The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1861-03-06
CADlz OHIO WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1861.

Robert Haldane, IN the appendix TO his
great work upon Romans, p. 700, Car
ter's edition ''In adverting, in the fore
going exposition. to the fundamental
heresies of Mr.. Stuart, have also point
ed out, in various places, the deeply her.
etical character ofDr. McKnight's COM
mentary, and have stated enough to
draw the attention of the reader to the
errors of that very dangerous and un-
souud commentator. DR.. McKnight's
work on the Epistles has, probably, done
more extensive mischief in this country
than any other that can be named. His
'AUDAcIoUs HETERoDoxY'a it is term
ed in the "Presbyterian Review"of May
1887, and daring perversions of the
Word of God, have been most perni-
cious p
am aware that one mans orthodoxy
is another mans heterodoxy, but I am
now speaking to an Old School Presby-
terian, who will not venture to deny or
controvert this opinion of Mcknight, as
expressed by Robert Haldane. But
Mr.. Van Dyke is yet more disingenu-
Gus in his assertion than McKnight's as
sociations must exempt him from from
all suspicion of pro-slavery prejudice;
such declaration might, with equal
justice, be made concerning Rev. Gard
ner Spring, d. D., of this city, or DR..
| Thornwell of South Carolina. Nc
Knight was born, be it remembered, in
1921, and died in ls00;--a period in
which "pro-slavery prejudice" was as
prevalent in the churches of Great Bri-
tain as it is now in the churches of the
UniI ed States; his commentaries were
published in 1902, and although Will
berforce and Clarkson had been at work
ten years to get the African slave-trade
abolished when his book was published,
he did not find it in his heart to say one
word in tavor of their cause.
Yet, Mr.. Van Dyke attempts to car
ry back the present antisi&very senti-
ment of the Scotch divlnes, and attach
it to man who died seven years be-
fore the slavetrade was abolished, and
thirty-four years before the accom-
plishment of West Indian emancipation,
and who, so far as know, never wrote
a single work in condemnation of sla-
very or in favor of emancipation.
His first proposition is stated in these
words: "Abolitionism' (the belief that
slavery is morally wrong) ''has no foun-
dation in the Scriptures" Passing
the patriarchal age, and for some un-
accountable reason omitting the beau
tiful and powerful argument which the
apologists of the 'patriarchal institu-
tion" have been accustomed to draw
from the three hundred and eighteen
trained and armed servants of Abraham,
to say nothing of the curse pronounced
upon Canaan, he comes at once to the
law OF nioses, quotes the usual passage,
omits with oblivious Indifference all the
explanations which the great scholars
on our side have given of these laws,
sets mp man or two of straw, knocks
them down as easily as boy his nine
pins, asserts that God sanctioned slave
holding, that all the abolitionists in the
world will not make him believe that
God ever sanctioned sin, and that,
therefore, slavery is not sinful. To
this reply by direct contradiction
of the premise, and denial that God
sanctioned slavery under the Theocra-
cy, or that slavery ever existed there,
except in direct violation OF his law and
will. This | proceed to substantiate,
not by assertion, but by arguments
patent to every understanding.
In the first place, there is no word
in the Hebrew language for slave,
none for slavery. There is word for
servant, and one for servitude, but no
word slavery, denoting condition Of
involuntary servitude; no specific term
that expresses that form of relation
between man and man. 1t may be re-
piled that the absence of the word does
not imply the negation of the thing;
there is no such word as slave in the law
technically called the Fugitive Slave
Law" yet no one denies that slaves
are meant We do not, however, rest
the argument upon the mere absence
of the word from particular document
but from the entire language; had sla-
very been a divine institution, as Mr..
Van Dyke argues, surely there would
have been a word to express the idea
specifically. The fact that there is no
such word is strong presumption that
there was no such thing.
IN the second place, there is no ac-
count in the Old Testament of any
permission for the sale by one person
to another, of a third who was allowed
no voice nor will in the transaction; no
such transaction is recorded; on the con-
trary, all such traffic in human flesh, in
'sslaves and souls of men," was abso-
lutely prohibited; it never was attempt
ed except in direct violation of the law,
and never failed to bring down upon
the people the withering curse of Heav-
en-. There was no purchase of men,
except from themselves, by voluntary
contract for a specified sum, for a de-
finite time, known and agreed upon
by the parties; there were no slave
hunts in other countries for a supply
of servants; there was not single bar
racoou on the borders; there were no
slave.pens in the cities-no auction
blocks, upon which men, women, and
children might be placed and sold to
the highest bidder in all the land
You might have passed through all
the tribes from Dan to Beersheba,
without ever meeting coffie of slaves!
In the third place, the special statute de-
signed to prevent this crime, "He that
stealeth man and selleth him, or if he be
found in his hand, he shall surely be put
to death, forever brands with the stamp
of Gods reprobation and curse Amer.
can slavery, and rendered the practice of
such an iniquity in the jewish Com
monWelth impossible. The law does