FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   844   845   846   847   848   849   850   851   852   853   854   855   856   857   858   859   860   861   862   863   864   865   866   867   868  
869   870   871   872   873   874   875   876   877   878   879   880   881   882   883   884   885   886   887   888   889   890   891   892   893   >>   >|  
ty; but the mere extent of their power, though so liable to abuse, they left unnoticed. Another answer to the argument in question is, that "The New Testament does condemn slaveholding, as _practiced among us_, in the most explicit terms furnished by the language in which the sacred penman wrote." This assertion is supported by saying that God has condemned slavery, because he has specified the parts which compose it and condemned them, one by one, in the most ample and unequivocal form.[264] It is to be remarked that the saving clause "slaveholding _as it exists among us_," is introduced into the statement, though it seems to be lost sight of in the illustration and confirmation of it which follow. We readily admit, that if God does condemn all the parts of which slavery consists, he condemns slavery itself. But the draughter of the address has made no attempt to prove that this is actually done in the sacred Scriptures. That many of the attributes of the system as established by law in this country, are condemned, is indeed very plain; but that slaveholding in itself is condemned, has not been and can not be proved. The writer, indeed, says, "The Greek language had a word corresponding exactly, in signification, with our word servant, but it had none which answered precisely to our term slave. How then was an apostle writing in Greek, to condemn our slavery? How can we expect to find in Scripture, the words 'slavery is sinful,' when the language in which it is written contained no term which expressed the meaning of our word slavery?" Does the gentleman mean to say the Greek language could not express the idea that slaveholding is sinful? Could not the apostles have communicated the thought that it was the duty of masters to set their slaves free? Were they obliged from paucity of words to admit slaveholders into the Church? We have no doubt the writer himself could, with all ease, pen a declaration in the Greek language void of all ambiguity, proclaiming freedom to every slave upon earth, and denouncing the vengeance of heaven upon every man who dared to hold a fellow creature in bondage. It is not words we care for. We want evidence that the sacred writers taught that it was incumbent on every slaveholder, as a matter of duty, to emancipate his slaves (which no Roman or Greek law forbade), and that his refusing to do so was a heinous crime in the sight of God. The Greek language must be poor indeed if it can not con
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   844   845   846   847   848   849   850   851   852   853   854   855   856   857   858   859   860   861   862   863   864   865   866   867   868  
869   870   871   872   873   874   875   876   877   878   879   880   881   882   883   884   885   886   887   888   889   890   891   892   893   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

slavery

 

language

 
slaveholding
 

condemned

 

sacred

 

condemn

 

slaves

 
sinful
 

writer

 

communicated


masters

 

thought

 

Scripture

 

meaning

 
expressed
 

written

 

contained

 

gentleman

 

express

 

expect


apostles

 

incumbent

 
slaveholder
 
matter
 
taught
 

writers

 
evidence
 

emancipate

 
heinous
 
forbade

refusing
 

bondage

 
creature
 
declaration
 

paucity

 

slaveholders

 
Church
 
ambiguity
 

proclaiming

 
fellow

heaven

 

freedom

 

denouncing

 

vengeance

 

obliged

 

compose

 
assertion
 

supported

 
unequivocal
 

exists