Ashtabula weekly telegraph. [volume] (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1853-1873, 1861-02-09


out being responsible TO any earthly trlou.
mall He goes on to say, father might
chastise, imprison, exile, doom to chains
and slavery. or death at pleasure. That
such parental tyranny VAS unmitigated
wickeduess none will deny. Yet where did
Christ, or his apostles ever rebuke IT, IN 80
many words
Forarn. SO the husband had power over
the wife--could whip her, and under certain
circumstances put her to death. But wheh
did Christ or This apostles ever openly re-
buke, or condemn this monstrous outrage
OH the marriage covenant Z sd
It IA sometimes said, with sort OF tr'-
uu,ph. that the apostles recognized the
lpwfuiuess of the relation OF masters ana
slaves. when they gave specific Instructions
70 rcgulate those relations, and since they
did not condemn slavery ia connection with
inch us,ruetion, therefore slavery is right
This is the real gist of the argument.
| answer The apostles also gave specl-
nc instructions to regulate the relations OF
husbands aud wives parents and children.
But was that an endorsement Of the Ro.
man code on these social relations 7
The apostles taught husbands, love your
pives-wives obey your husbands-parents,
bring up your children in the nurture aud
ndmonition of the Lord-children obey
your parents-masters render TO your ser
wants tbatwhch is just and equal--servauts
obey your masters But in oil this, no.
thing of don't abuse, or chastiSe your
wives fathers don't sell your children,
masters do not kill your servant, although
he who was husband, father and master
could, under Roman laws do either, with
impunity' Were the apostles endorsers
then Of slavery because they gave servants
prudent advice If so, by the same rulc
they are made to endorse the laws which
gave such absolute power to husbands and
fathers. | by no means endorse the doc
trine that silence OlioayS gives consent, OF
/ must approve whatever l do not openly
rebuke aud condemn. Prudential reasons
may dictate silence.
But let us now examine whether Chris
and the apostles were utterly silent in re
gard to the sinfulness Of slaveholding. Die
they preach against 'chattel slavery or op
preston that is the question.
Almost the first public act Of our Savior
recorded by Luke, ". II, was discourse
on the Sa6batA day. in the synagogue from
these words
"Tbs sprt Of The Lord upon me- bsesuss be hath aDoin
"a preach the Gospel to the poor he hath sent me
sd sSoT"nS Of sight he blind 70 set al liberty them
SS bound 70 preach the acceptable year Of the Lord
That the acceptable year of the Lore
means the year of Jubilee, when Liberti
was to be proclaimed throughout all The
land, to all the inhabitants thereof there
con be no reasonable doubt. But could
Christ preach Liberty and not condemn
slavery could be preach Liberty and be
'ustertV EiIenP on the sin of slavehoding
Let every man'S conscience answer.
AGAIN. Let US see whether the apostles
condemned slaveholdiug as sinful. Mr
Van Dyke says There is not one distinc
and erplieit dcnuneiatioa of sLarchOLding, MOI
one precepI requiring the master to cnane'
pate his slarcS' will now introduce tex
TO prove that the apostle Paul not onl
denounced, but also ranks slaVeholding will
the blacklist crimes on earth.
TIN 1910 "Knowing this that the law not made
Righteous man. lawless aud dsobedient for tn
aasody and for sinners for unhoy and proe for murderer
otkhsrs and murdere Of mober for anssyer for whore
ongers for them that d6le themsevea with mankind 10
WsAs;salers, for liars, for psrjured persons, Ac"
Now, that 'naansteaiers' include savehold
ers, shall prove by the best authority
including Mr.. Van Dykes own confession
Of faith, as it tDdS before altered to suit tht
times For more than twenty years thC
following note was appended to the ont
hundred and forty second question Of The
larger catechism. Tue question relates tC
the eighth commandment. Thou shalt no
Steal'
ITHI: lO.-Ths law Is n,sde for man-stealers. Thi
nj
al punishment E1 XXI l6-the apostle here sasses tneI
Win sinners Of thS hst rank The word he uses IN ls org
q ihs huaaa race into Sdvsy or a retaining them an
sssaers OF men are az thofe VINO 9ng on slaves or Ieeme
Is Che highest kind of theft In other instances only se
sa,s those VIC in common With onrSeIrss are
BY the ori dnSl grant, lords OF the earth"
DR.. Clark and others give the sam
meaning to the word GndrGpOdistai, man
ste0lers. The law in Ex XXI l6-ssy
and he that steaeth man, and selleth him
or if he be found in his hands, he shall surely
be put TO death Three things are includ
ed IN this law 1st. If he steal-2d Sci
hm-3d. or hold him. This law seems t
anticipate the usual method of establishing
slavery-sfeai, sell and hold slaves, whe
you get them an1 all concerned constitut
the firm. The stealing and selling, is neces
sary to holding, aud holding furnishes tn
motive for stealing-becnuse it pays.
Some have endeaVored to break the fore
Of this text and prop up slavery, by saying
Il refers to stealing slaves from their mas
ters. But the text don't So he that steal
eth serrant, or slaUe, but be that st,dLeA
q man.' The objection would do away
the crime Of mansteatiHg and only make i
criminal to steal servants. Such is pro
slavery logic.
have now furnished q distinct anC
explicit denunciation Of slaveholding, a
among the most hagrant crimes agains
God aud humanity. Other testimony iron
Christ and the apostles might be adduced
The law of Love, that worketh no i'll i
our Deighbor is an unequiyocal prohibtio
Of slayery-The Golden Rule, that require
US to DO unto others as we would have the
do unto US, is opposed to GlaVery-sint
no man would desire to be a slaVe-tt
mere chattel of another. In fact--th
whole New Testament and the morals an
religion that it teaches is hostile to opprei
sion in every form and of every character
BAT before closing my examination {
the New Testament argument, wish brie
lg TO call attention to the words master an
ase<aaft ainca thav ara q sort of kav.not