The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1848-08-26

of slavery, or, that he was wanting in eandOr
This called forth reply from "ihe man nnde
the bridge establishing his claim TO knowiedg'
and fairness in the use he made Of Methodis
history, by such testimony as the Advocate ma
not been able to gainsay or resist. The worthy
Editor then retired from the conflict and ceased
to read the numbers of his friend, which were
SO ''stupidly nti-slaoery" in their character
that he could not meet them in the way OF fac
or Argument, and, no doubt, he thought II bes
to forbear any further attempt in that line
Bat most unfortunately for his reputation, after
'ksgpesiag just HOp to glGRee at some Of th'
numbers Of the man under the bridge" he I'M
dertook the remarks TO which We now wish Il
call your attention. We have no doubt they
were psnned, Just as they profess to be, without
having read the numbers of his opponent, save
the mere accidental glance" he just now made
A mere "glance," however, is sufficient TO ena-
bic man 10 clip sentence from its eonnso-
ton, and thereby to miss the meaning Of The
author, and set up a man Of straw thai perhaps
he can demolish more easily than he can parry
the blows of areal opponent; and an editor Has
this decided ayantage in that sort Of warfart-
he can attribute opinions and doctrines TO ais
opponent, and by not letting his readers know
the mans own way of stating his "faith" or Of
defending it; he can make many of his readers
suppose he has gained victory indeed. re-
markable instance Of this sort is before US
Speaking of ClerOs, he says: "Hs has made ths
discovery ikGf IL Is impossible for one ia state
Of Slavery 10 do has duty 10 Cod" and having
made up the statement in this form, he proceeds
to apply the TedaetiO ad GbsurdEm with ven
geance. IL. however, the man Of the advocate
had read the article before him, instead Of
''glancing," before he proceeded to comment up
on it, he might have perceived that in arguing
with christians, especially MethOdists, on the
duty of seeking, in lawful way, the removal
Of the system Of slavery, IL was pertinent TO
appeal to facts showing that by interfering with
the domestic relations, rendering marriage aud
paternal ties precarious-savery is inconsistent
with the full performance Of the obligations in
volved in the relations Of husband and father as
prescribed in the scripture. Cleros has said,
"SGrery sfsetHaliy destroys all these relate rs
among slaUes, that the discharge Of the duties be-
longing 10 any one Of them is impossible, sretpt
10 limited ertent" Now, with al! his flourish
Of Rhetoric about the absurdity of the doctrine
Of Cleros as stated in the Advocate, will the Ed
isor himself undertake TO maintain, il so many
plain words, that the existing system Of slavery
does not $50 cGeetually desf OF these relations,
in great multitude of instances, "ansong
sl0pes," as TO hinder the duties prescribed to
Husbands and fathers" if he will not, and OF
this | feel very sure, then all his defamation
about the inability of men or devils TO prevent
us from doing our duty falls beside tho mark
The question is not whether any man is held
responsible for not doing prescribed cUties I'M
der unavoidable circumstances Of impOssibility
But is it right for christians, voluntarily, TO sup
port, abet, and uphold system of slavery upon
4 portion OF their felOw-chrisiians which Sc
destroys their domestic relations not TO permit
the husband to protect, and support, and live
with his wife, TO "bring up his children in the
nurture and admoAition of the Lord" know
the Editor can say, with great gravity, when the
slave is torn from his wife, and his children d.
yided out among the heirs Of his master, and hi
is not probably permitted to see them once 4
year during their youth; that he is not wanting
in duty when he leaves his weeping wife and nj
longer watches over his children. That mighty
salve, "impOssibility," shields him. True, thii
may shield him from guilt before God, but vii
the Editor say as much for the Christian Of
Methodist Shareholder, and supporter Of a sys
tenn which thus in its enevitable operation sep
arates the husband and the wife--the parent an
the child, without so much as asking their con
sent7 Or will the Nashville Christian Advo
cate contend that the new Testament code O
! morals, as it relates to the domestic relations
| are all swallowed up in that one command "sei
PANTS obey your masters" or as it is petaphra
sed by some, "slapss obey your MASTERS" w,
agree that this precept binds the slave, and ar
| far from teaching him to run away or to disobe,
| his master. But when we address the maste
and the community in his behalf, we think !
altogether pertinent to appeal TO the working
of the system in the way of social injustice
and to call upon you as christians, and esPeci
ally as methodisis to strive by all lawful mean
to extirpate the evil Of slavery. nt,ed notsa!
the Methodist Episcopal Church Sough ispledg
ed by her discipline to this course, and although
it has been prOphesied she will yet WITHDRAW
that pledge, and we are fearful she will at som
time do it, still she has not yet done il. An
while she stands to the pledge we can see no i'm
Propriety in urging her sons to the perfOrmanc
Of II.
In conclusion, we think the Editor would i'm
prove the tone and influence of his paper, b,
sparing himself those groundless and III natur
| ed personalities about the advocacy of "negr
stealing. abolitionists," and swami Of candor.
To meet an argument and expose its error Wi
| 90 a thousand times farther with "men ofsense'
than to abuse and vilify an author without ex
posing the failacy Of his arguments.
AN OBSERVER.
August 10th, ls4s.
The skin should be kept clean. Tn