The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1849-11-10


= you say they did not attempt 10 specify a
% things wrong, but laid down principle
O. against all wrong. So we say they lai
'e down principles opposed TO slavery. Agar
of by the Roman law the father had powe
J. over his son to beat him cruelty, expose hi
e child in infacy TO death--pronounce it lille
1t CLIMATE by refusing TO take it formally iror
d The ground and place il in his bosom-coul,
!. imprison or put to death If it deserved it,
= Hague.
0 "The son in his fathers house was mer
5 Thing; COMPOUNDED by The laws with tn
: movables, the cattle, and the slaves, whom
: the capricious master might ALLEVIATE, or &c
1 stroy without being responsible TO an earth
ly tribunal. "-Gibbon, as quoted BY Hague
So with the wife. "The law placed be-
. like slave at his feet; and her life hung OF
his decree" If it was found that she hac
drunk wine. then the husband might pu
her 10 death. Tacitus mentions case in
The reign OF Nero, Should Roman ciu,
zen marry foreigner, then the husband
might, at any whim, ALLEVIATE her, treat heI
children as Legitimate, and the Roman law
gave 10 the mother and children no redress.
| Strange as it may seem to some, so far
as The record goes. no one in all the realm
OF the CesaIs is told that these things are
wrong--a contraventon Of the original law
OF Paradise, which placed the husband and
wife on the ground of a true moral equali-
Iy. We ask, why did not the Apostles tell
husbands andparents not to do these thingsl
Why did they not speak against Ihem!-
Do you say every body can see that such
things were wrong and they laid down
rules or requirements which, if carried out,
would destroy all such things? So we an.
swer in reference to slavery-every body
can see it is wrong. and did we carry out
the requirements laid down by the Apostles,
we should soon do away all slavery.
Does the objectof then ask "why did not
The Apostles tell the slaves 10 run of, if,
Liberty was their right! We answer: thereS
was no land accessible to the slave, where
the Roman power did not extend. The
Romans were then "the conquerers Of the
world"
But he did say TO the servant, "if thou
mayest be made free, use it rather" And
some able scholars believe the text correct.
ly rendered is, ''if thou art able TO free thy.
self, use it rether."
Does the Director ask why did not the
Apostles tell masters TO free their slavesi
We answer as Christ did on a certain oc.
casion, by asking another question--"Why
did they not tell Fathers not to expose their
children to death--to do all they could in
treating them humanely, and lie! them. have
freedom at adult sge!'
Why did they not tell husbands, if they
should take wives from another nation than
Their own, 10 treat these wives and their
children as legitimate; and not TO put a
wife to death for drinking wine! These
Things were contrary to the spirit Of the
gospel, as all will admit Why, then, did
not the Apostles command fathers and hus.
bands to act accordingly! When the OBJ.
iector answers these questions, We will an.
swer his question.
?. They did tell masters to "give to their
servants that which is Just and equal,
which. as We have seen, would secure free.
dom to the slave Of every master obeying
the Injunction. And We shall soon see that
there was no more necessity FOR specific
command on this point, than in reference
to many other wrongs.
Does the objectOr say they used terms
which designated slaves-proPerty tenure
in mani We reply:
l. The term doulos, like our own word
servant, designates one who does service for
another, irrespective OF the time for which,
or the principles upon which, the service is
rendered. Hence, It's some times applied
to Christ and the Apostles; See Phil. 2; Z,
and 2 Cor. 4: 5. Were the Apostles and
Christ the slaves-the property Of any man?
And though the term may also be used to
designate a slave-property tenure in man,
yet,
2. A great error into which many per-
sons have fallen is that Of interpreting the
Greek words doulOs ana kurios or despotes;
servant and master, by the Roman law, or
our own civil law, instead Of the law Of
Christ. Under the former, these words
often denoted property, and property hold.
ers in man. Under the latter-the law OF
Chnst-they could denote TO such thing.
Such relations were moral impossibility.
As well may we suppose, that when they
used the words goneLs and ieknon, parent
and child--dner and gune, husband and
wife, they meant by these, property and
property-holders--and by their use, meant
to sanction the principle as right. We
know that the law Of Christ Destroyed such
relations, and restored the primitive law Of
moral equality. #.-, e.a...
Those epistlos Of tho Apostles in which
the above words are found, were not ad-
dressed to the world at large; nor to mem
bers of the Roman government as such; but
to little bands OF christians, with whom the
law Of Christ was above all other laws
community whose fundamental law was
"love thy neighbor as myself
ever ye would that men should do to you,
do ye even so to thern;" community taught
to call no man master--''One," (Christ)
sis your master, and ALL We ARE BRETH-
rem. +" These laws formed standard by
which to regulate all relations OF society;
and slavery could no more exist under such
laws. than it could exist in government
which was literal and pure democracy
That men acting on the principles Of Ro-
man law held slaves, we admit; but that
they acting on the principles of Christ's
law held slaves, we deny. Under the lat
for ,bere was M NECESSITY for a specific