haracter of the master who oppressed,
starved, or murdered his slaves. Such a master would have been rejected
as an oppressor, or murderer, however, not as a slaveholder. In like
manner, the declaration that government is an ordinance of God, that
magistrates are to be obeyed within the sphere of their lawful
authority; that resistance to them, when in the exercise of that
authority, is sinful,[266] gives no sanction to the oppression of the
Roman emperors, or to the petty vexations of provincial officers. The
argument urged from Scripture in favor of passive submission, is not so
exactly parallel with the argument for slavery, as Dr. Channing
supposes. They agree in some points, but they differ in others. The
former is founded upon a false interpretation of Rom. xiii: 1-3; it
supposes that passage to mean what it does not mean, whereas the latter
is founded upon the sense which Dr. C. and other opponents of slavery,
admit to be the true sense. This must be allowed to alter the case
materially. Again, the argument for the lawfulness of slaveholding, is
not founded on the mere injunction, "Slaves, obey your masters,"
analagous to the command, "Let every soul be subject to the higher
powers," but on the fact that the apostles did not condemn slavery; that
they did not require emancipation, and that they recognized slaveholders
as Christian brethren. To make Dr. Channing's argument of any force, it
must be shown that Paul not only enjoined obedience to a despotic
monarch, but that he recognized Nero as a Christian. When this is done,
then we shall admit that our argument is fairly met, and that it is just
as true that he sanctioned the conduct of Nero, as that he acknowledged
the lawfulness of slavery.

The two cases, however, are analogous as to one important point. The
fact that Paul enjoins obedience under a despotic government, is a valid
argument to prove, not that he sanctioned the conduct of the reigning
Roman emperor, but that he did not consider the possession of despotic
power a crime. The argument of Dr. C. would be far stronger, and the two
cases more exactly parallel, had one of the emperors become a penitent
believer during the apostolic age, and been admitted to the Christian
church by inspired men, notwithstanding the fact that he retained his
office and authority. But even without this latter decisive
circumstance, we acknowledge that the mere holding of despotic power is
proved not to be a crime by the fa