The Orangeburg news. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1867-1875, 1871-05-20

mans, the power, right and justice of
God, us thelcreator, in dealing with man,
His creation and creaturet. And Upon
the same reasoning VIC say any man may
do as he plcases with his own creations
SO that he does not use it 80 MS to injurc
another. In other words, every creator,
as between himself and the thing created,
may do as he plcases with his own crea-
tion; God being the creator of all things
has the right and power to deal as he
pleases with all things: He alone
judges of the justice tfhis own dealipgs,
and man has no right to call in question
MS dealings. but, oh impious wander
er J" When ever didst thou create any
man, either to honor or dishonor? What
right, founded in nature, have you to
rule and lord it over your fellow crea-
ture, unless that right is conferred upon
you by his suffrages? The potter has
power over the clay to make one vessel to
honor and another to dishonor," but that
same creator has the right to destroy the
vessel made to honor, aud preserve and
honor the one made to dislonor; but
these vessels, MS between themselves,
have no such power.
We would refer '.Wondercr" and all
others who are afflicted with the kincly
idea that one man is created with more
tights, to more honor, than another, TO
what our Saviour said when on earth
He said to one of his disciples !:
"Let him who would be chief
amongst you be the servant of all"
1u the beginning God made man, and
gave him rule and dominion over the
earth, aud ali other created things and
after all, this is mans title to rule, hut it
is to man as race, not to any particular
man or set Of mcu Aud now as to a
political question: From the carlics,
history Of man, from the timo whcu he
had so multiplied US to mako civil society
OF gcvernn. ont necessary, and especially
when it became necessary to so beyond
the patsiarcha' Ii has Leap purc or less
u struggle botwoen the people for the
right to ,ulc, against some aspirant a.
monarch, king. Judge OF souic sort Of
ruler OF u particular class who have
claimed the right of the few on account
of some supposed superior hmomtcIyc,
virtue or property, to rule the many.
And right he.4ekwc assert that there
are but two main principles or ideas tha:
have divided thinking men. One is,
that kings rule by divine right" that
is to say, the people were created for
rulers and not rulers for the people
The other is, the people woro not created
for rulers, but that governments and rulers
are created by the people, for their own
protection and to serve their own real
and social happiness, and that to secure
this men on entering in:o civil society or
government, give up a portion of their
natural rights, and such as are Of more or
less Importance to their real interest and
solid happiness, to secure those more i'm
portaat and essential to their happiness.
"Wandcrcr," in denying all men equal
natural rights, endorses the ideas prcva-
lent in the old world about the time of
James of England, that the people
were created for rulers, and not rulers
for the people.
And why do we say so? Because we
assert that every writer of note on natn.
raj rights or national law, who oppose
the idea that the people were made for
rulers, lay down the doctrine that in a
state of nature all men are equal IN
rights and in logic, in reason, and in
the nature of things, that must be SO, or
it must be that some superior right to
- L. ;ise.. - -, D.,iu. ,raatur iii