of despotism, where the Princeton professor so heartily shook hands with them, or they must have forced their way there in despite of its hallowed influence.  Either in accordance with, or in resistance to the light, they became what he found them—­the advocates of despotism.  If in resistance to the light—­and he says they were “enlightened men”—­what, so far as the subject with which alone he and we are now concerned, becomes of their “honesty” and “goodness?” Good and honest resisters of the light, which was freely poured around them!  Of such, what says Professor Stuart’s “good old Book?” Their authority, where “general principles” command the least respect, must be small indeed.  But if in accordance with the light, they have become the advocates of despotism, then is despotism “the best form of government and most acceptable to God.”  It is sustained by the authority of reason, by the word of Jehovah, by the will of Heaven!  If this be the doctrine which prevails at certain theological seminaries, it must be easy to account for the spirit which they breathe, and the general influence which they exert.  Why did not the Princeton professor place this “general principle” as a shield, heaven-wrought and reason approved, over that cherished form of despotism which prevails among the churches of the South, and leave the “peculiar institutions” he is so forward to defend, under its protection?

[Footnote 13:  Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 12.]

What is the “general principle” to which, whatever may become of despotism, with its “honest” admirers and “enlightened” supporters, human governments should be universally and carefully adjusted?  Clearly this—­that as capable of, man is entitled to, self government.  And this is a specific form of a still more general principle, which may well be pronounced self-evident—­that every thing should be treated according to its nature.  The mind that can doubt this, must be incapable of rational conviction.  Man, then,—­it is the dictate of reason, it is the voice of Jehovah—­must be treated as a man.  What is he?  What are his distinctive attributes?  The Creator impressed his own image on him.  In this were found the grand peculiarities of his character.  Here shone his glory.  Here REASON manifests its laws.  Here the WILL puts forth its volitions.  Here is the crown of IMMORTALITY.  Why such endowments?  Thus furnished—­the image of Jehovah—­is he not capable of self-government?  And is he not to be so treated? Within the sphere where the laws of reason place him, may he not act according to his choice—­carry out his own volitions?—­may he not enjoy life, exult in freedom, and pursue as he will the path of blessedness?  If not, why was he so created and endowed?  Why the mysterious, awful attribute of will?  To be a source, profound as the depths of hell, of exquisite misery, of keen anguish, of insufferable torment!  Was man, formed “according to the image of Jehovah,” to