ï~~


ï~~


ï~~


ï~~'r4.
-.




ï~~0




ï~~'FIE

CAUSES OF INFIDELITY
REMOVED.
BY REVS STEPHEN R. SMITH.
11
UTICA:
GRtOSH AND HTJTCIIINSON.




ï~~I  Aimb    --      - -

al

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1839,
by GROSH AND HUTCHINSON, in the Clerk's Office of the
District Court of the United States, for the Northern Dis
trict of New-York.
f  Â~

4
)

C. C. P. GROSH, PRINTER




ï~~PREFACE.
in presenting the following pages to the public, it may be
proper to state that one of the principal motives of the writer, was to exhibit what he deemed the immediate causes of
Infidelity. This, he was not aware, had ever been done.
From nearly all who had written in defence of divine revelation, no such view of the subject was to be expected; as it
involve d the principles of their faith. And those, whose
general views accord with those of the writer, had in their
respective and excellent works, omitted to take this particular into consideration.
In the second part of the work, it was not intended to urge
what had been so often and so ably done by many others.
The principal object was to condense a series of proofs of a
revelation, from sources not usually appealed to-and some
of which were known to be regarded by unbelievers as entirely indefensible. The dispassionate reader will deter.
mine how far we have succeeded in repelling and turning
back the assaults of Infidelity on those parts of the Bible.
It may not be improper to state here, what the reader will
find repeated, that we have not always given authorities.
We have, howevers quoted none that we have not read-but
sometimes from memory alone. And while we would render "honor to whom honor" is due, it was deemed unnecessary to make reference to every sentiment imbibed from
others, when the language was our own.
Such as the work is, it is presented t  "ptelligent pub.
lic, to which the author feels deeply.d for many to
kens of charitable indulgence, in various ways-with the
fervent prayer that it may aid in removing the doubts of some,
and in strengthening the faith of others, in divine revelation.
Albany, N. Y., June, 1839.       S. R. SMITH.




ï~~


ï~~CONTENTS.
PART I.-CAUSES OF INFIDELITY.
Chapter I.-Introduction.
Chapter II.-Immoralities of Christians.
Chapter III.-Doctrine of the Trinity.
Chapter IV.-Of Atonement.
Chapter V.-Innate Depravity.
Chapter VI.--The nature of Punishment.
Chapter VII.-Endless Misery.
Chapter VIII.-Plenary Inspiration.
Chapter IX.-Nature of Inspiration.
Chapter X.-Extravagances of Christians.
Chapter XI.-False positions of Unbelievers.
Chapter XII.-Objections from Geology.
Chapter XIII.-Astronomny.
Chapter XIV.-Bigotry of Unbelievers.
Chapter XV.-Responsibility of Unbelievers.
PART II.-EVIDENCES OF REVELATION.

1
15
27
39
51
63
78
92
104
115
129
148
165
182
194

Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter

I.-Character of the Deity.
II.--Inspired Writers.
III.-Mosaic Institutions.
IV.-Superstition.
V.-Social System.
VI.-Consistency of Revelation.
VII.-Uselessness of Infidelity.

213
232
250
271
29]
320
341




ï~~


ï~~CAUSES OF INFIDELITY.

PART I.




ï~~I.




ï~~CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION.
That the questions-Is there a God? and if
so, Do the Scriptures contain a revelation of his
will, his purposes and our destiny? are the most
important which can engage the attention of the
human mind, seems incontrovertible. On them is
suspended the propriety and the proper direction
of the religious feeling-the brightest motives to
a life of integrity and virtue, and the dearest
hopes of the human heart.   That the truth in
relation to these subjects, though generally professed, is not always as well understood as might
be desirable, admits of little question. Indeed,
it is comparatively very recent, that any general
attention has been given to the subject.  The
mass of mankind-the general reader, took no
immediate part in its discussion. Its merits were
the matters of consideration in a world above
them-among the literati, polemics and theologians.
Several praise-worthy and very successful attempts have been made within a few years past,
to bring the evidences of the truth of a divine
revelation, more directly in reach cf all classes
1




ï~~2

INTRODUCTION.

of society. Labored and standard works have
been condensed, published in a cheap form, and
thus rendered more generally accessible.  Various new publications embracing all the common
arguments, have also been added to the means
of public information. Among these-those of
Messrs. Pickering, Thayer and Williamson, deservedly hold a distinguished place. And from
the size of their respective publications, as well as
the familiar style in which they are written, they
have probably reached the public mind, more
effectually, than any other kindred productions.
The subject, however, is far from being exhausted; and the field is rather opened than fully
improved.   Not that new and unknown arguments, or proofs, remain yet to be adduced-but
their bearings and results may perhaps be rendered moresimple, more obvious, and their effects
more certain. The probable, and perhaps manifest reasons of the popular infidelity* which prevails to some extent in our own country, may yet
be better understood-and should be understood,
for the same reason, that it is important to both
physician and patient that the nature of the disease be well ascertained. The best medicines
may otherwise be useless, or productive of little
* The terms " infidel," and " infidelity," are not
used as words to convey reproach-they are only employed ii the sense of "unbeliever, unbelief," and imply disbelief of the Bible and its doctrines.




ï~~1NaR0ftDUCTIOTi'.

benefit-while the disease is protracted beyond
all reasonable duration.
The arguments and evidences in favor of Christianity have been abundant, and would, under
other circumstances, have been satisfactory. But
while Christianity itself, is unexplained, or so presented as to make all the finer and better feelings
of the heart revolt at its forms or influences, the
unbeliever will persist in its rejection. He may
be convinced of the superior force of your argumnents; but he will impute that conviction to any
cause but the true one. He will not even suspect, that it is because you are right and he is
wrong. He will impute his own failure to inattention, or want of skill-and will refer your advantage to greater learning, higher talents, or
habits of controversy. Strip Christianity of the
encumbrances and corruptions which ignorance.
or superstition, or fraud has incorporated with itlet the unbeliever see, that instead of aspersing
the character of a benevolent Deity, its nature,
and principles, and requirements all harmonize
with the best conceptions of the Divine naturethat all its doctrines are consistent and reasonable, its purposes benevolent, and its influences
moralizing, and he will find new reasons for appreciating jour arguments, and new motives for
adopting the Christian profession.
The writer of this, has neither the vanity nor
presumption to suppose that he shall perform the




ï~~4

INTRODUGTTON'W

work of simplifying the Christian doctrine, or
rendering it more particularly acceptable to unbelievers. He aims to add his mite to the accumulating treasury of Christian knowledge,. and to the
proofs of the heavenly origin of the Gospel-.to
aid, if possible, in the diffusion of those great
truths on which the moral well-being and happiness of his fellow-men so much depend, and to
assist in removing the darkness and sorrows,
which forever brood over the mind of the unbeliever.
Under the existing circumstances of the Chris
tian world-such, in fact, as it has been for many
centuries-it is rather a matter of wonder, that
skepticism has been so rare, than that it has occasionally attracted attention, or numbered a few
men of the first talents among its votaries. For
to the most revolting dogmas, maintained by every
artifice that power could employ, has been added
a practice every way incompatible with a system
designed for the moral improvement of mankind.
The dispassionate looker-on is scarcely culpable
for his doubts respecting the divine origin of a
system so recommended.    Nor is it matter of
surprise, that these doubts have seldom been removed, when it is also recollected, that the skeptic, or unbeliever, has been treated as criminal,
ignorant and obstinate--that he was avoided as an
enemy, reprobated as a child of wrath, and denounced as a malicious disturber of the established




ï~~INTRODUC TION.:5

order of civil society. The miost that can be expected from such a state of things, is a covert
working and stealthy propagation of infidelity-a
silent under-current sapping the very foundations
of the visible religious fabric; and cautiously
waiting its time of development.  France saw
and felt the horrors of that time-and probably
other nations have escaped its terrors, by the nature of their institutions. With us, public opinion is free, and the unbeliever is invited, in common with the various sects, to the frank and manly
avowal of his principles. And the consequence
probably is, that while there are more known infidels among us, there are fewer in fact, than in
almost any other Christian country.
In view of these general facts, the conviction
has been forced upon the writer, that, with very
few exceptions, unbelievers have not generally received the courtesies to which they were entitled.
The harsh and contemptuous treatment to which
they have been subjected, was neither politic nor
kind. It has had great influence in preventing
their attention to the subject of religion; and has
neutralized the force and effect of many convincing proofs and conclusive arguments in favor of
Christianity.
We have been much gratified, that our brethren who have preceded us in these investigations,
have greatly improved upon the former method,
with unbelievers.  As men, they should not be




ï~~6

6           ~I TRODIJC T10.

denied the usual privileges of men-to believe
or disbelieve, without responsibility to man. And
we have too much experience of the feelings and
operations of human nature, to suppose that opinions of any kind are to be honestly abandoned or
renounced, merely because they may provoke the
disgust, the ridicule, or the reproach of others.
Nothing in the form of coercion ever did, or ever
can have any useful effect upon the mind of the
supposed heretic-nor is there any good reason
for believing, that its influence would be more
salutary when tried upon the unbeliever.
It shall be our endeavor therefore, to lay before the unbeliever, a view of the prominent
causes of his infidelity-to argue with him as a
man-and to present him such motives and reasons for the belief of a revelation in general, and
of Christianity in particular, that he shall do violence to his feelings, his reason and responsibilities
to reject them. And we greatly err in our estimate of the plainest grounds of human conductif, when the true character of God is known, it is
not loved--if, when the moral nature of man is
duly appreciated, he is not thought worthy of the
care of Heaven-and if, when the destiny of man
is perceived, the unbeliever does not rejoice in
becoming a Christian.
And as several doctrines and practices nf cer,
rain Christian sects, will be examined, for the
purpose of showing that they can not be maintain



ï~~INTRODUCTION.

7

ed in an argument with unbelievers, it is deemed
proper to apprise those concerned of the motives
for so doing. It is confidently believed, that
those doctrines and practices are the fruitful
causes of that very unbelief, which all Christians
are so desirous of removing from the human
mind. Hence, what is supposed to be untenable
and absurd in the creed of any class of Christians, will be frankly stated; and as far as consistent with our general plan, the reasons given
for its rejection.  Every candid Christian, of
whatever sect, must feel that the attempt to maintain any opinion or usage, not clearly supported
by the authority of the Bible, so far from serving,
must injure the cause of truth and virtue. It
will, therefore, constitute one part of our labor,
and we trust not an uninteresting part, to show
wherein certain views and practices are indispensable; and that, so long as they are maintained,
it must be at the expense, both of reason and
revelation. And it is hoped that Christian professors will exercise the candor which we all so
much desire to see practiced by unbelievers--review their opinions, expunge from their creed
every thing which is not authorised by the Scriptures, and which consequently does not admit of
defence; and instead of the extravagances of fanaticism, practice the manly and purifying virtues enjoined by the Gospel. Let no one fear to
do this. Christianity instead of suffering by the




ï~~INTRO~DUC TZiO rd

process, will come forth in greater purity, and in
a more amiable and interesting form.  Reason
and revelation alike approve of every honest endeavor to restore the Christian doctrine to its
original simplicity, and to the full measure of its
influence over the human mind.
In the arguments and proofs employed in the
following series of articles, in vindication of a
divine interposition, no attempt is made at originality.  Most of the works in support of the
Christian theology have been read-many of them,
however, for the general purpose of becoming
familiar with the subject, and to be able at all
times to meet the objections of unbelievers, to
whatever they related, and in whatsoever form
presented. And as this has been done for a term
of years, without any reference to the uses to
which such acquisitions are now about to be applied; it would perhaps be impossible for the
writer to give the proper credit in all cases. He
may have imbibed unconsciously, many ideas,
and even forms of expression, which have become
incorporated with his own views and phraseology
so intimately as no longer to be recognized by
himself as borrowed. And as he has no desire to
detract from the claims of others, or to use their
favors without acknowledgments and gratitude,
he will leave the reader to settle the right of property in all cases where no direct quotation is
made. We are really more concerned in the ac



ï~~tliTR0Z]UCT1ON.9

9

quisition and spread of the knowledge of the Gospel, than in the question, whether the argument
was first used by the facetious Berkeley, the indefatigable Lardner, the quaint and familiar Paley, or the interminable Chalmers. We would
give "honor to whom honor is due," but would
prefer being the humble instrument of imparting
the belief, the temper and the hopes of the Gospel to but one mind, to the honor of being the
author of more new ideas and arguments than
any one man has now a right to claim.
But the question may perhaps arise-why so
much solicitude on the subject of infidelity?
why urge upon the public mind, the consideration of that particular subject? why persist in
publishing book after book, and essay after essay,
when nothing new can be expected as proof, and
when the features and bearings of the arguments,
scarcely admit of further modification?  And
above all, why call upon the unbeliever to read a
number of works for which hlie has no taste?
There are at least two important reasons for
doing these things-reasons that will continue to
exist and be felt, while infidelity has a being; and
such reasons as the unbeliever can never feel, nor
properly appreciate. First-every Christian has
full evidence-the evidence of his own experience, that the happiness of mankind greatly depends on their belief of the Gospel. And to the
natural desire of seeing his opinions spread, and




ï~~10

INTRODUCTION.

become the favored theme of public faith, is added the sincere and ardent desire to remove the
evils and promote the happiness of the human
race. Faith in the Gospel, is among the most
obvious and effectual means for securing these
objects. And, secondly-if Christians remain silent on this subject, they leave the field open to
an industrious and active enemy; the youth
would want protection from the specious allurements which have been artfully thrown in their
way, and many minds would sink in darkness and
wretchedness which, by suitable attention, may
be preserved in faith, purity, and peace.
That unbelievers are active in the propagation
of their system-if system it is-will be perceived
when it is observed that they have ranged almost
every department of mind, and endeavored to
meet it in all its ramifications, pursuits and employments. And they do this without any prospect of moral benefit, or hope of future joy; for
the gratification of counting increasing numbers
and spreading a useless theory. Thus merging
every grade of character and every variety of
condition in one common tomb, where mind and
morals, and hope and joy are crushed beneath
the weight of a pervading and withering unbelief! And can they wonder, that the Christian
should be equally active-that those with holy
and heavenly hopes should find equal, or even
higher motives to exertion?




ï~~INTRODTICTION.

11

For however it may be doubted, the course
pursued by unbelievers, justifies and calls for
continued vigilance on the part of the friends of
Christianity. Every grade of society is assailed,
under some form, with efforts to wean them from
the faith of the Gospel. From the courtly and
insinuating sarcasm upon the page of standard
history, through plain-dealing assertions spread
over works of philosophy and physiology, down
to the humblest means of science and the ordinary associations of business men, all furnish the
means of urging doubts of the most important
and interesting truths-and all means are employed to plant deeply the seeds of infidelity.
And for what benevolent purpose is all this
machinery put in motion? What end is to be
gained-what worthy motive consummated-by
the propagation of infidelity? Will it make the
world wiser? This can scarcely be hoped, when
it annihilates some of the highest inducements
to seek after wisdom-and when it is recollected,
that many of the wisest of our race were Christians. Can it make men better?  This will not
be pretended--such a supposition is contrary to
the experience of fact, the evidence of every
man's senses. And that there are good and upright men among unbelievers, is no objection
to this statement.  There are innumerable examples of superior triumphs over temptations and
death among believers. Will it make men hap



ï~~12

INTRODUCTION.

pier?  No one believes that it can do so. For
there is no reason to suppose that the mere virtues of an unbeliever can impart a purer or a
higher felicity, than those of the Christian. And
it were preposterous, or insane to suppose, that
to go down to the grave with no hope of future
life, can make the death-bed as peaceful and
happy as the prelibations of another and a glorious state of conscious being. What, then, is
the probable motive?   Evidently to carry a
point--to witness the triumph of what many no
doubt conscientiously maintain for truth, reckless
of all consequences of "weal or wo" to mankind.*
But the Christian not only has different, but
vastly higher motives for spreading the knowledge, and promoting the faith of the Gospel.
He feels that his views are essential to the social,
intellectual and moral well-being of his race.
And that they are calculated to add dignity to
wisdom, purity to the principles of the heart and
the practices of the life, comfort and enjoyment,
under every vicissitude of fortune, and peace and
submission in death. He is assured, that to point
out the way that leads alienated m"-n back to his
* Perhaps another motive for the promotion of infidelity, may be found in the desire to eradicate certain
opinions and practices, against which unbelievers have
conceived dislike, or with which they have been disgusted; under the erroneus impression that thereby they
should benefit mankind.                  G.




ï~~INTRODUCTION.

13

God, is to the religious feeling, what a message
of kindness from a parent, is to a prodigal child.
The Gospel directs the best and the holiest affections of the human heart, to their proper objectsconcentrates them in gratitude and devotion to
the Deity, and illustrates their uses and tendency
in benevolence to man. It exalts, while it multiplies the reasons for a life of virtue, and it sanctifies that virtue with hopes as blissful as they are
glorious and enduring.
This series of articles on infidelity, is not intended as part of a plan commenced in other recent publications, nor was it suggested by the
appearance of those works.  The attention of
the writer had been drawn to the consideration of
the subject some years since, from several causes
-among these, the suggestions of several valued
friends. And he had arranged the general outline, as well as the mode of publication, before it
was known that any work on the same general
subject was in contemplation.
The principal inducement to this mode of publication, was furnished by the certainty of placing
the subject immediately in the hands of a much
greater number of readers, than could be expected from any other method. For it is unfortunately too true, that the great majority of even
general readers, have never been in possession of
the usual arguments for a divine revelation. Their
knowledge of the subject is principally derived




ï~~14

INTRODUCTION.

from the recollection of a few sermons, or an occasional article from the press. And what is thus
gleaned is often rendered of little value, from the
confused and indefinite impressions which have
been retained.
To this mode of publication, there is but one
important objection-it is, that the several essays
must be extended to considerable length, which
will deter many readers from undertaking the labor. But this consideration is at least balanced
by the certainty, that all such readers must be
reached in this way, or not at all; since those who
would hesitate at a single chapter, would never
commence reading a book.




ï~~CHAPTER II.

IMMORALITIES OF CHRISTIANS.
It may appear singular, that we should attempt
to assign reasons for the conduct of other people--
especially when that conduct involves some of the
most intricate operations of the human mind.
For such, the mental decisions respecting the
truth and tendency of the Christian revelation,
are generally considered. And it may, therefore,
be viewed by some as a presumptuous undertaking.
Those who thus judge, are informed, then, that
nothing bold, daring or uncommon is intended.
But it is very sincerely believed, that this subject-the causes of unbelief-has not received the
attention which its importance merits, either from
unbelievers themselves, or from Christian professors. And it will receive consideration for some
little time, more from the desire of drawing upon
it that portion of attention which it deservesthan from the hope that its discussion will be
very agreeable, either to Christians in general, or
to unbelievers.
Men sometimes act or decide on a given subject, much less from the weight of well under



ï~~16

IMMORALITIES OF CHRISTIANS.

stood motives, than from the immediate influence
of some impelling cause. And among the instances which might be adduced in illustration
of this fact, there are few which appear more
certain and obvious, than the existing infidelity
among mankind. For it is difficult to conceive
of any sufficient motive for unbelief, in the mind
of any man. And surely no person is naturally
an infidel, however indifferent or inattentive he
may be to the interests of religion. The natural
tendencies of the mind and feelings are to the
belief in, and worship of some superior beinga fact abundantly proved in the practice of all
nations, in every period of time.
We have used the term motive, in this instance,
not with a view to reproach unbelievers for their
opinions, or want of opinions, but rather to exonerate them from any improper designs in their
adoption.  For none can suppose, that merely
to differ from the majority on the subject of religion, is an object of such importance as to furnish a motive for the disagreement. Nor can it
be imagined, that to shut one's self out from the
consciousness that there is a God, and from all
the pleasures of devotion, and from the belief that
he has made known his will to mankind, can constitute a motive for infidelity. Neither is it probable that the effort with which the religious feeling must be stifled in the human breast, furnishe3
such motive. Nor yet is it scarcely possible,




ï~~IMMORALITIES OF CHRISTIANS.

17

that the exclusive love of truth, ever led men
into absolute unbelief. For unbelievers are not
distinguished for the patient and deliberate examination of religious subjects.  And were they
ever to become so, there is good reason to believe that they would cease to be unbelievers.
But admitting that there are no sufficient motives
for infidelity, there still must be producing causes
--what are they?
There are several prominent, existing causes of
infidelity, which have their separate and distinct,
as well as their collective influence. And to these
particular influences may, perhaps, be traced the
various aspects which unbelief assumes.
1. One cause of skepticism, is-the imperfection
of morality anmong Christians. This is, in reality,
a compliment to the purity required by the Gospel; and should have an effect exactly the reverse of the one named.   For it is admitting,
that if Christian professors were to live up to the
principles and requirements of their religion, they
would be far better than at present. And consequently, that those requirements are good. But
this view of the subject, if taken, does not incline people to make any allowance for the inperfections and weaknesses of poor human na.
ture-nor to look more favorably upon Christianity.
*From the natural tendency of the human mind,
principles and practices, if not absolutely ideuti2




ï~~18

1 ~fMRA~rIflES OF' CHXISTYIANS.

fled, are, at least, very intimately associated. And
as actions are more tangible than mere mental
operations, and also usually esteemed more important, it follows that more stress is laid upon the
conduct of men, than upon the principles of the
mind. When, therefore, the conduct is vicious,
the common inference is, either that the person
is unprincipled-or that his principles are corrupt and vitiating. Hence some well-disposed
persons are led to doubt the genuineness and
utility of a system, which leaves its professors to
the practice of vice. And the vices of nominal
Christians, have been the stumbling-blocks that
have turned many aside from the path of peace,
into doubts, disgust and unbelief.
That much crime-nay, perhaps every variety
in the catalogue of crime-has been committed
by professing Christians, is neither to be doubted
nor denied. From the most cruel and unrelenting wars, oppressions and persecutions, down to
the lowest and the vilest of personal atrocities,
there is probably not an offence against morality
of which they have not been guilty. And while
these facts have been the sources of deep mortification and sorrow to all good Christians, they
have laid in other minds the foundation of an unnatural skepticism. That observation, however,
which recognizes the abuses of the moral injunctions of the Gospel, is entitled to due consideration. And it should induce the believer to ex



ï~~IMMORALITIES OF iXb 1XAM.    1

19

amine with great care, into the probable reasons
of the previous and existing immoralities of Christians.
One obvious and important reason why the virtues inculcated by the Gospel, have not been
more generally practiced, is-they have unfortunately been undervalued by Christians themselves.
A. state of things has existed-a system of opinions has prevailed, which has placed a false and
exaggerated estimate upon mere belief; and
which, consequently, rendered morality a subject
of secondary consideration.  Men believed, and
still believe that the virtues are not of saving efficacy, but that faith and forms are; and consequently, that however good virtue may be in itself, it is not indispensable to salvation, and that
the violation of its requirements may be atoned
for, by the ceremonials of religion. Now, although
these facts do not constitute an apology for crimes,
still they do furnish reasons why the morality of
Christians has not been better.
And these influences have been greatly augminented by other well-meant mistakes. Ministers
have preached, and people have as constantly believed, that the practice of the Christian virtues
was the sure way to render men miserable now,
although it might secure their bliss hereafter.
While, on the other hand, the pursuit of vicious
indulgences has been very uniformly regarded
and represented as the only true way of present




ï~~20

IMMOftALITIES OF CHRISTIANS.

happiness. And it must also be recollected, that
these views of the respective means of present
happiness or misery, are deeply laid in the young
and susceptible mind-grow with the growth, and
strengthen with the strength of successive generations. So surely then, as man loves happiness
and would avoid misery, so certainly may we look
for vices, while he supposes them the instruments
of his present enjoyment.  The operations of
the natural laws of cause and effect, here exert a
part, at least, of their wonted influence over the
conduct of men. And the principles of the mind
being corrupted-the moral feelings weakened
and vitiated-it is no longer matter of surprise
that strong and ardent passions should, in many
instances, assume the right of control, and precipitate the believer into the very depths of crime
and degradation.
But Christian morality has encountered otlier,
and perhaps still greater discouragements. 4
hand, cold and palsying as that of death, has been
laid upon the germs of human virtue; and apparently for no other purpose than their extermination. What else could have inspired the thought,
or have prompted the earnest propagation of the
opinion-that under that very condition in which
man was introduced into being, he was wholly
corrupt. That his best thoughts and purposes
were sinful, and his best actions but "splendid
crimes."  That the affections of the soul were




ï~~[MMORAUITIES OF CHRISTIANS.

21

polluted by an affinity with the first born of our
race, and its final destiny would only be rendered
more wretched by any attempts at moral obedience.
That must be a hardy and well-rooted plant
which can flourish, er even live under such cultivation. And yet, such is the care and culture
which the Christian virtues have received.for ages.
In view of all this, it ceases to be matter of
surprise, that professing Christians have been
guilty of crimes-or that under this head of discouragements, their morality should languish.
Nor is it wonderful that some are.. tempted to
doubt the heavenly origin of such sentimentsor even to question, the divinity of a system of
which they are supposed to constitute a part. At
the same time, they fully account for the ridiculous and disgusting fact, that some persons are
more devout than moral. And they should convince their advocates, that the sin of unbelief lies,
in part at least, at their own doer. While, on the
other hand, the skeptic should be led to search
for the causes which have prevented morality
from wholly sinking under its burdens. And that
it has not thus sunk, even among Christians, ought
to satisfy him that there is a divine energy somewhere in the religion of the Gospel, and which
secures among its professors, an overwhelming
majority of candid and upright members.
' It is then worthy of the attention and earnest
consideration of die skeptic, whether the imm



ï~~Â~$0

IMMORALITIES OF CHIRfISTIANS.

ralities of Christians properly have, or can have
any bearing upon the credibility of the Gospel.
They are the subject of deep regret to every
well-wisher to Christianity, as well as of pain to
the philanthropist. But still, it is not a little extraordinary, that with the acuteness of vision possessed by unbelievers, they should be able to
perceive little in the Christian character except
offences. Nothing else is clearly and distinctly
seen; and this is very certain to be first seen and
made the subject of animadversion. And this,
notwithstanding the notorious fact that, in every
Christian community, of every age and sect, the
offenders against the ordinary rules of morality,
are comparatively few in numbev. While, on the
contrary, no one class of men on earth, have furnished so large a proportion of those who may
justly be considered the ornaments of human nature. The catalogue of those who have shone
pre-eminently in their respective spheres, as the
benefactors of mankind, and as illustrious models
of moral purity, is immensely too great to admit
of enumeration. While millions in humble and
private life, have carried out into full practice the
benevolent principles of a pure and heavenly morality. Nor need we search the records of bygone days, nor go abroad for examples: they are
to be found every where around and among us, in
the lives of the thousands and tens of thousands
of Christian worshippers of ahvost every name,




ï~~mIMORALITIES OF CHRISTIANS.

23

And we beg leave to press the question-why
these things are never considered by skeptics, as
well as the faults of Christians?  Why that
morality, which has triumphed over so many discouragements--dif'used so many meliorations
over suffering humanity, and so greatly improved
the moral condition of society-should seem to
be overlooked, or disregarded?
The unbeliever would consider it unmanly and
unfair, to charge the follies or vices of a few individuals of his fraternity, to the weakness or corruption of his system. And he would, with great
propriety, demand that the virtues of other members should be taken into the account. This indulgence we must give him, or his system would
fall at once. For it is not yet well ascertained,
that skepticism, or infidelity, professes to improve,
or that it was ever known to improve the morals
of any man. And this indulgence we are willing
to grant-but we claim what we give, with the
fullest confidence in the superiority of Christian
morality over every other system that ever claimed
the attention of mankind; the opinions of skeptics, and the acknowledged vices of professors, to
the contrary notwithstanding.
We deny, then, that the views of the nature,
imperfection and uselessness of morality, which
have been here stated, are any part of Christianity.
And we demand as our privilege, that the unbeliever give so much attention to the subject, as




ï~~24

IMMORALITIES OF CHRISTIANS.

may enable him to distinguish between the corruptions of Christianity, and its pure and primitive principles as taught and exemplified by the
Saviour and his apostles. This he can do at a
small sacrifice of labor and attention, and this he
is bound to do before he takes for granted, that
any set of opinions are the same with those maintained by the New Testament. He should know,
by a candid examination of the subject, whether
the utter worthlessness of moral virtue is a doctrine of Christianity, or one of its corruptionsand reflect, that the malpractices of erring man,
are no proof that his faith is ill-founded, or that
the confidence of his hopes is unjustifiable. And
if he does not do this, but rejects unceremoniously
the whole system of Christian revelation, as doubtful or untrue, he must assure himself that others
will suspect him of having more zeal to escape
from error, than industry in ascertaining where
the error lies.
Let the unbeliever go to the New Testament,
and he will learn that Jesus taught his followers
to practice a better righteousness than that of the
Scribes and Pharisees-the great religionists of
his nation-and that he exemplified in his own
practice the nature of the virtues he required.
From the same book he will also learn that the
apostles required of the first Christian converts,
a departure from all iniquity, and that they should
keep themselves unspotted, unpolluted from the




ï~~IMMORALITIES OF CHRISTIANS.

25

world. They thus not only enforced an entire
and pure morality, but they denied the name and
the privileges of discipleship to all those who disobeyed their injunctions. From whatever cause,
then, the immoralities of professors may proceed,
that cause is not found in the precepts of the
Gospel, or in the example of the first propagators
of Christianity.
He, therefore, who allows himself to doubt of
the truth of divine revelation in general, or of the
Christian religion in particular, because some
Christians undervalue morality, and therefore do
not most effectually promote its practice-or because, from erroneous views, or human frailty,
others fall into crimes-does one, or all of the
following things.
1. He permits himself to judge hastily and on
insufficient evidence, when the means of full and
ample information are in his hands. And he does
this, because he takes but a very partial view of
the subject. This no one can doubt, who recollects that he doubts the truth of Christianity, or
rejects it entirely from the single consideration,
that some of its professors are immoral.  The
virtues of other Christians ought certainly to be
esteemed as good evidence in favor of its moral tendency-especially when the number of the virtuous greatly exceeds that of the vicious; and when
that evidence is supported by the visible fact, that




ï~~26

IMMORALITIES OF CHRISTIANS.

where Christianity has prevailed, the morality of
mankind has been uniformly improved. Or,
2. He identifies the opinions of a certain body of
professors, with the thing professed, without ever
instituting a comparison between them. This
the unbeliever or skeptic generally does, by taking
for granted, that the opinions respecting the moral depravity of man-the sinful tendencies of his
actions, and the worthlessness of virtue, are the
identical doctrines and teachings of the New
Testament. This has been shown to be incorrect,
and we have a right to expect that he will at least
examine both sides of the question before he
draws his conclusions. Else,
3. He betrays an indolence which he will not
excuse in others, and judges by rules which he
condemns. For he would not trust for a moment,
the credibility of his views upon the moral conduct, or moral requirements of the sternest advocates of infidelity; nor allow the Christian to
be a competent judge of the merits of a book
which he had never read,




ï~~CHAPTER III.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
It is far from being an agreeable reflection, to
feel compelled to grapple with two adversaries at
one and the same time. Yet there are connexions and relationships of such a nature and
character, that you can never disagree with one
of the members, without involving a controversy
with the whole family. Such is our present predicament. There is an affinity so intimate, between the existing infidelity, and the corruptions
of Christianity now strenuously maintained by a
large majority of professing Christians, that it is
believed to be utterly impossible to do justice to
the former, without giving offence to the latter.
It is matter of consolation, however, that if those
corruptions can be removed, the skepticism and
unbelief which have been built upon them, will
want their present foundation; and many Christians gain a more intelligible and consistent faith.
To aid in effecting these objects, is believed to
be worthy of more exertion, than has, at all times,
been employed by those who have seen and deplored its necessity.




