hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
Africa 88 0 Browse Search
Europe 44 0 Browse Search
Providence, R. I. (Rhode Island, United States) 28 0 Browse Search
Thomas Jefferson 26 0 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 24 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 22 0 Browse Search
America (Netherlands) 20 0 Browse Search
Wayland 19 19 Browse Search
Paul 18 0 Browse Search
Jesus Christ 15 1 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of William A. Smith, DD. President of Randolph-Macon College , and Professor of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy., Lectures on the Philosophy and Practice of Slavery as exhibited in the Institution of Domestic Slavery in the United States: withe Duties of Masters to Slaves.. Search the whole document.

Found 25 total hits in 10 results.

America (Netherlands) (search for this): chapter 6
ce those of Dr. Channing and Prof. Whewell. The latter, in his Elements of morality states that slavery converts a person into a thing — a subject merely passive, without any of the recognized attributes of human nature. A slave, he further says, in the eye of the law which stamps him with that character, is not acknowledged as a man. He is reduced to the level of a brute; that is, as he explains it, he is divested of his moral nature. Dr. Channing, the great apostle of Unitarianism in America, says, The very idea of a slave is that he belongs to another: that he is bound to live and labor for another; to be another's instrument, that is, in all things, just as a threshing-machine, or another beast of burden; and to make another's will his habitual law, however adverse to his own He adds, in another place, We have thus established the reality and sacredness of human rights; and that slavery is an infraction of these, is too plain to need any labored proof. Slavery violates not o
Jesus Christ (search for this): chapter 6
blic or in private, declaring the relation of master and slave to be sinful! But, on the contrary, Paul's denunciation.--1 Tim. VI. 3--of the theachers of abolition doctrines, that they consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, is sufficient reason to believe that he was always understood to approve of the relation, and to condemn in express terms all attempts to abolish it as a duty of the religion which he taught. And certain it is, that this relation is made the subject of some of his most eloquent allusions, and the basis of some of his most instructive parables: One is your master, even Christ, Matt. XXIII. 10: Good master, what shall I do? Mark x. 17: No man can serve two masters, Matt. VI. 24--are specimens of the former; whilst the parable, Matt. XIII. 24-28, And the servants said, Wilt thou that we go and gather them up? --of the vineyard, Matt. XXI.; of the talents, Matt. XXV.; and others of a similar nature, are striking examples of th
Paul (search for this): chapter 6
either contracted to do so through his whole life, or who, by the usages of war, or by inheritance, or by purchase from another, was so bound to service--(such as Paul calls a servant under the yoke. 2 Tim. VI. 1.) These different relations are distinctly marked by the use of these terms in the Bible, and especially the meaning umstances, not a word is known to have escaped him, either in public or in private, declaring the relation of master and slave to be sinful! But, on the contrary, Paul's denunciation.--1 Tim. VI. 3--of the theachers of abolition doctrines, that they consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, is suffiognized far more stringent forms of slavery than that of the African in this country, at any period of its history — this view of the system will find no support. Paul and Peter, who wrote with special allusion to slaves under these laws, so far from regarding this personality as lost and swallowed up in the humanity of the maste
Whewell (search for this): chapter 6
inciple of slavery sanctioned by the Scriptures the Roman government Dr. Wayland's Scripture argument examined and refuted the positions of Dr. Channing and Prof. Whewell examined and refuted. the inquiry, if the institution of domestic slavery existing amongst us agrees in its details with the teachings of the Holy Scripturenot wholly unaccountable, misconceptions, if not gross misrepresentations, of the fundamental ideas of domestic slavery, we may place those of Dr. Channing and Prof. Whewell. The latter, in his Elements of morality states that slavery converts a person into a thing — a subject merely passive, without any of the recognized attribut and slave regards the slave as a brute, and not as an accountable man. The blind passivity of a corpse, or the mechanical obedience of a tool, which Channing and Whewell regard as constituting the essential idea of slavery, seems never to have entered the minds of the apostles. They considered slavery as a social and political ec
Wayland (search for this): chapter 6
