Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1840-01-15

found or blend the disclosure of erents
and the appointment Of duties, make sad
work with scripture, to say The least
Throw away discrimination between the
two and the Bible may be made to support
the most atrocious villainies and cold
booded cruelties that ever disgraced and
destroyed fallen men. Instance-the
case of Hazael, 2 Kings, viii, IL. There
must be kept up broad and impossible
distinction between the announcement of
prophecies and the appointment of duties
If friend Cults had chosen the lam
guage of the Lord to Cain he would have
come much nearer finding ground to
place his foot upon, than he has in the
selection which he has made,-because
the language is addressed directly to
Cain, and net 10 the one who was to fall
into his murderous, fratricidal hands,
See Genesis ~, 7. "Thou shalt rule
over him. would certainly be a much
more plausible foundation to build human
government upon than, he shall rule
ov err thee" And yet | suppose tina: the
address to Cain will not be claimed as
good foundation for approved human
government as an ordinance of God.
Thus much for scripture exposition
But this does nothing towards settling the
question, after all. The question is, has
God appro0ingly ordained human gor-
ernmsnts. The passage cited by him,
with his own construction upon (which
l think has clearly been shown to be en-
tlrely erroneous-only goes to establish
what he is pleased to style the domestic
reLati0n"-in other words the nutborita,
OF the man Deer the acoman. Whether
this has the least thing to do towards es-
tablishing the authority of one man over
another->or of one set of men over an
other set of men, remains to be seen.
Now in order 70 get at the matter so as
10 make 1t plain to the understanding-in
order to ascertain whether it be safe and
sound to reason from the "domestic relo-
tson' to "humGn government" it is neces
sary TO know as far as possible the nature
OF both,-so that it shall be apparent at
once wherein they agree-f in any thing
and wherein they differ. We shall
then see whether the one can grow out of
the other.
What, then, IS human gorernment?-
Friend Curtis defines it 10 be, "riohtful
power vested In one person to require or
prohibit another person, or other persons
to do certain things; and the correspond
ing obligation of that other person or
those other persons to do or refrain from
these things, because thus required."--
Verify, violence and blood may be very
nicely covered up with a chosen set of
words that fall quite harmlessly on the
ear. What the certain things" arc, he
does not undertake to define. In this he
is at least wise Whether his cause is
thereby well sustained, is altogether an.
other thing. To those who put them
selves to the trouble of examining the sub
ject, and thinking little for themselves
it will be perfectly obvious that the seer
tam things must include eOery thing, at
the discretion of government-otherw
there is no government at all. For the
moment the discre ton is left with the oop.
erned. that moment the government is
powerless. Allow the governed to do
the things they please, and to refrain
from the things they please, and your
government is no government-is anar-
chy' at once. The highest possible pow
er that human government, can assume
or pretend to be invested" with-is
the power TO destroy human life at its OWE
discretion. This power human govern
ments in general claim to possess. Those
of them that are esteemed to be the best
now in existence are based on this
principle. An illustration and demon
stratlon of the correctness of this view,
has recently been furnished at ALBANY.
N. Y. Some of the subjects of govern
ment took 1t upon themselves TO &C, their
own discretion in a certain matter in which