be
treated, it is in vain to contend that slave.
holding is a sin, and yet profess reverence
for the scriptures. Every one must feel
that if perjury, murder, Or idolatry had been
thus authorized, it would bring the Mosaic
institutions into conflict with the enternal
principles of morals, and that our faith in
the divine origin Of one or the other must
be given up.
DR.. Charming says, Of this argument
also. that it proves too much. slf usages,
sanctioned under the Old Testament and
not forbidden under the New, are right,
then our moral code will undergo sad de-
teriolation. Polygamy was allowed to the
Israelites, was the practice of the holiest
men, and was common and licensed in the
age of the apostles. But the apostles no
where condemn it, nor was the renuncia-
ton of made an essential condition Of
admission into the Christian Church" To
this we answer, that SO far as poygamy