ï~~'28

DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

A second reason for skepticism or infidelity,
is undoubtedly to be found in certain doctrines
ranked among the fundamentals of the Christian
church. These are, and have been very nearly
the same for some fourteen or fifteen centuries;
whether considered as appertaining to Catholics
or Protestants.  The first of these in order as
well as importance, is the favorite doctrine of the
trinity-the actual existence of three distinct and
equal persons in the Godhead.
There is something so revolting to reason, so
repugnant to all our ideas of number and consistency, in this prevailing dogma, that it is matter
of wonder-not that so many, but that so few,
comparatively, reject the whole system of which
this is supposed a part. For it plainly involves,
not only the palpable absurdity that three are one,
and one is three, but several others of similar
character and equal importance to the simplicity
of truth. It supposes that one, separately and
individually, is equal to all three-and three, only
equal to one. It also supposes that, however
they may differ from each other as individuals,
they are yet precisely and eternally alike-that
though one may be a son and another a father,
neither existed prior or subsequent to the other--
and that while one is exclusively just, and another merciful, yet they are alike merciful and just,
Now it cortainly ought not be considered marV!!ous, that a system including such opinions,




ï~~DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

29

or supposed to embrace them, should be rejected
as crroneous; or that those who have not been
at the pains to ascertain, or are not disposed to perform the labor of ascertaining whether the Bible
inculcates such opinions, should treat the whole
as a miserable piece of jugglery, designed by its
mysticism and unintelligibility to impose upon the
ignorant.  And it must be confessed, that few
things could be devised, more effectually calculated to drive men into infidelity. Such has doubtless been its tendency in the minds of thousands;
while others have bowed their reason before it in
patient submission, and confessed their inability
to understand its nature, or to explain its principles.
However absurd men may sometimes be, there
is yet a general disposition to appear consistent.
And if we make a few exceptions, they commonly
are so, as far as their means will allow. And
strange as the fact may appear to some, there is
a tendency to consistency even in matters of religion. This is demonstrated by the splendid labors and success of the reformers, and the repeated
attempts at innovation upon antiquated systems.
But in some instances, of which the doctrine
under consideration furnishes an example, this
tendency is counteracted by special considerations.  For there is probably not a living man
who would be a trinitarian, if left unmolested to
the formation of his own system of theology-a




ï~~30

DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

probable fact, that would by no means diminish
the number of sincere Christians.
But Christian professors, so far from being permitted to determine this subject for themselves,
have in some sense, been compelled to adopt that
doctrine, however revolting to their reason. The
strength of the religious feeling induced them to
make the profession of its belief, when they could
not reconcile their understandings to its singular
absurdities. They were religious themselves, and
desired the communion of kindred worshippers;
and in order to obtain this privilege, yielded up
their ideas of consistency on the altar of the
standard doctrines of the church. But there is
every reason for believing, that could the blessings
of social and Christian fellowship have been as
certainly obtained and as fully enjoyed without
assenting to the doctrine of the trinity, its profession had never been made. And this, without
impeaching the purity of the motives, or the sincerity of the profession and conduct of a single
individual of the vast multitude of trinitarian worshippers.
We do not stop here to parley with the unbeliever, for flying off in a tangent from Christianity,
because he found this doctrine of the tri-personality of the Deity in the hands of its professors.
At present, our business is with the fact, that it
is considered a constituent of the Christian doctrine--why and how it has been transmitted down




ï~~DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

31

to our own times, and what causes still operate
in its perpetuation. The same causes, in general,
which have operated in the transmission of this
dogma through successive ages, for about fifteen
hundred years, are yet exerting their influence in
its preservation for some time to come. Yet as
certainly as truth is mighty-as that superior
means of investigation prompt their more effectual use-so certain will the time come when it
will be expunged from the symbols of the church;
and one God, in one person, will be every where
acknowledged and adored by the professing Christians. The skepticism to which it has given rise,
will then cease to be, and one new reason exist
for the conversion of the unbeliever to the virtue,
peace and hopes of a consistent system of religion and a Heaven-derived Gospel.
It need scarcely be- said, that, for many ages,
men were literally compelled by the application
of human laws-and secular laws too-to profess
the doctrine of the trinity. And that these alone
were sufficient to fix that, or any other system of
views, in the public mind so firmly, as to secure
their transmission from age to age, while the state
of civil society would permit such laws to exist.
They gave the first impulse to the doctrine in
question, which diffused it over the Roman empire-not without opposition, but with final success. The familiarity of habit, the want of means
by which to institute and carry on a full and satis



ï~~32

DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

factory examination of the subject, and sundry
other causes which continue their respective influences, secured and perpetuated the triumph of
an opinion which began its reign in contention
and blood.
1. Among the more prominent of these causes,
we may reckon the direct influence of public
opinion over the great mass of mankind. It seems
to be presumed that the majority in such matters,
must be right-and that what is generally believed,
and has long been believed, must of course be
true. This is congenial with the extreme unwillingness evidently felt by mankind, to perform the
labor of ascertaining the truth by personal investigation. Hence they too commonly acquiesce
in public opinion, on the supposition that competent persons have, at some time, ascertained in
a satisfactory manner, the truth of the subject in
question. How much the doctrine of the trinity
owes to this consideration, alone, we presume not
to determine.  But it is not difficult to perceive
that those who profess it on this ground, and those
who reject Christianity because that doctrine is
maintained by its professors, judge and act from
nearly the same reasons-because neither class
has examined the subject!
2. Others, again, adopt and profess the doctrine of the trinity, because they have perfect confidence in their religious teachers. They are fully
assured of the learning and talents of their spi



ï~~DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

33

ritual guides-that they have devoted the labor of
their lives to the study of the Scriptures, and that
they could have no sufficient motives to deceive
themselves, or to impose upon mankind. And
they therefore consider it safe to believe the doctrinfle, though they never expect to understand it
themselves, nor to be able to explain it to the understanding of others. The feeling of inconvenience to which this subjects them, is allayed by
the satisfactory assurance, that there are those
who see through, and can explain the subject in
a clear and convincing manner. These teachers,
in the mean time, may in turn argue in much the
same way; and may consequently be as conscientious in propagating, as their hearers are in believing what neither can explain or fully understand.
3. Another reason why this doctrine maintains
its ground in the Christian church, is, that it is considered a sacred subject, and must not be examined. That there is a sort of impiety in calling
in question the verity of so ancient and well-established a doctrine of the church; and that he
who should dare do this, would jeopardise his
religion here, and his happiness hereafter. It is
not difficult to conceive the terror and dismay
with which these considerations would strike the
hearts of many candid and upright men; nor the
expedients to which they would resort, rather
than hazard the visitation of such alarming con3




ï~~34       DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY,
sequences. And though compulsion is a strong
term when so applied, it is probably very near the
meaning of that certain something, which controls the profession of men so circumstanced.
4. Another consideration which has great weight
in enforcing assent to the dogma of the trinity,
is, the almost universal impression that if it be not
a matter of reason, it is one of revelation; and
that revelation may require the belief of any position, however repugnant to reason. The influence of this belief, has been further strengthened
by the equally general opinion, that human reason has become so monstrously perverted in consequence of sin, as to be wholly insufficient for
determining the propriety or impropriety, the
truth or falsehood of any subject appertaining to
religion.  Hence, the wise and the unwise, the
learned and the ignorant are alike deterred from
reasoning on the trinitarian hypothesis, from a
fastidious diffidence of the capabilities of the human mind to grapple with a subject so much
above its powers of comprehension. The whole
subject is therefore resolved into one grand and
indefinable mystery, and to be received as such,
because no finite powers can fathom its profundity.
Such are the prominent reasons why the singularly absurd doctrine of the trinity, not only
has been believed, but continues to command the

assent of a large proportion of the Christian world.




ï~~DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

35

Its rudiments were laid in the philosophical opinions of some of the early Gentile converts to Christianity: and it was superinduced upon the doctrine of the Gospel from tie very natural desire,
while that was unpopular, of rendering it respectable in the eyes of the world-hence it was invested with the machinery of an ineffable mysticism,
and the celestial splendors of a trinity of divine
persons. Ecclesiastical authority, aided by the
strong arm of the civil law, enforced a general acquiescence in its supposed or assumed truth, and
habit, and the reasons above assigned, sustained
its orthodoxy through successive generations.
But the trinity was never a doctrine of the Bible-and but a very small number of passages
from that book could ever, by any possible effort,
be pressed into its service. And of that few, there
is not one which does not, without violence, admit of a totally different meaning and application.
It would be an abuse of time, and of the patience
of the reader, to introduce the proofs of these
facts in this. place. It is sufficient for our present
purpose to say-that the Bible knows but one
God; one mediator, the man, Christ Jesus; and
one holy spirit of truth and grace. This we are
required to believe, not merely because it is matter of revelation, but because it is also consistent
with the dictates of sober reason.
It is denied, therefore, that this absurd dogma
constitutes any part of Christianity-it can be




ï~~36

DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

spared from the fabric without disturbing a stone
of the original structure. Nay, more-its entire
removal would be like taking an earthly incrustation from the diamontl, and allowing it to display
its native brilliancy and purity. Nor can it reasonably be supposed that it was originally a part
of the Christian system, so long as that claimed
an adaption to the human mind under all its varieties and gradations of knowledge. For none
can presume, that the doctrine of the trinity is a
subject of very easy apprehension. The most
capacious intellects sink under the effort, and acknowledge their inability to comprehend or explain its nature.
But the infidel seems never to know that this
doctrine is not one of Christianity. He has never
been at the trouble to compare it with the doctrine
of the Bible, from which it is professedly taken,
but takes the existing opinion as a legitimate part
of the great economy of divine revelation. In this
he imitates the most passive believer in the trinitarian hypothesis, and places implicit confidence
in the discernment and fidelity of its teachers.A fact, of which he is probably not aware, and
which should teach him more charity for those
whom he sarcastically denominates a priest-ridden
multitude, and reproaches with being blindly led
by the nose. It is difficult in such a case, to determine which betrays the greater blindness-he
who adopts, or he who rejects a system without




ï~~DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

37

examination. Whichever it may be, one thing is
certain and apparent-they are alike ignorant of
the facts on which they ostensibly found their respective determinations. And the claim of either
to superior discernment, is equally preposterous,
since the views of both are the result of any thing
rather than knowledge.
This, however, is not the view which the unbeliever takes of the subject. He conceives himself
a philosopher, and fancies that great deference is
due to his judgment, because he has detected one
or more absurdities in the doctrine of the trinity.
And is this all--really all that he has done? No
-he has on the strength of his discovery, become
--not a more enlightend and rational Christian,
as he should have done, but an infidel! He should
have known, that tldie discovery of absurdities in
that doctrine amounts to nothing; for there is
probably not a believer of it in all the Christian
world, who ever thought it reconcilable with the
deductions of reason.
Admitting, then, what is perhaps not to be denied, that the unbeliever has been made so by the
doctrine of the trinity; still there is little merit in
seeing difficulties in a system which are seen more
or less clearly by every one. The only important
difference is, he rejects not only that doctrine, but
Christianity with it-while some believe in the
Gospel without that dogma, and others maintain
both together. And we can not but think that




ï~~38

DOCTAINE Of' THE ThINITY.

system built upon a very unstable foundation,
which rests upon the single consideration of the
impossibility of the truth of an absurd theory,when
that theory, whether true or false, can not affect
the truth of the subject in dispute. Infidelity, so
far as based on the doctrine of the trinity, appears to be founded on a mistake-and it is not
easy to see how a system can be true, when its
premises are false.
We do not blame the unbeliever for rejecting
the doctrineof the trinity-but the vast importanceo f the subject, should induce him to examine with great care, whether that doctrine is any
part of divine revelation. And that the subject
is important, every one must perceive and feel,
who reflects that the direction and improvement
of the religious feeling, the highest and most worthy motives to the practice of virtue, and the
hopes and comforts flowing from the belief in a
future state of glory and felicity, depend on the
belief or disbelief of Christianity. He therefore
who rejects the Christian system, because, in the
process of ages it has received the addition of a
few human devices, acts much like one who
should refuse an ancient gold coin, because its
pristine brightness had been observed.




ï~~CHAPTER IV.

OF ATONEMENT.
Next to the doctrine of the trinity in importance,
is that of atonement. The one being, in fact, indispensable to the other, according to prevailing
opinion. For if it were necessary that such an
atonement should be made, as is commonly supposed, it is certain that nothing less than a Deity
could accomplish the work, or make the sacrifice.
And yet such sacrifice, could it have been requisite to vindicate the Divine justice and secure the
everlasting salvation of the human race, would
furnish one important reason why some persons
must reject it, and thereby fail of ever receiving
its benefits. For unless some more consistent
view of the divine economy should win them to
the faith of the Gospel, they must fall into irreclaimable infidelity.
In view of these consequences, we venture to
urge the claims of the doetrine of universal salvation in reference to this subject, upon the attention of unbelievers, as well as upon that of believers in the common doctrine of atonement. It
appears to the writer, that Universalism comes in




ï~~40

OF ATONEMENT,

between the prevailing infidelity and the popular
plan of atonement, as a reconciling spirit-making
peace where perpetual discord reigned, by winning
one party to consistency and the other to the obedience of faith. For while it ascribes to Jesus the
office of mediator, it supposes that the Deity sent
him-not to avert the wrath, but to commend the
love of God to man-not to endure punishment
in our stead, but to impart to us the true knowledge of God, and lead us to the practice of virtue, that we might no longer deserve chastisement. Universalism does not interpose the Son
of God between the divine justice and our final destiny; but makes him the distinguished instrument
of teaching us how to comply with the requisitions of eternal equity, and thereby enabling us
to enter upon a present salvation by ceasing to sin,
and to enjoy a present heaven in the hope of a
glorious immortality. In one word-it maintains
that atonement consists, not in reconciling God to
man, but man to God.
The common doctrine of atonement is simply
this-man by transgression had incurred a debt of
infinite and endless suffering, to divine justice.
This debt it was impossible for him to pay-this
suffering he could not endure, and yet be saved.
Jesus Christ, therefore, being equal with the Father in wisdom, power and eternity, interposed,
took upon him our natures aiuffered the penalty
of our sins, satisfied the demands of offended aad




ï~~OF ATOIEMENT.

41

violated justice in our stead; and now claims for
his own, all those whom God gave him in the
covenant of redemption. Hence by this system,
those who are the subjects of atonement and consequently of salvation, are exempted from the just
punishment of their sins.
This doctrine is liable to very serious charges
for its palpable tendency, as well as to insurmountable objections on account of its inconsistency.
And it has probably exerted its full share of influence, in driving men into skepticism or open infidelity. And this, not because it is more absurd
than the doctrine of the trinity, or than some
others which will be hereafter considered-nor yet
because it has less foundation in the Scriptures;
but because it is so often dwelt upon, and thrust
forward as the all of grace, and the only substantial basis of Christian hope. From the perpetual
and great stress laid upon it, one might imagine
that it was a paramount object to render the subject so familiar to every mind, that its cruelty and
absurdity should be overlooked. Just as intimate
acquaintances become insensible to each other's
defects, or imperfections.
There are several considerations growing out
of this doctrine, which must strike the mind of
every reflecting person, as especially incompatible
with the character of God, and inconsistent with
the plan of his moral government.




ï~~12

OF ATONEMENT.

1. It supposes that the actual sufferings for
sin-infinite sufferings too-are not endured by
the guilty who deserved them, but by the supremely innocent Son of God. This is a sad reflection upon the character of the Deity, because
it implies that it is a matter of perfect indifference
to him, and to the moral attributes of his nature,
and to the principles of his administration, who
suffers, so long as the whole amount of punishment is endured. It would seem impossible that
any man could be serious in thus traducing the
divine character, if we had not abundant evidence
to the contrary, every where around us, and before our eyes. But how men can permit themselves to ascribe to their heavenly Father, a degree of cruelty which they would never once think
of ascribing to man, bad as he is, it is not easy to
determine. And should any man endeavor to
carry out this doctrine in the government of his
family, and punish an innocent and unoffending
child instead of the disobedient, the most tenacious believers in its truth would, no doubt, be
among the first to exclaim against its absurdity and
cruelty.
As the Father of mankind, we can not suppose
the Deity indifferent to the influence of his moral
government over them. Hence, also, it can not
be inferred with any show of propriety, that when
punishments must be inflicted, he is indifferent on
whom they fall. For as the administrator of eter



ï~~OF ATONEMENT.

43

nal equity, he must have motives for the infliction of chastisements which, it may be presumed,
might render it inconsistent to punish one in place
of another, and especially, one for all. But if
there were no obstacles in the way of consistency
and propriety, on the supposition that punishment
is inflicted on the innocent instead of the guilty
and deserving, so far as the Deity, himself, is concerned; still there is at least some difficulty, in
reconciling such a course of discipline, with our
notions of strict and impartial justice. The nature and principles of justice are eternal and immutable. And they are the same in character,
however they may differ in degree, both in God
and man. If, then, strict justice in all reason demands the punishment of the guilty-and none
but the guilty-on what principle of equity can
the innocent be punished, and the guilty spared?
Certainly in the eye of reason, this is even more
cruel and unjustifiable than those petty inflictions
of capricious tyranny, which involve the innocent
and the guilty in the same condemnation.
Now, the unbeliever considers it a matter of perfect indifference, as far as equity or consistency
is concerned, whether this plan of punishing the
innocent for the guilty, be pursued by God or man.
And he does, and will regard it in the same light,
when falling on the head of Jesus according to
the popular doctrine of atonement, as every man
would view it when inflicted on an innocent child




ï~~44

OF ATONEMENT.

by a mistaken parent. And however we may regret that such views drive him into the regions of
infidelity, it can never be matter of surprise, that
his judgment and feelings revolt at the representation which they give of the character of God
and the nature of his justice. And he has been
led to identify the doctrine of atonement with the
truth of divine revelation, by the common consent
of the Christian world, which maintained that it
was a part, and a very important part of the plan
of the Gospel. He therefore rejects the whole,
as a barbarous delusion. Such is the conclusion
which many have drawn respecting the subjectand such it will continue to be in too many instances, while the common doctrine of atonement
is maintained.
2. But this is not all-the belief that the wicked, who are the subjects of atonement, are not,
and never will be punished adequately for their
sins, has plainly an immoral tendency. Far be it
from us to contend, that the believer of this doctrine is necessarily a bad man. We know many
of its advocates, whose morality would do honor
to a much more consistent theory. But there are
those whose natural dispositions are less favorable
to virtue, and who will avail themselves of the license furnished by this doctrine, to outrage morality under the expectation of impunity.
It has been already intimated, that among the
obvious reasons why Christian morality is so de



ï~~OF ATONEMENT.

45

fective, may be reckoned the influence of the doctrines believed. This one of atonement, seems
especially calculated to yield that kind of moral
liberty, under which hypocrites may perpetrate
iniquity without fear of retribution. For however
severe they may suppose the punishment of unbelievers, they still maintain that the sins and the
merited chastisements of believers are remitted--
being imputed to Jesus, who suffered for them on
Calvary. They also maintain, that however deeply the believer may involve himself in sins, or however frequent may be his indulgence in them, he
is still considered righteous on account of his
faith. If this is not offering high inducements to
sin, we know of no consideration which could
tempt men to transgression. And could Adam in
paradise, have understood and believed the modern system of atonement, he would scarcely have
needed the aid of the serpent to secure his fall.
Besides, unlike every doctrine and precept of
the Gospel of truth, the more firmly this doctrine
is believed, the more vitiating and corrupting will
obviously be its influence. And as many have believed, and still do believe it, with the full conviction that to do otherwise were to peril the soul,
there can be no doubt, that it has appeased the
anguish of many a guilty conscience, by the assurance, that the Son of God absolves them from
all punishment, by the substitution of his own
sufferings. But men of warm temperaments and




ï~~46

OF ATONEMENT.

strong passions, should not be too severely tries
with allurements to sin; and we can not but hopf
that the advocates of the common doctrine o
atonement, will reconsider their system, and without sinking into infidelity, find more purifying
principles in the Scripture doctrine on that important subject.
That the common doctrine of atonement is not
taught in the Bible, will appear from the following considerations.
1. At the time when the death of Christ first began to be considered as a proper sacrifice-that is,
as a substitute for the punishment of fallen menthe advocates of that theory were greatly perplexed to determine to whom the atonement was made.
It certainly did not enter into their minds, that
the justice of God required, or that the Deity
could receive the sufferings of Jesus as a proper
substitute for those of guilty man. The most
distinguished fathers of the church, concluded,
therefore, that the sacrifice was made to the devil-the great adversary of the human race. And
they argued thus-if mankind, by trangression,
had sold themselves to the enemy, the price of
their redemption should, of right, be paid to him
by whom they were held in bondage. Ridiculous
'as this opinion is, it possesses one feature far less
offensive than the common view of atonement-it
ascribes the demand for a vicarious sacrifice, to a




ï~~OF ATONEMENT.              41
being whose character will not suffer in conse
quence.
Now, if the Scriptures had authorized the corn
mon view of atonement, those early Christiar
fathers could not have entertained the pinion,
that the sacrifice and sufferings of Christ, were
made to any other than the Deity. All the present elements of the popular doctrine on this subject, were then laid. Christ was supposed to step
in between the claim for punishment, and the victim on whom it was to fall-and to endure the
sufferings which human nature could not, and yet
be saved. Hence, the only important difference
between the theory above given, and the prevailing doctrine of atonement, consists in the supposition that the sacrifice was made to a very different being. And it must be evident, that if thf
Bible had stated any thing definitely respecting:
vicarious atonement, so important a part as tha..
which related to the recipient of the sacrifice;
would not probably have been omitted. This con
sideration should induce its present advocates t<
reconsider the subject, with great attention.
2. Another reason for believing that the Scrip.
tures do not teach the common doctrine of atone
ment, is contained in the fact, that they do teac
what is absolutely incompatible with that theory.
Thus, instead of so much as insinuating that
Christ came to appease his Father's wrath, they

expressly assert that he was sent because God




ï~~48

OF ATONEMENT.

loved the world. Neither is it a Scripture doctrine, that divine justice required a kind or degree
of punishment of man, which was in any sense
inconsistent with his salvation; or that the death
and sufferings of Christ were necessary, in order
to make it just for God to save sinners. On the
contrary, they are wholly silent on that subject.
The Bible is also entirely silent respecting saving
us from punishment; but it represents Christ as
bearing away our sins, as a physician does our
diseases-not by assuming, but by curing or removing them. Finally, instead of teaching that
mankind are exempted from punishment because
Christ suffered, the Bible asserts in a great variety of intelligible forms, which neither admit of
misapprehension nor evasion, that every man shall
suffer for his own sins, and according to, or in
proportion to their demerit.
In view of the foregoing objections to the common doctrine of atonement, and the certainty that
the Scriptures teach a very different system respecting the mission, labors and sufferings of
Christ, the Universalist, while he has no faith or
confidence in the popular theory, devoutly believes the Bible to be the record of the revelation
from God to man. And we are very confident,
that his views of this subject must be adopted,
before Christians will, as far as the atonement is
concerned, be able to defend theirsopinions against
the assaults of skeptics and unbelievers. Indeed,




ï~~OF ATONEMENT.

49

while the latter identify this item of the popular
creed, with the doctrines and truths of the Bible,
there is every reason to believe that their infidelity
will become more and more inveterate and incurable.
If we are correct-and it is believed that enough
has been said in the brief view here taken of the
subject, to show that we are-then the advocates
of the prevailing doctrine of atonement, are to
some extent responsible for the infidelity of which
they complain. And it is very certain, that a vast
majority of modern unbelievers were once, directly or indirectly, connected with the sects which
profess that doctrine. This fact, if no other consideration can weigh with those who maintain a
vicarious atonement, should induce them to reflect
on this further truth-that it is their own creed,
and not the arguments of unbelievers, which has
led so many into stark infidelity. We have no
pleasure in this remark-it were very desirable
that all Christians should maintain no doctrines or
opinions, but such as are reasonable, scriptural,
and consequently defensible.
In the mean time, we think it must be tolerably
plain to the unbeliever, that his objections to the
truth of the Bible on the score of the common
doctrine of atonement, are unfounded. And if so,
then it must be equally clear even to him, that one
of his arguments against a divine revelation, proves
to be no argument at all-and consequently, that
4




ï~~50

OF ATONEMENT.

the various inconsistencies, contradictions and
abominations with which he is pleased to think
the doctrine of atonement overwhelms the Bible,
has no relation to that divine book. He may amuse
himself with the absurdities of a popular article of
certain creeds, but he must recollect that it has
nothing to do with the Scriptures of truth. They
never required nor authorized the modern system
of atonement-nor are they directly or remotely
answerable for the mistakes into which Christians
may have fallen, respecting that, or any other subject. A duty hence devolves upon the unbeliever
-to examine the Bible, as well as the creeds of
Christians. And when he is as well infotbrmed respecting the doctrines of the Scriptures, as he
probably is concerning those of some Christian
sects, he will doubtless discover that he was mistaken in his views of the teachings and truth of
the Bible.




ï~~CHAPTER V.

INNATE DEPRAVITY.
Among the doctrines which have generally prevailed, and which have been long considered of
paramount importance in the Christian church,
there are several which have no doubt exerted
much influence in forcing men into infidelity.
Unfortunately, these have been commonly overlooked by their advocates, in the discussion of
the great question respecting the truth of divine
revelation. And we are satisfied, that until these
doctrines are entirely expunged from the symbols
of the church, those who advocate them will never
be able to maintain, if a successful, an effectual
war with infidelity. They will raise up ten unbelievers for every one whom they convert; and
thus continue the unwilling instruments of the
infidelity which they vainly endeavor to suppress.
For that the unbelief of Hume, Gibbon, Volney,
Boulanger, Paine and Palmer, and a host of
others, has its foundation in the popular dogmas
which have been incorporated with the truths of
Christianity, is very evident from their points of
attack upon its principles and truths.
Much, therefore, as it stands the unbeliever in
hand to examine the premises on which he founds




ï~~INNATE JEPRAVITY.

his infidelity, it is no less important that the professor of the popular Christianity, should very
carefully review his creed, "lest haply he be found
to fight against God." He may be assured, that
whatever in his religious opinions, is incompatible with the character of a wise, equitable and benevolent Deity-whatever is inconsistent with the
known abilities and moral perceptions of man, so
far from exerting a favorable influence upon the
truths of Christianity, will most assuredly encourage infidelity. This fact has been long and
deeply deplored by Universalists, and they have
exerted a respectable influence in staying this
moral plague. And they have done this, while
their fellow Christians have stigmatized them
with every name of reproach--especially with
that of being infidels.  That denomination has,
however, taken its place between the systems of
corrupted Christianity, and a cold and deadly
skepticism; and has thus far assisted in reclaiming unbelievers, by restoring to the church a
more consistent view of the Gospel. This accounts for the course we have adopted in this
work-and will also explain why we continue to
notice those particular doctrines which appear to
constitute a part, at least, of the causes of modern
infidelity.
Among the prevailing doctrines maintained by
professing Christians, which have probably led
men into skepticism or open infidelity, must be




ï~~IN ATE DEPRAVITY.

reckoned that of the entire vitiation of man's moral nature. This doctrine is not content with
supposing him incompetent to perform any thing
good-it considers him "wholly inclined to all
that is evil."  And thus, the last vestige of the
divine likeness, is not only expelled from the
moral character and nature of man, but it invests
him with dispositions and even habits that are
truly diabolical. It is to make man an incarnation of iniquity, fit only "for treasons, stratagems
and spoils" while here on earth, and an equally
meet associate for infernal spirits in the world to
come.
We have had occasion to allude to this terrible
view of the human character before, as among the
immediate and influential causes of the imperfec
tion of Christian morality.  And we yet think
that such is its natural and unavoidable tendency.
If both parents and teachers agree in calling a
child, a fool, no person can doubt that as soon as
the child himself believes it, he will act like one.
Nor ought we to wonder, that those who are
taught from infancy, that they are naturally as
wicked as the devils, should, when old enough
to believe their teachers, act up to their views
of " poor human nature."   We would by no
means insinuate that those who believe this doctrine are thus wicked--most hearts are too good
to be wholly ruined by such a creed; and there
is luckily, too much good sense left in the world,




ï~~54

INNATE DEPRAVITY.

to admit of these views being carried into practice.
But these are restraining causes, which by no
means destroy the actual influence of those opinions.
Let a man divest himself of the predilections
which early and habitual views of this subject inspire-and then let him be told, that it is an important item in the Christian revelation that man
is "totally averse to all that is good, and wholly
inclined to all that is evil;" and depend upon it,
he will not believe the statement. But his astonishment will be unutterable, when he is further
told, that all this is not in consequence of any act
of his own, but results by imputation from the
sin of the first father of his race. He must be a
very extraordinary man, who thus situated, would
not suppose himself trifled with, or abused. Instead of believing, he would think it quite as absurd as any other conjecture of human weakness, and altogether too inconsistent to be ascribed to divine revelation.  And he would argue--that a God of benevolence could not inflict
such evils upon the unoffending, nor one of wisdom, reveal a system so utterly at variance with
human experience.
But the difficulties of this unfortunate system
of natural depravity, instead of diminishing, are
continually augmented and accumulated by every
new examination. And this, whether regarded in
the light of reason, or of revelation. If this is




ï~~INNATE DEPRAVITY.

55

sustained, we shall cease to wonder that those
who rely more upon their powers of discrimination, than upon the exercise of those powers in
the actual investigation of truth, should reject
both the doctrine of man's entire corruption, and
the Scriptures which are supposed to teach that
ungracious dogma. To believe that it is true is
probably beyond the ability of any one who carefully examines the grounds of his opinions-to
believe that it is a part of the great system of divine revelation, is equally impossible when the
Bible shall be examined without the stupifying
influence of a cherished and popular creed.
Let reason be asked, whether there is any evidence in the moral world, that the sins of one individual constitute any other person either sinful
or guilty? There is-and there can be but one
answer-that those who have not actually sinned,
are neither guilty of crime, nor deserving of punishment. Every person feels this, acts upon itand all human institutions recognize its propriety.
What people, with any pretensiolns to a regular
system of jaurisprudence, punishes the child for
the sin of the parent? What civil code, that will
permit the punishment of the unoffending for the
guilty T None-except, perhaps, where the will
of some petty tyrant is the law of the land-nor
even there, unless in the moment of unguarded
and uncontrolled passion, or under some peculiar
provocation.  The common sense of mankind



ï~~56

INNATIE DEPRAIAVITY.

of all who have paid any attention to civil policy
and individual right, has long since determined
that children are not culpable for the follies and
crimes of their parents. The doctrine of original
and total moral depravity, consequently stands
opposed to the universal practice of mankind-a
practice founded upon the dictates of reason and
humanity. And he who believes that dogma, is
reduced to the necessity of violating the suggestions of reason for the sake of his creed.
And it may surely be asked, how mankind
came to make such benevolent arrangements in
their social relations, if they were wholly incapable of any thing good-if they could only think
and act wrong, and that continually? It surely
will not be pretended, that minds purified from
this original contamination, have laid the foundation of the civil institutions in every land. So far
from this, if their views were acted upon, they
would soon erase the marks of benignity impressed upon national policy and laws, and cover the
face of the whole earth with the abominations of a
system alike foreign to truth, and corrupting to
virtue.
If we contemplate man individually, we shall
find still clearer evidences of the moral constitution of his race. Admit, if you please, that there
is much to deplore, much that is truly and dreadfully evil. But is it now-or has it ever been
wholly so? Has there been nothing but crime,




ï~~INNATE DEPRAVITY.

57

and violence, ated llood? The answer is, that
great and manifold as have been the evils-there
is, and always has been much good; and probably more good than evil in the conduct of man.The social relations-the domestic charities have
been universally cherished; and the holy affections and sympathies which bind heart to heart,
and that find their office and employment in the
"weal or wo" of kindred nature, have watched at
the pillow of distress and wiped away the tear of
anguish and sorrow-or given new and inspiring
impulses to human comfort and joy. The common bonds of society have been sustained-the
rights of property, of liberty and life have been
commonly respected, and to some extent enjoyed, and truth, justice and benignity have generally marked the intercourse between man and man.
All this is notoriously true, and obvious to every
mind-bad as the world really is. And the perception of this, has induced many otherwise candid and well-disposed persons, to reject the doctrine
of the native depravity of man-and with it, the
Bible, from which they presumed it was legitimately drawn.
Let us then inquire, if the Bible teaches the
doctrine of the entire and original corruption of
human nature? If it does thus teach, then it is
of course a subject of divine revelation-if that
book does not teach that doctrine, then the popular views of human depravity are as plainly of




ï~~58

INNATE DEPRAVITY.

human invention. Take, then, the history of the
first recorded sin, and of its punishment, which
may fairly be supposed to involve all the consequences which the Deity intended should result
to mankind; and it will be found that not a soul
of all the unborn race of Adam, is in any respect
implicated, or so much as named. Such is the
penalty annexed to the offence-" thou shalt surely die," and the punishment inflicted was-" in
the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till
thou return unto the ground, for out of it wast
thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt
thou return." Now who could infer from this,
that the sin of the first man involved the entire
corruption and guilt of all his race? We venture
to say, that no one can extract such an inference
by any process of torture to which he may subject the passage! And the same is true of every
other text, quoted with a view to support the doctrine of inherent and total depravity. While on
the contrary, there are passages which assert that
"every man shall die for his own sins,-the son
shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither
shall the father bear the iniquity of the son."And again, "' death passed upon all men," not because the first man transgressed-but, because
"all have sinned."
It is not to be denied, that the actions of parents greatly influence the circumstances of their
children-a fact that is recoguised by the Bible.




ï~~INNATE DEPRAVITY.

59

But who ever supposed, because an ignorant or
vicious parent might involve his offspring in ignorance, and perhaps even in vice, that therefore
the child was criminal by the mere imputation of
his father's iniquity? So far from this, they are
rather the objects of pity and commiseration on account of their misfortunes, than of blame for vices
over which they could have no control. And who
of all the multitudes of sufferers from these causes,
ever felt the least guilt or compunction of conscience-however much of shame and mortification he may have endured, for the sins of his predecessors?  This also explains one important
passage of Scripture, in which it is said that God
visits "the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the
third and to the fourth generation." Here was
a fair occasion to have asserted the doctrine of the
universal and eternal corruption of the human
race by the single act of their primogenitor-had
it been true: instead of which, be the consequences less or more, they are limited to some three or
four generations.
It has now been shown, that the doctrine of the
total moral depravity of mankind is neither agreeable with reason and experience, nor taught in
the Bible. What great credit is due the unbeliever, for discovering that it is not one of common
sense? He has not yet learned that it is not
maintained in that book, which all Christians re



ï~~60

INNATE DEPRAVITY.

ceive as a record of divine revelation. In this respect, he is truly orthodox-for he believes as
firmly as any advocate for the inherent corruption
of mankind, that this horrid libel upon moral nature is a part of Scripture instruction. And he
believes this, for the very same reason that thousands of Christian professors do-because he has
neither the disposition to adopt, nor the patience
and industry to pursue, the measures which would
insure correct information. Having principally
to do with those whose creed compelled them to
concede the point-the skeptic turned infidel at
once; and took for granted the question at issue
which his own candor should induce him to examine with special care. And it is matter of equal
astonishment, that one believes this strange and
degrading hypothesis, to be a part of divine truth,
and the other rejects the Bible because that book
is supposed to teach it; and that all this is believed ox disbelieved, while no good evidence exists
that either has very carefully examined the subject.
The unbeliever should know, that there are
many sincere believers in the truth of divine revelation, who have no evidence that the Bible
teaches the doctrine of original and total depravity, and who consequently do not believe that doctrine. And if they are correct-and the writer of
this verily believes they are-then that doctrine
is not the fault of the Bible, but of some of its




ï~~INNATE DEPRAVITY.

61

interpreters. Hence, the skepticism to which it
may have given rise, is not to be charged upon
the Bible, but to those who maintain it in opposition to the teachings of that book. That doctrine
was unknown to the primitive Christians-it was
unknown at the commencement of the Pelagian
controversy, near the end of the fourth century,
and its rudiments were then first asserted by St.
Augustine. That great man, in order to maintain
the very different hypothesis, that baptism washed away sins, found himself compelled to assert,
that even infants had received an original taint
from Adam, and needed purification in order to
fit them for heaven. From that time to the reformation, the complete dominion of popery fostered the growth of everything monstrous and absurd
in the doctrines of the church; and the labors of
the reformers, were very naturally directed to the
correction of more tangible corruptions. By their
means, the Bible was once more restored to the
laity, and an examination of its teachings, irrespective of the canons of papacy, has gradually
exploded a number of dogmas held sacred by the
church, and which it is found that the word of
Scripture does not authorize.
Thus falls another pillar in the temple of infidelity. And if it should happen that the Bible
should be found to hold no doctrine at which
either reason or humanity revolts, we do not
see but every unbeliever must become a convert




ï~~62          INNATE DEPRAVITY.
to its truth, or forever forfeit, even in his own estimation, his claim to the exercise of reason.And we can not but hope, that his "reasoning
pride" may in this case, have some influence upon his proverbial obstinacy-and induce him to
change his ground, when he can no longer consider himself wise by attempting its defence.




ï~~CHAPTER VI.

THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENT.
Among the immediate causes of infidelity,
which have their foundation in certain doctrines
held by professing Christians, some are more obvious and influential than others. The reasons
of this difference, are sometimes contained in the
subjects themselves-some being vastly more important than others, some are more intelligible
and tangible, while some obtain a kind of preference and are made to stand out in bold relief, as
more worthy of special attention. But notwithstanding this difference, every opinion and sentiment maintained by the Christian, which can not
be reconciled with both reason and the Bible, has
a pernicious influence. For there will be times
and occasions in which these views and doctrines
will become the subject of remark-and when the
most trifling inconsistency will be made the butt
of severe criticism and rude animadversion. It
behooves the believing Christian, then, to attend
to the correctness, reasonableness and scriptural
support of every item of his creed to be "faithful
in that which is least," as well as in the great
matters of eternal truth.




ï~~64

THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENT.

