Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1849-01-25

EN- of American Slavery and at the prevailing
practice under that system, in the church. Does
he the liberation of this practice in the southern
churches constitute any sufficient reason why
we should not hold those churches, which are
noun to be chargeable with it, in good fellow
ship? Especially is the question to be consid-
cred, of withdrawing fellowship from the two
General Assemblies. No attempt to interfere
with their internal policy or independence has
ever been even attempted. No idea of passing
,ensure on individuals, or churches, or presby-
-eries, on account of their present connection
with those Assemblies, provided they are under
stood to be faithfully striving to root out the evil
complained Of is entertained. The Convention
claims no jurisdiction whatever over even the
and chuiches it represents The
convention can express TO them its opinions in
regard to what is true and right; but they, after
all, are at perfect liberty to ,act according to
their own convictions of duty. But, to come to
the point, is the connection of the two General
Assemblies with slavery, such, as to constitute
a valid and urgent ground, or reason, for with
drawing from them that expression of fellowship,
which in times past, has consisted in sending
delegates to them, and receiving delegates
from them as christian bodies, with which
we have no cause to be dissatisfied on ac-
count of any heresy or immortality practced or
tolerated among them? Ought we now to with
hold this expression of fellowship from those
bodies, on account of their continued federation
of slavery in them? This is the true question
contemplated by the Vermont Convention. One
of like import has been for the year past occupy
ing the attention of the churches in Maine
The ministers and churches of Connecticut, too,
appear to be alive to consideration Of their du-
ty in similar circumstances. But our friend
Edwards" maintains that the Ecclesiastical
bodies of New England have no cause to be
gricved with the General Assemblies on &C
count OF their connection with slavery, in as
much as both the liberation and practice of it ase
right, and firmly supported by The authority Of
Christ and his Apostles. This he considers
settled point; and proceeds to assign his rea-
sons, which now, | propose, with the help of
God, to examine. Though his main object is to
show that professed Christians ought not to be
excluded from fellowship on account of slave
holding, yet the whole argument is conducted
in such way as to make a distinct and strong
on fha in1e e bi, hat -,
his opinion, slaveholding, as general thing, is
right; and undeniably sanctioned by the scrip
lures Of the New Testament. He speaks not of
isolated cases which must be regarded with spe-
cial favor; but treats the subject on general
grounds; and aims to extend the shield of scrip
tural authority over the whole system; ut least
so far SO practiced or tolerated in the church
THAT such is the fact, viii appear u critical
examination of his argument. But what are
his proofs He refers TO several passages in
The New Testament which he thinks ought to
put the matter to rest, among all who recognize
the word of God as the only binding authority in
the church."
|. The account of the Centurion, who sent to
Jesus the elders of the Jews beseeching him to
heal his servant. See Luke, 9TH chapter. The
argument is, that this man was stakeholder
that Jesus lid not rebuke him, but on the con-
trary commended his faith in the highest terms 1;
and that, therefore, we have no right to censure
men, or withhold fellowship from them, Oh &C
count of their being Shareholders. In short,
slaveholding has been sanctioned by Christ
himself.
Now the first thing to be established is that
the Centurion was, at that time, slaveholder.-
The proof adduced is, that the servant whom
the Centurion desired Jesus to heal, being
slave, the master must be a Shareholder But
how do VIC know that this servant was slave
That he was so is not to be admitted without
satisfactory evidence. These proofs are offered.
Of how much weight they are will be seen on
examination.
l. "The word" by wich the person is desig-
mated, generally signifies slque, rather than
hired servant' Now the fact is, the term doulOs
IS used in the Greek Testament policy freely,
in all the latitude of meaning which we give to
our term servant. 1t invariably carries in it the
idea of subsection, and liability to perform SER
vice in obedience to a Superior but the charac-
ter Of the service, the condition of its perform
ance, the honor or ignominy attached to the
name and character of him who serves, are all to
be inferred from the the circumstances in which
the term is used, or drift of the discourse. Not
only staoes but domestics generally, stewards,
courters, and officers of every rank are denomi.
mated servants. The people of God without dis.
tnction, the apostles especially and even all the
hosts of heaven, are the servants, though not the
slaves of God. Our Savior himself is so denom-
mated. The simple fact then that the Centuri-
on's servant is denominated do,dOs, furnishes nc
convincing evidence that he was slave.
2. Another reason assigned why the tern
translated servant should be rendered Stare par
tcularly in the 8th verse, is that such rendering
is more expressive Of the authority to which
the speech refers"-"I say to my servant ,
Slape, 4" do this and he doeth it" DR.. Doddridge
is quoted in support of both this reason and the
other. But only in this single instance does
,, Doddridge himself render the term, SLAVE
in the course of the whole narrative; and the
i principle reason which he assigns for SO do
. ing here, has obviously, but little weight; 70
) what greater proof Of authority is it for man t.
say to his slave do this or that and be obeye,
: than to speak any othcr sort Of servant wit
II the like effect? Besides, to one who CAREFUL.
3 examines the narrative, and compares it with tn
: pnrallel nassapc in the Sth of Matthew, it j