Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1861-02-07
VOLUME Z.
The gible and Slarety
For the Yorkvllle Enquirer.
ARGUMENTS FOR SLAVERY.

ARGUMENTS FOR SLAVERY.
OBJECTIONS TO THE BIBLICAL ARGUMENT
CONSIDERED AND COMPUTED.
The positions assumed and the facts pre-
sented, in developing the Bible argument
for slavery. are controverted by many op'
posers of the institution. 1t is proper,
therefore, before passing from this general
point, to discuss some of the objections that
are urged against the reasoning for slavery
upon Biblical grounds. We give, in detail,
the most important evasious and pretexts
that are resorted to by objectors, and will
add brief refutation of each.
l. 1t is said that the Jeaoish code IS nor
obsolete, and hence, even If slavery cas
authorized under that, 1t IS no authority
leqalizsng the institution or relation at the
present day. Answer. The objection ad'
mits the incontrovertible fact that the Jew
was authorized to hold his fellow man in
bondage, but assumes that the authority and
right for slavery ceased with the passing
away of the Jewish economy. The follow
ing facts are fatal to this conclusion l.
Nothing incorporated in the Jewish code,
could be essentially sinful in itself. 1t is
not consistent with the character of God to
authorize and legalize what is morally
aorong. Hence, as the relation of master
and slave was not only permitted but ex'
pressly sanctioned to the Jews, it could not
have been, in the eyes of God, moral
wrong; and so its existence, and the author
ity and laws for it, need not, Of necessity,
evanish with the economy that recognized
and legalized it, unless it be proved that it
was designedly temporary, and so passed
away with the laws, ceremonies, types and
shadows of the Jewish codes.
2. But in all the instances where the
duty, privilege or right, was designed to
become obsolete under the abrogation Of
the Mosaic economy, we are instructed as
to the fact, and find it expiring with the
Limitation of the Old Testament economy.
But in reference to slavery no such fact
is indicated 1t existed before Moses; was
recognized in his statutes as not simply tem-
porary, but perpetual, and besides it was
embodied in the moral law, and so an init
nation is given that instead of being a
Jewish privilege, it is to pass on into subse-
quent ages and never be autboritatively an.
nplled until the 4th and 10th Command.
ments cease to be laws regulating the rela-
tions and duties of men.
8. The recognition of slavery in the
dimes of our Saviour and the Apostles,
clearly contradict the assumption that it was
to disappear with the Mosaic enactments.
In reference to all the facts and teachings,
authoritatively given by Moses, it is indis-
putable that wherever Christ was to become
the end of the law, and the force of the
law to be either repealed or expire by limi-
tation, We can note its disappearance from
the New Testament economy. But not so
with slavery, for instead of its repeal or ab-
clifton in the new dispensation, we find its
continuance distinctly recognized, and laws
are given for its regulation.
I'd Objection. Another class Of oppo-
nents of slavery alzege that 1t aoas not sane
toned in the Bible, 6~t only permitted as
polygamy aoas under the Old economy
Others 90 so far as to say that slavery was
authorized by Moses just as polygamy was.
But the objections, being in the spirit the
same, may receive the same reply. Some
Interpreters of the word of God, and advo-
Gates of slavery, would answer it by admit,
ting that God not only allowed, but sane
toned both slavery and polygamy to the
Jews And thus they would meet the OBJ
lection, by saying that whilst slavery and
polygamy were both lawful under the Pa.
triarchal and Mosaic Economies, only the
one is lawful now, the law and sanction for
the other having been withdrawn oy Christ.
But we make no such admission, as that po-
lygamy was sanctioned, or even authorita-
lively allowed in the Pentateuch. Good
men, it is true, did practice it; butthe evils
that in every case sprang out of it, and at
tended it, showed that it did not receive the
approval of Jehovah, but always brought
suferings as chastisements upon those who
practiced it. And we call upon the objec'
tor to show that the two we're placed upon
the same platform, by either Moses or the
Lord. But whilst he cannot show that God
by formal sanction, or direct law, author
lied any man to take more than one wife at
time, we can, as we have already, quote
language authorizing slavery. See Exod.
21:7; 1920, 21, and Levitt. 25 :44-46
as specimens. Thus we overthrow the OBJ
lection, by denying the premises of the ar
gument. But we answer again. We're it
even true, that slavery and polygamy were
treated alike in the Old Testament, it is
evident that it is not so in the New Testa-
ment, for one is there condemned, the other
not. From Mat. 10: 3-9; Rom. 7:2, 3;
Cor. Il, 2, 20, it is plain that the laws
of marriage, as announced by Christ and
the Apostles, imply that it shall be between
one man and one avonaan at time, and so
poygamy is excluded as involving, necessa-
rily. the sin of adultery. But in no case
does the relation of master and slave re-
ceiye similar condemnation, being on the
other hand received as an integral part of
the social structure, it is guarded against
abuses, but pronounced lawful relation to
Christians.
That this is the fact in reference to the
institutions of marriage and slavery, may
be inferred from the universal rejection, by
Christians, of polygamy; but the extensive
and approved recognition of slavery as law