But the unbeliever should recollect, or learn,
that when the more important parts of any system
are well sustained, the minutia which might have
been overlooked in establishing first principles,
may also be settled with equal certainty and in
perfect harmony with the general plan. Thus, in
the discovery of the laws of gravitation, the fundamental principles which regulate and determine
the positions and motions of the planets were fully
established. But it remained that the oscillations
and apparent anomalies should be satisfactorily
explained.  This, few doubted could be done--
and it was done to the conviction of all.  So the
unbeliever may rest assured, that though in the
discussion and confirmation of the great truth of
a divine interposition, some of the minor considerations may not be fully settled, they are yet capable of satisfactory explanation, in perfect accordance with the truth and divine origin of the
Bible.
It is not intended therefore to canvass every
conceivable aberration from consistency, which the
sagacity of unbelievers may discover, or fancy
that they discover in the views and sentiments of
Christians. If we can prove-and we have great
hopes of doing so--that several important doctrines of the Christian church, are not contained
in the Bible, and do not therefore furnish any
ground of objection to its divine authority and
authenticity-and at the same time show that the




ï~~THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENT.

65

doctrines of that book are neither unreasonable
nor inconsistent, the principle for which we contend, that it is a revelation from God, will be fully
established. The unbeliever may then settle the
minor difficulties in his way, at his leisure, and as
opportunity permits. But if the principal grounds
of objection are removed, he must perceive that
all others will fail of course, whenever they are
made the subject of due investigation.r
The prevailing opinion respecting the certainty
and the nature of punishment, has probably exerted considerable influence in promoting infidelity. According to this system, the transgressor is
not certain to receive any punishment-much less
an adequate one for his sins; while those who are
punished, are considered neither more guilty nor
deserving of chastisement, than those whom grace
spares. At the same time, it supposes that the
infliction of punishment is for no other purpose,
than the vindication of the honor of God and the
sanctity of the divine law-the satisfaction of offended justice, and the propriety of chastising incorrigible sinners.  This system also supposes,
that some of the guilty are permitted to escape
from wrath, because they believe that Christ suffered for them, and in their stead; while others
whose crimes are no greater, or their guilt no deeper, are made subjects of misery because they do
not, or can not also believe. And, as if to encourage the unprincipled and vicious, and to tantalize
5




ï~~66

THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENT.

the sober, moral man, it is maintained that the
most abandoned in crime are more certain to believe and to be saved in consequence, than the
more discreet and upright among mankind. It
also supposes that the punishment which is lUflicted on the disobedient, comprises no one object in relation to the sufferers themselves-save
that of misery---misery, of unimaginable intensity,
and exhaustless in its means of aggravation.
All this, many honest men very sincerely and
confidently believe; and they as confidently assert and endeavor to maintain, that it is the doctrine of divine revelation.  Indeed no pains are
spared to convince the world, that this very objectionable hypothesis was actually maintained
and taught by our Saviour and the apostles, and
recorded in the New Testament for the belief of
all future generations. And they seem not to be
aware, that it involves in any of its features and
bearings, either contradiction to the best exercise
of reason, or inconsistency with the Bible-much
less do they appear sensible, that it is one of the
stepping stones to the very door of infidelity.That such however is the fact, will probably appear from the following considerations.
1. All the possible influences from the dread of
punishment, must depend upon the conviction
of its certainty. If, then, it is the object of any
system to enforce its requirements by the aid of
threatenings, they will cease to operate as induce



ï~~THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENT.

67

ments to obedience, the moment it is discovered
that the penalty denounced is not enforced. Let
a parent who threatens to punish his child for disobedience, make the popular theology in relation
to this subject, a part of his plan of domestic government, and then if he can, wonder at the insufficiency of his authority. Like the nursery tales,
it is soon discovered that they were intended for
a purpose, which can no longer be effected than
while the deception is believed. The unbeliever
will argue precisely in the same way-that the
punishment denounced by the Deity against the
imnpenitent, is evidently not feared by the professor who often asserts it, and who is presumed to
know whether it is taught in the Bible. And he
comes to the conclusion, that if the believer who
acknowledges himself a transgressor, can escape
-there is no reason why he should despair. Thus
he satisfies himself, that there is really nothing to
fear. And his infidelity is confirmed if not caused,
by the influence of this sentiment.
2. Another consideration which evidently has
much weight in promoting skepticism and infidelity, is the want of proper discrimination between
faith and morality-between the merely moral
man and the professor on one hand, and the man
of upright integrity, and the open and notorious
transgressor on the other. The mass of mankind
are at a loss to discover as great a difference between the moralist and the believer, as they can




ï~~68

THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENT.

readily see between the virtuous and vicious man.
Unbelievers are therefore, little disposed to credit
the Christian, when his creed induces him to rank
the good and bad in the same general class, and
to denounce them as equally dangerous to society,
merely because they do not happen to believe a
particular creed. And they can not easily bring
themselves to believe that a beneficent Deity has
suspended their destiny upon so precarious a
foundation, as the belief or disbelief of any one
particular, which is not clearly -stated and fully
explained. Besides, those who have not founded
and built their hopes upon a different view of the
divine economy, will hence be disposed to reject
the Scriptures so long as they are supposed to
teach that both good and bad are equally corrupt
here, and destined to the same sufferings hereafter.
3. But perhaps the most influential cause of
infidelity, contained in this general subject, is the
recklessness which it supposes in respect to the
consequences of punishment.  And it must be
confessed, that there are few subjects in the vast
range of speculation, more effectually calculated
to shock both reason and sympathy, than the total
disregard of all useful results in the operations of
retributive justice. Neither angels nor men-nor
yet the stern administrator of the eternal laws of
the moral universe, are supposed to derive any
benefit from the miseries produced by the inflic



ï~~THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENT.

69

tion of even endless pains! It is in vain that we
seek for an extenuation of such punishment-in
vain that we look to the principles of divine or human justice for its propriety-for its illustration
in the practice of mankind, or its support in the
testimony of the Scriptures. All nature--all experience-all revelation are silent as the grave respecting a punishment whose exclusive object is
misery-whose only end, is the infliction of such
terrible vengeance.  The unbeliever considers
this so foreign to all that his judgment, or his
feelings can approve, that he bids a kind of defiance to the consequences, and asserts his contempt and abhorrence of the dogma which maintains them, and of the Bible, in which he imagines
they are taught.
Suppose that a parent in correcting his child,
were to assert that he did so because his justice
required it, and that it was impossible to maintain
the honor of his law and the dignity of his government in any other way; but that he was indifferent to any consequences upon the child, to his
family, or to society; and cared not whether it
drove the victim of his displeasure to despair, or
wrought anunavailiug repentance-for he had long
since determined to disinherit him, and had actually done so, before his punishment commenced.
What would the advocate of this procedure on
the part of the Deity say, were he to see his
favorite theory reduced to practice? Let his own




ï~~70

THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENT.

example answer for him. It is sufficient to say,
that he would think of the practice, as he constrains others to do of his theory-that it is neither founded in reason, justice nor philanthropy.
And so long as some believe and maintain that it is a
part of the plan of revealed truth, those who do
not discover a better and more consistent system
taught in the Bible, will probably reject both that
and the creed together.
But it is matter of congratulation to the friends
of consistency and truth, that so far from inculcating any thing like the doctrine under consideration, the Scriptures thoughout, teach in the most
unqualified terms, both the certainty of punishmnent for every offence, and that it is inflicted for
the benefit of the individual chastised. To this,
infidelity itself, can raise no objection, for it is consistetit with justice, reason, humanity and experience. And if this can be made evident, as we
think it can--the Christian who maintains a different theory, will find reason to modify his opinions accordingly; and the unbeliever who founds
his infidelity on the absurdities of the popular
iews of punishment, must abandon his position as
no longer tenable. And he must also perceive,
that as he has one argument less, than on the common hypothesis-so we have of consequence, one
argument more for the divine origin of the Bible.
1. Those who are acquainted with the language
of the Scriptures, will not doubt that they,de



ï~~THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENT.

71

nounce punishment against all transgressors, in
proportion, or, "according to their works."  This
is often threatened both in the Old and New
Testaments, as any one may perceive who will examine the subject. The question which remains
to be settled, is, do they also inform us, whether
this punishment is inflicted? If they do, we shall
find very ample illustrations of that truth-and
also find it applied to every transgressor, whether
he be considered comparatively righteous or unrighteous. What, then, say the Scriptures?
It was said to Adam--" in the day thou eatest
(sinnest) thou shalt surely die."  This evidently
means a moral death--to die "in trespasses and
sins," and is supported by a great number of similar expressions in the Bible. No man can read
the account of the first recorded transgression,
and the cognizance taken of it by the Deity, and
not discover, unless he be blinded by prejudice,
that in the guilt, shame and sorrow which immediately followed the sin, the promised punishment
was actually inflicted. So again in the case of
Cain, though his life was spared, yet for the crime
of which he was guilty, his sufferings were so intense that he thought it greater than he could
bear. The same is true of the best men, as well
as of the worst, Jacob, Moses and David, came
in for their full share of punishment for their of.
fences. Nor are the chastisements of the divine
hand confined to individuals--nations that sin,




ï~~72

THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENT.

are visited with national retribution. The strongest instance of which is recorded, prophetically,
in the New Testament, and which actually fell
upon the Jews, their city, their temple, and their
institutions.
This mass of evidence, which is familiar.to
those who read the Bible, should satisfy every
Christian professor-while the actual experience
of every man, should convince the unbeliever,
that no man does wrong with impunity. What
degradation and self-reproach-what mental anguish and severe compunction, are felt for disobedience? To these probably no adult person is
a stranger-and they should teach every one to
regard with more caution and fidelity the admonitions of eternal truth contained in the Bible"the soul that sinneth shall die." And they
should further instruct all offenders, that the day
of retribution is near; that the "reward of their
hands" comes down with instant and overwhelming power-meets them in the moment of transgression, and holds the soul under condemnation
until they "cease to do evil, and learn to do
well."
2. But however immediate and tremendous the
punishment of the wicked-it is plainly designed
for their individual good. It is a sufficient vindication of the honor of God, of his moral goverfment, of his eternal justice, that the penalty for
sin is enforced. But the character of the Deity,




ï~~THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENI'T.

73

and the propriety of his laws are seen in a far more
amiable and interesting light, when it is perceived
that every moral pain we bear-every mental suffering we endure for our follies and our crimes,
are the medicines to heal the diseases of the soul.
They are the safe and finally effectual prescriptions, which "wound but to heal-which kill but
to make alive."
We are at no loss to apprehend the reasons
why pain is connected with the application of fire
to the flesh, the luxation of a joint, or the fracture
of a bone. All this is plainly for the benevolent
purpose of rendering us more circumspect and
cautious-it is to guard us against the thousand
"ills that flesh is heir to," by the dread of consequences. And notwithstanding the inconvenience and anguish to which it occasionally subjects us, we are no doubt, benefited on the whole,
by this arrangement of our physical constitution.
It exhibits both design and benevolence-the object being our preservation from the identical
evils and sufferings which we are sometimes permitted to experience. Thus it evidently is in the
moral constitution of man. He is endowed with
a conscience, which when enlightened by the humanizing and purifying genius of the Gospel, is
as sensitive to the contaminations of sin, as the
nerves to the influence of frost, fire, or laceration.
And it is not uncommon to see persons so afflicted by the recollectionof some vice, as to form and




ï~~74

THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENT.

keep the resolution, never to allow themselves in
its repetition. A single indulgence is sometimes
sufficient to awaken and fix the determination, to
do what is believed to be right in all future time.
On this principle, it will be perceived that independent of any external consideration, public opinion, or personal interest, we have in the very frame
and fashion of our moral and intellectual constitution, two very strong motives to the practice of virtue-the fear of punishment, and the hope of
happiness. For while every man must admit that
the recilection of sin never gives him satisfaction,
by recurring to his feelings in the consciousness
of having performed a good action, he will dwell
with peculiar delight on the ineffable peace which
he experienced. That mental anguish which sin
inspires, is punishment, and its victim is suffering
the condemnation which he fears. That peace
of soul which accompanies well-doing, is happiness; and imparts the bliss of heaven here below. To punish and to reward, have the same
common end in view-to induce the wicked to
become good, and to confirm the good in the way
of duty, honor, peace.
And this is the doctrine, of the Bible-." I will
visit their transgressions with the rod, and their
iniquity with stripes, nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer
my faithfulness to fail."  Again-" whom the
Lord loveth, he chasteneth, and scourgeth every




ï~~THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENT.

75

son whom he receiveth." And again-" the Lord
will not cast off forever; but though he cause
grief, yet will he have compassion according to the
multitude of his mercies. For he doth not afflict
willingly, nor grieve the children of men." The
number of Scripture proofs that the object of
punishment is paternal, is abundant. We here
add but one more in support of our position, as
further reference will be made to it in a subsequent number. "For they (our earthly fathers),
verily for a few days chastened us after their own
pleasure, but he (that is, God), for our profit, that
we might be partakers of his holiness."
It is believed "that the view here taken of the
certainty and emendatory objects of punishment,
legitimately authorize the following conclusionsviz. that the doctrine which generally prevails
in the Christian church respecting that subject,
is not authorized by the Bible. That it gives
no countenance'to the opinion that some of the
wicked will escape--or that the moral man is no
better than the vicious-or that punishment is
inflicted for no other purpose than that of enhancing and magnifying the glory of God in the misery of man. And consequently, that neither of
these, can furnish any ground of objection to the
Scriptures, or justify any ibrm of infidelity.Hence too, unbelievers must perceive, that all the
arguments and objections which they may bring
against the common opinion, respecting the nature




ï~~76

THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENT.

and end of punishment, have no relation to the truth
and authority of the Bible. To reject that book,
because some men hold sentiments-which it does
not authorize nor contain, is to reject all truth, because we sometimes hear falsehoods. It has been
shown, that the Scripture doctrine of the nature
and certainty of punishment, is both reasonable
and in accordance with universal experience-and
as reasonable men, how can unbelievers object to
its truth and propriety? They can not-and when
they have duly examined the subject, they will
not; bit will believe, obey, and rejoice in the
truth of divine revelation.




ï~~CHAPTER VII.

ENDLESS MISERY.
It is hoped that the believers of certain doctrines, will not take it amiss, that some of the
most common and obvious causes of infidelity,
and which are found in those doctrines themselves, are briefly stated and examined.. It may
be of service to them. For the Christian can lose
nothing except a few cumbersome and unintelligible dogmas-which Heaven could not reveal,
either because what can not be understood is no
revelation, or because it is derogatory to the character and perfections of the Deity, the entire removal of such parts of his creed, would be to his
mind and moral feelings, what the clearing away
of fog and clouds is to his sight and perceptions.
On the other hand-if the infidel could be shown
that several doctrines against which his indignation has been excited, and which have been the
moving causes of his unbelief, are really no part
of the teachings of the Bible, but that they are
the antiquated remnants of a vain philosophy, fostered by ages of extreme darkness, he will probably find new and higher reasons to respect, both
Christianity and its friends.




ï~~78

ENDLESS MISERY.

These, then, are the very things which are here
intended; and it is believed with some confidence,
that if the patience of the parties will hold out
with our labors, the result may be useful. It is,
however, a thankless task to endeavor to give information to those who are not aware that they
need any-more especially so, when it is offered
to those who have long been in the habit of giving, rather than of receiving instruction. From
those professors whose opinions will be made the
subject of remark, little gratitude or even complacency is expected; and from unbelievers, whom
we would lead up from their troubled waters,
to the ever-flowing fountain of Christian truth,
experience has taught us to anticipate a most fatal apathy. The former are too dogmatical to be
taught-the latter too indifferent to desire or seek
further information.
We shall, however, cast our "bread upon the
waters," believing that there are, and will be some,
to whom it may prove the bread oflife-the healthful food of the soul. The great difficulty with
many very honest Christianin relation to their
opinions, is, their sincere conviction that religion,
the Christian religion must be contrary to nature.
That its principles and requirements are opposed
to the dictates of reason, to the better feelings of
the heart, and to the enjoyment of social comfort.
Any one thing in which they find themselves comfortable and happy, is viewed with suspicion, as




ï~~ENDLESS MISERY.

79

emanating.from some evil source. Hence they
fedl a kind of necessity to believe the most revolting dogmas, and to perform a number of supposed
duties at much self-sacrifice and mortification.
Some of these we have already noticed, and others
require particular consideration---among which
may be reckoned, the doctrine of endless misery.
There can be no proof more conclusive, than
that furnished by many of the most distinguished
unbelievers--that they were first led to doubt the
truth and genuineness of Christianity, by contemplating the horrors of the doctrine of endless punishment. How wide this influence may have
spread, is beyond our means of determining.
That it is very extensive, is unquestionable, as
this very doctrine is daily urged as one of the
principal grounds of objection to the truth of
Christianity. And even where these objections
could not be made with safety, it is morally certain that the human mind takes the same direction--and a silent but fatal infidelity is generated
and maintained. The history of the French Revolution, is a history of the -success of the combined efforts of a band of skilful and reckless
unbelievers, who covertly plotted and finally overturned the social, civil, and religious institutions
of the state.
The. aspect of the doctrine of endless punishInent, is so dreadful, as notonly to drive some into
infidelity, but it has destroyed the happiness and




ï~~80

ENDLESS MISERY.

the reason of thousands of its professors. It has
been fruitful in despair, derangement, and suicide.
Some of its most learned and devoted advocates
have been constrained to acknowledge, that its
contemplation rendered every enjoyment insipid,
and life itself a "cruel bitter."  Others have admitted that its direct assertion was attended with
great danger, as few could bear the thought of its
mere possibility without becoming insane. And
under this impression, they satisfy themselves
that it should not be made the subject of frequent
discussion, especially in times of general religious
excitement. To this there are many modern exceptions; and the distressing consequences have
been, a great increase of religious mania, and a
proportionate number of suicides.
Such are the concessions made to this terrible
doctrine, by some of its most talented and devoted
friends. And it should satisfy them, as it does
many others who have never doubted the truth of
the Christian system, that the doctrine of endless
misery can not be true. "When they witness the
multiplied cases of infidelity to which it gives
rise-the havoc which it makes with many noble
minds-the utter despair with which it overwhelms
so many hearts, and the shocking deaths of which
it is the undeniable cause, they should stop and
ask themselves-whether it be possible for such a
system "to be a revelation from Heaven? They
should earnestly, repeatedly, and solemnly inter



ï~~ENDLESS MISRY.

81

rogate their own hearts-if such consequences
can be supposed to follow any truth which is of
undoubted divine authority? Whether the Deity
could permit the existence of misery so intense
and so horrid, if he be the good and gracious Being every where evinced in all the works of nature,
and uniformly asserted in the Scriptures? Is itcan it be consistent with his acknowledged attributes, to suffer such intolerable miseries to constitute any part of the plan of his moral government?
Or, is it possible that any being-muich less a
good one-should reveal a system which, if true,
must forever degrade him in the eyes of all intelligences-.the influence of which always has been,
and always must be, detrimental to human happiness?  Surely the world was already wretched
enough without the apprehension of endless torments;.4d that must be a most singular benevolence, which would interfere with the condition
of man only to augment his wo! And above all,
could a God of infinite wisdom reveal to mankindl
for their adoption, a system so odious, that he
must have foreseen its rejection- -and instead of
rendering the world more devout and religious,
to fill it with slepticism and despair?
And who can marvel (hat a system which comprises so many serious and alarming difticuties
and incongruities, should be rejected asn iwstrufmentof oppression in t.e hza4 of tyraany, and
alike unworthy of the mino of God or man? Who
6




ï~~82

8iDLESS MISERY.

can be surprised, that many who can not, or will
not perform the labor of examination, should take
for granted that it is a doctrine of the Bible, and
consequently reject both together? And there is
great liability of confounding the doctrine in question with the truth of the Bible, fiomrn the unwearied pains which have been taken for some time
past, to fasten it upon the Scriptures. All the
means at the disposal of several whole communities of Christians, have been put in requisitionevery passage of Scripture having the most remote
allusion to the punishment of the wicked, has been
tasked to the utmost in order to sustain this miserable dogma. It has become the theme of daily
gossip-the subject of pulpit labor-the burden of
the press, and the bone of public controversy.
Hence the public mind has been specially called
to its contemplation; and no man can wonder
that among the palpable conseq~uences may be
found an increase of infidelity. For while there
are those with whom absurdities pass for mysteries, and who seem to relish with ferocious pleasure, the picture of anguish which a morose and
gloomy system presents to their imagination;
there are others, who are too impatient of an unreasonable and cruel doctrine, ever to think of inquiring whether it was fabricated by the church,
or derived from revelation.
But the unbeliever is assured, that there are
many good and substantial reasons for believing




ï~~ENDLESS MISERY.

that the doctrine of the endless punishment of any
part of the human race, is not contained o the
Bible. And if it should be fairly shown that it
neither is, nor can be found in that book, it may
be presumed that, as a reasonable and candid man,
he will admit, for once, at least, that he has
charged upon Christianity a doctrine for which it
is not responsible. And this should also admonish him to be more vigilant in future, and not decide on the truth of an immensely important subject, from some particular appendage which vice
or folly may have added, and which superstition
or terror may have perpetuated. It is believed
that he will be the more disposed to do this, if it
should be successfully shown that, while reason
inculcates a more benevolent view of the destiny
of man-that view is sustained by the strongest
expressions of truth recorded in the Bible.
1. The doctrine of the positive eternity of misery as the punishment of human offences, is inconsistent with the acknowledged attributes of the
Deity. There is not, and there probably never
was a believer in the doctrine in qiestion, who
does not admit the existence of perfections in the
Deity, which can never be reconciled with the idea
of endless suffering. To go no further: he believes
and acknowledges that God is infinitely, uniformly
and universally good; and that he is, consequently, unchakgeably good to. all men in general, and
to every ran in particular. Now, by what ps



ï~~84

ENDLESS MISERY.

ble deduction of reason, consistent with that
goodness, ean it be inferred that any one member
of the human family can be made miserable
through a proper eternity? None can pretend
that such sufferings are in themselves good-they
are universally supposed to constitute the greatest
possible evil. No man will or can say that they
are productive of good to the sufferer-or that
they are the evidence of goodness, much less of
infinite goodness, in the Being by whom they are
inflicted. They are, therefore, inconsistent with
that goodness in God, which is plead for and
maintained by the advocates of endless punishment. Nay, more-this doctrine is not merely
inconsistent with, but is directly contrary to the
divine character. For were he infinitely malignant instead of benevolent, and had he tasked the
resources of his infinite mind to produce an infi
nite evil, what worse could he have done than to
inflict endless tortures upon his sentient creation?
Let the advocates of this dreadful system beware
then, lest they so far forget what infinite, universal, and unchangeable goodness is, as to impute
to it the office of infinite malevolence!
2. The doctrine of endless punishment, is in
consistent with reason. No doubt is entertained
of the right to punish for offences, nor of the propriety of punishing so long as it is productive of
&uy good. But it by no means follows, that it is
either right or proper for any being to inflict pun



ï~~ENDLESS MISERY.

85

ishment so long as it possesses the means-especially when such punishment can do no good.
And as endless punishment can do, no good, reason can never acquiesce in its infliction. Again-.
man is a being possessed only of finite powers and
capacities-his actions and their consequences are
therefore limited. Hence reason infers, that he can
neither deserve, nor properly and justly receive
endless punishment. The pretence that justice
requires the endless misery of the wicked, is assuming what never has been, and never can be
proved-for it is to maintain that eternal justice
demands what is unreasonable. Besides, it becomes us to distinguish between justice and cru)r
elty, but the very idea of such misery, is to con.found all such distinctions, and amalgamate all
perception in one concentration of unutterable wo.
Strict and impartial justice must have an ulterior
object in all its inflictions; and the existence of
such an object, implies that those inflictions must
have an end.
3. The doctrine of endless punishment, is in.
consistent with the truths of the Bible. However
long or severe punishment may be, it is not once
said in the Bible to be without end. So far from
this, the strongest expressions indicative of pe_
petuity, are never once applied to sin, punishment,
or misery. Thus ap diarsia, signifying incr
ruptibility, immortality, and its adjective iphthaTtos, meaning imluertal, incorruptibl-athn a,




ï~~ENDLESS MISERY,

immortality, deathless, and athanatos, immortal,
perpetual--akatalutos, indissoluble, or endless-,
and aperantos, infinite, boundless, are all used in
the New Testament, but are never found in connexion with either sin or misery. Besides these,
there are several other-, as aidio, perpetualakeratos, pure, uncorrupt, immortal-and apeiros,
unlimited, indefinite, which might have been used
to convey a much stronger idea of duration than
any word that is applied to punishment. But
neither of these is so used-a fact not easily accounted for, if it was the intention of the sacred
penmen to convey the idea of a strict eternity of
punishment for the wicked. That they were well
aware of the meaning of these terms, there can be
no doubt, as they used the first class above enumerated, to convey the idea of life and blessedness. And in particular, these are the words
which they employ as descriptive of the state,
condition, and duration of the human spirit after
the resurrection. On the contrary, every word
applied to the sufferings of the wicked, is, by common usage, of limited signification. None are
employed to express the duration of sin and misery but aei, aion, and aionios, which are commonly
rendered  always, forever, everlasting, eternal,
world, and age. Some of these are used in the
plural, which sufficiently implies their limitation,
and all of them more or less frequently, in such
connexions as to show that they can not mean




ï~~ENDLESS MISERY.

87

endless duration. And as it is plain that the writers of the New Testament were under no necessity to use the words which they did, to express
the duration of misery, it is evident that they
chose such as were of limited import. To these
facts there are no exceptions, nor can the utmost
ingenuity of man ever find one.
But we are not left to rely upon negations, in
this important subject. The Scriptures do unequivocally declare, that a period shall come when
there shall be no more pain, nor sorrow, nor
death-when Christ shall draw all men to himself,
put all things, including all enemies, under his
feet, and having subdued all things, God shall
become all in all. And finally, even punishment
is represented in the Bible as one of the means of
bringing about that holiness which is necessary to
perfect and endless happiness. It is said that
God chastens us for our profit, "that we should
be partakers of his holiness," and also, that "afterwards"-that is, after punishment-" it yieldeth
the peaceable fruits of righteousness" to those
who are punished. But if the punishment of sin
is endless, when is this afterwards to come? and
why punish men when they have become partakers of the holiness of God? But enough of these
queries. It has now been shown that endless
punishment is inconsistent with the character and
Perfections of God-that it is contrary to reason,
and unsupported by the Bible. It is not, there



ï~~88

88         E1 (3LESS MiS~itRY.

fore, a doctrine of Christianity, and in rejecting
it, no man should suppose that he rejects the Bible or the truths of the Gospel.
In view of these facts, the unbeliever is asked,
if there is any good reason for rejecting the Bible
beeause some Christians believe and maintain the
doctrine of endless punishment?   Christianity
and the Bible are no more responsible for this
doctrine, than they are for a thousand other foolish and absurd things which daily occur among
men, and which are known to originate in other
causes. Nor are they responsible for the moral
apathy which prevents unbelievers from properly
investigating the subject, and ascertaining where
the doctrine properly belongs. Unfortunately it
would seem that the gloomy and misanthropic
temperament of some early Christians, originated
the doctrine in question; and more or less of modern infidelity, is fairly chargeable to the tenacity
with which it is at present maintained. It' is very
certain, that the doctrine of endless punishment
was scarcely known in the Christian church during the first two centuries. For the first person
who is known to have asserted the equal duration
of the misery of the wicked and happiness of the
righteous, is Tertullian, who flourished about A.
D.  00, and as no onae maintainxed the positive
eternity of punishment before that time, there is
much reaso to conclude that it was not believed.
This is tendered still more probable, not to say




ï~~ENDLESS MISEiLtY.

89

certain, by the very important fact, that many of
the most distinguished Christian fathers of that
period, maintained, in the most unqualified manner, the doctrine of universal salvation. Of these
the most eminent was Clemens, of Alexandria.
Since, then, it can not be denied that universal
salvation was the belief of many, and those of the
first distinction, while only one can be found who
maintained the doctrine of endless punishment, it
is very full proof that this latter hypothesis is a
corruption of Christian truth. But the doctrine
of endless punishment once broached, found advocates, and eventually became the standard of
orthodoxy in the church. This honor was however delayed for several centuries. And it was
not until the year 394 of the Christian era, almost
two hundred years after it was first avowed, that
it had gained numbers sufficient to authorize a
public censure of the doctrine of the restitution.
Nor was it fully established, and Universalism
suppressed under the name of Origenism, until
A. D. 553, nearly four hundred years after its introduction into the church by Tertullian. So
that the doctrine of endless misery has not been
the prevailing sentiment of the church more than
about thirteen hundred years. How preposterous
then, its claim to be the doctrine of Jesus and his
disciples!.
Let the infidel look to these things, if he
wishes to be thought candid, or if he seriously




ï~~90

ENDLESS MISERY

has any desire of discovering and embracing the
truth. And let those who would palm this doctrine upon the world as the truth of Heaven, look
to the consequences. Existing facts go far, very
far, to prove that infidelity will never be expelled
from some minds, while endless misery makes a
prominent part of any Christian creed,   For
however he may triumph over the unbeliever in a
general argument, this terrible doctrine will perpetually haunt his imagination, and will finally
expel every favorable impression. For depend on
this, that however he may feel vanquished on other
points, he will regard this as a position from which
he has not been driven; and he will not consent
to the truth of a doctrine which destroys the harmony of the Divine attributes, and sets the deductions of reason at defiance. He will say, if such
be the doctrine of the Bible, it must be the work
of designing men; and if his infidelity has not
become the madness of atheism, he will addleave the character of the Deity unpolluted by
the imputation of a system so offensive to its purity. But when he learns that this doctrine is
neither a part of Christianity, nor taught in the
Bible, if he is constituted like other men, and the
religious feelings ever touch and warm his heart,
he will feel new and grateful emotions as he imbibes the great and redeeming truths, that a God
of goodness could not devise-a God of truth
could not reveal, and a God of mercy can never




ï~~ENDLESS MISERY.              91
inflict endless miseries upon mankind. But that
the Bible teaches, that Christianity secures to the
believer the hope of future universal glory and
blessedness.




ï~~CHAPTER VII.

PLENARY INSPIRATION.
Several causes of infidelity have been already
found in some of the existing doctrines of the
Christian church-doctrines which neither have,
nor can have, any bearing upon the truth of the
Gospel, unless they can be shown to be a part of
the plan of divine revelation. This, if we are not
greatly mistaken, can never be successfully done,
nor is it conceived to be possible to set aside the
evidence which has been furnished, that the particular doctrines to which we have referred, were
not originally comprised in the articles of Christian faith. And there is good reason to believe,
that all other ostensible causes of infidelity, respecting the being and perfections of God-his
general providence, and the revelation of his will,
as recorded in the Bible-are equally unfounded
in truth.
Hitherto we have seen the infidel combatting
facts, which though actual and palpable, have no
relation to his subject. They are the mere accidents of the Christian profession, but formed no
share of the original system of revealed truth.




ï~~PLENARY INSPIRATION.

93

And he might as well object that there is no such
thing as a sun in the universe, because it sometimes happens to be night, or occasionally a
cloudy day. He has not failed to inform himself
correctly respecting the latter, and should by all
means use the proper means to obtain certain information with regard to the former. For can
the unbeliever think-can any man seriously think
that he has no greater interest in the question,
whether man has a Creator to whom he is bound
by ties that death itself can not sever, than in one
of mere science? Has he-can he have so deep
an interest in any other subject, as in that which
assures him that he is under the constant care and
guidance of a benevolent Deity, who will support
him through the trials of the present life, and after death, crown him with immortality and blessedness? We know not the amount of indifference which men may feel on this subject-but it
really appears impossible to doubt what answer
every- man would give to these questions.
Every one of the subjects connected with the
profession of Christianity, and which has had any
influence in furnishing the materials of infidelity,
is an accumulation made in the progress of the
Gospel through the dark ages. They are as useless to the Christian, as would be the ancient baronial castles for defence in modern times. Both
may be precious in the eyes of their respective
owners, but no man ought to trust his body to the




ï~~94

PLENARY INSPIRATION.

safety of one, or the keeping of his soul to the
other-both are falling under the weight of years.
There are certain opinions prevailing among
many Christians, which have had their full share
of influence, in the production of skepticism or
infidelity. Among these, the belief of the actual
inspiration of every word of the Bible, holds the
first rank. And though far less pernicious in its
moral and relative influences, than some of the
doctrines which have been noticed, it is perhaps
as fruitful as any one of them in unbelief. The
opinion that every part and particular of the Bible
was written by the inspiration of Giod, was probably never known to produce despair, insanity, or
suicide, whatever task it may have laid upon human credulity. Nor is there any evidence that its
belief ever made any man better, or that its disbelief is productive of immorality. And as to any
obligation on the part of the Christian, to maintain and defend the inspiration of every part of the
Old and New Testaments, none exists. The Bible itself, makes no such demand upon the credulity of any man. And it contaips no evidence
whatever, that any of the writers of that bookwhether priest or prophet, patriarch or apostle,
lawgiver or evangelist--ever required such an
exertion of faith. All that is asked, is, that mankind should believe that their statements are true.
But it requires no special discernment to perceive
that inspiration can not be necessary to enable




ï~~PLENARY INSPIRATIO.

95

candid and honest men to tell the truth. And it
is supposing the Deity officiously performing a
work of entire supererogation, to maintain that he
inspired men to do what could be done equally
well without such aid. The idea that God especially aided with his spirit, in the performance of
what any man of common honesty might and
would do, in the circumstances described, is to
the last degree preposterous.
But lest this should be doubted, let a few examples be taken from both the Old and New Testaments, and it is believed that full satisfaction
may be gained in relation to the subject.  What
inspiration could be requisite to enable the historian to give a circumstantial account of the personal combat between David and Goliath, and of
the subsequent battle between the hostile armies
of Philistia and Israel? It plainly required no
such aid to give the narration, any more than it
was necessary to record the encounter between the
Horatii and Curatii, or to give a detailed account
of the battle of Waterloo. There was nothing
supernatural in the case-and even if there had
been, it would not require such aid to enable candid and honest men to relate what they saw with
their eyes, and heard with their ears.
Take another instance, from the account given
in the New Testament, of the apprehension, trial,
and crucifixion-- and even the resurrection of
Chr ist--and then endeavor to ascertain why the




ï~~96

PLENAIRY INSPIRATION.

special inspiration of the evangelists was necessary to enable them to relate the facts there recorded. Some of them were eye-witnesses of
nearly all the transactions. It surely could not
he necessary to those who were present-nor
could it be to those who were not eye-witnesses,
so long as they had access to all the means of information on the subject. St. Luke was one of
the latter, and he expressly tells us, that he derived his knowledge of the facts from the ordinary
means-the information of eve-witnesses, instead
of deriving it from- inspiration. And we would
respectfully ask our brethren who are so tenacious
of the plenary inspiration of the evangelists,
whether we should believe Luke, or themselves?
The history of the accession and reign of the
respective kings of Judah and Israel, contained
in the Old Testament, and which is continued
through a succession of ages, could not require,
and evidently did not receive, the aids of inspiration. For, with the exception of the occasional
incidents which attest some extraordinary interposition, and making allowance for -national peculiarities, the record is in all respects, such as must
appertain to every people having a regular government. And we see no reason why every part of
the extended history here alladed to, might not
be written withou the aid of special inspiration.
It is not pr.tended by any one of the writers, that
such help was received-ad why any one should




ï~~PLENARY INSPIRATION.

