Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1845-07-04
From the Albany Patriot.
THE CHOICE OF EVILS.
BY BERIAH GREEN.


BY BERIAH GREEN.
The dogmas in ethics and theology, which in
the late political struggle were generally relied
upon to Justify the election of STAKEHOLDER to pre-
side over this republic, demand scrutiny. Ad-
vocates, eager, plausible, and stout enough, they
found almost every where and especially among
our distinguished eccesiastics. The people att
large well pleased with the defence thus set up
of their party objects and petted candidates, rush
ed without scrupe or remorse to their support.
They were resisted by some sixty thousand of
their fellow citizens, on the ground that no man
could embrace such dogmas, or support such
candidates, without guilt and dishonor-wlthout
violating those obligations and prostituting those
prerogatives, which are the birthright of every
American citizen. Deaf however, to every ar
gument, the multitude refused to pause, till
they had perpetrated the thing they were intent
upon.
OF the dogmas just alluded to, this seems es-
peciay to have contributed to this result; that in
such cases, we arc Jound, from q regard to the
glory Of God, ind the weJtare Of oar country,
to choose the less oftlco crib. AS a principle
this thing has been stoutly insisted upon pau-
slbly defended, and boldly reduced to practice
OF the sick-chld parable Of DIR. Halves, no word
of exposition need here be attempted. Such an
uttcrance from the occupant of so high pulpit
Doubtless it had its effect, if net in enlightening
the understandings, still in soothing the con-
sciences Of scores, who for party purposes were
anxious to assist in lifting a STAKEHOLDER to the
high places of the republic Such a casust! YER
lily, he shall not lose his reward
The New Haven theologian DIR. Taylor. goes
into the business, metaphyscaIIy. If Christians
/ can 90 with majority in eectlng righteous rulers
they are bound to give them their support But
p if bad men are set up as candidates, say for the
office of president Of the republic, by the multi
tude, one by this party, and another by that,
with about an equal chance of success, Christians,
b tuning their backs upon any candidate proposed
by minority, however excellent his character,
ought to vote for the least vicious of the other
two, though notorious rake dueIlis and oppres-
; sor Nay, though devil ncarnate, he ought to
: be their choice, if somewhat less devil than
. his rival! Otherwise, they would transgress the
f great law of their existence, by which they are
: bound to prevent all the evil and effect all the
e good in their power. For if they throw their
votes away upon the righteous candidate, whom
, Of course they cannot elect they lend their inhu.
i cnce indirectly to get the biggest devil into office
OF this, as an unchrlstan act their country, hay-
ing fair claim to the guidance and protection
+ of the less devil Of the two, may justly complain
U TIL, tbn Ioca Of oy;1, 4, %
# vengeance!
Mr. Giddings, of Ohio, occupies much the
same ground The less of two evils, according
to him, may not indeed as candidate be the
r man of our choice. He quotes, Notwithstanding
n maxim in common law to show, that, however
Q unjust, and weak he may be, we ought to help
h on his election as he may be somewhat less d
: fool and knave than his equally popular rival
J. Otherwise, alas! we may not prevent all the evil
+ in our power
How does all this differ from the Fundamental
: maxim of the Jesuits, that the end justifes thu
means? To this, their characteristic policy
seems to have been carefully adjusted 1t was
essential to the influence which they every
where exerted. Most people are ready enough
I to pronounce it, as maintained and acted on by
y them, false and hurtlul in the highest degree
:, subyersve of every thing sound and heathful in
y ethics and theology-ShalI the Jesuits be
Judged of by one standard, and our theologians
= and statesmcnby another? And this, in the face
and eyes of that Wisdom which is without par
l. TALLY and without hypocrisy?
- The dogma which our theologians have thus
% stolen from the Jesuites was once charged upor
q the apostle Paul. He, it was alleged, was fol
doing evil that good might come.-This charge
he repealed as wanton and malignant SANDER
and declared that THERE was damnaton in the
;, business. Had the Apostle belonged to some
= such school as DIR. Taylor ,of all this we shoulc
e never have heard syllable Slandered! Not he
1t Ofno such thing could he have complained. In
/, stead of this how promptly would he not have
e seized his pen to show, that of the various ways
e of doing good, the choice of evil was somewha
J. legitimate-thc very thing which the glory o
IS God and the welfare of mankind imperiousl
d demanded; and this, though the evil thus to b,
J. chosen and employed should be very devil
$, But the apostle Paul belonged to very differen
D, school.
Our readers, doubtless, remember, that in raj
re sing Lazarus from the dead, our Saviour made
e deep impression ON the spectators They wert
IF 0wed by his Godlike presence.-Many a minc
a among them was convinced that he was the Mes
70 siah. They yielded to His claims, and acknowl
edged his uthorty.-Others, however, took
'f very different position. They went off as ihlor
If merS to the Pharisees. They gave such an &C
s count of the facts they had witnessed at thu
e grave of Lazarus, as filled those yelgioniss witt
l. alarm and apprehension. The Sanhedrim wa
at once convenedI grave question was ther
proposed; what could be done to reduce the in
/, Auence Of Jesus? Through the powers He wiel
e ded, He was attracting followers, who regarded
s. Him with the strongest confidence, g. the deep
o est veneration Who could foreseo to wha
Al. Al. l.