ned according to the Scriptures the abstract principle of slavery sanctioned by the Scriptures the Roman government Dr. Wayland's Scripture argument examined and refuted the positions of Dr. Channing and Prof. Whewell examined and refuted. thxtreme form of controlling the wills of men, to be his appointment, God establishes the principle, as in itself right. Dr. Wayland, however, (see article, Modes in which Personal Liberty may be violated,) affirms, that the gospel is diametrically opright in them, not to grant them release would certainly be a denial of their just rights! Is this the sense in which Dr. Wayland would have us understand the Saviour of mankind? Certain it is, that this is the only sense in which his words can bef their humanity merely, we have proved; and whether they are so or not, by acquirement, is a practical question which Dr. Wayland allows that he is not competent to decide. This question will be met in another place. It is sufficient here to stat
Paley (search for this): chapter 6
y, in itself, the only rule of right; and that, in the case under consideration, domestic slavery was right for the Jews, because God so willed it, but the same thing in principle, and under similar circumstances, would be wrong for any other people, because in regard to them God had willed differently: thus assigning to Deity the power to make the wrong the right, and the right the wrong! We regret to know that this absurd view of the Divine volitions has found its way beyond the pages of Dr. Paley. It is countenanced by some writers of eminent distinction in theology. But to give it a definite application in any case, is all that is required for its entire refutation. We rely with confidence on the conclusion that what God thus provided for in the Jewish constitution, was right in principle in itself and that, under the circumstances of the Jewish people, it was right in practice. Among the strange, if not wholly unaccountable, misconceptions, if not gross misrepresentations,
Caesar (search for this): chapter 6
itself good. Moreover, it sanctions civil government in the most express terms: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, that is, the authority of government, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation, etc. (Rom. XIII. 1-7. See A. Clarke's notes.) This was said to the Roman Christians, and was an injunction to obey Caesar's government. In that government, it is well known, the slavery element greatly predominated: but little room was left for the exercise of self-control; political sovereignty being denied to the people. In declaring government, even in this extreme form of controlling the wills of men, to be his appointment, God establishes the principle, as in itself right. Dr. Wayland, however, (see article, Modes in which Personal Liberty may be violated,) affirms, that the gospel is diametrically oppos
A. Clarke (search for this): chapter 6
d: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, that is, the authority of government, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation, etc. (Rom. XIII. 1-7. See A. Clarke's notes.) This was said to the Roman Christians, and was an injunction to obey Caesar's government. In that government, it is well known, the slavery element greatly predominated: but little room was left for the exercise of self-control; poli of the nation, God proceeded to provide in their civil institutions for the operation of a regular system of domestic slavery. Under these institutions, a Hebrew might lose his liberty and become a domestic slave, in six different ways. (See A. Clarke, on Ex. XXI.) 1. In extreme poverty, he might sell his liberty. Lev. XXV. 39: If thy brother be waxed poor and be sold unto thee. 2. A father might sell his child. Ex. XXI. 7: If a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant. 3. Insol
Tim (search for this): chapter 6
e period; whilst bond servant is one who has either contracted to do so through his whole life, or who, by the usages of war, or by inheritance, or by purchase from another, was so bound to service--(such as Paul calls a servant under the yoke. 2 Tim. VI. 1.) These different relations are distinctly marked by the use of these terms in the Bible, and especially the meaning of bond servant, in distinction from a hired servant: If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto stic slaves. And in all this time, and under all these circumstances, not a word is known to have escaped him, either in public or in private, declaring the relation of master and slave to be sinful! But, on the contrary, Paul's denunciation.--1 Tim. VI. 3--of the theachers of abolition doctrines, that they consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, is sufficient reason to believe that he was always understood to approve of the relation, and to condemn in express
Channing (search for this): chapter 6
ioned by the Scriptures the Roman government Dr. Wayland's Scripture argument examined and refuted the positions of Dr. Channing and Prof. Whewell examined and refuted. the inquiry, if the institution of domestic slavery existing amongst us agr, misconceptions, if not gross misrepresentations, of the fundamental ideas of domestic slavery, we may place those of Dr. Channing and Prof. Whewell. The latter, in his Elements of morality states that slavery converts a person into a thing — a subed as a man. He is reduced to the level of a brute; that is, as he explains it, he is divested of his moral nature. Dr. Channing, the great apostle of Unitarianism in America, says, The very idea of a slave is that he belongs to another: that he ias a brute, and not as an accountable man. The blind passivity of a corpse, or the mechanical obedience of a tool, which Channing and Whewell regard as constituting the essential idea of slavery, seems never to have entered the minds of the apostles.