97

now find it necessary to honor them  with adistinction which they never claimed, is not understood.
There are also in the New Testament, certain
passages and disavowals which plainly forbid the
ascription of the agency of the divine spirit in all
that is there recorded. Such is the request made
by Paul, that a young fellow-laborer should bring
from a certain place, some books, parchments, and
a cloak which that apostle had left behind. Noth
ing could be more common and natural, than this
request. It is one of familiar occurrence in all
communities; and it is extremely difficult to imagine either the propriety or necessity of any superhuman aid in its expression. And we are confident that setting up a claim to such aid, for such
occasions, instead of doing honor to the divine
spirit, and inducing respect for the claims of the
Bible, is the very way of all others to produce a
very different result. As it has been more than
once already remarked, so it may be again--it is
one of the ways by which Christians very ertainiy
promote infidelity. For no man, not predisposed
by the principles of a favorite hypothesis, can for
a moment believe, that the holy spirit moved the
apostle to request a friend to bring him his cloak!
And the consequence will be, what it too frequently is, that too many become skeptical reppecting the whole Bible. It is surely eacugh
that inspiration shoui be given, and there is evi7




ï~~98

FLENARY INSPIRATION.

dence that it was given, when necessary; but to
insist that it is universally applied to the most
trifling and unimportant expression, as well as to
the great purposes of prophecy, is to defeat the
ends for which it is maintained. And the time
will come, when the advocates for the actual inspiration of every word of the Bible, will feel
grateful that there are Christians who could find
and show other and more substantial reasons for
the credibility of the Scriptures.
The catalogue of examples might be increased
to any extent; but from those given, it will not be
doubted that a vast many others might be furnished. But as every one can perform this work
for himself, their introduction will be dispensed
with in this place. It will be sufficient to say,
that all the general history of the Hebrews as a
nation-the books called Samuel, Kings, and
Chronicles, in the Old Testament-and all the
historic parts and epistles of the New-could no
more require the special interposition of the holy
spirit to enable their respective authors to write
them, than such assistance was requisite to the
writing of the history of Rome, the American
State papers, or the letters of Washington. And
it is matter of peculiar satisfaction, to feel assured
that this statement, so far from favoring the cause
of unbelief, is directly calculated to remove one
of the reasons of its existence. And since the inspiration of every part of the. Bible is no where,




ï~~PLENARY INSPIRATION.

99

in that book, made the subject of faith, the Christian should be careful so to regulate his creed, as
not to incur the imputation of being wise above
what is written.
It will probably be asked-and the question
should be distinctly answered-if direct inspiration was not required in order to the confirmation
of the particular writings named, in what part or
particular was it necessary? The inspiration that
appertains to the Bible, relates to the subject matter, instead of the style or manner of expression.
This is obvious, from a comparison of the general style of composition employed by different
prophets. That of the Psalms and of Isaiah, is
immensely more lofty and engaging, than most of
the others. Yet in all, there are particular parts
in which the composition accords with the sublimity of the subject. It was then, the truth recorded which required the inspiration of God, and not
the language in which the record was made. The
language was one in common use, and each inspired writer was left to use it in his own peculiar
way. And in its proper place we shall discover
that this was by far the most suitable, both for
those to whom the revelation was immediately
sent, and for all after generations.
The special mission of Moses, for effecting-the
deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt, presents
an undoubted instance of a divine interposition.
He was expressly inspired for that particular pur



ï~~100

PLENARY INSPIRATION.

pose, and in some instances, was instructed what
words he should employ, as well as what miracles
he should perform. But even here, with the exceptions named, he was left to use such language
and forms of speech, as the occasion suggested.
And the same remark applies, generally, to the
whole of that extraordinary trust reposed in him,
for bringing the Hebrews to the land of promise,
and for giving them those remarkable institutions
by which they were distinguished from all other
nations. As a lawgiver, announcing the divbe
will, he adheres with punctilious exactness to the
letter of his instructions. b3ut as a man, he receives the advice of his friends, and speaks and
acts as other men may be supposed to do under
similar circumstances. And that he does so, is
one very important evidence, that when he gave a
system of moral rules for the benefit of his nation,
they were, what they profess to be, given by inspiration of God.
The messages of the respective prophets, were
also by divine inspiration. And the fact that they
were actual prophecies of events, which for many
successive ages have been gradually developing,
is of itelf evidence that they were dictated by the
energy of the Deity. Man, by the mere unassisted powers of his own mind, is wholly incompateut to the task, which was certainly performed
by th. Jewish prophets-that of foreteking events
witk accuracy atdcertainty. The ample percep



ï~~?LEZAR1 INSIiRATION.10

101

tion of a mind, which grasped a long and an immense concatenation of causes and consequences,
is alone equal to such a work. And when we see
it performed, we are constrained to believe that
the influences of such a mind were felt by the
men who looked through the involutions of human
affairs, with the precision with which an astronomer, by the help of a telescope, penetrates the
regions of space. But this did not affect the terms
in which they communicated their predictions to
mankind. They still used, and must necessarily
use, the common language of their country, in
making themselves intelligible to the great mass
of the people; and in some instances, they employed others to write down the message which
they delivered orally. The prophets were not
always under the influence of prophecy--they
lived and acted among men, and bore the character and sustained the relations common to othex
men. And in that character they neither seeded
nor ordinarily used the inspiration of which, at
times, they were the distinguished recipieats.
The whole life of Jesus, was one of continued
and illustrious mental and moral illuumiation,
From the moment of his -pblic manifestation as
a messenger frqm God, his coversation his
teachings, and his whole conduet, wexe of a chfr
racter suited to thUe great objects of his "mi~ss.
EveXy thing in relatiW3 to him, is frau ght with the
most striking and impessive tokeni of the ageo



ï~~102

PLENARY INSPIRATIbON.

panying spirit and power of the divine presence.
And there are the same 'evidences of the inspiration of God, in his words and in his works-in his
life and in his death. In the apostles, the same
general purposes were to be answered, and the
work was to be carried on, as by their Master.
And it was consequently necessary that they
should receive the same divine aid. The gifts of
the holy spirit of truth and power, were consequently imparted to them; and they exhibited its
influence in the devoted zeal, the moral purity,
the unbounded charity, the uncompromising
fidelity, and the untiring labors of their lives.
And yet, there are indications of something more
human in their characters, than ever appears in
the character of Christ; and there are times when
they are plainly left to the dictates of common
sense and common discretion, in the regulation
of their conduct.
From these facts, it appears that it is sufficient
for all the objects and requirements of Christian
faith, to believe that the great principles and doctrines of truth contained in the Bible, were given
by the inspiration of God; and that those persons
who were made the instruments of their revelation
to mankind, were also inspired for that purpose.
But the Christian need not maintain the inspiration of every part--every word of the Bible. Because in some cases, it could not be necessaryin others it could not be credited if asserted-in




ï~~PLENARY INSPIRATION.

103

some it is expressly disavowed-and it is in no instance required. And howeverpainful it may be
for some professors of the Christian faith, to yield
up their belief in the universal inspiration of the
Scriptures, they must do so for the sake of consistency. And when they have performed this
duty, they will be able to defend, not only a revelation in general, but every part of the Bible, from
the assaults of opposers.
In the meantime, unbelievers will discover that
the ground of controversy is changed in relation
to this subject. And they can neither sneer nor
frown upon the Bible, when thus presented to
their acceptance, nor successfully controvert the
arguments for the inspiration of those truths,
which human reason could not and did not discover, and which have greatly improved both the
moral and social condition of man, in defiance of
the corruptions which have been incorporated
with their original principles.




ï~~C1APTER IX.

NiATURE OF JINSPIRATIONr.
The reader probably feels desirous, by this time,
to Inow how rnay#es of u~4k4iqf he may yet
have to, wade through, before he arrives at the
sukj~ctprosowd-the juternal evidenes of (Chriatinity. Aitd as it is reasornable that he should
reeive   aiuwor, he is- assured1, that when the
u~tter fa11#y of X11l *bo:auses of intidelity which
orgt atent in the 4octriues of Christianity, but
in it e eriiu.ims, hay been shown, the su~bject
sh~all rvxive duje attention. We would see the
grund. ol~re4 of the rubbish which has been
accumulated by neglig. e or folly, so that however small or incomplete our humble edifice may
be, it shall have a foundation which we think secure. Every error that can be removed from the
Christian's creed, annihilates one cause of skepticism or infidelity. And hence this examination
will be continued somewhat further, because, we
are satisfied that it may be beneficial to two classes of persons--whose opinions, feelings, and prejudices are the most opposite imaginable--the
one, a Christian who believes too* much, because




ï~~1LATUUE OF INS1R4TI0N.1Q

105

more than the Scriptures" require of him.; and the
other, a skeptic who doubts every thing, or an infidel   who believes  nothin-g. Neither of these,
probably, will approve of this interference with
their favorite theories; but atill, if the errors. of
the one produce, as is believed, those of the other,
neither ought to complain of an attempt to set both
in the right. What has been said thus far, was
with that express view-and the same course will
be persisted in, so long as there is fou~nd a remaining item of any consequexnee, which coastitutes a
"loop to hang a doubt os,"
One important consequence of maintaining that
every word of the Bible was dictated and written
by the positive inspiration of God, is-Wthat it in'.
volves an objection to the credibility of the Scriptuein the question, why did not the evangelists
record the same facts, and in precisely the sarroe
languageI It is well known~, that unbelievers avail
themselves of this, with much apparent satisfactin   Nor is it by any means easy to perceive
why, if the divine -spirit dictated both the matter
anrd the maujner in which it should be comniun
cated, the facts should not be related in all respects alike. But that the several evangelists have




ï~~106

NATURE OF INSPIRATION.

drawn from profane history, do not reach the case;
they may perfectly illustrate every thing concerning it, except what relates to the agency or energy
by which the writers were influenced. The attention of different individuals as men, might be directed to different objects, and of course partial
differences might occur in their statements respecting any general truth; but -this is no criterion
by which the same men must act, when expressly
inspired to record a train of given events. It
seems most natural to suppose, that they would
make the relation with minute uniformity in every
particular.
Hence it appears, that if the Christian maintains
the positive inspiration of every part of the Bible,
the discrepancies in the evangelical history, may
be urged as incompatible with such influences.
If, on the other hand, he attempts to vindicate
these by parallels drawn from secular writings, it
may be objected that the cases do not admit of
the comparison. Thus, which ever way the advocate of the entire inspiration of the Scriptures
turns, he seems destined to take a position calculated to induce the skeptic to reject both the Bible and the creed together.
Under these considerations, we may be allowed
to ask-would it not be a favor alike beneficial to
the believer so situated, and to the unbeliever,
that a system of divine truth, based upon the
plainest maxims of common sense, and supported




ï~~NATURE OF INSPIRATION.

107

by the testimony of revelation, should be presented-one which neither involves the difficulties
above noticed, nor can encourage, even remotely,
the objections of the skeptic? Such a system was
presented in the last preceding article of this series-in which it was shown that many parts of
the sacred writings required no inspiration, and
made no pretensions to any; and that where inspiration was obviously given, it related to the
matter, or general truth, and not to the manner in
which it was communicated. It is believed that
this is the true state of the subject, and that it
places the Scriptures on their native ground of
fitness and consistency, and at the same time beyond the reach of any well-founded objection to
the inspiration of their fundamental doctrines.
For it leaves every writer of the Bible, at perfect
liberty to relate the truths committed to him, in
his own peculiar way, and to use such forms of
expression as were congenial with his habits of
life, or the state of his education.
From these causes, some are more particular
than others, even in their account of the same
transactions.  Some wrote in lofty, some in
chaste, and all in the earnest, simple, and. unaffected style of honest men, whose chief concern
was to state the truth. They never appear solicitous about the result of their statements, and
never, in any instance, court the belief of a single
fellow-being. The evangelists, especially, relate




ï~~108

NAATURE OF 1N PIRATION.

in simple and unostentatious terms, facts to which
they wre eye and ear witnesses, or of which they
had "perfect knowledge from the beginning."
This is the grand reason of all the discrepacies
of which we hear so much, and concerning which,
those who object to them generally know so very
little. And yet, we venture to say that were it
not for those very decrepancies, we should hear
a much more confident voice of objection against
the New Testament, than infidelity has yet dared
to raise.
Let it be supposed that the four evangelists are
witnesses on the stand, in one of our high courts
of judicature. And let it be further supposed,
that the presiding judge is one of those who object to the Gospel history, because there is not a
circumstantial and verbal agreement in the statement of all the writers. Now let it be also supposed that these four persons bear witness in a
given case, as they have done in the New Testament-each one relating in his own peculiar manner, the facts which came under his own observation, or of which he had acquired a full knowledge
from unquestionable sources. Would not that
judge think better of such testimony, and would
he not so inform the jury, than if it had been in
all respects precisely the same? No man can
doubt this; and it is believed that none will venture to deny, that this is the true course of prosedure, as well as the most consistent. And stuch




ï~~NATURE OF INSPIRATION.

109

is the actual and daily course, in which even infidels as well as all other men proceed, in all the
transactions of common life. They are constantly
doing this, without once finding fault, or so much
as suspecting that there is any occasion of complaint. Nay, more--they would resent as readily,
and with as much warmth, any attempt at impeachrnent of the purity of their motives or veracity,
under these very circumstances, as any other class
of men in the universe.
For shame, then-what is all this noise about
some trifling discrepancies in the Gospel historythese pertinacious endeavors to invalidate the testimnony of the evangelists! The great and only
important subjects which they have recorded, afford no. instance of disagreement; nor any pretext
on which to suspend a doubt, either of their own
integrity, or the truth of their statements. No
doubt some unbelievers would be pleased to have
had the same account verbatim, from each of the
evangelists--they would then have had something
to countenance their cavils. But as it is, they
must make the best of it, and so keep up their
complaints, because, forsooth, it is not more to
their liking. We have heard of a petulent husband, who determined to quarrel with his better
half, whether she did right or wrong. True, he
preferred to have her do wrong, because it kept
him in eountenawee; but still, he could and
would fiwd Ault, even when she did right, beoause




ï~~110

NATURE OF INSPIRATION.

such was his fixed determination. Such seems to
be the disposition of some unbelievers--they have
unfortunately acquired the habit of fault-finding
with the Bible, and with those who believe in its
truth; and they have become too testy and precipitate to ascertain with much care, whether their
objections are well or ill-founded.
From the considerations here offered, it seems
difficult to imagine any ground of serious objection to the truth of the Gospel history; since
uniformity in every particular, is not to be expected where a number of men relate, independently
of each other, the important facts of any given
train of events. For it is too well known to require proof, that different minds are variously constituted, and that they are, in consequence, differently. influenced by the same facts, and same
general circumstances. And so great is this difference in mental constitution, that there are innumerable examples in which men draw very dissimilar or even opposite conclusions from the
same general premises. The religious opinions
of inankind, who appeal to the same records in
vindication and support of their respective theories, may be taken as a prominent illustration of
this general truth. It is not singular or extraordinary, then, that the various incidents which
occurred during.the ministry of Jesus, should
affect the minds and feelings of his followers in a
different manner. It is rather to be wondered at,




ï~~NATURE O INSPIRATION..11

that there should be so general, and in all important respects, so entire a uniformity in their statements. Each one evidently set down those particulars, which most forcibly impressed, or most
deeply interested him, apparently overlooking
some incidents which, in turn, struck some other
mind as worthy of special regard and consideration. What was omitted by one, is thus naturally
and properly supplied by another-and that, without any impeachment of.the candor or veracity of
either.
We are fully aware that these views are not
entertained by many-perhaps a majority of professing Christians. But surely, as Christians, we
are under no moral obligations to believe what
the Bible, the only legitimate rule of faith, never
requires. And especially, when such belief involves very serious objections, and actually induces
many to reject the Scriptures as a system of revelation. It may be, and no doubt is true, that unbelievers do not fully examine the Bible, for the
purpose of ascertaining whether it demands our
faith in its entire inspiration. But then it should
be recollected that they have taken the word of
those who profess to believe it, and who advocate
the inspiration of every part of it, as the ground
of their objections. And it remains for Christians
themselves, to set the example in this work of investigation, so that the maxims of their creed may
no longer be liable to these difficulties, or conse



ï~~112

NATURE OF INSPIRATION.

quences. Protestant Christians, especially, owe
this to themselves, whose glory it is to approximate by all means in their power, the original
purity of evangelical faith-they owe it to the
simplicity of the Gospel, which originally excited
none of the objections of modern skeptics, and
was therefore free from those doctrines and peculiarities which have been shown to be corruptions
of primitive truth-and they owe it to the world,
that mankind may no longer be driven from the
belief and obedience of those principles which
secure and promote virtue, peace, and salvation.
And whether those who hold the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, will, or will not enter
upon the examination of this subject, we venture
to urge upon skeptics and unbelievers the propriety of doing so, however little they may be
disposed to such investigations. Of all subjects,
the study of the Scriptures is that, perhaps, to
which infidels have the greatest repugnance. But
certainly, many of them would be thought candid
men-and as such, they would not willingly and
hastily disregard any reasonable labor, which involves their own and the welfare of their families
and friends. They are at great pains and expense
to educate their children-for this they "rise early, late take rest, and eat the bread of. carefulness;" and they can searcely feel less interest in
those great truthe which so deeply concern the
moral feelings wi conduct, and which tend to




ï~~NATURE OF INSIPIRATTION.

113.

support and comfort the sorrowful, as well as to
sustain the soul in the moment of dissolution.
And they can-it is believed they will devote some
portion of their time and attention to even the
Bible, for the purpose of ascertaining its truth,
and whether all or a part only of its truths are of
divine origin, and whether it professes to have
been wholly written by inspiration.
But they may perhaps reply, that they have
read the Bible-that they were brought up to
read it, and when young, were aceustomed to do
so repeatedly. Be it so; and can sober and candid men suppose that such reading possesses any
of the proper characteristics of deliberate investigation? They cannot pretend this. They probably read Don Quixotte, or Robinson Crusoe, when
children-but it is presumed that they have refreshed their memories by re-perusal since they
were men. And is not the Bible as worthy of
their attention? They know, too, that they generally read the Bible, as a task imposed by
parental authority; and that occasionaiyH they
were enlightened respecting its import, by the
construction which the parent's creed imposed
upon the text. It was under such auspices that
both the knowledge which unbelievers generally
have of the Scriptures, and their prejudices against
them were formed. Under such circumstances
the impression was frst received, that the Bible
contained doctrines, and demanded a stretch of
credulity, at which reason revolts-and which
8




ï~~114

14NATU1 O1 I N SVIRAI O N (r

have since been rejected at the expense of the Bible itself. Thus unbelievers decide; and thus
they appear to forget that they are as liable to
the influence of early impressions as other persons; and that erroneous views imbibed in childhood, adhere to them as effectually as to those
who retain the utmost pretensions of their fathers'
creed. For they were taught to believe that the
Scriptures were wholly written by the immediate
inspiration of God, and they yet believe, that the
Bible lays claim to that distinction.
Now what we ask of them, is, to read the Bible
again, in order to ascertain whether it furnishes
the evidence that its whole subject matter was
dictated, and its phraseology controlled by immediate inspiration.  If it does not furnish the evidence of being so written, then another ground
of objection will be removed; and unbelievers be
taught, that in asserting the contrary, they do injustice both to themselves and to the Scriptures.
Several considerations have been offered to show,
that neither the whole subject matter, nor the
language of the Bible, was by direct inspiration.
And we have a right to expect, if not to demrnand,
that infidels will examine the subject, before they
repeat the objection. Until they do this, they
are incompetent to judge correctly respecting it;
and the reiteration of thetr contempt for the Bible
on that account, will betray a disposition to cavil,
rather than a sincere desire to understand and
obey the truth.




ï~~CHAPTER X.

EXTRAVAGANCES OF CHRISTIANS.
Without descending to a prolix minuteness in
reviewing the causes of infidelity laid in the doctrines and opinions of Christian professors, we
may yet notice one more particular relating to religious practices. We say practices--for there
are such, which are not considered as properly
under the denomination of morals, and which are
yet esteemed religious. And they are termed religious, not that they are thought to be indispensable to religion, but because certain religionists
adopt and practice them. They are of such a
nature as to admit of almost every form and modification that may suit the taste of any age, or the
fancy of any particular person.. By them, certain
communities stand apart in the great family of
Christians--so that, with many other things in
common, by these they are distinguished and
known.
These practices have, at different times, and i
particular individuals, assumed nearly every con
ceivable form of extravagance. -And these extravagances have been the prolific sources of disgust




ï~~116

EXTRAVAGANCES OF CHRISTIANS.

and irreligion. The reason is perfectly plain.
For many of those who think and reason, when
they see the professors of any given system, and,
as they suppose, under its sanctions, acting unreasonably, will take it for granted, that the whole
system and its profession are alike absurd. And
we fear that the present age must answer for its
full share of blame in this paticular; since, with
all its wisdom, science, and refinement, it has cherished and encouraged some of the most daring
outrages upon the decorum and consistency of the
Gospel, as well as upon the dictates of sober and
enlightened reason. It has done this in the name
of Christianity-and modern unbelievers have, as
far as their means extended, made Christianity
responsible for the extravagances of some of its
devoted friends.
The mistake which lies at the foundation of
both these evils-the extravagances of Christian
professors, and consequent infidelity--probably,
in a great majority of instances, originates in a
very sincere desire to advance the interests of
Christianity. But there is an error in the selection of proper means. Some are betrayed into
an excess of zeal by the native warmth of their
constitutions, and literally run mad in search of
ways, and means, and occasions, in which to display their rulhig passion. There are others who
for some real or supposed wickedness, have been
overwhelmed with penitence, and who on being




ï~~EXTRAVAGANCES OF CHRISTIANS.

117

converted to Christianity, have felt impelled to do
some very extraordinary things by way of atonement. And there are others still, for whom no
such apologies can be made-who observing the
general tendency of human nature to excitement,
adopt a course of religious extravagance as a matter of expediency. This class justify themselves
on the ground, that their religious practices involve no particular moral principles, and that they
are perhaps favorable to the interests of religion.
But, without calling in question the moral in
tegrity of any man, we may be permitted to observe, that it is believed they are mistaken in their
opinions; and that a little reflection will convince
them of their error. Does it involve no principle
of morality, that mankind absolve themselves from
the usual relations of society? It is notorious
that this has been done by an immense number
of hermits, monks, and nuns. Is not morality
concerned, when men adopt a course of conduct
at variance with all the ordinary notions of decency and sobriety? This has been done for many
ages, and is now done by several sects in this
country, in religious meetings held at unseasonable hours-conducted in an improper manner,
and continued to an unreasonablle length of Lime.
Is not morality deeply interested, when thousands
neglect some of the plainest duties of common
life, under pretence of serving the Lord? And
this is daily done, to the manifest injury of health,




ï~~118

EXTRAVAGANCES OF CHRISTIA1.

and the great detriment of the property as well as
comfort and care of families. Can it be for the
interest of the Christian religion, to illustrate its
profession by extravagances of which the sober
believer is ashawed?--which a great majority of
the youth regard as the subject of ridicule and
merriment?-which turn skeptics into downright
infidels?-and which terminate in a morbid reaction of feeling, if not of principles, in the devotee himself, whose " last state is worse than the
first"?  There are too many facts in proof of all
these things, to leave any doubt or suspicion of
their correctness; and whatever fanatics may think
of the matter, and however pertinacious they may
be in pushing their enthusiastic experiments, they
have only to open their eyes, in order to discover
that they are forcing a great number of persons
into infidelity-and, unfortunately, some of those,
whom it must be desirable to retain as the friends
of Christianity.
It is no part of our plan, to tax the reader with
a long detail of the extravagances which distorted
the features of Christianity before the era of the
reformation.  When first established, it was
wholly freo from any and every thing of a fanatical or disorderly character; and its professors
were alike distinguished for the sober consistency
of their zeal, the propriety of their conduct, the
decency of their devotions, and the moral purity
of their lives. During the apostolic age, only




ï~~EXTRAVAGANCES OF CHRISTIANS.

119

some trifling advances were made in religious extravagance. The Judaizing Christians were overzealous for the observance of the Mosaic ritualand the converted Heathen philosophers, showed
considerable anxiety for the preservation of the
principles and practices of their respective schools.
As yet, however, the outrages which distinguished
the Christianity of a later age, did not enter into
their anticipations. But when men were canonized for living in solitude and in filth-when they
received the honors of an apotheosis, because
they could subsist some forty or fifty years, upon
a stone pillar, exposed to all the changes and rigors of the seasons-then religious extravagance
had attained its maximum, and superseded the
more sober duties of common life.
The hermit eventually became a monk, the recluse exchanged his cave for the cloister, and his
solitude for a community; and vows of. poverty,
ascetic mortifications, and idle and frivolous ceremonies, became the standard of Christian perfection. At this time, the empire of monkery was
complete; and nearly the whole of visible Christianity, consisted in the rites which the church
had imposed. The encroachments upon the simplicity and purity of the Gospel, were so slow and
so uniform, as in most cases to pass without much
observation or censure.  Each succeeding. age
added something, either in principle or practice;
and the forms of religious extravagance assumed




ï~~120

EXTR1AVA.4NCES OF CIRISTIAS.

a corresponding modification. At one period,, the
fanatic was the inoffensive victim of a melancholy
temperament and mistaken zeal; and who, from
disgust at the ordinary forms of society, sought
refuge in the cloister; but this same spirit, afterwards, led him forth in arms, to court death on
the plains of Palestine, in the character of the
proud, reckless, and chivalrous knight. It is difficult to imagine a metamorphosis more complete,
than that which transformed the quiet, ease-taking
monk, into the ever-active and daring crusader.
The same spirit actuated both-it merely took a
different direction. And, unfortunately, in both
instances, the temper and morality of the Gospel
were almost wholly overlooked or disregarded.
It seems that a total inversion of the laws of
vision, takes place with many Christians, as they
look at certain things, considered far off or near.
Thus, all protestant Christians agree, that the religious extravagances to which we have referred,
were both improper and immoral; but they do
not perceive, that in whatever age they may appear, and under whatever form and modification,
they are stil improper and immoral. So that
things in the distance, seem to be ser a  ore
clearly, than evein the same, or at least very similar things, near at hand. In the retrospet of past
ages, ir is perevived that fanaticism led to crimeswhile the samÂ~ 'fantical spirit is now too often regardd as the uase of meh rligin, if rot of




ï~~EXTRAVAGANCES OF CRJUISTIANS.

121

virtue. There is, no doubt, a difference in the
degree of criminality which attaches to ancient
and modern fanatics--but probably no greater
difference than can be accounted for by the general condition and intelligence of the respective
ages. What was wrong, then, in the temper and
practice of enthusiasts, is yet wrong, however
modified in its developments; and if the apology
may now be made, that the moderns are sincere
and conscientious, it may also be urged in extenuation of the fooleries and outrages of a less enlightened period.
But we are principally, because more immediately, concerned with the religious extravagances
of Protestants, and with those of the present age,
rather than any other. To attempt a formal history, or even an enumeration of these, in this
place, is impossible; yet. it is due both to believers
and unbelievers, to take some notice of the prevailing fanaticism. Differing as it does, in some
respects, from any and every thing of the kind
which appertains to a former age, it may, however, be regularly traced through successive sects,
to the visions, trances, prophecies, ecstacies, and
prostrations of the French prophets, as their extravagances may, in turn, lay their elements in the
blind and furious seal of the Anabaptists of Gerrnany.
It is by no means intended to represent, that
the present actors in these scenes of moral misrule




ï~~122

EXTRAVAGANCES OF CHRISTIANS.

and confusion, are aware of the affinity of their
proceedings, with those of the enthusiasts here
named. Much less can it be presumed, that they
have any idea of doing disservice to the Christian
religion. They can not even intend to copy a
course of conduct, which those who know any
thing of the subject, will at once admit was extremely absurd, immoral, and dangerous to the
interests of the Gospel of truth. Still, whoever
will compare the proceedings of certain individuals and communities, in producing and conducting what are denominated revivals, or awakenings, as well as the conduct of some sects in
their usual assemblies for public and social worship, will at once perceive the workings of the
same spirit that has marked every period of the
church since professors turned enthusiasts.
Let the following things be duly and candidly
considered-and then let certain"professors of the
Christian doctrine ask themselves, if it can be
surprising that so many doubt, or reject the truth
of divine revelation?
1. Ministers of religion profess to be specially directed by the Holy Spirit, and converts
to have been instantly and miraculously illuminated by its influence--when it is a conceded
point, by all sober Christians, that both the
gifts of the spirit, and all other miraculous in
terventions of the divine energy, have been suspended entirely, since the age of the apostles.




ï~~EXTRAVAGANCES OF CHRISTIANS.

123

Besides, these very ministers are neither, in general, distinguished for their talents, their attainments, or their success--nor are their converts
remarkable for their religious knowledge or moral
purity. Some of this class of preachers, have
fallen into gross sins, some have abandoned the
sects for whom they labored, and others have relapsed into that state of apathy, consequent upon
undue excitement and unnatural exertion. Many
of their converts have seen and lamented their
delusion, others have lost the fervor of their zeal,
and others still, have returned to the beggarly
elements-their last state being worse than the
first.
When these pretensions and their concomitants
are duly considered, we must cease to wonder,
that while some men run mad, others turn infidels. These are the natural and obvious extremes
which act upon and influence each other, and
which will only disappear, when Christian worshippers return to the simplicity of Gospel truth,
to the manly temper and pure morality of the
primitive disciples.
2. Religious meetings of various descriptions,
have been multiplied to an unreasonable extent,
so as greatly to interfere with the necessary avocations and domestic duties of families and neighborhoods. Under some pretext, nearly every
day, or evening, calls certain sects to the house
of worship. And there are regular arrangements




ï~~124

E XTRAVAGANCES OF CHRISTIANS.

for doing this, for at least half the year. It is not
the accidental interruption of a different order of
things-but a systematic plan of operation for the
avowed purpose of keeping up a state of intense
and unnatural excitement. And in effecting this,
there is not only a waste of time, but a frequent
neglect of the most ordinary duties of common
life-loss of health-and, occasionally, loss of
reason.
3. Religious meetings are often held at unseasonable hours, conducted in an improper, irreverent, and indecent manner, and continued for an
unreasonable length of time. Thus, they commence very early in the morning, are continued
very late, sometimes through the whole night, for
weeks in succession; and men, women, and children, mix up the service with sighs, and groans,
and frantic gestures, and vociferous prayers and
praise. Nor are these things the result of accident, in which some particular circumstance
might both induce and apologize for the violation
of ordinary rules. They are the result of previous calculation. And those who will rise at four
o'clock on a winter morning, leave the care of
their families, and walk half a mile to attend a
prayer-meeting, are considered more zealous, if
not more religious, than those who prefer the less
9stentatious duty of looking to the comfort of
their children and households. Those who are
most obsequious to the arrogant dictation of some




ï~~EXTRAVAGANCES O CHISTIANS.

125

master of the ceremonies, who bear with most patience his abuse, hear with most complacency his
blasphemous assertions, and witness with most
apparent satisfaction, the violation of all the common rules of religious order and decorum, are
esteemed persons of remarkable piety. While
those who can bear up under all this for some
thirty, fifty, or sixty days, almost without food, or
rest, or mental derangement, are regarded as furnishing uneqaivocal proof of their Christian calling and experience, as well as confirmation of
their superior sensibility and devotion.
We might enlarge this catalogue of enormities
to a great length-but the particulars named, embrace the prominent extravagances of the age,
and are enough to satisfy any one, that though it
is neither a time for peopling the cloister, nor yet of
feats of chivalry, the spirit of fanaticism is by no
means extinct. In the mean time, we admonish
those Christian believers, to examine their Bibles
more carefully, for the authority which can justify
these things. What apostle, after the gift of the
spirit at pentecost, ever fell into deadly sins,
turned from the integrity of his profession, or relaxed in his endeavors to establish and spread the
influence of the Gospel? When did their followers commit sin without xebuke, or indulge in
fanatical.excesses unreproved?  When, but for
the rage of persecution, were their assemblies
helfd at improper or unconnmon seasons? or when




ï~~126

EXTRAVAGANCES OF CHRISTIANS.

conducted in a disorderly manner by permission?
And, at what time did they so overlook or disregard the social and domestic interests of Christians,. as to continue their devotional exercises
from day to day, and from week to week? Finally-when, and where, do they approve of extravagance in any form, or any exercise of the mind
not regulated by sober reason-any practice, that
is not sanctioned by truth and virtue? Neverin no instance can an exception be found; and,
consequently, all those outrages which have been
named, are not only unauthorized by apostolical
example, but are contrary to primitive Christian
practice-fanatical and injurious to the cause of
truth.
But unbelievers in general, do not appear to
concern themselves about the example of the
primitive Christians. They take things as they
find them, and seem to presume, that, because the
present age furnishes examples of fanaticism, it is
proof that all others have only produced Christians with more zeal than knowledge-more pretension than piety-more enthusiasm than substantial morality and pure religion. And that
these extravagances have had, and still have, their
full weight in confirming them in the rejection of
the Gospel, none can doubt who have given the
subject any attention. So confident are they that
these aberrations are the test of Gospel influences,
that they speak of them as among the proper in



ï~~EXT'r1AVAGANCES. OF CHRISTIANS.

127

dications of the Christian character; and instead
of regarding a fanatic as a monstrous production in the Christian family, he is more commonly
viewed as its proper representative.
Now, we deny that the spirit of Christianity is
fanatical; and maintain, that it never led a single
believer into any acts of religious extravagance.
And this has been proved by reference to the
principles, professions, and conduct of the great
Master of Christians, and his immediate disciples.
Some of the early Jewish and Gentile converts
fell into a few of their previous excesses; but these
were promptly disavowed and rebuked by the
apostles. Fanaticism, then, among Christians,
is of Jewish and Heathen origin; nor can an instance be produced from the New Testament,
which even remotely sanctions a single extravagance in Christian practice. It might as well be
pretended, that Christianity encouraged and countenanced crime, as that it authorizes fanaticism.
But this, none will argue-and when the subject
under remark, receives proper attention, unbelievers will learn that they have drawn conclusions respecting it without premises, and repeated
assertions which remain to be proved.
But the truth is, they find it easier to sneer at
the fanaticism of professors, than to ascertain
whether it is authorized by the Gospel as recorded in the Bible. And we venture to predict, that
whenever they will set about the examination of




ï~~EX IIfA1VAGaANeIs OF CHIUS.?IANS.

the subject, in sober earnest, they will find that
the extravaganees of Christians, in this or any
other age, have no connection with, or athority
from revealed truth, To this work of investigation, they should apply themselves without delay;
that by so doing, they may learn, that they have
blamed Christianity for the errors and weaknesses
of its friends, and that, notwithstanding these mistakes, it is altogether worthy of their faith, confidence, and obedience.




