The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1849-11-17
!, EXAMINER;
For the Examiner.
rot INC EhannntT.
k.ysry sinful In Itself, and Nes-Fsiiew-
.hsp OF those holding Slaves, the duty Of
,ae SbrsssBaa Charch.-No. y.
IcoNTISuED.l


IcoNTISuED.
Does the Director say, farther, that 18th
WANTS are described as being under tn
yoke. and that this means that they wer
yenslayed" We answer:
That unbelieping masters held persons
under the yoke, really and truely, we dis
pu,e not; for i, is Immediately added, as
reason of faithfulness enjoined, "that TIT
name of God be not blasphemed," Tim
Al Now. there WAS no danger that g
christian master would blaspheme the name
of God. therefore the master holding the
servant under the yoke, must have been an
unchIistianised man.
But If YOU insist that the servants OF be-
lieving masters, referred to in l Tim. 3: 2,
were also under the yoke, We reply:
1. They are cOn.raSisd with those in the
frs, verse. The Greek word de, which
We translate and, or but, is used to mark
An ant-thetic sentence, (Stewart's CIR.
Gram. s $50, Sd Again the phrase, "Let
as many servants as are under the yoke,
&c.-This evidently implies that there are
some servants (dOHiOw,) not under the
woke: lust as the expression in John |: II.
Bot as many as received him, &C., implies
tbsr some did not receive Christ. Now
.hers was no propriety in this contrast, un-
less there y as a difference in the relation
or condition Of the servants.
?. The Two classes Of servants are desig-
mated by different phraseology. Paul
saws. "Let as many servants as are under the
woke. that is. lei all the servants in the
church, actually under the government Of
their m tsters count their own masters worthy
Of all honor" And wh,! Because, if
they do not, their masters will blaspheme
the name of God and his doctrine. But
christians would not blaspheme; conse-
ogently the masters Of the servants ''under
the woke" must have been unbelievers or
Pagans. The deduction is clear, that chris.
tians did not have servants under the yoke.
But Paul then addresses Timothy concern
ing another class Of servants. What class
was this Marx, Paul did not say in the
frs. instance, Lei as many servants as have
uabeL.eUiHg masters, but he left il TO be
inferred that they were unbelieving mas
ters. from the condition OF the servants them
selves, lhey were under the yoke. What
then was the other class of servants! Why,
those that have believing masters. But
were these under the yoke also! II so,
WHY address them thus! Had he not al
read, said, as many as were under the
yoke should count their own masters worthy
Of all honor, and did not this include the
masters Of all those under the yoke! If it
did, then why, after telling them to honor
their masters, add that they must not despise
ihemi This would be superfiuous. But
the plain inference Is, that this other class
Of servants we've not under the woke, and
this IS lel, 10 be understood by the mere
consideration that they had believing mas
ters. And they, says be, that have believ-
ing masters, let them not despise them be-
cause they sTe brethren; that is, because
their masters are their brethren, and conse.
quently have not authority over them like
other masters have over their servants; but
rather do them service, because they are
faithful and beloved brstt rem, (And shall
we say, brethren hold one another ss
slaUssO who are Partakers Of the benefit OF
that service-Brisbane. The servant wa 5
a Joint pariaker Of the proceeds Of his toll,
with the christian master. So Clark rem
dels the passage. And Mcknight correct
liz observes: The Greek word EuergeSia,
which We translate benefit, is no where |
used to denote the gospel" So. Witty, |
in loco. The servants then Of believing |
masters must have been regarded by these |
masters and by the Apostles as free labor.
eTs.
II the Director still insist that the ser.
wants Of christian masters were under the |
yoke, we answer: they could have been so |
only nominally, not really-so, only 81
far as the claim Of the Roman law was con-
cerned-not by will Of the master, as we
have seen from the above. The laws Of
Rome were such that master could not
legally, only as he took the
slave before magistrate, gave good and
sufficient reasons why the slave should be
free, and then obtained the consent Of the
which was difficult 10 obtain
in a country where the slaves were swarm
ing 10 lUmultuous thoUsands-where insuT-
REGIONS had been frequent, and where
public sentiment was almost universally /
opposed to emsncipation.-See Gibbons
Rome, vol. /: chap. 2; and Biblical Re
pository, vol. 6. Hence, master might
give up his slaye-say TO him, ego free"
and treat him as such; yet. such slave. as
the slaves set free by the Quskers in South
Carolina, in opposition to law, would be
regarded by the Roman lav az property
still, and in that sense, under the yoke
But not held so by the christian master.
He could not do so and obey Chnst:-l
whatsoever ye would others should do 10
you, do ye even so to them"
Does the objector again say, 'fhe Apos-
tie commanded servants to be obedient TO
their masters; and that this proves that mas
tiers do not do wrong in enslaving them"
We reply:
]. There is a relation designated by the
term servant, which is right; as that of
minor, bound child 10 guardian hire
ling VINO voluntarily binds himself-con-
tracts to do the lawful bidding of his EN- |
plOyeI. There were Judaizing teachers,
who, looking upon Gentiles as dogs and
unbelievers, taught that christians were un- |
der no obligation to obey such.-McKnight. |
IL was necessary for the Apostle to correct
this by enjOining obedience upon servants