FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165  
166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   >>   >|  
this admission, that the relation of slaveholder and slave is sinless? Was the despotism of the Roman government sinless? I do not ask whether the _abuses_ of civil government, in that instance, were sinless. But, I ask, was a government, despotic in its constitution, depriving all its subjects of political power, and extending absolute control over their property and persons--was such a government, independently of the consideration of its _abuses_, (if indeed we may speak of the abuses of what is in itself an _abuse_,) sinless? I am aware, that Prof. Hodge says, that it was so: and, when he classes despotism and slavery with _adiaphora_, "things indifferent;" and allows no more moral character to them than to a table or a broomstick, I trust no good man envies his optics. May I not hope that you, Mr. Smylie, perceive a difference between despotism and an "indifferent thing." May I not hope, that you will, both as a Republican and a Christian, take the ground, that despotism has a moral character, and a bad one? When our fathers prayed, and toiled, and bled, to obtain for themselves and their children the right of self-government, and to effect their liberation from a power, which, in the extent and rigor of its despotism, is no more to be compared to the Roman government, than the "little finger" to the "loins," I doubt not, that they felt that despotism had a moral, and a very bad moral character. And so would Prof. Hodge have felt, had he stood by their side, instead of being one of their ungrateful sons. I say ungrateful--for, who more so, than he who publishes doctrines that disparage the holy cause in which they were embarked, and exhibits them, as contending for straws, rather than for principles? Tell me, how long will this Republic endure after our people shall have imbibed the doctrine, that the _nature_ of civil government is an indifferent thing: and that the poet was right when he said, "For forms of government let _fools_ contest?" This, however, is but one of many doctrines of ruinous tendency to the cause of civil liberty, advanced by pro-slavery writers to sustain their system of oppression. It would surely be superfluous to go into proofs, that the Roman government was vicious and wicked in its constitution and nature. Nevertheless, the Apostle enjoined submission to it, and taught its subjects how to demean themselves under it. Here, then, we have an instance, in which we cannot argue the si
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165  
166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
government
 

despotism

 

sinless

 
character
 
abuses
 
indifferent
 

nature

 

ungrateful

 

doctrines

 

slavery


instance
 
constitution
 

subjects

 

Apostle

 

exhibits

 

embarked

 

disparage

 

enjoined

 

Nevertheless

 

principles


straws
 

contending

 

submission

 
demean
 

publishes

 
taught
 
vicious
 

advanced

 

writers

 

sustain


oppression

 

system

 
liberty
 
tendency
 

ruinous

 
contest
 

endure

 

Republic

 

proofs

 

superfluous


surely

 

doctrine

 
imbibed
 

people

 
wicked
 
independently
 

consideration

 

adiaphora

 
things
 

classes