ï~~CHAPTER XI.

FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.
The principal opinions, doctrines, and practices of Christians, which are believed to be so
many causes of infidelity, have now been reviewed; and it has been shown, that not one of them
is either sustained or authorised by the Bible. So
far, then, as any or all of these particulars are urged
as the ground of objection to a divine revelation,
the unbeliever places himself in a false position--
since they have no actual relation to, or bearing
upon, the subject. This fact must greatly diminish the number, if not the force of infidel objections, and ought to induce the inquiry, whether it
is not possible that every remaining difficulty is
equally unfounded. We are greatly mistaken, if
the unbeliever would not bestir himself in sober
earnest, and that right early, were it shown with
equal clearness and certainty, that his dwelling,
or his health, or his pecuniary interest was endangered by the removal of an equal number of what
he supposed to be the securities on which either
rested and depended. And can any man believe
that his moral and social-not to say religious9




ï~~130

FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.

interests are of less moment, than his personal security or property? That there are such, is by
no means impossible, and we apprehend that they
will as readily be found among skeptics, as among
any other class of mankind. Still, with the hope
that such may be induced to reconsider the subject, and with a view to lighten their labor as
much as possible, the several particulars already
examined, will be presented in a more condensed
form.
1. The Bible teaches that there is one, and
only one God. And it represents him as the
Creator, Preserver, and unwearied Friend of
man. He is emphatically denominated the Father, as being alike the author of our being, and the
moral and temporal guardian of his children.
Thus in the Old Testament, while we are assured that "The Lord our God is one Lord," or
Jehovah, we are also told, that "there is none
else-no God besides."  And in the New Testament, the same great truth is distinctly stated and
enforced, that though there be lords many, and
gods many, yet, to the Christian, "there is but
ONE. GOD, even the Father"-" ONE GOD and
Father of all."
Now it is perfectly consistent, that a book
claiming to be a revelation from God, should assert his existence-and equally reasonable that it
should do so. And it is no less consistent, reasonable, and natural, that it should insist upon




ï~~FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.

131

his entire unity, and indivisibility, and alnightiness, in contradistinction to the numerous deities
which had no actual existence, but which were,
almost every where, the objects of human faith
and worship. So evident is this, that it is even
now difficult to call to mind what the Heathen divinities were supposed to be, and not on theeinstant contrast the God of the Bible in all the plenitude of his moral and natural perfections, with
their utter nothingness. And it inspires a species
of reverential awe, at the awakened consciousness
of his all-comprehending presence, his sufficiency and eternity. It does more than this-it impresses the mind with a strong sense of the fitness and consistency of his being and perfections,
and of the reasonableness of believing in his existence and attributes.
But in all this, no human mind for a moment
reverts to the possibility of his existing in three
distinct and equal persons. One absolute, omnipotent infinity of mind, is conceived of and confided in, as abundantly competent to provide for
and control the destinies of the universe. And
this is precisely the view given of the Deity, in
the Scriptures. Reason and revelation coincide
in ascribing to him a simple oneness of person and
nature. Reasonable men, then, can not object
to the Scripture representation of the unity of
God-ad none such will object,. when they per-.
ceive that they have mistaken the opinions of ho



ï~~132

FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.

nest but erring man, for the Bible doctrine of the
divine unity. It is just as reasonable to believe
that there is a God, as to believe that a house
had a builder-as reasonable to believe what the
Bible says, that there is but one God, as to believe that unity is not three-and as reasonable to
believe that such representation is the result of
revelation, as to believe any other fact that ever
yet demanded the confidence and faith of the human mind.
The skeptic, therefore, when he objects to the
Bible because he takes it for granted that it maintains the doctrine of the trinity, is at fault. And
the fact that the Scriptures do teach the divine
unity, and that they did teach it at a time when
the whole world was rioting in the darkness and
pollution of Heathenism, is proof that the Bible
doctrine respecting God, was revealed from Heaven.
2. The Scriptures teach, that what is called
the atonement, consists merely in reconciling man
to the Deity. Thus, it is said by an apostle who
well understood the subject, that " all things are
of God, who hath reconciled us to himself"-that
is, hath at-oned us to himself, or made us at one
with him. And again-" God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself."-2 Cor. v: 18,
19. This mode of atoning, or reconciling man to
his Creator, is hence made the basis of the Christian ministry: " we pray you, in Christ's stead,




ï~~FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.

133

be ye reconciled to God."  The word rendered
reconcile, in its various tenses and forms, is that
which is once rendered atonement, and but once,
in the New Testament, Rom. v: 11.
The following will give a perfect idea of the
Scripture doctrine of atonement. A father, whose
children have alienated themselves from him,
and become dissatisfied with his government, may
be reasonably supposed to send his only dutiful
son to reclaim them and bring them home. The
labor of performing this duty, may be extremely
arduous--may subject him to much personal
abuse and suffering; but no man in his senses,
would suppose that such labors and sufferings diminished the guilt, or lessened the obligations of
the disobedient to their parent. Much less would
any one think that such sufferings were particularly gratifying to the father, or that they were
endured in the stead of the actual transgressors.
Such, then, is the scriptural representation of
this subject. Jesus declares that he came to heal
the sick, to restore the lost, "to call sinners to
repentance."  And he does this, not by enduring
the punishment of the guilty-not by imputing to
them his own merits-but by teaching them the
truth, and showing them the way of life and
peace. And when men believe the former, and
follow the latter, they are said to be reconciled to
God, or to have received the atonement.




ï~~134   FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.
The Bible never represents that the sufferings
of Christ were designed to render God more merciful, or to exonerate the wicked from merited
punishment; but rather as the natural consequence
of the duties which he performed. Thus, the
Jews are said to hate him, because he rebuked
their formality and hypocrisy; they persecuted,
because they hated him; and Pilate put him to
an ignominious death, to gratify their malignity.
All this is perfectly natural and intelligible, and is
evidently the view taken of the subject by the
apostles. For one of them affirms, that in the
persecutions which he endured, he made up " in
his body, what was behind of the afflictions of
Christ."  By which he no doubt meant, that his
own sufferings in the propagation of the Gospel,
were of the same kind, and for the same object,
and answered the same end in proportion to their
importance. All this is perfectly reasonable and
consistent with itself, and with what may be supposed of a benevolent Deity. It is wholly exempt
from the imputation of absurdity, and consequently from every objection that lies against the
common doctrine of ftonement. The skeptic,
therefore, brings no objection to the Scriptures,
when he objects to the common views of atone.
ment; and all his toil in endeavors to strengthen
his position by diffleulties raised from that source,
is unavailing. He is in a flse position, and,
should do himself the fvror to correct his owt




ï~~FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.

135

mistakes, before he attacks with useless weapons,
the truth of divine revelation.
3. The Bible teaches that man is naturally possessed of all the physical, mental, and moral powers and capacities requisite for the belief and
practice of all that Heaven has required. The
prophets, the Saviour and his apostles, always
address men in terms which imply such ability,
and which as obviously forbid the idea that he is
totally corrupt, or incapable of truth and virtue.
Some, while yet entire strangers to the Gospel,
were acknowledged to be "1not far from the kingdom of God."   And no man of uinbiassed mind,
can read the beautiful parable of the " good Samaritan," and not perceive and feel that the doetrine of the entire and inherent depravity of mankind is forever exploded. In that, a semi-Pagan
is represented as even fulfilling one of the most
important of all moral duties, and acting up to
the letter and the ipirit of loving "his neighbor
at himself."
The Bible, then, on the subject of the moral
character of mthan, is certainly consistent with all
human experietce and observation, and, ceise.
quently, with reason. For nothing can be more
notorious, than4hat the worst men are considered
capable of doing better--and they are only supposed to be culpable, because they are thus capable. And, certainly, universal experience shows
that men making no pretensions to religion, and




ï~~136

FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.

who can not be supposed entitled to the appellation of Christian, do many things worthy of that
holy calling. The Bible, then, is not objectionable on account of the view which it gives of our
moral condition. Here, then, the skeptic is again
in a false position. He objects to a system which
has very generally obtained in the Christian
church, and fancies that he shall overthrow the
claims of the Bible to inspiration; when, in fact,
that system has no more to do with the Bible,
than with a dissertation on the distance and magnitude of the fixed stars.
4. The Scriptures distinctly assert, that every
sin of every individual, will be adequately and
certainly punished; and that this punishment
will be inflicted on each transgressor, in his own
proper person. Thus it is said, that God will by
"no means clear the guilty," and that "though
hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished." These expressions are so often repeated,
in almost every form of expression, that no reader
of the Bible need be told that it is a Scripture
doctrine, that "every one shall receive according
to his works."  And when the facts of Jewish
history are considered, it will be seen that the
punishment denounced was always inflicted, and
always upon the guilty. No instance occursand no intimation is ever given that one might occur-in which the innocent could justly suffer in
the room or place of the guilty. But we are ex



ï~~FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.

137

pressly told, that "every man shall die for his
own sins."
And all this is agreeable with the universal experience of mankind, and is, consequently, as unexceptionable as a doctrine of the Bible, as in the
experience of life. He who would complain of
the chastisements denounced in the Bible, should,
by the same rule, object to the eternal laws of
physical nature, which bring anguish from the
touch of fire, or pain from a broken bone. The
operations of the mental and moral laws of the
universe, as certainly bring guilt, and shame, and
self-condemnation to the doer of wrong. This is
the experience of every man, and he must be a
very unreasonable man who can object to a book
for asserting a fact of common experience. Such
objection is only made by those who, professing to
adhere to the teachings of reason, blindly rush
upon its everlasting truths, and fall the victims of
their own delusion.
If we were to propose the character which
would comprise all that is excellent, and a plan
of moral government least exceptionable, it would
be just that character which the Scriptures
ascribe to the Deity, and that system of moral
government which they affirm he maintains. And
as both are unequivocally illustrated by the laws
of the physical universe, and confirmed by the
convictions of every mind which reflects upon
the subject, no place is perceived for any reasona



ï~~138

FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.

ble and well-founded objection to the Scripture
doctrine of the nature and objects of punishment.
To object to the principle that every stripe inflicted on the offender, is designed for, and actually
results in his personal and continual good, is to
prefer darkness to light. It is to attempt to reason against reason and experience, which is either
sophistry or ignorance. But as unbelievers will
neither admit themselves to be guilty of the one nor
of the other, they will probably abandon the objection. If they do not, they will have no reason
to complain if others think them pertinacious in
maintaining a false position, in defiance of reason
and consistency.
5. The Bible teaches that all punishment is limited in duration. This was to be expected, after
learning that all the chastisements of the wicked
are intended for their personal and individual
good. And this fact has been fully proved from
the Scriptures, as well as by experience and ob
servation, and hence, the belief of the eternity of
punishment is an absurdity. It is not merely
reasonable, then, to believe that punishment is
limited, but such belief is indispensable to consistency. That we are correct in this view of the
subject, will appear by a few references to the
Scriptures, in which the doctrine of the final termination of all suffering, of every description, is
asserted in language so definite and certain, that
it seems impossible to misunderstand its meaning.




ï~~'ALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.

139

Thus, " death shall be swallowed up in victory,
and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off
all faces." Again--" but where sin abounded,
grace did miich more abound; that as sin hath
reigned unto death, even so might grace reign
through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus
Christ our Lord."  And yet again-" We trust
in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men,
specially of them that believe."
Now a limited punishment is so obviously reasonaible, when its only object is the emendation
of the offender, that all men approve of its infliction. It is one of the provisions of civil society,
teachers are indulged in employing it, and even
parents deem its exercise perfectly compatible
with the best affections of the human heart, and
the utmost feelings of tenderness. When, therefore, the Bible so speaks of the retributions of
eternial justice, as to show that they have a full
measure and limitation, it is proved-demonstrably proved-to be consistent with reason. On
What ground, then, do unbelievers object to the
Scripture doctrine of punishment? Evidently
on a mistake of what they teach respecting that
subject. Here, then, we find them again in a
false position, wrangling with a mere opinion, 1eterable indeed for its antiquity, and rendered resptetable by the learning, talents, and piety of its
advoates-but which, nevertheless, has been
proved to have no authority from the Bible. But




ï~~140   FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.
are unbelievers, or skeptics, prepared to admit
that they have been-that they are mistaken in
this matter? They must do so, or bear the imputation of objecting to what they acknowledge
to be reasonable. Their high pretensions to reason and consisteucy, should induce them to make
one more effort to sustain their reputation, by
abandoning a favorite theory, and receiving the
Bible as a revelation from Heaven.
6. It has been shown that the Bible makes no
pretensions to be wholly and exclusively written
by inspiration. It claims what is consistent with
the circumstances of the case, that in all matters
of religion, and in whatever concerns the perfection of morals, its doctrines and precepts are of
superhuman and divine origin. And we trust
that good evidence of this will appear in its proper place. But so long as the Scriptures professedly contain a revelation from God, it is certainly
reasonable that they should demand no more than
is consistent with their pretensions. And the believer in the inspiration of the Bible, should be
careful to ask nothing for it, which it does not
claim for itself.
The Scriptures claim divine aid, in the prediction of future events-in the adaptation of a single system of truth and morals to mankind in all
ages; and in the institution of principles which,
when followed out to their results, are certain to
make men better and happier. Now it is certain,




ï~~FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.

141

that no merely human intellect is sufficient for
these things. But it is equally certain, that all
these have been done by the Scriptures. And it
is therefore reasonable to believe, that the princiciples and ti uths which accomplish so much, are
of divine origin. The best forms of Heathenism
are undoubted evidence of the highest energy of
the human mind-and yet the institutions and
moral truths of the Bible, are as much above
these, as the heavens are higher than the earth.
The manner in which the inspirations recorded
in the Bible, as well as the forms of expression in
which they are delivered, constitute, in general,
no part of the subject of actual revelation. Nor
are these claimed as such, except in particular
cases, by the inspired penmen. And this is very
obvious from the records themselves; for were
every part and particular expressly dictated by the
spirit of God, the formal introduction of certain
passages in which the Deity is said to speak, would
be both unnecessary and improper. Such passages, then, carry upon their very face, the full
evidence, that much of what is not thus introduced, was written without any special divine aidas much so, as if the writer had merely quoted
from some other author, in which case none would
ever have doubted that all not thus marked was
really the author's own.
If, then, the skeptic objects to the Bible on the
ground that it is professedly, in all its parts, mat



ï~~142   FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.
ter and manner, a divine revelation, he is again in
a false position. It makes no such pretensions.
And his objection, consequently, is entirely destitute of point or force. Its great and necessary
truths are still a revelation; nor is it in his power
to furnish even a plausible account of their existence on any other supposition. For he can not
compare the highest and best systems of human
invention, with the great plan of divine truth contained in the Bible, without a blush for the infidelity which made him doubt that Heaven has
made a revelation to man.
7. The extravagances, particularly of some
sects of modern Christians, have led either directly to infidelity, or strengthened the prejudices
of skeptics against the Bible. Bit that book distinctly teaches, that " God is not the author of
confusion, but of peace;" and that in regard to
Christian worship, ordinaaces and practices, "all
things should be done decently and in order."These extravagances, therefore, are not chargeable either to the Bible, or to the maxims and usages of Christ and his apostles. And if we make
reasonable allowance for the vehement style, bold
and striking imagery, and forcible action, for which
the Orientals are particularly distinguished, and
which mingle in all the features of the sacred writings, we shall find nothing which can be even
construed to favor superstitio, excite t and
fanaticism. It is certain that the inspired pen.




ï~~FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.

143

men differ greatly from all modern fanatics, and
fiom any who have appeared in different ages of the
church, in one important particular-that of always being reasonable. Indeed, they were the
very opposites of all fanatics, in their quiet and
peaceable demeanor, their sober and manly zeal,
and their truly generous spirit of liberality.
Besides, it is by no means true, that the great
body of Christians in this, or any other age, are
or were fanatics. If an overwhelming majo'rity
of men of talent, erudition and moral worth can
give character to any system, Christianity is very
far from being properly considered as distinguished for fanaticism. An occasional exception should
no more be seized upon as a specimen of the whole,
than some human deformity should be regarded
as the sole index by which to judge of the just
proportions and physical beauty of man. Even
in this age of excitement, a few master spirits,
alone, make all the noise, and perform most of
the extravagances, while the great majority deplore, or despise the folly and impiety which they
display. So far, then, is th  Bible from  giving
countenance to excitement and fanaticism, that
an overwhelming proportion of its most devoted
friends and believers have never been led from the
paths of candot and sobriety.
The objector to the Scriptures, on account of
the extravagances of some few believers in divine
revelation, is again in a false position. For how



ï~~144

FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.

ever valid his objections against the conduct of
fanatics themselves, they have no possible relation
to the Bible. They do not even remotely bear
upon the question relating to a divine revelation.
Let him then reflect on the figure he makes in
the eyes of all candid persons-sneering at the
Bible because a few hot-headed believers choose
to act extravagantly. It is very true, that their
extravagances are absurd and ridiculous enough;
but, surely, not more so than the constant vaporings of certain pretenders to reason and philosophy, who, overlooking the mass of candor, piety
and morality inspired by the Scriptures, mistake
rant for Christianity, and animal excitement for
evidence that the Bible is not a revelation! We
shall be excused for repeating, that if skeptics
would vindicate their claims to candor and common sense, they must inform themselves better
concerning the teachings of the Scriptures, and
abandon their objections to, and overcome their
prejudices against revelation, on account of the
extravagances of some of its believers.
8. The Bible teaches that there is no true religion, no vital Christianity, without morality. On
this subject, it seems impossible for any one who
has read it with the least attention, to be mistaken. What can be plainer than the following" To obey is better than sacrifice"-" He will
have mercy and not sacrifice"-" Faith without
works, is dead"-" I beseech you by the mercies




ï~~FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.

145

of God, that you present your bodies, a-living
sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your
reasonable service." On no subject is the Bible
more express, or explicit-none is probably so often asserted and so enforced by almost every conceivable form of expression. But there is so much
of Heathenism yet cherished by mankind, that
plain and frequent as the demand for positive virtue is, it is either overlooked, or disregarded in
too many instances. We say this is Heathenism-..-because it is notorious that all the piety of
the Heathen world, consisted in offerings and
sacrifices.
Previous to the multiplication of copies of the
Bible by printing, and while the Latin church
withheld that book from the people, it is not surprising that rites and forms should usurp, to a
great extent, the place of the moral virtues. But
it is extraordinary, that Protestants, who. boast of
their high privilege of reading and interpreting
the Scriptures for themselves, should in too many
instances, follow in the steps of their pagan and
papist predecessors, and divorce morality from
religion. Were this not done, we should never
heat it said, that this man was highly moral, but
not religious; and that one, truly pious,. though
he falls into divers transgressions!
Skeptics, however, seem very, much disposed
to take things as they find them, without being at
the trouble to inquire into their causes. Hence,
10




ï~~146   FALSE POSITIONS OP UNBELIEVERS.
when some poor mistaken pietist does wickedly,
not only the church, butthe Bible is made to answer for his misdeeds. They forget that thGy are
indebted to the Bible, and to an education in a
Christian land and under Christian principles, for
all their better notions of moral virtue. It is impossible for them to account for their moral superiority to the Heathens of Greece and Rome, in
any other way. And yet they are constantly finding fault with the very book, whose instructions
have alone improved their own morality. Is it
not equally certain, defective as human virtue is,
that the believers in the Scriptures have been as
much, or even more improved by them, than unbelievers?' No fact is capable of plainer and more
tangible proof, than that they have. Nor is there
any other method of accounting for the greater
refinement and more correct morals of that part
of mankind known as Christians.
Does the skeptic ever appear sensible of these
facts?-does he either perceive or admit, that the
Bible has thus been the instrument of moralizing
mankind? We are forced to conclude that he
does not-because his objections to it, founded on
the vices of its professed believers, certainly inply that he considers it, in some sense, the cause of
those vices; and, consequently, that the morals of
mankind have rather been injured than benefited
by the Scriptures. But from the quotations

made-from an immense number of similar pas



ï~~FALSE POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS.    147
sages which might be adduced-firomn the superior
morality of the Christian world, and even from the
better notions of virtue entertained by unbelievers,
than ever marked the ancient heathen worldfrom all these sources it has been shown, that the
Bible both inculcates and promotes virtue. The
skeptic, or unbeliever, is therefore in a false position, when he rejects the Bible on account of the
vices of believers.




ï~~CHAPTER XII.

OBJECTIONS FROM GEOLOGY.
There are several objections brought against
the Scriptures, on account of the supposed inconsistency of some of their assertions and facts, with
sound science. These are, therefore, to be considered as among the causes of unbelief, and are,
consequently, entitled to careful attention. And
this, not only because it is an age of much inquiry,
but because every age is alike interested in the
truth. The cultivation of the sciences may render the necessity more obvious, of reconciling
the least observable disagreements between the
processes of physical nature, and the declarations
of the Bible. And it is matter of congratulation
to all lovers of science as well as of the truths of
revelation, that the advances and improvements
which have been made in the former, enlarge the
resources for furnishing a solution of every difficulty in the latter. Hence the same Waterials
which science drags up from the abysses of nature, and with which she assails the Scriptures,
become, by proper application,"the polished arms
with which revelation extends its triumphs. The




ï~~OBJECTIONS FROM GEOLOGY.

149

Attempt to array physical nature against the testimony of the Bible, is an effort to divorce what
God hath Miost intimately united. They are the
respective parts of an immense whole, and both
contain internal proof of their divine Original.
The one leads forth the mind from chance and
chaos, to the presence of an all-comprehending
Intelligence, whose might, and whose wisdom, and
whose benignity are impressed upoa every thing;
and the other carries us upward, and forward to
the knowledge of the dealings and purposes of
that all-governing Spirit, towards the moral portion of the universe.
The discoveries which have been made respecting the structure of the earth, and the consequent
improvement of the science of Geology, have been
thought to furnish evidence of the incorrectness
of the chronology of the Bible. This science
supposes, that our earth must have existed for a
much longer time than can be reasonably inferred
from the Mosaic history; and that this is proved
by the structure and arrangement of the different
strata of rocks, by fossil remains, and by the evident indications of changes which have taken
place, on or near the surface of the earth.
There is much plausibility in this objection,
whatever may be its actual validity and force,
And there is great danger that many will be misled
by the hasty and confident conclusions which
some very eminent and scientific men have




ï~~150

OBJECTIONS YROM GEOLOGY,

drawn respecting it. To these conclusions they
seem to have been urged, by the influence of a
new discovery of the elements which minglein the
structure of the earth's:surface-and to which they
evidently gave much more attention, than to the
Scripture chronology. The appearances on which
the objection is based, are all doubtless undeniable-nor need they be denied, in order to render
them  entirely compatible with the Scriptures.
This, it is believed, will appear from the sfollowing
considerations:1. Geology does not, and can not determine
with certainty our chronology. True, it furnishes
evidence of the existence, at some period, of various races of animals and species of vegetables,
which are no longer known to man, and concerningwhich, both history and tradition are alike silent, unless, indeed, we may take the testimony
of the Bible for some of them. It demonstrates,
that there has been sufficient time since the " irrnfant.earth was rolled together," to conigregateand
mature the substances, and to perfect the crystalization of the different kinds and strata of rocks--
to deposite and petrify the numerous and dissimilar organic remains-to expunge whole races and
species from the catalogue of being, and to introduce those which were probably unknown before.
And what does all this prove? Neither more
norless, than that there has been time enough for
effeotiug these things. But how long a period




ï~~OBJECTIONS FROM GEOLOGY.

151

has been required for the performance of these
astounding works? The works speak for themselves-but they have never told the number of
years, or of ages that were rolled by while they
were in progress. "And who is sufficient for
these things!" Who is prepared to say upon the
authority of the evidence at his command, that
even six thousand years are not sufficient to bring
4bout every fact brought to light by the science of
geology? Who is so intimate with the knowledge of the revolutions which have taken place on
the surface of the earth, during the lapse of sixty
centuries, as to determine with positive certainty
what has, or has not been done?  The utmost
that the skeptic can argue from geology against
the common chronology, is, that it furnishes
ground of conjecture that a longer time has elapsed
since the earth was, than is generally supposed.
But conjectures and facts are different thingsand it is believed that the skeptic himself would
ask something more tangible than mere conjecture, from any one who should attempt to overthrow even his theory.
All history, except that of the Bible, terminates
in tradition, in the middle of our chronology.
And yet, that portion which comes within the
range of authentic record, furnishes some extraordilary instances of physical change. Mountains haye become plains--volcanoes have in some
instances exhausted their fires, while in others,




ï~~152

OBJECTIONS FROM GEOLOGY.

eruptions have broken forth where all had been
security and quiet, apparently from the creationislands have emerged from the bosom of the
ocean, and, for aught we know to the contrary,
the vast continent on which we live; while, on the
other hand, broad tracts of land have disappeared,
and islands have sunk probably to rise no more.
Populous territories have been overwhelmed with
inundations, large cities have been buried by
earthquakes or volcanoes, and the sand of the desert, or the ever-rolling tide of some mighty river,
has engulphed the seat of empire, and the last remains of its deep foundations.
Had not authentic history brought the date of
some of these facts so near our own times, are we
assured that skeptics would not have disputed the
history of the creation, on their authority? Should
we not have been told, that some two or three
thousand years were insufficient for scatteting
some of the proudest and most stupendous works
of human skill, to the winds of heaven? Nay,
that this period could not have admitted of such
numerous and important changes in the state of
the visible globe? And should we not, in all
probability, have been carried back in the estimate
of ages, to some imaginary period, many thousands of years anterior to the common date of
the creation? Is it not much more than pr6bable, that the very existence of Nineveh and Babylon had been considered among the number of




ï~~OBflJECTIONS FROM GEOLOGY.

1-3

splendid fictions-a part of the creations and mnachinery of enthusiasm and imposture, if profane
history did not sanction and sustain the testimony of the Bible? And had not Homer identified
Troy with all our conceptions of fact, and Pliny,
or some one else, satisfied us that Herculaneum
and Pompei were above ground a few centuries
since, what speculations concerning their antiquity would flash upon the pages of geologists! We
should be told that the Troad would yet furnish
the monuments of ancient splendor-or that
Chaldea could still show a brick from the ruins
of Babylon, were they not even more ancient than
the Mosaic account of the creation admits. But
Troy was-and Babylon is no more; and yet
their very places have perished in a pcriod less
than the half of our common chronology.
In view of these facts-and they may be multiplied to the heart's content of any one-who can
say positively that six thousand years are not
enough for all earth's changes? Who knows the
ways and means by which the aggregation of differeut masses may have been brought about and
crystalized?-or what influence the endless modifications of seasons and climates may have exert
ed?-cr whither the winds and the waves, or some
convulsion of the earth, may have transported the
products of any given place? Who is prepared
to say how many iaces, or what particular species
of anmal and vegetable being were known or un



ï~~154

OBJECTIONS FROM GEOLOGY.

known to, primitive man?-how many, or what
kids, lived and perished before human foot pressed the vegetable productions of earth, or the
race of man became sufficiently numerous and
avaricious to trench upon the prerogatives of its
beasts, birds, and even reptiles 1 We repeat, that
conjecture is neither sound argument nor substantial proof, and however plausible, ought not
to furnish to any mind a sufficient reason for rejecting important and well-established  truth.
And were the tables turned, it is scarcely probable that the unbeliever would consider a similar
argument of any strength, when brought against
his favorite system.
2. Geology, as a science, is in its infancy.
The ashes of the distinguished men, to whose talents and industry the world is principally indebted for reducing it to a science, are scarcely
yet cold. This fact deserves to be very attentively considered, before any conclusion is drawn,
which, remotely or directly, shall have an unfavorable bearing upon the truth of the Scriptures.
The charm of novelty is not yet dissolved respectiag the developements of this interesting science;
and it is highly probable that the inferences which
have been drawn by some of its votaries, are extoavagant. Facts may be, and often are, discolored and distorted by fancy and imagination;
and those which geology for the first time brought
to light, may, from their nature, number, and




ï~~OBJECTIONS FROM.GEOLOGY.

155

magnitude, be readily supposed to impress the
mind with astonishment. Nor is it perhaps unnatural or sqrprising, that under these circumstances it should be supposed that a much longer
period was necessary for the production of visible
results in the operations of nature, than more experience and observation will justify.
The scientific reader need not be told, that the
process of crystalization is instantaneous. The
formation of ice upon water, is a perfect illustration of the manner in which this marvellous work
is accomplished. And however dissimilar the
form of crystals in. different substances, the process is to all intents the same. Now when the
materials are properly disposed, the combinations
and proportions completed, that process conmmences its operation. Hence, when such masses
as geology denominates secondary or more recent formations, were aggregated by fire and flood,
and wherever deposited, the elements of crystalizsation or petrifaction were instantly at work.
And hence, too, what is deemed the work and
elaboration of many thousands of years, or ages,
may in fact, have been fully accomplished in a
comparatively short period of time.*
A case in point came under the personal observation
of the writer. HLe was present at a funeral in the village
of Sauquoit, Oneida county, N. Y., in 1822, where on
account of a change in the place of burial, the remains
of an individual were disinterred. The more fleshy, or
rather muscular parts of the arms and lower extremities,




ï~~ib6

OBJECTIONS FROM GEOtOGY.

The conclusions drawn by geologists, respect.
ing the earth's antiquity, from the organic remains
of extinct species of animals and vegetables;
though plausible, are by no means certain. The
existence of these does not constitute decisive
proof of the position assumed. So far from this,
the most that can be inferred from them with
safety, is a bare presumption that the earth is
more ancient than is consistent with our chronology. But this is not proof, nor can it with propriety be admitted as decisive against the actual
chronology of the Bible, or any of its well-established facts. Neither does the existence of these
organic remains prove that the state of the globe
was only adapted to certain forms of life and
modes of being, and which could not subsist under the present arrangement of the earth's surface. Parts may have changed, and we know
that they are constantly changing; and this is
sufficient to account for these phenomena. Approximated species, both animal and vegetable,
would find a comfortable home, where their kinwere completely petrified-were converted into solid
limestone, from which the bones were projecting as if
inserted during the process of petrifaction. Hundreds
of personis were witnesses of this extraordinary fact.But what we are principally concerned with, is, the certain mistake into which the speculative geologist would
fall, in estimating the time necessary for the cou.pletion
of this process. We have every means of knowing that
these identical limbs appertained to a living and amiable
woman, oialy eighteen rears befor'e,




ï~~OBJECTIONS FROM GEOLOGY.

157

dred of a different zone would perish.  The
change of a morass or fen to a permanent soil,
might imbed innumerable multitudes of plants
and living creatures deep in its bosom, whence,
after petrifaction or carbonization, they are eventually brought forth by the wants or the avarice
of man-the objects of his wonder, and perhaps
the innocent cause of his skepticism. Climates
themselves may have greatly changed-may have
become inhospitable, where they were once congenial with races that can abide them no longer.
Illustrations of this are furnished in the former
and present vegetable productions of several
countries-and why not in their animals? A
number of causes, therefore, might have operated
in.. the production of the whole mass of fossil remains, without materially affecting even the common chronology. For those parts of the earth
which have principally furnished the geologist
with matter of speculation, can scarcely be supposed to have constituted a suitable residence for
man. The newborn earth might also have put
forth an energy in the production of mutations
from its latent resources, which by successive efforts have become partially exhausted-hence
the affairs of the surface have become more permanent, and important changes, comparatively
"few and far between."  And when the charm of
a new science shall have passed away, geology
will become another link in the scientific chain of




ï~~158

OBJECTIONS FROM GEOLOGY.

proof, that the Bible is what it professes to be-a
record of divine truth.
3. That the argument from geology against
the Scriptures is not conclusive, is proved by the
fact that it has not affected the faith of some of
the most distinguished geologists, in their authenticity. WVere there no other considerations which
weigh against the skepticism built upon geology,
this fact alone is sufficient to neutralize all its
force. For if we must rely on the conclusions of
any set of men, those of one class are as muchl
entitled to our confidence, all other things being
equal, as are those of another. And in this case,
it will hardly be doubted that the intelligence,
science, and acumen of the Christian, arefully equal with those of the skeptic. If, then,
we allow to each an equal attachment to his respective opinions, and an equal respect for truth
and candor, the matter rests, as far as human
testimony is concerned,preciselywhere it did before geology became a science. Hence,' after all
that has been inferred from it,, the authenticity of
the Bible is untouched by its discoveries and deductions.
It will probably be objected tothis, that there
are some facts in the Christian history, which
show that opinions are not to be decided by the
credulity or incredulity of cotemporaries. And
that if' this were the rule by which to determine
matters in controversy, the unbelief of the Jews




ï~~OBJECTIONS FROM GEOLOGY.

159

would be justly construed against the truth of
Christianity. And so it would were the cases
parallel. But they are not-it being evident in
the first place, that they never examined the subject, and were consequently incapable of giving
any substantial reason for the rejection of the
Gospel. Whereas geology has engaged the close
and devoted attention of very many, whose views
were never shaken by its disclosures, and whose
confidence in the Bible as a revelation from God,
has undergone no change. In all instances where
a Jew approached the doctrine of Christianity with
apparent candor, if he did not go away convinced
of its truth and genuineness, he was at least "almost persuaded to be a Christian."  And it is
equally probable, that when the chronology of the
Bible is as diligently investigated as the developments of science, geologists will perceive the
accordance of nature and revelation, and the
authenticity of the divine record remain unimpeached by their most profound discoveries.
4. Geology furnishes no objection to the chronology of the Bible, however it may be supposed
incompatible with that of the church. If it were
admitted that the' earth's duration far exceeded
what is commonly supposed-if all that the geologist can contend for with the least show of reason, were gianted-it would not weigh the amount
of a grain of sand to the globe, against the Scriptures. Such admissions are not necessarily de



ï~~160

OBJECTIONS FROM GEOLOGY.

manded, but let them be made-and what is the
result! It by no means follows, that a chronology based upon the births, and lives, and deaths of
successive generations of men, must comprise the
whole sum of duration since "the morning stars
sung together" on the organization of our system.
The Bible does not inform us in any definite terms,
that this period embraces the whole time since the
" spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep,"
and brought light out of darkness, and order from
chaos. The common chronology is that of manit follows him through all the periods of his existence, from the infancy of his being down to the
present time. But it takes no account of any supposable time, prior to his creation. This is the
fact on which geology fastens-concerning which
it draws all its inferences-and is the only one
which it pretends to sustain against the Bible.
But geology becomes its own assistant in solving the difficulty which it raises. Its developments have forced the conviction upon the minds
of all its admirers, that man was the last of the
Creator's works. For it is admitted, that among
the multitude of fossil remains, those which indicate the presence of man are the last in the
scale. And this fact is in perfect agreement with
the Scripture account of the creation,. in which
he is brought forth as the glory and consummation of the system of physical existence. "In
him the chain of being is complete." As an ani



ï~~OBJECTIONS FROM GEOLOGY.

