The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1849-11-10
I'd expressly. The original Greek word

Robinson) which means "to enslave. =
This is its true and primary meaning. n
man can or will dispute this Andrap
distes coming from this verb, means son
who makes slave in any of the senses {
. andrapodidzO." -Donnegan. Then andre
Podlstais, the word which, in the abov
text, is translated men.stealers, means no
: only those who kidnap or seize men an
bnng them into bondage, but also, and pr
manly it means those who enslave men
h0ld them in bondage. This view is ais
IN accordance with reason and Justice.
not the participant of crime as guilty as Tia,
PEI petrstor of the first act? Is not tn,
smnggler OF goods as guilty as he who fIs
stole? And suppose human laws should
say the smuggler shall be protected, coult
these laws alter the moral character Of III,
deed! could they make black, whitei-evil
good! And should the smugglel take ad
vaBtage OF this law-force of numbers;
would he be any the less guilty in the sigh,
OF the moral law and Of God! Every man
mast say be would not. The above expo.
sillon has been confirmed by some of the
highest Ecclesiastical authorities in Chris.
tendon. In the Confession Of Faith of the
Presbyterian Church, as amended by act OF
the General Assembly Of 1894, and ap.
pended TO the l42d question Of the larger
catechism, will be found the following note
in exposition of ! Tim. /: l0--the text
under consideration: "The law is made
for man steaierS." THIS crime among the
Jews, exposed The perpetrators of it, as we
have seen, 10 capital punishment; (see
EGod. 2l: I'D and the Apostle here classes
them with sinners Of the first rank. The
word he uses, in its original import, CON-
prehends all who are concerned in bringing
aiy OF the human race into slavery, or in
retaining them in il. StealeTs Of men are
those who bring of slaves or freemen, and
keep, sell, or buy them. ITO steal free
man" says Grotius, sis the highest kind Of
theft. la other instances we only steal
human property; but when We steal or re-
tam men in slavery, We seize those who in
common with ourselves, are constituted, by
the original grant, lords of the earth.--Gen.
/: 26.'
DIR. Adam Clark, Methodist divine, in
his Comment on the above text, has these
neutrality-suspicious., Slavedealers--
whether those who carry on the traffic in
human flesh and blood, or those who steal
person in order 10 sell him into bondage,
or those who buy such stolen men or wo-
men, no matter of what color, or wha. oOun-
trg; or the nations who legalize or connive
al such traffic; all these are men-stealers,
and God classes them with the most fagi-
Iious Of mortals."
That slaveholding is as sinful as the first
kidnapping (in kindness we say it, must
be manifest upon moments reflection. In
what does the sin Of kidnapping consist!
Not in simply removing man from one
country TO another. provided il is done with
his consent, for in so doing you may greatly
improve his condition; and if you leave him
a rec man, ne will be very thankful for it.
Nor does il consist in rescuing him from
those who have robbed him Of his liberty;
as when Abraham rescued Lot from the
foar kings who had enslayed him. (Gen.
IA: 16) Abraham found Lot slave
rescued him from the hand Of the Cypress
Unchanged his location. But Abraham
did nor continue to hold him a slave, but
left him a freeman. To Lot, the act was
inestimable; and it was one so replete with
beneyolence and christian duty,
that Holy Writ will transmit il as worthy
and noble example to Adams last son.
Then the sin Of man-stealing or Of kidnap-
ping must consist in holding the man in
bondage Now this is the thing done by |
the STAKEHOLDER. Ii is clear then that the |
law in condemning the man-stealer equally |
condemns the STAKEHOLDER, for the sin OF
each is the same-the withholding freedom
from man.
SIayeholding then, is not only sinful, but
classed with sins OF the most aggravated
character. We have then sustained our po-
sition, that The New Testament also con.
dennis slavery and slaveholding.
Does the obieetor come up with isolated
passages, as objections to our argument!
Then, we again remind him Of that plain
rule OF Interpretation, which requires that
isolated passages be not 50 construed as to
contradict plain and well known principles
laid down in the same book
that an author should not be so construed
as to contIadict himself That the princi-
pies OF the Bible condemns slavery, is con-
cede d.
Wsyland, Baptist divine, in his Moral
Science, says: "The moral precepts Of the
Bible are dramatically opposed to slavery"
Scott in his commentary says: "The
principles of both the law and the gospel,
when carried cut, infallibly abolish slave
y."
Barns says: -"lNo candid reader of the
New Testament, i, is believed, can doubt
that the principles Of christianity are oppos-
ed TO the existence Of slavery"
Adam Clarke, a Methodist divine, in his
comments says: "ln heather countries sla-
very was in some sort excusable, but among
christians il is an enormity and crime, for
which, perdition has scarcely an adequate
state of punishment"
Now, every candid man must admit that
the principles Of christianity being opposed
to slavery, its practice must anj that its
specific precepts be cOnstruedin accordance
with its principles; and the individual who
construe them otherwise, is manifestly in
error. 10
Let us notice some Of the objections
commonly brought up: First. "Christ lived
in the age of slavery" (but not in the land