Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1861-02-07

WIlCIS uluClCuG hluuo VI WCiO oPS-
cited, but in these the hired seruant is ex-
pressed by the use of different word from
that which is rendered in other places bond.
man and bond servant. c. In the New Tes-
lament the word doulos occurs about hun
dred and twenty times, and is rendered SER
cant in each. Its real meaningis is apparent
from Dr. Hodge on Eph. 6:5-9, who
says, "Doulos from dec to bind, means a
bondman or slare, as distinguished from a
hired servant, who was called misthios and
mtsthotos; and from the term used, and
from known historical facts, that slavery
prevailed throughout the Roman Empire,
during the Apostolic age, it is evident that
this and other passages of the New Testa-
ment refer to that institution" The same
is admitted by the best exegetical scholar
of the world. d. As explanatory of the
fact that the term servant is used to trans
late dou1os, of Greek, and Ebed of He.
brew, it must be remembered that at the
time at which our English version was
made, the word servant had the meaning
now attached by us tc the word slave.
4th Objection. 1t is by others, with an
air of supposed triumph, asserted that as
the Bible condemns naanstealing, 1t thereby
condemns Slavery. In reply, we admit that
"mansteaHng" is forbidden both by Moses
and the Apostles, and We are far from say
ing that the act is right But we deny that
the fact of holding slaves is thereby con-
demued, for reasons: l. That this condem-
nation reaches only to a particular form of
procuring slaves and not the act of sla0e.
holding The Bible in its spirit condemns
the stealing of aOives and every other spe-
cies of property, but who is idiotic enough
thence to conclude that the possessing of
wives and other property is condemned ?
2. In the Old Testament, there are Dumer-
Gus lawful ways of procuring slaves speci.
fed, and if holding men 10 servitude, when
obtained in any of those lawful ways-as
by purchase, by inheritance, &c, did not
subject the owners to the crime of man..
stealing, so it need not and cannot do it
now. 8. Good men, as patriarchs and pro-
phets, and men associated with Christ, and
received into the Church by inspired Apos-
ties, were not rebuked for slaveholding, al
though even in those days the prohibition
of "maustealing" existed. Thus it is plain
that manstealing" and slaveholding are not
at all the same thing, and the forbiddiug
of the one is no argument against the other
5th Objection. Others assert that Christ
and His APOSTLES did not explicitly and
formally condemn slavery because Of pre-
Dental considerations Slavery was so uni
versally prevalent, was so interviewer with
the vital interests of society, that to have
interfered with it would have arrayed the
prejudice and power of every Shareholder
and the whole State against the Church
This is their reasoning, and that it is but
subterfuge will appear: a. From the fact
that if slavery was sinful, as relation, the
Saviour and the Apostles could not have
withheld a condemnation of it, for B.. They
faithfully and constantly condemn sins of
all kinds, and they designate the sins of
idolatry, adultery, robbery, profanity, Sab
bath breaking, &C., &C., which as exten
sively prevailed and were perpetrated by the
rulers to as great degree as slavery. And
we know that timidity and forbearance up
on these sins might have averted some op-
position to the religion of Christ. But as
the denunciation of all other sins was prac-
ticed, and that in the face of opposition and
persecution, is it reasonable, that if slavery
had been essentially wrong, they would
have spared it? c. Is it not even more re-
markable that instead of speaking against
it, as objectors say they should have done,
they testified in such way, as to convey
the idea to thousands of uuprejudiced minds
that they designedly recognized and impli-
edly approved the relation of master and
slave? d 1t is to our mind nearly, if not
quite blasphemous to say the Bible seems
to approve what is always and everywhere
sinful, as slagery is denounced, by modern
so called reformers, to be. e. Butat most,
it seems to US, that if for even prudential
reasons, the writers of scripture forbore a
condemnation, their example ought to be
initiated by large class of men, who have,
in other respects, risen no higher than the
Apostolic standard of morality. If Christ
and the Apostles were rightin not condemn
ing Grecian and Roman, then the Aboli-
tionists can't be right in condemning Afri
can slavery.
9th Objection. 1t is objected by others
that the principles, and the spirit and ten
dency of the Gospel, even without a .tor
NAL condemnation, wiN overthroao slavery
We answer, that the principles of morality
are immutable. If these principles did not
overthrow slavery in the days Of Moses and
Christ and Paul, they will not do it now.
Again. The Great Teacher, and the in
spired expounders of Gospel Morality, did
not make any such application of these
principles, but on the other hand, pro-
nounced many men moral and Christian
who were involved in slaveholding. Nor
do many, yea very many, who have solid
claims to competency to understand Chris
tian morality and Gospel precepts, regard
the relation of slavery as at all at war with
the spirit and principles and tendency of
the religion of the Jews And besides, in
the institution of slavery are presented
abundant opportunities for the practice Of
all the morality and every christian grace
inculcated BY Divine tongue or an inspired
pen. The most then, that the Gospel does
for slavery, is to remove it's abuses and in-