161

ial merely, he is allied to every living creature of
earth-as an intellectual and moral being, he is a
child of the Deity. And he was manifestly set
apart and distinguished from all others, by being
brought forth under the last era in the economy
of creation.
On the supposition that the whole work of creation was completed in a single week as we reckon
time, an immense number of facts are thrown into
conjunction which are not absolutely required by
the Scriptures. The same general terms in which
they describe the process of forming and fitting
up the world, are employed with the utmost latitude in respect to duration-with a license, every
way adapted to the nature of the subject. And can
any sufficient reason be given, why this is not also
true in relation to the subject under consideration? If when speaking of human life, it is denominated a day-if the legal covenant which endured for many ages is called a day-and if the
dispensation of the Gospel which has already continued nearly two thousand years, is also termed a day-what limit may be fixed to its meaning,
when applied to a subject whose periods are beyond the reach of human computation?
No reader of the Bible can have failed to observe, that the word day is familiarly used to designate any period of time, however indefinite, of
which the writer was speaking. Hence, in the
Mosaic account of the creation, the period emi




ï~~i62

OBJECTIONS FROM GEOLOGY.

ployed in the production of any set of particulars,
is denominated a day. But it does not follow
from the use of this term, that the author intended to convey the idea of the exact period of time
ordinarily measured by a revolution of the earth.
There is a great number of passages, in which
such an application of its meaning, would be destructive of all harmony and consistency in the
text. And as the Christian is under no obligation to limit the word to a literal day in the pre
sent instance, so there is no obvious reason, why
that meaning and no other should be fotbrced upon
his acceptance. Nor does the fact that it has
generally been understood to mean merely a daiy
in the strictest sense, oblige any individual, or
denomination, to adopt that signification. Each
person has the right of putting any construction
upon that or any other subject, which comports
with his views of consistency, or the dictates of
his conscience. And this is done in respect to
the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, without
any impeachment of the integrity of the different
sects, or diminution of the confidence due to the
record of divine truth.
But this use of the word day-to signify an indefinite period of time-is not peculiar to any one
denomination. It has been adopted as the natural and consistent meaning of the term in its application to the creation, by some of the most
Astiguished men of different sects-if not as




ï~~OBJECTIONS FROM GEOLOGY.

their decided opinion, as one that was at least unrxceptionable.* And when the geologist has fully
removed all the difficulties which interpose between his theory and the common chronology, he
is earnestly desired to test the plenitude of his
prowess, in an experiment upon the language of
the inspired penman. Does he want more than
six thousand years for condensing the materials
and completing the structure of the earth?--the
first chapter of Genesis will permit him to count
as many ages as are necessary for the purpose
Does he desire a succession of eras for the full
development of all the processes, and the perfection of each in the scale of progression?-the
same chapter grants him seven, and he can scarcely ask for more! Would he have an advance in
the scale of being, from inferior to superior, from
brute to man?-that identical order is laid down
as the rule by which the Deity regulated his conduct in peopling the earth! What, then, does
the skeptic want? It plainly is not time, nor order, nor progression, in the Scripture history of
the creation. He will then excuse us for saying,
that his most obvious want is-a taste and a heart
for the truths of divine revelation. And he is
battering his weapons and exhausting his strength
in unavailing assaults upon a rock, which has
* See Drs. Good.and Chalmers-Buckland, Jameison; Profs. Silliman and Mather; Bakewell's Geology,
and American Journal of Science, vol. xxv, pp. 30-41.




ï~~164      OBJECTIONS FROM GEOLOGY.
stood, and will stand, unmoved and unimpaired,
amid all the tempests of human passion and imbecility. There is around him a troubled ocean
of moral and intellectual nature, which can only
be hushed into repose by the power of the truththat truth, through the instrumentality of the Bible, is, like the spirit of God at the creation, moving upon the bosom of the waters, and will yet
impart quiet and peace to all their deep places
and to all their bounds.




ï~~CHAPTER  XIII.

ASTRONOMY.
It is, perhaps, one of the most extraordinary
facts which have any bearing upon theology, that
the very field which is most abundant in the overpowering evidences of the wisdom, power and
goodness of the Deity, should yet be supposed to
comprise a mass of testimony against the validity
of a divine revelation. Such however is the case;
and there are not wanting those who perceive the
handy-work of a God in every orb that wheels
through the regions of space, and who read lessons of the divine character and perfections in the
solar system, who still seem to think it incredible
that a direct revelation should be made to man:
As if it were less marvellous that God should create unnumbered worlds-balance them in space,
fix their motions, distances and orbits, and probabably people them with races adapted to their respective climes, than that he should impart needed
moral instruction and the evidence of the resurrection to the inhabitants of earth. And all this,
merely because to reveal the truths of the Bible
to mankind, supposes the intervention of what we




ï~~166

ASTRONOMY.

term a miracle! But is any thing more miraculous than the existence, position and revolutions
of the planets-the light and influences of the
sun-the form, functions and faculties of man!
To produce these, or any of these, was as palpable a violation of some pre-existing law, as the
instantaneous healing of the sick, or the resurrection of the dead. For it should be remembered, that what we term the laws of nature were
not in existence, until the system itself to which
those laws are supposed to attach, was introduced
into being.
1. The objection to the Mosaic history of the
creation, derived from astronomy, is, that the sun,
moon and earth are made the grand objects of
creative energy, while the whole train of celestial
constellations which deck the heavens, is for no
other visible purpose than to amuse the fancy or
please the eye of the beholder: Whereas, in
truth, the solar system with all its parts and appendages constitutes but a mere point-an atom
in the field of immensity; and all which astronomy has ascertained, might be struck out of existence, and scarcely, or not at all be missed by an
inhabitant of another sphere. And that, however
produced, there is no good reason to suppose that
this earth was formed prior to the more important
and ponderous parts of the system; and consequently, that the Scripture account of the creation is vague and absurd.-especially that part of




ï~~ASTRONOMY.

167

it which makes several days and nights without
the sun, the only true cause of their existence.
It should be remembered that the Bible accounts for none of the phenomena of nature-it
metely in this instance, informs us of the process
by which nature itself was organized. And this
is done, in the terms of a language as brief as can
well be imagined. It enters not into the details,
nor stoops to the minutie which may well be supposed to have been accumulated for the production of the grand result. Nor was it necessary, that
in every instance the phraseology should be strictly philosophical and technical. It was enough,
that it was intelligible-and it was precisely that
form of description, which so universally obtains
among mankind, and which the most scientific
find it convenient to use in all their ordinary intercourse with other men. Whatever, then, may
have been developed by the improvements of science-whatever may have been added to the stock
of astronomical knowledge, especially by the assistance of the telescope, has very little, if any
thing to do with the Scripture account of the
creation. A proud and imperious hierarchy--
jealous of its power and apprehensive of every
advance of the human mind, may have been consistent with itself, and with ith own maxims of policy in adjudging astronomy to be inconsistent
with the doctrine of the church. And we shall
probably find reasons of a far different nature from




ï~~168

ASTIRONOMY.

those connected with the account of the creation,
for the extreme fastidiousness which the ruling
ecclesiastics have betrayed respecting the subject.
But it is very far from following, that the most
enlarged and liberal views of astronomy, are incompatible with the Bible. Whether we shall
succeed in convincing others of this fact, may be
problematical; but we are fully satisfied with the
consistency and propriety of the reasons which
are offered for consideration.
Let any one take the trouble-for it is a trouble that few skeptics or unbelievers do take-to
examine the first chapter of Genesis, and he must
be extremely sharp-sighted to discover any thing
especially exceptionable even to astronomical science, in the narration. The astronomer will no
more deny than the geologist, that there wasindeed, that there must have been a time, when the
process of organizing and modelling this earth,
took place. And to all the purposes of the argument, it is perfectly immaterial whether it were
an actual creation from nothing, or from pre-existing materials. The process is just what might
be supposed would naturally occur under the fiat
of Omnipotence. " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This is far, very
far from saying that the organization of the whole
physical universe then took place. And the evidence that so much was not intended, accumulates with every step we take in the procedure.




ï~~ASTRONOMY.

169

In this stage of the process, we are not told that
the several parts which are subsequently and immediately named, were reduced to perfect order.
The contrary is asserted in the most express and
comprehensive terms. So that there is room for
the operation of the elementary laws, which were
finally to regulate the vast machinery of the system, before the impression of a new mandate was
felt by the new-born earth. For in the next place,
we are assured that the "earth was without form
and void"-destitute of its harmony of parts, empty, and unprovided with its furniture of animal
and vegetable existences. The sun itself, possessed not the distinctive and remarkable properties, which subsequently constituted the all-important perfection of its character. " For darkness was upon the face of the deep."
The next step of the process was as obvious
as it was necessary*-it was to light up the mass of
confused elements; to diffuse over the chaos one
of the fundamental principles of order. "And
God said, let light be, and light was." There is
no intimation in all this, that this light was concentrated in, or poured off in exhaustless radiation
from the sun. There is no known principle of
reason or philosophy which obliges us to suppose
that this immense centre of our system was ne* Whewell on Astronomy and General Physics.Bridgewater Treatises.




ï~~170

ASTRONOMY.

cessarily luminous. It could, and for any reason
that man can give, would have been as opaque as
any one of its planets, had not a benevolent Deity
been actuated by higher objects in its creation,
than merely to make it the centre of our system.
The connection between gross matter, and light,
is net so manifest as to force the conviction upon
any mind that they must unavoidably co-exist--
much less, is it obvious, that light must emanate
from the sun, and from nothing else in our world.
That it does so, is plain-but it must not be forgotten that it is the combined operation of a conmplete system which meets our view. And there
may be as much propriety in the inference of an
uninformed spectator of the operations of a steam
engine, that the heat which generates the propelling power was always where he finds it, as in the
supposition of astronomy that light was always
and necessarily in the sun. That the mass which
constitutes the body of that luminary, was in being, is more than intimated in the previous assertion that God "created the heavens and the earth."
But it was quite another thing to render it luminous-and another still, to set the whole system in
motion, so as to make day and night depend upon
the revolution of the earth as well as on the light
of the sun.
What is there then, so very unreasonable and
unphilosophical in the Mosaic history, which asserts that " the evening and the morning," suc



ï~~ASTRONOMY.

171

cessively alternated, so long as light already existed, though the sun as a sun, was yet to be constituted the medium of illumination to the system?
The only apparent difficulty is in the supposition,
that there was no progression in the work of creation, and that the solar system was just what it
now is. But we have no right to such a supposition. And if claimed in this instance, it subjects
the claimant to the necessity of supposing, that
every perfect machine, was always a machine, and
always operated by the same principles which now
govern its movements. It is to overlook the fact,
that its respective parts were duly and separately
arranged-designed to bear upon and influence
each other, and by being put together-and put
together just as it is, produces the results which
were originally designed.
Thus, throughout this whole process, there is
the constant appearance of order and progression-a gradual approximation to the completion
of an immense plan. And there is no more good
serse, or sound philosophy in denying the suicessive advances of the physical world to that
state of perfection in which man finds it, than
there would be, in denying that the human mind
had made any progress in science. The astronomer may as well assert that man, six thousand
years since, understood his favorite science as
well as Newton-as to maintain that the moment
the matter of the solar system was aggregated, its




ï~~172

ASTRONOMY.

whole machinery was perfect and in "the full tide
of successful experiment." The whole process
of creation as stated in the first chapter of Gene
sis, is precisely such as might naturally and reasonably be supposed-and is probably as consisten
in all its parts and results, as the great men who
complain so much about it would be likely to
adopt, were the important business of fabricating
a new world, entrusted to their own hands. Certainly, the conjectures respecting this matter,
with which they have yet favored the world, prove
that they can yet imagine difficulties in the existing system, much easier than furnish remedies by
which it may be improved. And we would respectfully suggest the propriety of their finding
less fault with the history of creation given in the
Bible, until they are able to show, with some degree of certainty, that they can account more rationally for the origin of our world. This, they
have not yet done-nor are they at all likely to do
it, unless the genius of infidelity should work
greater miracles with human intellect, than any
which the Bible has recorded. And even were
this done, it would nullify the present skepticism
of the world, by converting its subjects to a belief
in miracles.
2. Another objection founded on astronomy,
lies principally against the Christian system as
maintained by the majority of its professors: it is,
that among so many worlds, and systems of




ï~~ASTRONOMY.

173

worlds, all probably peopled with rational and moral beings as well as this earth, and who may of
course stand in equal need of the grace of redemption, it is scarcely probable that the Deity could
condescend to visit our planet with so distinguished a favor as the sacrifice of his own and equal
Son, to the exclusion of all other places of his
creation. That were such a service required by
the condition of the inhabitants of every orb, it
would be strange partiality to pass them all by
for the redemption of man, and still more strange,
if he should visit them all with a sacrifice so
vast as that which rescued the human race from
the deepest perdition. And that if other worlds
are peopled with intelligent beings, it is probable
that they needed such service of mercy, as much
as erring man.
There is manifestly something more than mere
plausibility in this objection. And it' has tasked
the talents of some of the most distinguished theologians of the popular school, to furnish an adequate and satisfactory answer. Indeed, it is more
than they have done. And it was the difficulty
which this involved, that manifestly suggested the
former antipathy to astronomy, and the consequent persecution of some of the most distinguished cultivators of that science. Few things ever
have been more detrimental to the interests of
Christianity, than the apprehension betrayed by
the church, that "religion was in danger" from




ï~~174

ASTRONOMY.

the discoveries and labors of scientific men. It
has excited suspicions that all was not rightthat there must be prevarication and imposture
somewhere-or that there was a consciousness of
weakness altogether incompatible with the pretensions so long made, and so vehemently urged.
And these impressions were not confined to philosophers alone-they spread with the progress of
astronomy, and have undoubtedly induced a silent skepticism in thousands of minds, which imbibed their doubts with their views of the system
of the universe.
But the difficulty is neither in the strength of
the objection, nor in the talents of those who
have attempted its removal. It is wholly in the
system which they have endeavored to d@.end, and
against which, alone, the objection possesses any
force. And it is not a little surprising, that such
men as Chlmers, should never appear to discover the weakness of their own arguments in defence of the common hypothesis. They teach
us a lesson of humility, by displaying such great
talents rather in leading us from, than to the subject; and show their success in exhibiting the
glory of God in the magnitude, number, and variety of his works, instead of confounding the
adversaries of Christianity with the power of their
arguments.
And how could it be otherwise, while they supposed the system of redemption consisted in the




ï~~ASTRONOMY.

175

sacrifice of no less a being than one of the persons of the Godhead! Surely if other vorlds
have, like ours, sinning intelligences to atone for,
the same sacrifice must be repeated, to all appearance, an infinite number of times! Or, all worlds
except ours, must be passed by with neglect-or
their inhabitants never sinned. But to deny that
they have inhabitants, is contrary to analogy, and
to the rational deductions of philosophy-to deny
that they have sinned, will not satisfy the objector
who has a right to infer so much, because man
has transgressed-to suppose that God has made
no provision for their redemption, is to stig:~4atie
his character with partiality-and to suppose. that
his equal Son shall visit, in endless succession,
every separate orb in creation, to make an in-nite
atonement for the sins of each, is more than any
mind can presume. And it is not easy to conlecture a reason, why these things do not press
upon the received system of a vicarious atonelment.
Let it be admitted, then, that there are as many
worlds as astronomy has ever yet imagined--that
they are all peopled with moral and accountable
races of beings-that these, their inhabitants, are
so far like mankind, that they have all become
transgressors, and need salvation, or redemption,
as much as the inhabitants of this earth-and
what then? It will not be denied that He who
created all these, knows how to provide for all




ï~~176

- ASTRONOMY.

their wants, both physical and moral. It can not
be doubted, that he is as certain to make suitable
provision for all others., as for our little world and
its inhabitants. And as we have abundant reason
to believe, that he has instituted a process for the
redemption of mankind, we need feel no solicitude
for the fate of those with whose condition we
seem to have no common sympathy. The astronomer may, with perfect propriety, give himself
no trouble about the probable destiny of any or
all of the inhabitants of other worlds. Nor do his
objections actually amount to any thing more
than the merest probabilities. And as such, the
Christian is scarcely obliged to answer them.
But since he will not be satisfied without an answer-since that answer must be consistent with
itself, and with the Christian system, a~nd with
sound science--it must be given, for the sake of
the objector, for the well-being of those within
the sphere of his influence, and for the honor and
vindication of the Scriptures of truth.
It has been stated, that the objection to the redemption of man, founded in astronomical science, lay not against the Bible doctrine of grace,
but against the prevailing hypothesis. This will
appear from the article on the nature of the atonement. From that, it will be seen that the condition of man, bad as it is, and was, did not require
the immense sacrifice of the Godhead, nor of any
supposed divine person participating of underived




ï~~ASTROOMY.

177

divinity. That an infinite sacrifice was neither
called for, nor made; and that if it had been, it
must be at the expense of justice, mercy, and
truth. That the imputation of our crimes, and
guilt, and punishment, to the Mediator, could not
alter the temper of oar minds, nor so improve our
moral condition and character, as to render us
woithy of our high destiny, or fit for the communion and fellowship of good spirits in the mansions of the blessed. In fine, that the Scriptures,
instead of teaching such a system for our faith,
taught a very different one, and one more consistent with the acknowledged attributes of God,
and much more congenial with the condition and
moral wants of the human race.
According to the Scriptures, the Savour promised, was to be the offspring of one of the Hebrew patriarchs; and every predictien antecedent
to his actual appearance, supposes him to be a
divinely inspired man. From the New Testa'nent, we learn, that while he claimed to be tLe
Sou of God and the Messenger of truth and grace,
he called himself the " Son of man."  His chcsen apostles-the companions of his public ministry, and the witnesses ofhis miracles-denominate
him "a man approved of God," " the man Christ
Jesus," " the seed of Abraham," and who cou'd
be " tempted in all points like as we are, and yet
without sin."  He is familiarly styled " the high
priest of our profession," "who could be touched
12




ï~~178

ASTRONOMY.

with the feeling of our infirmities," and is uniformly represented as feeling our common wants,
partaking the common sympathies of our nature,
and suffering and dying like the rest of mankind.
All this is utterly inconsistent with the notion
that he was a self-existent God., The Deity partakes of none of the constitutional infirmities of
man-can neither bear our form, feel our kindred
sympathies, nor suffer any of our sorrows, or
pains-nor die.
Hence it appears, that the Messiah, the Redeemer of lost man, was raised up from among
men-a dutiful, and obedient, and affectionate
son, sent with his Father's message of love to the
rest of his family of erring children, not for the
purpose of bearing their punishment-not to win
for man the favor of his God-not to satisfy an
offended and violated law for others-but to teach
men truth, illustrate every virtue, and excite and
confirm the hope of the resurrection. And what
God has thus done for man, he can, and obviously will do for all other conceivable moral beings.
He secured the redemption of this world, by
means of resources which were at his disposal
among its inhabitants. And for the people of
every orb in the universe, he can perform a similar service, if necessary, and by similar means.
Where now is this mighty objection of astronomy, to the doctrine of redemption? Is it incon



ï~~ASTRONOMY.

179

sistent with that science to suppose, what Christianity assumes and teaches, that men were
transgressors-that Jesus came divinely inspired
and empowered to call them back to the practice of virtue? Is not such a system of religious truth consistent with itself? Is it not also
in perfect accordance with the testimony of the
Bible? And if all this is done for the inhabitants
of this world, what is there in it that is incompatible with the belief, that a similar work may be
wrought for the inhabitants of every world in the
field of astronomy? And if it was a part of the
plan of divine goodness to soothe us under our
afflictions, to mitigale our sorrows by giving the
proof of the resurrection of the dead, what is there
in the belief that the Deity may confer a similar
blessing, by similar means, on all supposable intelligent mortals, so inconsistent with the deductions of astronomy?  The Christian thanks God
that such a revelation has been made, and enters
by pre!ibation upon the blessings and glories of
immortality. The greatest astronomer who ever
honored that science or human nature by his discoveries, and by the improvements which he
made in the system, was a Christian. And his
views of the character of Jesus, and in consequence, of the nature, and duties, and objects of
his mission, made him both the first of astronomers, and a consistent Christian. Such was




ï~~180

ASTRONOMY.

Newton,-* and such will those yet be, who, like
him, read the lessons of divine wisdom and goodness in the heavens, and in the earth. He never
blamed the Bible, because it gave him no information respecting the laws of attraction and gravitation, nor called in question its authenticity
because it did not inform him whether the most
active agent in the elementary constitution of the
earth, was fire or water. And let a similar humility direct his followers, and astronomy will
become the handmaid of revelation.
It should not be overlooked, nor forgotten, that
the Bible makes no pretensions to any sciencesave that of religion. That, in all its modifications and bearings, as a revelation from God, is
its only theme-exclusive of the history of the
extraordinary people by   whom, and through
whom it was made. And when compared with
the systems of religion which all other works
have ever proposed, which have prevailed in any
age or country, it alone appears worthy of its di* Newton was constrained to reject the doctrine of the
trinity and a vicarious atonement: and believed in, and
wrote largely on the subject of, the Divine Unity, as well
as in favor of the Christian system. How much he was
influeaced in his opinions respecting the character of
Christ, by his discoveries in astronomy, does not, that
we recollect, distinctly appear; but it might be well for
other8 to consider his views of theology with more atten
tion, before they reject Christianity as incompatible with
astronomy.




ï~~ASTRONOMY.

181

vine Original--worthy of the adoption of the beings for whom it was intended. The God whom
it presents to our devotions, the purity which it
requires in his worshippers, the hopes which it
inspires in the breast of the believer-all tend to
improve the character of man, and render him
more and more worthy of the high place which
he holds in the system of being. And the more
the heavens and the earth are scanned-the more
the harmony and adjustment of the system of the
universe are studied-the better the constituent
elements of physical nature ate understood-the
more obvious and convincing will become the
great and fundamental truth of the Bible, that jin
the beginning, Gov created the heavens and the
earth."




ï~~CHAPTER X1V.

BIGOTRY OF UNBELIEVERS.
That state of mind which, without knowing
parti4rly why, is inveteraely and obstinately
opposed t9any and every thing not congenial with
its oQwn y.ews, is called bigotry. And whoever
e4ibits thle dislikes and prejudices of such a
IRd, 4 donomin&ed a bigot. One of the most
full  d perfect ilustrationx of this unarmiable
character, is furnished by the Jews, as their his'
tory has come down to us in theNew Testament.
They appear to have considered every thing
odious and detestable, which did not entirely
quadrate with their own opinions and practices.
And they carried this feeling to the extreme of
hating even the persons of those who ventured to
dissent from their own views. This was the prominent cause of the wide and marked distinction
between themselves and other nations-and certainly of the unrelenting persecutions which they
waged against the primitive Christians.
It is not extraordinary that persons who sincerely and devotedly believe in any system of religion, should become unreasonably tenacious of




ï~~BIGOTRY OF UNBELIEVERS.

183

their own views, when they are supposed to involve their own and the best interests of other
men. But it is a surprising fact, that those should
ever fall into the lowest depths of bigotry, who
turn all devotion into ridicule-who treat the Bible as a vulgar jest-the miracles of Jesus as the
tricks of imposture, and morality itself as a mere
matter of convenience. And yet, nothing is more
common than this excess, in those who make no
pretensions to religion. With them, it is an extravagant prejudice which fastens upon a theory
that professes unbounded liberality. For skeptics avow an utter indifference to the place or form
of truth, if so be that they can find it. And while
they do not pretend to have made the discovery
with certainty, they generally treat all religious
opinions as untrue. Now this is bigotry, sheer,
downright bigotry, under its worst form. And it
has assumed a great variety of aspects, in the exercise of its might and influence over man. But
in this case, it is wholly without excuse-without
even the semblance of an apology. For it does
not allow its victims to feel assured that even their
own views of religion are right. They may suppose that all others are wrong-but they can
scarcely feel confirmed in a system of universal
doubt and uncertainty.
The man who sincerely believes, and who deeply and devoutly feels that his religious creed is
tre and that it involves his own happiness or




ï~~184

BIGOTRY OF UNBELIEVERS.

misery, and that of his fellow-men, has some
apology for the tenacity with which he maintains
his opinions, and for the prejudices which he cherishes against every deviation from his standard.
He is at'least sincere in the belief that he is right,
and conscientious in the very dogmatism with
which-he assails the opinions of all other persons.
Besides, his integrity will, in many instances, lead
him to acts of real liberality. For as his confidence in the strength olf his position is unbounded, it renders him fearless, and he will manfully,
and in general, civilly-certainly with some degree of dignity-listen to the assertions and arguments of opposers. Every step that he has advanced in general knowledge-especially in the
knowledge of men-will be visible in the degree
of candor and charity with which he regards those
who, in his estimation, have fallen into great and
even dangerous errors. But this is not all: the
Christian religion, under every form in which it
has yet been believed, has never been so perverted
or misunderstood as to lose the whole of its moral power. Its great and prominent requirements,
have never been entirely overlooked. The command to have " compassion upon the ignorant,
and them that are out of the way," has diffused
an angel's benignity over many a fiery spirit, and
shielded many a heretic from legal condemnation.
It was this that gave the first effectual impulse to
that mighty revolution of mind, which, in its pro_




ï~~BIGOTRY OF UNBELIEVERS.

185

gress, has given security to every sect, and expunged from the list of human enorities, the
atrocious cruelties of the Inquisition. Civilization did it not-science and arts did not do itcommercial enterprize and intercourse did not
accomplish this desirable work; and could they
have effected so much, Greece, and Rome, and
Egypt, and Chaldea, had granted to man the
rights of conscience. The most indulgent and
catholic, the least censorious and intolerant
among men, is the enlightened and devoted
Christian.
Skeptics and unbelievers affect to look with
great abhorrence on the bigotry which they still
think prevails among Christians-which sometimes prevents them from reading infidel publications. And they seem at a loss to find adequate
terms in which to express their utter abomination
of such unparallelled meanness. They are scandalized that beings claiming kindred with men,
should feel so self-satisfied with their own opinions, and especially with the belief of the Gospel,
as to overlook or reject the means which are proffered to dispel the charm of, what they are pleased
to call, superstition. And they unceasingly ridicule and contemn the determination manifested
by many, of discountenancing the propagation of
infidelity through the press. They ate indignant
that skeptical or infidel works are not placed by
the side of the defences of Christianity-that




ï~~186

'  j~i;'Y OQTUNELuwYES.

Hume aind Gibbon do not always find a place
with Lardner and Paley-that Volney, Voltaire,
and Boulanger, are not found always in the company of Berkeley, Porteus, and Halyburtonand that Paine and Palmer, are not side by aide
on the same shelf, with Watson, Leslie, and Jenyas. Finally, they seem impatient that heads
of families, of whatever creed, do not incline to
substitute Taylor's Diegesis, or some yet more
imbecile and indecent offspring of unbelief, as the
household guide, instead of the Bible-or at least,
as assistants in the direction of the mind of youth.
Now, that there is considerable bigotry among
Christians, is undeniable--and that it may have
sometimes become excessive in contemning infidel productions, is quite probable. But for a part
of this, however offensive the fact may be, unbelievers must thank themselves. They have so
often, so unnecessarily outraged the feelings of
sober and sensible Christians, by treating their
opinions with unbecoming and unfeeling levity,
that charity has been turned into disgust. The
institutions of Christianity have been made the
theme of low punning and vulgar wit--the claims
of the Bible fo respect, and of its doctrines and precepts to the veneration and acceptance of mankind, have been attacked with hollow and pitiful
sophistry and sarcasm-the hopes of the resurrection, so soothing to the mourner, have been assailed as the dream of ignorance and fanaticism,




ï~~JWVr4TRT Off' UN ELiÂ~'V R.S.

187

and rendered the.b utt of scurrility and derision.
These things neither.admit of denial nor palliation. They have not been provoked, nor, in general, retaliated. Of all the men in this world,
the patriarchs of infidelity have been most successful in imparting their own peculiar spirit to
all their followers. For, from the "courtly
smile" and "solemn sneer" of the leaders of the
host, down to the lowest and foulest joke of the
most ignorant pretender to skepticism, one spirit
of congenial sarcasm pervades the whole. The
finger of Omnipotence fixed not a deeper and
more indelible mark upon Cain, than the genius
of infidelity has impressed upon the mind of its
votaries in every generation. Sarcasm, polished
or rude, according to the skill of the person using
it, is the alpha and omego of every skeptic in every
argument---in every publication against Christianity.
In view of these (acts, can the unbeliever wonder that there are those who do not, and who will
not read his writings, or converse with him on religious subjects I The buffoon himself, has long
since been driven from respectable society, and
there is no reason why buffoonery should not be
expelled, at least from all participation in the discussion of serious subjects  And the skeptic will
do well tp consider, whether what he terms bigotry in the Christian, be not, in reality, a very natural and a very proper disgust, at the ill-timed




ï~~188

BIGOTRY OF UNBELIEVERS.

and ill-mannered witticisms perpetually thrust into
every discussion of Christianity! It is time that
infidels understood that some respect is due to the
opinions and the feelings of other men. And
they have, by disregarding these, provoked both
severity and contempt, of which they have no
right to complain. But under every provocation,
there is scarcely a work in defence of Christianity,
which descends to the use of mere jesting in the
conduct of the argument. Infidels have been answered on every position, in the most dignified
and unexceptionable terms. And the balance of
courtesy is a thousand-fold in favor of the Christian argument, notwithstanding the occasional
severity with which it is tempered.
When men complain of the remissness or imperfections of others, it is fair to presume that they
are not guilty in the same particulars themselves.
How, then, stands the case, in the affair of bigotry between Christians and unbelievers? Are
those who complain so much and so loud, of the
bigotry of Christians, immaculate in this matter?
Does their actual liberality keep pace with their
profession? Do they examine the Bible, and are
they careful to read the arguments of those who
have written in defence of Christianity? And if
they have done these things, how does it happen
that they have never yet replied, and seem not
likely to reply, to the labored and candid defences
of divine revelation?




ï~~BIGOTRY OF UNBELIEVERS.

189

To these queries, and others of a kindred nature, there is but one answer-they have done
none of these things, nor are they disposed to do
them. All obligation to investigate the subject
in controversy, seems to be supposed to lie on the
side of the Christian. For unbelievers certainly
excuse themselves from any very arduous labor
of the kind. Some of their most daring champions have acknowledged that they wrote without
being in possession of a Bible-and some others
have given little evidence that they used one.
And in a great majority of instances, where objections have been fastened upon some of its passages, it was effected by abstracting the particular text from the subject, and from the general
scope of the inspired penman. One standing evidence that they do not examine the Scriptures for
themselves, is in the fact that they adopt some
favorite view of them, as the basis of every objection. This they would not and could not do,
were they to enter in earnest upon an investigation
of the subject, and carefully compare the creed
with the record of truth.
Another fact is deserving of notice. If, in the
protracted controversy which has.been carried on
between believers and unbelievers, much attention
had been paid by the latter to the Scriptures, we
should somewhere be able to trace the indications
of their industry, in their works. New views,
new positions and arguments, new inferences. or




ï~~190

BIJrOTRY OF UNBELIEVERS,

the abandonment of some as untenable, which
had been used in vain by others, would have been
the natural, the unavoidable consequence. For
the human mind never, in different ages and in a
large number of individuals, pursues the same
train of thought, or adopts, without variation, a
given set of ideas. But there is no evidence of
any material deviation from the beaten.track, in
all the works of unbelievers. They have followed each other both in matter and manner-raised
the same objections, cracked the same jokes, and
repeated the same laugh, with as much precision
as a patent.clock-making machine would turn off
any given number of wheels of the same shape,
size, and description. Let him who doubts the
correctness of all this, turn his attention to the
defences of Christianity and of the Bible, which
have appeared at different times, and he will there
discover traces of the most indefatigable industry.
He will perceive that the field of vision has been
opened and enlarged on every hand. What was
weak and untenable, was conceded; while a long
train of new and irrefragable arguments were accumulated and brought to bear upon the fabric of
infidelity, with irresistible might.
And why has not an effort more worthy of intellectual beings, been made on the part of unbelievers? They do not mean that the subject is
unworthy of some regard-they can not complain
that they have, in all instances, been treated with




ï~~BIGOTRY OF UNBELIEVERS.

191

unbecoming disrespect-and they will not pretend
that some of those who have defended the authenticity of the Bible, are unworthy of an answer.
They can scarcely believe that their objections
were so formidable as to defy all attempts at reply-or that when themselves are attacked, they
are invulnerable. And as they have alike disregarded the objections to their own theory, the
defences of the Scriptures, and the Bible itself,
we have a right to seek for the cause where it
may most probably be found. They are in general unacquainted with the arguments of those who
have published any thing in defence of a divine
revelation. The sources whence the proofs of
the authenticity of the Bible ate drawn, are obviously unknown to the majority of infidel writers..
Hence they neither see nor feel the difficulties
and precariousness of their own situation, nor appreciate the amount of obstructions which lie in
the way of their success.
And why is this? The answer will be best obtained by requesting an unbeliever to read the
Bible, or any given work in vindication of its heaven-derived authority. Take Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel history, and it is too voluminous--they shall never find time to wade through
its numerous and heavy quartos. Take the Minute Philosopher of Berkely, and they do not like
the dialogue form-you may leave it, however,
and if convenient, they may give it an examina



ï~~192

BIGOTRY OF UNBELIEVERS.

tion. Thus the size is too great or too smallthe style too stiff or too quaint and familiar-or
they have not time or temper to perform the labor. They have no heart for such reading-no
desire for better or further information on the subject-their collections of books never include
those against infidelity, nor do their studies in one
instance of a hundred, ever lead them beyond the
pages of some favorite unbeliever.
And what is this?-what the name and charactet of this procedure? It is bigotry-the bigotry
of infidelity. It is neither contempt of the works
of Christians, nor disgust at the treatment they
have received in the replies which have been
made to their more prominent authors-for they
know not what these really are. And the Bible,
they have conceived a prejudice against it-they
have no taste for its instructions, no confidence in
its doctrines, uo veneration for its precepts, no belief in its truth. Hence, while the unbeliever
expects all others to show their liberality in reading his productions, he himself sits quietly down
without attempting to convince the world of hlis
own catholicism, except by a professed indifference to all religious opinions. If bigotry is disclosed by its influence-if illiberality is the index
of its presence, and that illiberality precludes the
examination of both sides of the question in controversy-then is there bigotry among infidels.
And for the same reasons, there is more of bigo



ï~~BIGOTRY OF I1BELIEVERS.

193

try in infidelity, than in Christianity; inasmuch
as Christians know and answer every objection to
the Scriptures.*
*See Minute Philosopher, (Berkeley,) Dialogue 2d,
Section 11th, etpassi.

13




ï~~CHAPTER XV.

