Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1860-07-14
Relative Institutions.

Our respected cotehporary, the Gazette, a
paper which we habitually look up TO as the
representative of pure and unmitigated or
thodoxy, deprecates the practice of Ameri-
cans attacking or criticising our own people
or institutions, and lays down the following
es the principle which should govern in this
matter
"It Is the province Of the pulpit TO exhibit
the depravity of human nature and criticise
tho works Of men, This is within the range
Of its duty. But far less range is allowed
the critic on human institutions for they are
only relatiUe."
The great infrmity of ofAmericanj journalists,
as one Of our cotemporaries forcibly remarked,
is that they devote their energies to the
tri6ing and feeting, instead Of going to the
root of things and bringing up eternal prin-
ciples This failing can not be charged to
the Gazette. No sooner is u subject raised,
than it goes directly to the bottom and filings
out fundamental principle to govern it
with Just as much looseness as the philoso-
phic grave-digger in Hamlet flung out a
skull Of Yorick or a syllogism.
Logic often runs into subleties puzzling to
ordinary minds but fundamental principles
always address themselves to the plainest
common sense their truth is apparent to
common intellects; just as an ordinary mind
can appreciate dollar in hard coin, though
unskilled in the mysteries of finance. So il
is with this principle of the Gazette Thus
'It is the province of the pulpit to exhibit
the depravity of human nature, and criti-
else the works of men, but far less range
is allowed to the critic ON human institutions,
for they are only rslatiUe.'
Let us interpret 1t is proper to criticise
the works of men, but not to criticise human
institutionsl Why not? Are they not the
works of men? That Interpretation evil
IDENTIFY will not work.
Let us try again 1t is the province of the
pulpit to exhibit human depravity, but less
latitude is allowed the critic on human insti-
tutions. That is ii. Human depravity, not
II human institution; Adams fall--total de-
pravity, and so forth. Human depravity,
divine nstitution-Province of pulpit TO ex-
hibit that The more the depravity of Gods
works is exhibited, the more He is gloriied.
Sound aud evangelical ...-.
But here we run against "relatiye.' Not
allowed t6-criticise human institutions "for
they are only relativep How relative2
Related to human beings2 or to each other?
Then why not criticise them? The answer
to that is established in the preceding--be-
cause they are human, and we are only al
lowed to dspsrage divine works. But, still,
yyhv that Hrelatiye ~
That profound marine philosopher, Jack
Bunsby, when called on for one of those
opinions which startled his friends by the
yawning abyss of thought which they opened
was accustomed to preface his observations
by terse declarations of fundamental prin.
ciples by which the question at issue and al
other questions could be squared. Thus
''For why2 Which way7 If so, why not
Therefore We suspect that this relative
IS something like the therefore of honest Jacl
Bunsby--a sign to denote that the subject ha:
reached.an untathomable depth, rather thar
having any connection with it.