The weekly north Iowa times. [volume] (McGregor, Iowa) 1857-1867, 1861-02-06
MISCELLANEOUS,
1fOm me JOuFhaI OF CoMWtrcc.
The Question III Liminc.

Inc Que8VIOu 1N A1"IOC.
A question, with regard to slaveholding,
which, in the estimation 0. Christian men
undcriles all others, Is, thu question of right
Or wrong. The anti-slavery men declare
that it Is wrong per- sc, wrong every way.
The Southerner denies it, and appeals to
the Bible. The former, finding the Bible in
their way, either war against it, or appeal
to the moral instincts, which they ,lenomi-
nate 1.-The higher law" Slavery" says
Gerrit Smith, "is not to bc tried ky the
Bible; but the Bible by freedom. All the
talk that the Bible is the chart of man $
rights is NONSENSE" But many who 90
not to this extent Of Scriptural repudia ton,
are under the impression that the Bibl. :"
priori cannot countenance slavery. Dr.
Checver "sses no hope for freedom, if the
BiLl" shall be given to the side of slavery
and so goes on to prove that it shall not b.
SO given. At this critical juncture of af.
fairs, the question is not irrelevant. 1t
should be settled; every man should make
up his mind as 20 the right or the wrong OF
slaveholding. If according to the only
standard which Christians recognize, it can
be proved wrong, no legislation can oblge
them to tolerate it. What, then, saith the
Scriptures!
Ii is plain that the God of the Hebrews
tolerated it; and by law recognized it. lie
who runs can read this. Both thy bond.
men and thy bond maids, which thou shalt
have, shall DC Of the heathcn that are round
about you to inherit them for POSSES
sion. They shall be your bondmrn forever
Whatever distinction may be drawn be.
tween the slavery Of the Hebrews and that
which prevails in our land, not even the
stcrnest OppOsers Of the latter can deny
that God enacted the former and gave spe-
cial rules concerning it. Without, there.
fore, rejecting on the divine character, it
cannot be maintained that slaveholding,
under the Hebrew commonwealth, was
sin.
But may not a practice become wrong
which was not once wrongg Possibly
But then it was not wrong per ~. Polyga.
my, for instance, is now wrong, when once
it was not. The same divine lawgiver who
tolerated it in the patriarchS. in New Testa.
ment times, made it wrong by erpress com.
mand. He thenceforward placed the mar.
riage relation on new basis. Had he in.
tcrtrred in the same way in regard to slave
uoVsus6s uCSt0tu'6 Su"S Nv uS~sI SIlOulu uOiNl
mis- fellow man in bondage, that the relation
If master and slave snould henceforth
cease; then would slavery now, like poly.
gamy. be a forbidden thing. But he did
not He merely gave those precepts of re.
ciprocation and justice which would soften
the rigors Of slavery, and possibly in the
md remove it. The same course the Apos.
ties pursued by his command. They did
not denounce it as o sin; nor call upon the
converted stakeholder to emancipatc. Nor
lid they counsel the converted slave to run
way from his master, or in any respect tn
leny his authority. They babe him be
faithful in the relation in which he stood
and if he was freed, to use that freedom
properly. ,...
If slaveholding was sinful per se. we can.
not think that the inspired Apostles would
ihus have dealt with it. They would have
gone to the stake as readily for this ~ fol
he maintenance Of any other truth. Blu,
heir course and their teachings provide that
slavery per- 50 is not sin. Let us hear
them. Let every man dbide (not run
away in the same calling wherein he was
called. Art thou called being q servan,
islave) care not for it; but If thou mayes,
&C made free use it rather. Cor. 2l.-
Servants be obedicnt to your masters &C
,orling to the fesh." Eph 6 6. Servants
lobey in all things your masters according