RESPONSIBILITY OF UNBELIEVERS.
There are probably few persons, who do not
suffer themselves to be deceived, in respect to their
views of the influence which their opinions and
practices may have over others. And there is,
consequently, a similar liability to mistake the nature of human responsibility. For to say nothing
of the deep-felt consciousness of responsibility
to some higher power-it must obviously be graduated to man, by the ratio of influence which we
may exert over him for good or for evil. And
there is certainly something due to ourselves-to
the high place which man holds in the scale of
being-to his own character for moral perception
and intelligence. So that wete he isolated from
his species, we still expect him to think and act
like himself-like a man.
Men may be, and often are excessively indiffer
ent to their own interests and those of others-but
they can not absolutely wish to subject themselves
to all the inconveniences of ignorance, inattention
and vice. And from the nature of human feelings
aid attachments, they are never entirely reckless




ï~~RESPONSIBILITY OF UNBELIEVERS.

195

of the welfare of their friends. Such however is
the astonishing effect of habit, that, like inconvenient fashions, even deformities become unexceptionable. And thus it is with the moral caprices
of mankind. However ridiculous, or stupid, or
mischievous the moral habits and opinions of any
one individual may be-there are always persons
enough, who are ready to imbibe them, and in
turn exert a new, and yet greater influence in their
propagation. We need not confine our search
for matter of illustration to any Christian sect,
however extravagant; fresh and numerous examples abound among skeptics and unbelievers in
every age and country. For insensible as the infidel may be to the light with which he is surrounded, he will probably retain sufficient influence to induce some one to shut his eyes with
equal resolution. And this, not because there is
truth and consistency in the procedure, but because there are young, or confrding, or untaught
minds which can be charmed with singularity and
absurdity. 'To such, it is no inconsiderable inducement to affect disregard for public opinion
with unyielding perseverance, because it displays
their spirit and gives them notoriety.
1. Were we to meet a man groping about with
his eyes shut, we should not hesitate to advise
him by all means to open them as soon as possible. We should tell him, that he owed tie effort
to himself, to his friends and to community. And




ï~~196   RESPONSIBILITY OF UNBELIEVERg.
that he was depriving himself of the benefits and
enjoyments of seeing-and others, of all the usefulness of which he was capable. It is true, that
such advice though it implied as much-would
not absolutely prove that he could see; or if he
could, that he would perceive only the same objects in every instance which were seen by others.
But it would prove that they thought he would
be immediately and greatly benefited-that he
would escape many personal dangers and sufferings-that he would find an immense number of
means of enjoyment, of which he could now form
no possible conception-that he might be vastly
more useful in society, and add one more to the
number of those whose personal influence tended
to the mitigation of human wo.
But this same man may be supposed, to keep
his eyes closed, all this time. And it is not beyopd possibility, that all your urgent suggestions,
arguments and entreaties may prove unavailing.
He may in defiance of all you have said, or can
say, instead of opening his eyes, or using one
effort to do so, reply-" I see nothing, indeed there
is nothing to see. It is true, most people seem
to think that Iam in the dark; but so long as I
am satisfied with my condition, it is no concern
of theirs. They tell me of a thousand strange
things about light and colors, the appearances of
the earth and the heavens, and of the aspects and

expression of the human countenance, concern



ï~~RESPONSIBILITY OF UNBELIEVERS.

197

ing which my senses furnish no evidence, and
which I shall never condescend to believe without
proof to my own satisfaction. And from all that
I have experienced, I have come to the conclusion
that this great parade about my blindness and their
sight-my misfortune and their privileges and enjoyments, is mere jugglery, a trick of imposture
which they mean to carry by majority. For my
own part, I am out'of all patience with their pretensions, and shall stop my ears against hearing
any more on the subject. And in the meantime,
I intend to leave them to settle their superstition
in their own way-except by occasionally endeavoring to convince them tha.t they are a set ofhypocritical knaves, or the dupes of such, and that they
can never be otherwise till they adopt my opinions, pursue my course, and become philosophers."
It is difficult to suppose that such a person can
be earnest-but if this be admitted, it will be inferred that he is not in his fight mind, or that he
has unfortunately become a fanatic to his theory.
But you have no alternative in this matter. He
will not admit either one, or the other-but on
the contrary, he insists that*he alone is in his
right mind, and wholly exempt from fanaticism.
And he is to be treated as a reasonable being, with
all his feelings and attachments, influences and
responsibilities about him.
Such in many respects, is the situation of the
keptic,. or unbeliever. He is surrounded by those,




ï~~198

RESPONSIBILITY OF UNBELIEVERS.

who verily believe him to be in darkness. They
insist that they now enjoy higher privileges, richer
mental blessings, purer moral feelings, and moreinfinitely more comforting hopes, than can be understood or appreciated by one who denies a divine
revelation. And how does he dispose of these
things? Just as the blind man does of the most
urgent entreaties that he would open his eyes.
He perceives nothing, and therefore concludes
there is nothing for any one to see. Nor will he
condescend to make a single effort, from which he
can expect, or reasonably hope for the least mental 'or moral illumination. His reason is the eye
of his soul, by which he will not question, it is
his duty to test and determine the importance of
every proposition. But does he employ that noble faculty? Has he done it, in the process that
has led him to his present proposition-to the attitude in which he stands?  Does he yet do it,
or has he ever done it, as he would have others in
reference to himself and his opinions? No-never. Nor has he originated one-half of the objections to a divine revelation, which he urges
with such pertinacity, and confides in with so much
assurance? In a vast majority of instances, these
have been transmitted to him from infidel predecessors, or derived by him from some skeptical
publication. These have been-these still continue the only sources whence his reasoning takes
its direction, its color, and its character. On these




ï~~RESPONSIBILITY OF UNEELIIEVERS.

199

all his arguments are founded, to them, they are
inseparably bound.
Now it is plain,.that he who can not originate
every objection to Christianity, is also incapable
of discovering all the answers and arguments
which reason will and must approve, in its defence. And hence, on the ground of his own
experience and practice, the unbeliever is bound
to examine both sides of the great question at
issue. He owes this to his own understandingto the improvement and correctness of his reason.
For on the supposition that his reason would have
been imperfect without the assistance of infidel
works, what right has he to presume that it is correct and infallible, without the further aid of the
Christian argument? He despises the Christian
as a bigot, who will not examine the objections to
revelation; and ridicules his pretensions to reason in matters of religion, who has confined his
researches to the doctrines of the sect of his adoption.. Let it be admitted then, that such a mind
is but imperfectly and partially enlightened, and
that the Christian is responsible for every degree
of ignorance and intolerance which adheres to.
such a course. And what then? Is the Christian alone responsible for his intellectual offences
at the judgment seat of reason?  Or is he the
scape-goat on which the mental aberrations of
skeptics are to be laid, and borne away into oblivion? Neither. Whatever his responsibility ie-.




ï~~200    RESPONSIBiLITY OF' UNBEIE T1rES.
it is as great and as obvious in the unbeliever oan
the other side of the proposition. If he reasons
exclusively on the objections to revelation-if he
refuses to examine the answers to those objections,
and the arguments for Christianity, he is plainly
liable to the charges which he hurls against others,
of inveterate prejudice and blind partiality. For
this doing he knows not, and can not know the
strength or weakness of his position-whether his
opinions are right or wrong, or -whether his reasonings are correct; or warped and perverted.And whether he is aware of these things or notwhether he has ever heard or thought of them or
not-whether they affect him or not, is quite immaterial to the truth and propriety of the conclusion, that he is deeply responsible to his reason,
and bound to purify it from prejudice and enlighten it with every accessible means of truth.
2. But the responsibility of the skeptic, or- unbeliever, does not terminate in his obligations to
his own mind. He is a man-with all the feelings and wants incident to other men. He must
suffer where they suffer, and he must be sustained-if sustained at all, by the same means and
influences 'which support them. He is not only
liable-but actually subject to a l the cares, perplexities and' disappointments which' fall to the
lot of other men; and he seekS for such relief
under them, as in his judgment is best calculated

toeft'et. th8 tpitl$dtiq l'O  lhai*'ho Ca x1 Aot




ï~~RESPONSIBILITY OF UNBELIEVERS.

And he is -like all others greatly concerned and
interested to know the best means of acquiring
and supporting a reputable character, and of securing the enjoyment of rational happiness.These facts would seem too evident to require
argument or proof. Nor would either be required, were it not that they involve in the present
instance a train of responsibilities, in some respects peculiar to unbelievers.
As a general truth, the foundation of a good
reputation is laid in personal integrity and virtue,,
illustrated in all the affinities and intercourse of
man with man. It may not always be the immediate pass to distinction, but it is the only criterion of honorable and enduring fame. In proof
of this it is only necessary to institute a comparisonbetween King Alfred and Richard III-between Cardinal Woolsey and Howard the philanthropist, and between Bonaparte and our own
Washington. This comparison may be extended
to an indefinite length by the reader, and continued through every period of correct history. It
may comprise in its scope, both Heathens and
Christians-- should perhaps do so, in order that
the universal sense of mankind may be taken on
the relative worth of human character. Every,
where7 in all ages, and under all varieties of condition, it will be found to rest in final approbation
of the good and upright man. It concerns the
skeptic or unbeliever;personally,then, to be fully




ï~~20'2

RESPONSIBILITY OF UNBELIEVERS.

acquainted with the best principles and maxims of
practical virtue; and it is no less important, that
the highest possible motives to their observance
should be understood and appreciated.
But neither the light of nature, nor infidelity
under any of its forms and modifications, has yet
furnished either the best moral rules for the regulation of human conduct, or the highest and most
effectual inducements to obedience. Nor need
we go out of our own country for the evidence,
that morality is generally considered by unbelievers, as mere matter of expediency-an accommodation of the practice to the prevailing taste
and habits. The motive then-the prominent
inducement to the practice of virtue, is reduced
to the single point of public opinion. And if that
opinion can be deceived-if the public eye can be
avoided, where then is the motive to virtue?There is none! Doubtless, there is much deference due to public sentiment-and every man is
to be honored for the respect which he yields to
its authority. But its influence should be suspected, when it becomes the invariable rule of
human actions-and that morality must be of a
very doubtful character, which is exclusively
founded upon its sanctions. To fix the principles, and to ensure the practice of morality, higher
and more worthy motives must influence the mind.
It is too well ascertained, to admit of confident
denial, or successful contradiction-that the only




ï~~RESPONSIBILITY OF UNBELIEVERS.     203
true morality is inculcated by the Bible. For if
it were admitted that the dictates of reason were
sufficient to lead men to the very fountain of moral purity, still it must also be admitted, that by
the mere light of nature, no people under heaven ever yet made the discovery. It can scarcely
be supposed that the Hebrews could have done
so, while the polished and philosophising Gentiles
made for ages, no approaches towards correct
principles or unexceptionable practices. And
were it contended that the Jews had sufficient sagacity to discover without divine aid, the system
of morals which they have transmitted to us--it
would imply their immense superiority to all other
people. This no skeptic would willingly admit.
But he is denied even this consolation--for they
constantly affirm that they received it by revelation.
Hence, on the ground of public opinion alone,
the unbeliever is responsible for his conduct-for
his perception of right, and for his views of morality. If he wishes to be respectable in the eyes
of his fellow-men, that wish can only be gratified
by a virtuous life. And as he has no reason to
suppose that the mere influence of public sentiment will sustain him in every trial of his integrity, he is further responsible for his views of the
motives calculated to support and direct him, when
this pole-star of his philosophy fails. What the
comp ass is to the mariner, the Bible is to the

moralist. And its sanctions sultain him in hia




ï~~204    RESPONSIBILITY OF UNBELIEVERS.
course of uprightpess, when all other motives
lose their power.. For there he perceives, that
though every mortal eye may be closed, and all humanopinion may be indifferent to his actions, there
is the eye of a Father-his own Father-upon
him, by whose laws he is bound to conduct like
a moral and rational being. And he owes it to
human nature to inform himself of the morality
of the Bible-to uniderstand its superior claims to
his adoption, and to acquaint himself with the
enduring motives which it furnishes to a life of
virtue.
But the unbeliever has still other personial responsibilities. He is a man, and feels and suffers
like other men. And when perplexities throng
in his path--when sickness stays the career of his
thoughts, and lays him down to ruminate upon
the past, the present, and the future, or when
sorrow puts forth its might, and touches his very
heart, how is he sustained? Above him, and
around him, he sees no intelligent providenceno skilful and powerful hand, that can open his
pathway, and which, by the aids of its own energy, can enable him to bear up in the full possession of his soul, while waiting for emancipation
from the toils with which he. is surrounded. And
if. he turns his eye back upon the past, he reads
the history of a solitary wanderer, an isolated
member of a numerous Iamiy, who has forgotten

aud forsaken his Father. He now feels the utter




ï~~RESPONSIBILITY OF TINBELIEVERS.

205

helplessness of his condition. Death, the tyrant
of the living, stands before him in all the array of
terrors-for he comes to close up the account of
life forever; and there is no succor, no rescue, no
reprieve. And in prospect-what a prospect!
the cold, silent grave-a sleep that ".knows no
waking"--an utter extinction of being!  Nor
then, nor over the grave of kindred or friend, does
hope yield any mitigation of his wretchedness, or
mingle one ray of light with all his gloom. To
be, was his only privilege-the very wish to be
again, accumulates around him a deeper darkness, and an unavailing despair.
From the Bible, the Christian learns those
truths which greatly alleviate the cares and sorrows of life, and which most effectually disarm
death of its mightiest terrors. It teaches him
that every moment of life is under the guidance,
supervision, and guardianship of an intelligent and
benevolent Providence; and that in the darkest
and most trying scenes through which he may be
called to pass, there is a latent good to be developed, of which he shall finally be the recipient.
He may not be able to comprehend the means or
to understand the process by which such a result
is to be brought about. But arguing from what
is known and obvious, he concludes that the general plan is still in progress, whatever may be the
Ways and means adopted for its accomplishment.
These considerations give him a fortitude to en



ï~~206

RESPONSIBILITY OF UNBELIEVERS.

dure, and a patience and serenity under the load
of human sufferings to which the unbeliever is,
and as an unbeliever, must be forever a stranger.
He does not see how this great difference in mind
can consist with a perfect similarity of situation.
But perhaps he may form an idea from the situation of two children-the one perpetually conscious of the economy of an affectionate parent;
the other left to buffet the storms of life, insensible to a father's care, counsel, or protection.
From the Bible, also, the Christian draws the
evidence of those facts on which are founded the
hopes that comfort him in his sorrows, and sustain him in death. He takes a last farewell of his
kindred and friends, with the full assurance that
they shall meet again where separation shall be
no more-wherte life shall be exempt from suffering, and from sorrow forever. And he looks
down into the grave opened for himself-and
through its deepest gloom he sees death its only
and final occupant. And he yields himself to the
victor, now satisfied that he shall rise from the
dust a conqueror, "through him that loved us."
And does the unbeliever fancy that he is under
no responsibility for his contempt of these things!
A rash or undutiful child may feel none, for his
indifference to the commands or the benefactiUs
of a parent! But is he therefore under none?
Certainly, unbelievers have too much good seen
to doubt that every such child is abusing his aQW




ï~~RESPONSIBILITY OF UINBELIEVERS.

o7

privileges, insulting his benefactor, and meriting
the sufferings which he daily endures. We are
not now arguing respecting the authority of the
Bible-we speak of it as it is-the fountain whence
flows to the Christian, the strength that supports
him in his trials, the comforts which soothe him
in his sorrows, and the light that sheds a radiance
and a glory over the "shadow of death."  And
the unbeliever knows that this book is accessible
to himself-and he is urged and entreated to look
into its pages, to sit down to the sober and dispassionate consideration of its contents-and yet
he will not do so, because he does not already
believe them, and because he is pleased to think
that he is under no responsibility for his omission.
But he is responsible as a thinking being; and he
can not sustain the reputation of a philosopher,
or a man of candor, until he tries the correctness
of his philosophy by the moral principles of the
Bible, and his reason and candor by the arguments in defence of a divine revelation.
3. The unbeliever is responsible for his opinions and practices, to every individual within the
sphere of his influence. It is a common proverb,
that such or such a man "is only his own enemy."
But it is a common error, for nothing is more
palpably untrue. And lihe who traces causes up
to their legitimate consequences, will feel himself compelled to admit its absurdity. Particular
actions may indeed bring down immediate, and




ï~~O8 RESPONSIBILfTY OF UNBELIEVE1tR.
alarming, and visible results upon their perpetras
tor. But no fact is more universally sustainedi
or in general better understood, than that serious
and long-lasting consequences attach to others
who are involved by kindred or condition in a given transaction. Take the drunkard for an example-of whom it is too often said, "he is his
own worst enemy." Follow him to what is called his home, read in the face of his suffering and
helpless wife and children, the tale of his folly and
his unkindness, and his degradation, and then ask
whose enemy he is? Who is the enemy of that
wretched household? Who has blanched the
cheek of her who smiled upon her infant charge,
till want and shame changed smiles to tears, and
stamped upon the face of peace the features of
despair? Who did all this?-One who felt no
responsibility to others, for his opinions and actions! One, who claimed the right of treating
with contempt or indifference the arguments, the
entreaties, and even the example of his friends!
All this, the unbeliever perfectly understands.
He comprehends the nature and the force of the
connexion which, in defiance of mere opinion,
binds the consequence to the cause, and makes
the drunkaid responsible, whether he will or will
not acknowledge.his obligations. It is by no
means intended to insinuate that the infidel is a
tippler, or a sot. But he is botnd to society by

the same ties as other men, and is as certainly re



ï~~RESPONSIBILITY OF UNBELIEVERS.

209

sponsible for what he thinks, and says, and does, as
any of the human race. And with his permission,
we will now accompany him to his home, and see
what is passing there. He too has a family of
children, who look up to him both for support
and instruction-for precept and example. His
wife, after years of ridicule and reproaches-after
hearing till her ears were dull, the reiteration of
objections to her Christian profession, and oaths
and imprecations against her puritanism, has become confused, and in despair has renounced all
pretensions to religion. She has finally imbibed
the temper and the genius of infidelity. And in
doing so, has sunk. into sullen dislike of all those
topics which once occupied her thoughts-or with
flippant and disgusting effrontery bandies the
subject of religion as the butt of scandal and the
object of her sovereign contempt. She too has
resolved all virtue into expediency, and can maintain without a blush, with some of the most dis.
tinguished and literary champions of infidelity,
that even adultery were no crime, if it were more
common!*
And what influences may not be expected from
such principles, and such admissions-not to say
examples? When the fountain is vitiated or impure, the streams are so by natural consequence.
The children of such parents, have no proper,See Uorno's Intr., Phila. Edition, 1836, V ol. 4 pp.
34




ï~~210

RESPONSIBILITY OF UNBELIEVERS.

ideas of religion-they have no just conception
of the nature and necessity of moral virtue, and
they have none of the feelings of veneration and
respect for a superior Being. The most daring
blasphemy is uttered by them without shame and
without remorse; and they grow up to spread in
turn the influence of the moral contagion with
which they are infected. No mother's soft and
whispered prayer to God, steals in holy power
upon their recollection when weighed down with
years, or,in a strange land, or bowed and crushed
by the hand of affliction. They have no God but.self-no pursuit but personal and physical gratification-no hope,,no futurity, but the grave.
Happily, infidelity has not generally led its votaries thus far, in the road to moral ruin. But
such are its legitimate tendencies. And it is believed that infidels themselves rirnst perceive them,
if they will but allow their minds to consider the
steps which lead on to these results. But whether
they will do this or not, their responsibilities are
the same--to themnselves, to the public, and to
all within the sphere of their influence.




ï~~PART II.
EVIDENCES OF REVELATION.




ï~~


ï~~CHAPTER I

CHARACTER OF THE DEITY.
The reader has been kept much longer than
was at first intended, from the consideration of
the internal evidences of a Divine revelation. But
it seemed proper and necessary to remove certain
impediments to a clear understanding of the subject in debate, before we entered upon this part
of our labors. Christianity, however simple and
intelligible originally, has become by far too general and indefinite a term, to be treated without
explanation. It is undoubtedly capable of defence
as a whole-as a system ofrevelation. But among
the immense variety of sects, whose opinions not
only differ from each other, but are sometimes
quite contradictory, objections might lie against
certain views which we have no wish to defend,
or which we deem wholly indefensible. Let
their abettors see to this matter themselves. It
is our desire to have it perfectly understood what
we mean by Christianity. And with a view to
render this as intelligible as possible, we have endeavored to clear it of the several incumbrances
which Heathenism, or superstition, or policy has
incorporated with its original doctrines.




ï~~214

CHARACTER OF THE DEITY.

By Christianity, then, we mean that system of
divine truth which was revealed from heaven, ac
cording to the will of God; the doctrines and
precepts of which, are worthy of their divine ori.ginal-some of them being such as the world did
not possess, and could not discover, and the moral precepts of which, are alone calculated to render mankind good and happy. It explodes the
idea of a plurality of gods, and distinctly teaches
the divine unity and paternity; it employs, not P.
divinity, but the "man Christ Jesus," to illustrate the principles and practices that constitute
reconciliation; it supposes mankind in possession
of some correct views and feelings, and instructs
them how to improve and perfect them; it makes
no distinction of nation or character, but addresses
itself to all alike, and to all' generations; and it
promises what all desire, and what nothing else
can prove, a resurrection of the dead, and a happy
and glorious immortality for all mankind.
Such only, in our estimation, is Christianitysuch is the system which we propose to maintain;
the evidences of which are two-fold-those which
relate to it as a whole, rnd such as confirm the propriety, consistency, and truth of its respective
parts. And as it is taken for granted, that we are
debating the general- question with reasonable
men, we will not intentionally introduce an argument that is not in itself reasonable. And, differ
as we may in our reqpective conclusios thbrg ye




ï~~CHARACTER OF THE DEITY.

215

principles of mind, and rules of judging, concerning which there is little room for disagreement.
As a whole--an entire system-Christianity is
proved to be a divine communication, by the great
superiority and excellency of the character which
it ascribes to God, and by its adaptation to the
political condition, social relations, and moral and
mental wants of mankind. It will scarcely be
denied, that the views entertained of the Deity,
were, with the exception of the Hebrews, too
gross and sensual to be denominated reasonable.
For though an occasional conception worthy of
the supreme Intelligence, may be detected in the
mass, they were perpetually obscured and contradicted by other and more prevailing sentiments,
which lessened and degraded every    divinity
whose being was acknowledged by mankind.
And labor as men may, to prove that any just
and rational notions of a perfect Deity were entertained in the Heathen world, before the introduction of Christianity, the attempt must end in
disappointment.
1. The Jupiter of the Greeks and.Romans,
was to all intents the same, and possessed the same
attributes as the principal or superior god of all
the Heathen world. But he was not supreme in
power, nor could he in all cases, be truly said to
govern the universe. He was himself perpetually
influenced and controlled by a blind and unconaeDous chance, or fate. It is true, that some of




ï~~216

CHARACTER OF THE DEITY.

the properties of omnipotence were ascribed to
him, and he was pompously denominated "the
father of gods and men"-but every one knows,
or may know with little labor, that he was at the
same time bound by an uncontrollable dJcree;
so that he was in the predicament of an animal
confined by a chain-free to go its length, and to
do any thing he pleased within the circle it would
describe, but nothing beyond.
2. The passions by which the superior god of
paganism was actuated, were of the grossest and
most brutal kind. These are well described by
Pope, in a single line-" rage, revenge, and
lust"-and are so palpably unsuitable to human
dignity and morality, as to require no proof of
their impropriety when attached to the character
of the governor of the universe. Nor were these
passions supposed to be either dormant,. or under
proper and becoming restraint. They were cherished by indulgence and unrestrained gratification; and violence and misrule, such as would
disgrace the court of an oriental potentate, were
the characteristics of the supernal abodes. The
amours, and intrigues, and debaucheries-the
deep and settled malice, unnatural envy, and
vindictive contests-the chicanery, craft, and circumvention of the chief deity. of Heathenism,
can not be described in any terms, without an offence to common decency. Even some of the
Heathenq blushed for the infamy of their gods;




ï~~CHARACTER OF THE DEITY.

217

but they still thought they were gods, and worshipped and served them with rites in all respects
suited to their character.
3. The principal Heathen deity, was neither
infinitely wise nor omniscient. It is notorious
that the inferior deities, male and female, were
supposed occasionally to steal a march upon his
vigilance, while he was napping, or indulging in
an extra cup of nectar, or was busy with the affairs of state, or of his household. And during
these intermissions of universal knowledge, much
mischief was occasionally done in his cabinet, and
some of its politic members found time to arrange
their own little matters on earth, as well as circumvent the machinations of some rival in heaven. And then, however terrible the offended
majesty, he was sometimes strangely perplexed to
find the culprit, or to apply the proper antidote to
all future presumption. For he could neither
foresee the full extent of the operation of the evils
in train, nor had he wisdom to guard against those
which might yet be planned and executed by his
dependents. And he resembled a testy and capricious householder, whose domestics, though
standing in some fear, are nevertheless disposed
to manage their own private affairs in their own
way.; and who trust to their mutual interest, as
well as the oversight of their master, for concealment and impunity. Such management keeps
him in a state of perpetual vexation and wrath,




ï~~218

CHARACTER OF THE DEITY.

and annoys and occupies him in fruitless endeavors to restore order and discipline to his household. Such was the deity of the religion of nature!
There were those who, disgusted with the
e"
mockery of religion, rejected the doctrine and belief of a God. But it seems never once to have
occurred to them, that a Deity could exist, whose
attributes were unexceptionable, or which did not
comprise those already named. And while atheists abounded, and some of the philosophers exposed without mercy, the character of their divinities to contempt and ridicule, many of them
were among the most arrant idolators. Is it not
surpassing strange, that with an open field-the
full privilege of conceiving, of as many deities as
they pleased, ages should successively roll away,
and not one blameless divinity is found among the
objects of human devotion?   That from  the
father of gods and men, down to the tutelary genius of a single individual, there was not one who
was supposed to possess positive omnipotence,
infinite wisdom and knowledge, or even common
goodness? And yet, in full view of all these
facts, and a thousand others which may not here
be named, we are told that the mere light of nature and plain common sense, are sufficient for
all the purposes of religion.' If this assertion
were true, why were the characters of the Heathen
gods so utterly abhorrent? If it is true, how can




ï~~CHARACTER OF THE DEITY.

219

we account for the stupid and preposterous devotion, which was rendered by men of the first capacities to divinities of wood and stone? If true,
what reason can be rendered for the abominable
sacrifices and impure rites which deformed the
Pagan religion in every part of the world? If
true, what apology can be made for the licensed
enormities of mankind? But it is not true; nor,
in view of what Heathenism was, and is, can any
reasonable man think it true!
But there is one fact which is overlooked by
skeptics: they apply the knowledge which they
have derived from Christianity, and from Christianity alone, to their position, that the light of
nature is sufficient to perfect bath morals and religion.  They forget that the precepts of the
Christian doctrine, are effectually calculated to
lead and improve the moral sense, at the same
time that reason approves the principles and the
progress of the mind. They forget that the high
and worthy notions which they entertain of the
Deity, and the correct moral views which they
cherish, are the result of a Christian education.
They are indebted to the strong religious feeling
of a fond and pious mother, or a tender father,
and to the practical lessons of a heavenly morality illustrated by them, and by others around, for
NIl that they feel, and enjoy, or practice above the
fleathens. Their youth was guided, directly or
directly, by the great and pervading influence




ï~~220

CHARACTER OF THE DEITY.

of the Gospel; and however unseen, or unacknowledged, if seen, it has moulded their minds and
feelings to a greater or lesser extent, by its own
power. And they constitute a host, which has
turned its arms against the institutions by which
it has been cherished. If they want evidence of
this, let them endeavor to ascertain why their
views of the Deity,. or of the nature, necessity,
and propriety of moral virtue, are so very different
from those of the philosophers whom they admire!
These lived exclusively under the light of nature,
and they were certainly men of acute and admirable common sense; but with the boasted infallibility of these guides, they were greatly behind
the moderns in their religious views and moral
sentiments: and from what we have already seen,
there is yet room for considerable improvement
in these respects, in the family of unbelievers.
Reason, then, whether in the believer or unbeliever, will infallibly lead to the same conclusion,
that the improved theology and morality of skeptics, are the result of the influence of the doctrines and precepts of revelation.
With the views of the Deity entertained by the
Heathen, let us now compare those of the Hebrew and the Christian. And then, if we can,
account in a satisfactory manner for the difference-a difference which will not only show the
immense superiority of the God of the Bible,




ï~~CHARACTER OF THE DEITY.

221

but one which no unbeliever can dispute is approived by every principle of reason.
1. It was the belief of the Hebrews, and it is
that of Christians, that God is absolutely and
effectually omnipotent, and that as such, he "doeth his will in the armies of heaven, and among
the inhabitants of the earth." They believe that
he neither is, nor can be influenced, thwarted, or
controlled by any principle or being separate from
or external to himself; but that all that is, or was,
or can be, is subject to the direction and control
of his all-disposing energy. They believe that
he presides with endless and undeviating might,
over all that Heathenism denominated chance, or
fate, or decree; and that he disposes of, and controls all that lay beyond the utmost boundary of
power ever assigned to any Heathen god. And
there is something in this view, that satisfies the
demands of reason. It explodes chance or accident from the physical and moral universe, and
reduces every thing to the direction of suprene
intelligence. There is reason to believe that absolute and illimitable power is concentrated in an
all-disposing mind. And he who owns a God,
can not presume to be reasonable in denying his
omipotence. Noris there among skeptics, one
Whose mind would not revolt at the idea of ascribing to him any thing less. To a man, they will
admit his proper and unqualified omnipotence,
or deny his being. They do not-they dare not




ï~~X22

QCHARACTER OF TIHE DEITY.

conceive of God as did the Heathens of their Ju
piter; and they can not do so, and claim the appellation of philosophers, or wise men.
2. The Christian's God is above and beyond
the imputation of the foul and hateful passions
which disfigure the fairest and the highest beings
in the whole Pagan mythology. The student of
nature no where sees a single page in all the
works of God, polluted by the impurity of his
passions. 'On the contrary, there are every where
the traces of a benignity that knows no selfishness, and no limitation-of a purity that pours its
freshness over every unsophisticated mind, and of
a compassion that provides for all the natural
wants of "every living thing."  The moralist
sees, in the prompt and impartial visitations of
chastisement for offences, and in the ample peace
of well-doing, the everlasting spirit of equity
and in the measures and means for effecting the
reformation of the wicked, and of mitigating the
sorrows of the afflicted, the condescension of
boundless mercy. And in all these things, there
are no signs of capriciousness, no fitful paroxysms
of oppressive cruelty, no weak and childish compassion. An even temper and a steady hand
adapts the discipline to the disobedient, or weasures the sum of blessing to patient and persevering vii tue.
The Bible gives the same character to the Deity. Its ascriptions never once fall below moral




ï~~CHARACTER OF THE DEITY.

223

perfection. Not an unworthy passion or affection
attaches to him. He has no lusts to gratify, no
intrigues to carry on, no competitors to excite his
envy or provoke his indignation. But he is just,
merciful, and true; affectionate, benevolent, and
compassionate; and his compassions are enduring. These are the moral perfections of the omnipotent God-their field of operation is infinity,
and their period is eternity. Such is the purity,
the excellency of the Being who presides over
the universe. And what is there in these perfec
tions, that reason does not approve, and must not
acknowledge to be suitable to the dignity, the government, and the majesty of God? What, that
reason does not imperiously demand, as constituent virtues in an infinite moral Governor?
3. The God of the Bible is omniscient. All
times, all beings, and all events, are ever in his
view. From the greatest to the least of all concernments, through the infinity of their gradations, whether of matter, mind, or morals, they
are alike comprehended, controlled, directed, and
made in their respective spheres the instruments
and appendages of his plan of universal government. The thoughts of all hearts are open to his
inspection; he pervades the darkness as well as
the light-life as well as a moment, and eternity
as well as time. He never slumbers, is never
weary, and is never so occupied that his omnis.
cience turns from any one object in the field of




ï~~224

CHARACTER OF THE DEITY.

immensity. Heaven itself, has no means of attraction, that can for a moment withdraw his attention from earth-from the least, the vilest, the
meanest thing that has a being on its surface.
And that attention descends below the utmost
care of the human mind-makes a miniature
world in every department of matter-peoples it
with myriads of invisibles, and provides for every
want and every purpose of their existence.
And in close and holy communion with this allpervading knowledge, lives the wisdom of God.
With this attribute, the Deity manages the vast,
the diversified concerns that throng in infinite
number and endless succession before the steady
and untiring view of the eternal Mind.   His
wisdom is never outwitted-its plans are never
thwarted, and its determinations can neither be
evaded, frustrated, nor postponed. For while the
"' end was seen from the beginning," all the intermediate steps in the process were amply provided
for; and power, knowledge, and wisdom concentrate in one great and immaculate purpose, and
bring their infinite resources to bear upon its final
accomplishment.
We may now ask, if there is any thing in the
character of the God of the Bible, that is inconsistent with reason and sound philosophy! Is it
unreasonable to suppose, that the Being who
created all things, is present to his works? If
mot, then the Scripture doctrine concerning his




ï~~CRlAR1CTER 0F THE DEITY.

225

onaiscience, is reasonable. And the Psalmist
spoke the language of philosophy and common
sense, when he said-" If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, [the
grave,] behold thou art there. If I take the wings
of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts
of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead me, and
thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, surely
the darkness shall cover me, even the night shall
be light about me."
Again, is it unreasonable to suppose that he
who knows all things, past, present, and to come,
is infinitely wise? Is not knowledge the basis of
wisdom, and consequently, is not he the wisest
who knows the most? Infinite knowledge, then:
is the criterion of infinite wisdom. And is it not
also reasonable to ascribe both infinite knowledge
and wisdom to the Deity? If it is, the sacred
writers displayed their good sense, at least, in
saying, that "known unto God are all his works,
from the beginning;" and of wisdom-" The Lord
possessed me in the beginning of his way, before
his works of old. I was set up from everlabting,
from  the beginning, or ever the earth was.When there were no depths, I was brought forth.;
when there were no fountains abounding with
water."
Is it unreasonable that God should be infinitely
perfect in all his moral attributes? The conceztration of these, constitutes infinite goodness;
15




ï~~226

CUARACTIER OF THE DEITY.

and infinite goodness consists in the personal ptrity of the being to whom it is ascribed, and in
the impartial diffusion and exercise of the principles of justice, mercy, truth, and benignity. All
this the Scriptures ascribe to God. "Thou art
good and doest good;" "The Lord is good unto
all, and his tender mercies are over all his works."
To us it is plain, that the least want in any of
these particular perfections, would render the
character of God imperfect-that it would undeify
the Deity, and that to ascribe such want to him,
is to the last degree unreasonable and impious.
It is reasonable to believe in God, and no less so,
to ascribe to him the attributes and perfections
that are worthy of his divinity. And as none but
such are attributed to him in the Bible, the doctrines of that book are so far consistent and reasonable, as relate to the divine perfections. But
such perfections were never ascribed to the gods
of the Heathen; and consequently the mere light
of nature furnished none but inconsistent, unworthy, and Unreasonable notions of the Deity.
Tie question involved in this subject, and which
remains to be settled, is, whence did the Hebrews
derive the only rational and consistent views of
the natural and moral perfections of the Deity!
There are but three sources whence they could
have been obtained-and these are, from the surrounding nations, or they originated them, or else
derived them by special revelation. As far as




ï~~CHARACTER OF THE DEITY.

