The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1849-11-17

"nicn Is ftgnt. Ihe command does III
require that We give up our natural right
suppose We white men were held as slave
by the Indians or English, would we SUI
pose that the command to servants, 'to B
obedient TO masters" implied that the Ind
ans or English had a right to hold US a
slaves-dePrive US Of libertyi This pre-
4 pares us to notice,
3. The facs that We, as free citizens, ar
required to be obedient and honest--"sut
Iect to the powers that be"--is no evidenc
that God recognises the right in individua
tyrants or governments, TO enslave or evel
Cypress us. So the fact that servants ar
required TO be obedient, even if that ser
want be slave, is no evidence that The mas
ter has right to ensiare. We are com
manded TO ''do good to those who despite
fully use us" but this does not imply tina
our enemy has righ to SO treat us.
We are commanded that if ouI enemy
''smite US on one cheek, to turn tie othel
also'--that is, bear it patiently, not to re.
sort to individual retaliation. But Goes this
obedience enjoined, and the forbearsnce i'm
posed, imply that our enemy has right to
thus treat US? Certainly not.
Again, the servant is commanded to lie
obedient not only to the good and gentle,
but also to the froward (skolioS, toItuous.
Does this injunction TO obedience on the
part OF the servant imply that the iIoward
or torIuous master has right 10 aci 10 to-
wards the servant? Certainly no.. No
more does the injunction 10 obedience on
The part of the servant, imply that the mas
Ter has right 20 tyrannise over, and rob
The servant Of his natural righl-libeTty.
One duty is not TO be so construed as to
conflict with another duty. And ID con.
strue the duty Of obedience, on the part OF
The servant, so as to yield his liberty, his
personal ownership, TO the master, is to de-
Prive him Of tine capacity to perform other
dulies-as that Of worshiping God when
and where be in conscience may deem il
duty TO perform duties TO his own soul, to
ms wife, children, and 10 his fellow beings.
Again-Does the Bible teach moral op-
positesl Does it teach at one moment that
liberty is right, and at the next breath that
slavery is right! Who will assert il? And
yet this is really the position of those who
maintain that the Bible sanctions slavery.
la their own case they claim that the Bible
sanctions their liberty; but in the case Of
another they claim that the Bible sane
tons bis enslavement. Such Inconsistencies
work out their own cure. Show that
those who practice them, or teach them,
are in error. The Bible then giving no
sanction 10 slavery, and its fundamental
principles being manllestly condemaaIoly
of it, and slavery being plain violation
of natural rights, should be conceded as
sinful, by every candid mind
The large mass of men will, as we be-
leve, decide that gambling, counteIfsitiDg,
and highway robbery, are nothing when
compared with slavery. The counterfeiter
imposes spurious currency on you, and the
gambler, BY sleight Of hand, and perhaps
unseen knavery, wins and receives your
money, and in either case the products of
your toll ale taken, without giving you an
equivalent: and the church will discipline
the lalie:. and the courts punish the former;
yet you are still the owner Of your person,
left free and sble-bodied, and as such you
can toll for more money, minister TO the
wants Of your family, and discharge the
duties Of freeman. But slavery not only
takes the products Of the poor mans toll,
without giving an equivalent, but robs him
Of his lberty--the very capacity to minis
ter to his own or others wants, and con-
verts him into q mere chattel.
An Elder In one OF the churches in our
State. remarked not long since, that he
was like DR.. Rice and DIR. Junkin; he
thought the wrong Of slavery consisted
in its abuse. A friend standing by said:
Father R., suppose should meet you
on the highway, and by superior force take
your horse from you, and keep him for my
own use, and though / should leave you
free to go and acquire another horse, would
not the act Of taking your horse be sinful
in itself? Yes, said Father R. Well,
then, is not slavery worse than taking the
horse! Yes, sad Father R. And
there is not, perhaps, candid man in Chris
tendon, who would not admit the same.
On the floor OF that convention which
met last spring in Frankfort, to devise more
efficient plans for the removal of slavery,
even by those who did not like to admit
that slavery is sinful in itself, the conces-
sion was made, that this is the feeling Of
q large portion Of the Christian people Of
this land. 1t was impressively said: 'there
is away down in the hearts Of large por.
ion Of the Christian people Of this land, a
ceiling at war with the institution Of slavery.
There are many thousand benevolent peo-
pie in the State who, | care not what they |
may say, feel in their hearts that slavery is |
wrong" Mark, slapery, net its excrescen-
;es, or its consequenoes--but slavery is re-
ysrded as wrong. Now, what is the differ.
,nce between that which is in itself wrong, |
and that which is sinful. If wrong i Is
and John tells us that .all
is sin" Yea, politicians |
themselves admit it. Even that man,
Thomas F. MARSHALL, who took so promin-
mt part in crushing the freedom of the
,ress in Lexington, KY, On the memorable |
18th, when afterwards challenged by a
prominent preacher Of our State to discuss
he question whether slavery was not sane.
toned by the Word Of God, he replied: Il
nave too much respect for my God to at.
enpt TO defend him from such a SANDER
Has not Mr.. Turner, the perpetualist Of
Madison county, in his late speech of con-