27

miracles are concerned, there is little difference
to which we refer their origin. For in either
case, considerations are involved which defy the
ordinary conclusions of the mind from existing
facts, and which can not be accounted for without admitting the violation of the usual processes
of human intellect, or a miraculous intervention.
To suppose that they were derived from others, is
to suppose an effect without an adequate or even
an obvious cause; it is to make them impart what
there is not a shadow of proof was possessed.
For it is too evident to be seriously questioned,
that no nation under heaven, of whom history or
tradition has given us any information, entertaine4
any corresponding ideas of the natuie and character of the Deity. How, then, could the sacred
writers borrow their notions of the divine perfections? Reason must say, that if they were obtained from others, they must have been derived
from those who had them. But there were none
such, and to suppose that they were so procured,
is to the last degree unreasonable; it is not only
to suppose an effect without a cause, but it is the
denial of the necessary effects of existing causes,
Abraham, the father of the Hebrews.evidenty'
9ame out of a family of idolators-such they certainly were, in the days of his grandson, Jaeob;
and both among the tribes who then peopled Canfaan, and by whom the family of the patriarch
was surrounded, and the Egyptians, whose ser



ï~~CHARACTER OF TAE DEITY.

vants his descendants afterwards became for seve.
ral centuries, the grossest and most revolting
polytheism certainly prevailed.,hence, then,
could Abraham have borrowed his theology?
Whence could his patriarchial sons have learned
the doctrine of the divine unity? Whence could
Moses, who to a certainty could acquire no such
views from any existing system among the Egypti~as, or from any other people not connected
with the Hebrews, have derived the clear and consistent notions of God, which are so often expressed by him in the books of the law? From
the peculiar and isolated nationality of the Hebrews, and their inveterate and cherished prejudices, it is morally certain that they would not
have borrowed their religion if they could; and
from the fact that no such views existed among
Others, it is certain that they could not have thus
lerived them, if they would.
That Moses, who wrote the pentateuch, ascribes
these high notions of the Deity to the patriarchs,
is ndeniable; and that they were maintained exelesively by their descendants till the commencemeat of the Christian era, is proved by the whole
and united testimony of sacred and profane histry. Abraham, or Moses-for it is immaterial
whi h, as far as the argument is concerned-must
h~e originated them by the mere force of a superjer inteflect, or they nest hare beeti derived 'by
direct revelation. In either case, the knowledge




ï~~C tAiACTER OF THE DrITY.

29.

is miraculous. But we are greatly mistaken, if
skeptics are prepared, or disposed to admit *t*
the solitary Mesopotamian was wiser than all the
world besides; or that the Hebrew Lawgiver
could from the nature of the case, be a sounder
philosopher than any other country has produced.
If they will admit either, they should by all means
believe the Bible, in order to sustain their pretensions to reason and philosophy!
Who that for a moment considers the simplicity of the character of the patriarchs, the co.w
parative rudeness and barbarism of their descendants when contrasted with the superiority of other
nations in general knowledge, in social refinement,
and civil policy-who that does this, can imagine
that mere unassisted intellect ever attained to
those sublime and worthy conceptions of the
Deity, for which they were distinguished? Is it
probable that Abraham alone of all manki;4,
should be able to form a correct idea of God, and
should become, in this respect, the instructor of
the human race, without divine aid? That aimoag
the millions whose feelings must lead them to the
contemplation of congenial subjects, and to t7rm
notions of the attributes of God--that of the thoisands and tens of thousands of acute and spettlative philosophers, the patriarch alone ahould
reason himself into the knowledge of the true
God   If it be not absolutely imposible, it is at
least extremely improbable, and can scardely!4




ï~~230.

CHARACTER OF THE DEITY.

contended for by any well-informed skeptic,
merely to support a favorite hypothesis.
But we have no right to suppose that any one
man is exclusively capable of forming, by the mere
superiority of his intellect, the only worthy notions
of the Deity. There is no parallel by which such
a supposition can be sustained. And yet, if the
Bible doctrine of the Deity be not a revelation,
this must be admitted. For it is certain, that no
views worthy of God, were ever discovered by
those who do not acknowledge that Book, or have
not been educated under its teachings. Besides,
were such asupposition admitted, it would by no
means answer the purpose of the skeptic, because
it would still force him to admit a miracle into his
theory. And we put the question to the good
sense -of the skeptic, or any other man, which is
the most out of the order of nature-the most
miraculous-that only one man should possess
the powers of mind requisite to discover the true
principles of theology, or that those principles
were revealed from  heaven?  If miracles are
most miraculous, because few in number, then, if
natural talents only operated in the discovery of
the divine perfections, such an intellect is, of all
other things, the most wonderful, since it stands
alone, and must forever stand unegualled, the
admiration of a world.
The conclusion, then, is, that the only reaonable and philosophical account of the origi. of




ï~~CAARACTER OF THE DEITY.

231

the Bible doctrine respecting the attributes and
perfections of the Deity, is, that it was revealed.
And that these views are a revelation from God, is
proved by their nature, their consistency, and
their tendency. They could not have been borrowed by the sacred writers, for there is no evidence that any people, or persons on earth possessed them. They could not have been originated by the Hebrew patriarchs, for they were not
distinguished in other respects from those with
whom they were associated; and they neither possessed extraordinary talents, or superior means of
arriving at truth. And that such high and worthy
notions did exist, with such a people as the Hebrews, and at such a time of the world-that they
are' what they are, and that they have superseded
other systems, is proof of their divine original.




ï~~CHAPTER I I.

INSPIRED WRITERS.
It is obvious, that what has been said of the
divine character and perfections, as exhibited in
the Old Testament, applies equally to the Christian dispensation-the New Testament. being, in
this respect, a prolongation of that economy commenced in the earliest times of the Hebrews.UcHere, the perfections of God are more illustriously
displayed, more immediately rendered the subjects of regard, and brought to bear more directly
upon our necessities and our hopes. And here,
what was promised, is fulfilled; what was liable to
misapprehension from the mistakes and infirmities
of human judgment, is illustrated; what was reserved under a partial and national dispensation, is
published to the whole world, and established upon
miracles and the most unequivocal testimony.
There is one fact of a most striking and peculiar
character, which attaches to the personal pretensions of the writers of the Bible, and which distinguishes them in a remarkable manner, from aJ
ohers whom the world calls moralists or philko



ï~~INSPIRED WRITERS.

phers. It is not their undeviating candor in recording both their virtues and vice--their knowledge
and ignorance--their just apprehensions, and their
follies and mistakes. These things have excited
the admiration of all who have attentively read the
Scripture history; and while they stand without a
parallel, they can not fail to impress the mind in
favor of their integrity. Their frankness in thes
particulars, is eminently calculated to secure our
respect for their personal characters, and our confdence in the facts which they relate. It goes far to
prove that they were both honest men, and had m
disposition to deceive or impose upon others.
And these considerations, when sustained by the
further fact, that the writers of both the Old and New
Testaments, were singularly free from every thing
bearing the common marks of enthusiasm or fanaticism, afford very powerful reasons for thinking
that what they relate is true. Giving, therefore,
to all these particulars their full weight and importance, still we think, there are other considerations
which attach exclusively to their characters, that
nriot only sustain every legitimate inference from the
preceding, but constitute a distinct and decisive te&
timony of their own inspiration, and the truth and
authenticity of their writings.-It is the fact, that
Giy never (Issumed to be the or iginal and un aid ed
sthors of the the sentiments which they delivered,
The philosophers and casuists of all other times
nd nations, were too sensitive in relation to their




ï~~234

INSPIRED WRITERS.

0wn interest and reputation, not to maintain them
at every hazard, when possible. It certainly never
occurred to them, to ascribe an} thing either to the
gods or to men, to which they themselves could
make any plausible pretensions.   They never
hesitated to represent themselves as the sole and
unaided authors of the systems which they taught.
In a thousand ways they treat religion as a jest,
and the very being of their gods, as a trick of state
policy, or the conjecture of superstition. And it is
certain,,that however exalted some of their views
of morality might be, they were culpably indifferent to its practice. Thus, for instance-while they
knew that the most degrading excesses and beastly
indulgences were practiced in the very rites of their
religion, they not only allowed,, but encouraged
their observance, both by advice to their pupils and
friends, and by the weight of their own example.
And such base hypocrisy is among the things urged
upon the world, as evidence of the all-sufficiency
of nature and philosophy!.
All this, is the very opposite of the course pursued by the writers of the Bible. They lay their
honors at the feet of Supreme intelligence and wisdomn; and ascribe their views, their institutions,
mnd all the distinctibns and privileges derived from
them, to the one and only God whom they adore&.
They make no pompous parade of new theories and
systems-no sneers at the religious institutions under which they lived-~no sarcastic insinuations




ï~~INSPIRED WRITERS.

235

that the Deity was a mere creature of the imagination, or that religion was a matter only of state policey. Far, very far from all this, and from every
thing bearing any affinity or resemblance to such a
course. Without being ascetic, they were devout;
without the semblance of fanaticism, they were
religious; without skepticism, they believed in, and
free from hypocrisy, they worshipped the living
and true God.
Now there is not so great a difference in the constitutional propensities of men, as these facts unquestionably imply-if both are supposed to be influenced by any regard to their individual reputation as moralists or philosophers. There is no
reason to question, that the heart of an Israelite, of
the Patriarch himself, was not as susceptible of the
feelings of pride, or ambition, or praise, as those of
Plato, Seneca, or Cicero. And yet, the latter
claim, and their admirers make the same claim for
them down to this time, all the personal reputation
which the nature of the case, and the respective
systems will allow. On the contrary, the sacred
writers neither demand-nor yet have those who
most prize the truths they taught, ever given them--
credit for superior mental endowments. Although
it can scarcely have escaped the observation of the
most careless and indifferent, that if we are to judge
of the talents of men by their writings, and were to
)Qder the Bible merely as a human productiom




ï~~236

INSPIRED WRITERS.

the sacred writers will and must stand pre-enminent
among mankind.
The philosopher stands forward on the canvass in
an attitude to attract every eye to himself; the Pa
triarch, the Lawgiver, the Prophet, and the Apostle,
are always thrown into the shade, and occupy the
back-ground. The latter always present some superior personage, or refer you to some all-engrossing
topic, as alone worthy your regard; while the writar assumes no more than to be the instrument of
saliciting your attention to them alone. He cons tantly affirms, that he is not the author of the
truths, or even the sentiments which he utters; but
uniformly ascribes them to a higher power. In one
word, it is enough for the sacred pehman, that the
truth is brought to light-the means of moral knowledge and virtue placed in the hands of mankind,
and the Deity alone rendered the object of all the
gratitude and praise of their manifestation.
How is all this to be accounted for? Why are
not the sacred writers to be brought forward as the
wise ones of the earth, as well as the men of Greece,
or Rome, or Persia, or Egypt?  There can be no
reeson why it may not be done, aside from that aasigned by themselves-that they were the mere instruments of publishing the will and the purpose of
God. Their modesty in not assuming the part of
absolute authorship of the matter of their writings,
is also aceotnted for on this supposition, and no
other; for however amiable and commendable on




ï~~INSPIRED WRITERS.

2

any other account, it never cast a shadow across the
splendor of a single philosophical system since the
bfoundation of the world. But there is something
more than mere modesty in the inspired writers, in
relation to this matter. They not only affirm that
they were not the authors of the doctrines and precepts which they published, but many of them endared nearly every form and variety of suffering in
the maintenance of that fact! To such trials and
sufferings no man can subject himself, unless conscious that what he affirms, is the truth. If any
skeptic is disposed to question this, let him endeavor to ascertain how much and how long a Heathen
philosopher would be likely to suffer, rather than
own himself the author of his particular system.
It will be in vain to urge, that they were the
dupes of a misguided--or rather, misguiding fanaticism, and that, like some half-cried enthusiasts,
they were under the influence of an imposing hallucination. The sobriety of their writings, the sound.
ness of their theology, the dignity and self-possession which they maintained, both in their intercouirse with friends and enemies, and, finally, thei
unexceptionable morality which they taught and
exemplified, are all foreigth to, and incompatible
with the character of fanatics. No class of men
were ever further from the extravagances of fanaticism, than were those who were the instruments of
composing the books of Scripture. They were
strdogly impressed with the truth and importance




ï~~238

INSPIRED WRITERS.

of the subject matter of their respective communications, and appear like men in earnest-but they
never descended to extremes not fully warranted by
the established customs of their times, and of that
part of the world in which they lived. Besides, they
have left in their writings, the most unequivocal
evidence of their disapprobation of every thing bearing the aspect of phrenzied enthusiasm. And we
feel safe in challenging a comparison of their writings as a whole, with any others which the world
can boast of, whether the production of enthusiasm,
or of cold philosophy, or of modern skepticism, for
sound principles, decent expression, or moral purity. In these particulars, they are so immeasurably above any and every other known writings, as
to exempt their reputed authors from the slightest
imputation of extravagance.   And he must be
strangely infatuated, or disposed to cavil, who does
not, on a slight comparison of the Bible with the
offspring of any fanatic's brain, discover at once,
that it was produced both by benevolence and a
"sound mind." The purity of the moral precepts
alone, inculcated by the sacred writers, bears the
most unexceptionable testimony to the soundness
Qf their understanding, as it is' notorious that fanatics
and enthusiasts are miserably deficient in correct
principles, and just views of morality. The writers
of the Bible are not, therefore, the men to impose o
themselves, or to endeavor to impose on others, the
belief of their inspiration, without its foundation in
fact.             /




ï~~tNSI'IRI9-fl WRJTER9,.

From the foregoing facts and considerations, the
following inferences seem naturally and necessarily
to follow. We say naturally, because it appear
impossible for a reasonable man to fail of drawing
them-and necessarily, because they are the only
ones that can be drawn, without violence to experience, observation, and sound philosophy.
1. If the sacred writers had not been inspired,
there is no obvious reason why they should not have
claimed as their own productions, the books of Scripture bearing their respective names. From all
that appears of their history, they were not impelled
by any sinister motives, to ascribe their communications to the influence of divine inspiration. And
it seems next to impossible, to suppose that they
could be actuated by such motives. The circumstances under which most of them wrote, plainly
and absolutely forbid that supposition. This is
alike true and palpable of the writers, both of the
Old and New Testaments. For it may be asked,
what did they propose to themselves? After what
did they aspire, that could not be as well, as easily
and as certainly attained without, as with such
pretensions?  Let any period after the introduction of the Law, be selected, [that will be attended
to in its place,] and then let the question be preseed, what could any one of the sacred writers hope
to effect, which rendered the pretension to inspiration necessary? Men never act for any length of
time, and in a way calculated to bring about ir



ï~~IiNSPItD WRITERS.

portant results, without some definite mnotiveo. And
what could be the motive, which induced the sacred
writers to claim inspiration?
By far the greater number of prophets, lived and
wrote after the separation of the ten tribes from th
kingdom of Judah. Let us, then, take examples
from the most illustrious of these instructors of the
people; and endeavor to ascertain the motives by
which they might possibly be impelled to ascribe
their doings, or their writings, to the influence of a
divine interposition. And for this purpose, we begin with Elijah, one of the most distinguished, and
ome of the first in this catalogue of worthies. Was
it-Ould it be for his personal interest or aggrandizement, that he withstood kings, and rebuked tyrants and their minions, both civil and ecclesiastical? Did his acknowledged character of prophet,
protect him, in any instance, from public odium, and
personal sufferings, and the continued hatred and
and cruelty of the rulers, where the reputation of
merely being a wise man-or, if you please, a philkopher--would not have answered the same purpose? We venture to say, that no man with any
pretensions to candor, can read the books of King
and Chronicles, with the least reference to thi
subject, and can believe for a moment, that the assumption of being a prophet of God, screened him.
in a single instance from any reproach or suffering
from which Nestor, Plato, Or even Franklin would
not have been secure, had they lived at the sams




ï~~INSPIRED WRITERS.

241

time and in the same place. Nay-there is abundant reason to believe, that his prophetic character
was more than once made the pretext for severities,
which the mere philosopher would never have been
called to endure. And with the public reputation
of either of the persons, real or supposed, above
named, there is not an act ascribed to him, except
those which are avowedly miraculous, which they
might not have performed with equal impunity.
Will the skeptic try to discover some sufficient motive which could induce this extraordinary man to
assume a character, which so far from honoring or
profiting him, subjected him to a life of privation
and oppression, without supposing him actually inspired!
The same remarks in substance, apply to all the
rest. Isaiah, from the high place which he is supposed to have held among his people, needed no other
sanctions to give weight, and influence, and acceptance to his communications. His position in society appears to have been such, as to place him in the
same station, and make him alike the counsellor
of kings, whether considered as prince or prophet.
Let the skeptic have his way for a moment-let
this individual be considered only as one of the
princes of Judah, and what then? Why, if he
will read that part of the Bible ascribed to this
same Isaiah, the. son of Amos, he will be astonished
tO find, that for splendor of imagery, simplicity, and
beauty, and sublimity of conception and style,
16




ï~~242

INSPIRED WRITERS.

there is nothing in all the Heathen world among
poets, casuists, or philosophers, that can compare
with that book. And it will no doubt puzzle him
not a little, to imagine how a mere semi-barbarous
Jew, (as he would courteously call him,) could
conceive so nobly, and write so elegantly. He
must have been wiser than the wisest, and greater
than the greatest of Heathens--or he was inspired.
And in either case, the skeptic should do him honor
above others, to be consistent with himself. If only
as a poet and moralist, he is entitled to more veneration than Plato. But as inspired, he is to be regarded as the messenger and prophet of God. And
this is manifestly his true character.
Apply, now, the question in the case of the
prophet Jeremiah-what end could he possibly
have in view, in assuming the prophetic character,
that could not have been ouite as well attained
without it? He was certainly not in favor with the
court-nor did he coincide with its general views.
And for aught that appears to the contrary, he did
not aspire to any worldly distinction. On the contrary,there is every appearance that he sympathised
deeply and cordially in the impending misfortunes
and sufferings of his countrymen, and only warned
them of the certainty of mischief and calamity, as
the issue of the course they were pursuing. These
admonitions, it will not be doubted, could have
been given without the claim to a divine mission.
And had they been so given by a Heathen, and'the




ï~~INSPIRED WRITERS.

243

result had been the same, how carefully would his
name have been transmitted to us, and what honors
would have been paid to his marvellous discernment.
But here, a modest prophet, disclaiming all ability
to speak for himself, delivers the most palpable
truth, verified by events then in progress, and he
is regarded as a simple fanatic, a madman, a bungling impostor! Such, however, is the character
and spirit of infidelity, that it is utterly blind to all
excellence, unless hung to the skirts of a skeptic or
a--Heathen.
But it does not appear that either the king or his
counsellors considered this prophet as a fanatic or a
madman. For when they saw his predictions fulfilling on themselves, they did not hesitate to seek
his advice, and at once changed their course of
conduct from severity to kindness. And we may
very safely leave this fact for the consideration of
unbelievers, subjoining the question-whether they
are as likely to know that he was a pretender, as
those who tested the correctness of his predictions,
and honored him as a prophet? We would also
suggest the propriety of their giving some attention
to the. persecutions and punishments which this
good prophet' endured, and which, it seems they
think, he was foolish enough to bring on himself,
merely because he pretended to inspiration. And
if he were not inspired, will they assign a re~pecta.ble and obvious reason why he endured them?




ï~~244

INSPIRED WRITERS.

It is not easy to conjecture an important and satisfactory reason, why the prophet Daniel should
have declared himself to be inspired, unless he
really was so. The relation in which he stood to
the Hebrews, and the station that he held in the
court of the Babylonian monarch, leave no visible
object to be attained by such pretension. His authority with the king, and his obvious right to command the obedience of his own people, were such
as to, secure any end that appears to have been
contemplated. Certainly, it had no effect with the
Chaldeans, who evidently considered him merely
a wise man, until a train of remarkable events
forced from his master the acknowledgment, that
none but Jehovah, the God of Daniel, could enable
man to do such marvellous things. And yet, it
must be plain, that in this case, the prophet sacrificed much of that personal reputation that would
otherwise attach to himself, by giving all the praise
to God. How much greater than the wise ones of
Babylon, must he appear, if not inspired; and how
much of that greatness is voluntarily sacrificed by
becoming a prophet! If personal honor and fame
had been the object, he could not have adopted or
permitted the prophetic character-and that he did
so, is at least very good evidence of his actual inspiration.
Ezekiel and others of nearly the same period, had
no perceptible end in view in their communications,
except that of encouraging their captive country



ï~~INSPIRED WRITERS.

245

men with the hope of returning to the land of
their fathers. This is their theme, though other
and important subjects are occasionally introduced,
the development and fulfilment of which, have
abundantly verified their pretensions. But all that
principally concerned their personal reputation, related to events connected with their own times.
And we put the question seriously to the unbeliever,
whether there is any visible object involved by the
reputation of a prophet, that would not have been
equally well attained by the more common process
under similar circumstances?' Every one knows
that nations as well as individuals, may be excited
by merely human efforts-by appeals to their patriotism, their interests, and their personal feelings.
And there is no apparent reason why this might
not have been as successfully done in this instance,
as by the intervention of the prophetic character.Why, then, should it have been assumed? And
the only rational answer is, because that character
was the true one.
Of the writers of the New Testament, little need
be said under this head. It is not contended that
they could have effected what they did, in some
respects, without the aid of inspiration. Of the
amount of that inspiration, we have spoken elsewhere. But supposing all that the skeptic contends for-viz., that they were not inspired-what
possible end could they have in view, or did they
attain, by the pretence? If the world was but half




ï~~246

INSPIRED WRITERS.

as skeptical as it now is, they must have known
that the pretence to inspiration was decidedly offensive, and calculated to operate to their disadvantage. And if not inspired, its avowal must have
been an act of unparalleled imbecility. Will the
skeptic, then, find some plausible reason, even on
his own views, why they should have openly asserted, and suffered what they did for asserting,
that they were divinely inspired?
Men who have special and sinister motives in
view-who have none but personal ends and aims
to gratify-never throw themselves in the face of
power, public favor, and religious prejudice, without calculating the chances of being able, after a
few sharp conflicts, to triumph. On the contrary,
the wily hypocrite usually takes special care to
float on the surface of the current of popular opinion, that he may wind his serpent-coils around the
unsuspecting multitude. He is reckless of the
opinion which after ages may fori of his desertsfor it is not futurity in which he is interested, but
the present time. To be the present master, dictator, and leader of his species-to exert a present
power over the fortunes, the minds, the actions of
men, is his aim. But he has neither the heart to
endure, nor the moral courage to tempt a scene of
trials and sufferings, such as were borne by the
apostles and primitive Christians.
Can these, then, be charged with ueh motives?
Did they oourt popular favor, or crih  befite thI




ï~~INSPIRED WRITERS.

247

frown of power? Did they spare exertion, because
privations and death stared them in the face? Did
they, with the example of their master fresh upon
their minds, seek to attain personal honor, and eminence, and ease, by throwing the gauntlet of defiance in the teeth of authority, and public sentiment, and pride? Daring as skepticism often is,
with these considerations in view, it is difficult to
suppose that it dare assert what is so manifestly
repugnant to all probability. Besides, the apostles
were not the men to estimate the chances of a reputation some five hundred years after death.Nor did they, in any instance, betray any solicitude about the opinions of any age, except their
own; and they acted upon their views of duty, irrespective of final consequences.
All that has been urged, therefore, respecting the
modesty of the Old Testament writers in rejecting
the considerations of self, and ascribing all the merits and importance of their communications to a
higher power, attaches with accumulated force to
the apostles and evangelists. Had personal honor
and reputation been their motive, they would never
have pretended to inspiration; since all that they
ascribe to superhuman aid, is so much withdrawn
from themselves. And it is matter of wonder, that
the very sagacious enemies of revelation, should
never have perceived that they were paying a tribute of respect to these disciples of Christ, that
places them immeasurably above their admired




ï~~248

INSPIRED WRITERS.

philosophers-and giving them credit for talents
that no Christian ever thought they had a right to
claim. This is probably one of the instances of
remarkable consistency, for which unbelievers
claim to be specially distinguished-and it is doubtless a common and faithful specimen. In view of
all these considerations and facts, we repeat that
the natural and necessary inference is, that the
writers of the Bible were divinely inspired.
2. Another obvious and necessary inference is,
that human nature being always the same, the
same general principles must always be in operation. Hence, if the sacred writers had not been inspired, some one, or more of them, would have
claimed the honor of being the unaided author of
the doctrines and precepts which he taught-or
would have exposed the pretensions of otlhers.
But none of them ever did this. No instancee occurs, in which the pretensions to inspiration of any
individual whose name and writings constitute a
part of the Bible, was ever accused by any other
writer of the Scriptures, of being an impostor.And this fact is of great importance, when we recollect that there were many of them, and that they,
in several instances, lived and wrote in the same
age.   This fact is unparalleled in the history of
man. And it proves that the individuals not only
thought themselves inspired, but that they also
thought the same of each other. There is abundant evidence,, too,~ in the fact that they expoeed




ï~~INSPIRED WRITERS.

249

without reserve, their own imperfections, that they
would have rebuked with unsparing severity, a
crime so offensive to truth in others.
To this, it will no doubt be objected, that they
might be mutually influenced by the same hallucination, and fanatically infer the inspiration of
others, merely because they were themselves the
subjects of self-delusion. Not so. Fanatics and
enthusiasts are the last people in the world, to
practice even common charity-much less are they
disposed to indulge the pretensions of others! And
this is daily illustrated, not only by the practices of
conflicting sects, but by members of the same creed
and profession. We need not even go so far back
as the history of the Dominicans and Franciscans,
who mutually exposed the chicanery and pious
frauds of each other; the evidence is around and
among us in the present day and generation. Besides, in the lapse of so many ages, it is not to be
imagined that every writer among a whole people,
was an enthusiast. The compositions betray. a
great variety; but this extraordinary character of
fanaticism, by no means pervades them. The
further conclusion then is, that they had good rea-.
son to believe themselves divinely inspired, and
that they delivered the unsophisticated oracles of
God.




ï~~CHAPTER III.

MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS.
Unbelievers have frequently amused themselves,
and indulged in much sarcasm, in drawing a parallel between Moses and Mahommed-and by supposing that there was the same, or at least as good
reason to believe that the religion of Islam was
from heaven, as that of the Hebrews. And that if
we admit the divine authority of the latter, we must
that of the former; that if we regard the one a fanatic or impostor, we are bound so to consider the
other. They represent both as designing pretenders to inspiration. Moses, we are told, like Mahommed, so maniaged as to attain and exercise unlimited
power over his nation, under the pretext of divine
direction-a "thus saith the Lord"-while he oppressed the people with an unmeaning, expensive,
and burdensome ritual
To all this we answer, that plausible as some
parts of the objection are, it is entirely destitute of
force, because there is, in fact, no parallel in the
cases. Of this, any person can satisfy himself in a
short time, who will take the pains to read the Koran, and compare it with the Bible. And he may




ï~~MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS.

251

make the comparison with particular parts, or the
whole. But he must assure himself, that the more
diligently he examines, the further he pursues the
comparison, the more fully and certainly will he
become convinced that there is no parallel in the
cases, and no weight or force in the objection. He
will perceive that the conduct of Moses, throughout,
was open, frank, and manly; and that there is in
that of Mahommed, a secrecy, a continued series
of assumptions, a caution in the delivery of his oradles as the time and occasion seemed to warrant,
and that he purposely mystified them so as to render them of uncertain import-all of which is
wholly unlike the proceedings of the Hebrew Legislator. Of the miracles of Mahommed, there
was no human witness; while those of Moses, like
those of Jesus, were wrought in open day, before
multitudes, and in the presence both of friends and
enemies.
Now, with the exception of the difficulty of understanding, in all cases, that peculiar oriental style
and imagery, there is no evidence of obscurity in
the Pentateuch. We may safely challenge an
instance of apparently studied obscurity of expression, in all the writings ascribed to Moses. But it
is believed, that no person acquainted with the subject, can be found, who would hazard a similar remark respecting the Koran. The Pentateuch is
free from ambiguity and mysticism, while every
part of the Koran is replenished with instances of




ï~~252

MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS.

a redundant, verbose unmeaningness. This very
mysticism and obscurity, seems to be the first object
with fanatics and impostors, as they affect it in
every instance, with undeviating certainty. In
proof of this, the objector may compare, at his leisure, the Bible with the works of the whole catalogue of enthusiasts and impostors, from Gregory
Thaumaturgus, or Nicholas Loyola, down to
Emanuel Swedenborg, or even the book of Mormon. The Koran is of the same cast, and bears
upon its front the impress of the same self-delusion,
or deceptive purpose-characters which all the ingenuity of skeptics, never has, and never will be
able to fasten upon the sacred writers.
While we would not impeach the candor of unbelievers, it is due to truth and justice to say, that
the alleged parallel between Moses and Mahommed, betrays an unreasonable prejudice, or an unwarrantable ignorance of the Pentateuch, as well
as of the Koran. What did Moses gain to himself,
or to his family, by assuming to be divinely inspited, which could not, and would not have been as
certainly obtained without that assumption? He
made no provisions for his own family whateverand the distinction assigned to his tribe, was notoriously to their disadvantage, as it excluded them
from all participation in the division of the country,
except a few small villages, and from many other
common privileges of citizens. It is madness to
suppose that the family of the Levites were as well




ï~~MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS.

253

off in worldly matters, as their brethren of the other
tribes. Men of general candor deceive themselves
in this particular, in a most surprising manner.They have in their view, the ample tythes of the
English national establishment; and they infer that
the provision for the sacred family among the Hebrews, was equally abundant. But nothing can be
further from the truth. For it is notorious, that the
Levites constituted about one-twelfth of the whole
population. This is certainly a proportion which
no one will pretend, is borne by the English clergy
to the inhabitants of Great Britain, And if it were,
we have every reason to believe that it would so
diminish the revenues even of the Bishop of Durham, as to render him "poor indeed."
In times of public distress, the misfortune must
bear particularly hard upon the Levites. And in
times of apostacy from the established religion, they
must have been without any resource. When war
or famine spread its sable and desolating wing over
the land, the Levite was sure to feel its first, and
its heaviest influence. The regular order of things
being interrupted-the attendance upon the stated
worship, and the offerings at the national altar being suspended, the fountains of his scanty pittance
would be dried up, and he left to feel the utter helplessness of his situation, and the full weight of his
wretchedness. This is no fancied representaton of
his situation. The reader of the historic portions
of the Old Testament, will remember that moro




ï~~254

MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS.

than once, this part of the nation was driven to seek
the means of subsistence by any menial service
among their more favored brethren. And with
these facts-undeniable facts-before them, how is
it that skeptics are so very sensitive to what they
call the partiality of Moses for his tribe?  It is at
best, a partiality for which few Levites could thank
him-and one which decidedly bettered the condition of all the rest of the nation. It is a partiality,
which if applied this day in the same proportion to
the unbelievers in the United States, would reduce
them to a state of beggary; and probably bring
them to the exercise of more just views and apprehensions of the subject, than they have yet entertained. Thus much, for this notable partiality of
the Hebrew Lawgiver for promoting the worldly
interests of his tribe!
Skepticism has arrayed and included the miracles wrought by Moses, in the same rank with those
ascribed to Mahommed. But it has been merely
assumed and asserted-for it has not been proved,
nor does it admit of the shadow of proof. The miracles ascribed to Moses, were wrought before his
countrymen, for the purpose of convincing them of
his mission-before Pharaoh and his court, for the
purpose of inducing him to permit the Hebrews to
leave the country in peace--and during their journeyings, for administering to their wants, or for the
overthrow of their enemies. These miracles always have spoken, and willever continue to speak




ï~~MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS.

255

for themselves. And in every instance, there was
no room, and no 6ccasion for fraud or collusion.Had they not been real, there is no good reason to
doubt, that except in a very few instances, the same
ends could have been attained by other means. Indeed, had they not been all that they professed to
be, the restless multitude, impatient of delay and
of control, would have effectually exposed and exploded any and every attempt at imposition. For
the history is fraught with abundant proof, that even
while they admitted and admired the miracles, they
were little disposed to act beyond, or otherwise than
their feelings or apparent interests prompted.
Now can any man say in all good conscience,
that there are equal proofs of the miracles ascribed
to Mahommed-that, in fact, there is any proof
whatever of their reality? Who was witness of
his wonderful night excursion through some ninety
heavens? Who saw the Koran delivered piecemeal by the angel Gabriel, to the prophet of the
faithful? Nay-who can compare its fulsome and
unmeaning pages, with the Pentateuch, and feel
that he is drawing a legitimate parallel, between
works of equal merit, and equal claims to divine
authority. Any but a Mussulman, who can do
this, is beyond the reach of argument, or the influence of testimony, and may feel safe against conviction of any truth, because it is reasonable. Such
an one may well be a sceptic, for he is not fit to be
any thing else.




ï~~256

MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS.

It is also a very great mistake, to suppose that
the ritual imposed on the Hebrews, was either unmeaning or oppressive.* And the imputation of
either, betrays a culpable inattention to the nature
and objects of the Mosaic institutions. It is very
true, that the Lawgiver at Sinai, required a considerable number and variety of sacrifices. But it
confined its requirements to such animals-and to
such exclusively-as could be used for food.Whereas, several of the Heathen offerings were of
the most offensive kind-and frequently included
the immolation of human beings. In all the rites
of the Law, the sense-of decency, cleanliness and
moral purity, is always impressed, and appears to
have been uniformly understood and appreciated.
Among the Gentiles, on the contrary, their religious
rites, and especially their festivals, were the scenes
of indecency, filth, and the most unseemly and
degrading debauchery. Under the Law, the presence of God, his fatherly care and benignity, were
celebrated with becoming solemnity, and by every
indication of sincere gratitude. The Heathen rites
were ostensibly designed to propitiate some imaginary monster of cruelty and blood; and were observed for the more obvious purpose of indulging
in the most brutal manner, some of the worst and
lowest of the animal propensities.
* Priestley on the originality of the Mosaic Instittions, at the end of Notes on the Pentateuch.




ï~~MOSAIC INATITUTONg.

Instead of a particularly burdensome, or even an
expensive ritual, the institutions of Moses are, in
these respects, by no means to be compared with
those of the Heathens. He gave to the Hebrews
but three public festivals in the year-the Heathens, on the contrary, had more than ten times that
number. He gave directions for a votive offering,
at best not very expensive, and then graduated to
the humblest means of the poor-while the Heathens, the great exemplars of the religion of nature,
considered the presentation of the most valued and
costly things, as the exclusive pledge of uncommon
piety. And yet, can any thing be conceived more
inappropriate and grotesque, than the rich offerings
of robes and tunics for the services and bedizenment of a wooden god! There is none of this tiunseemliness in the requisitions of the Law of Moses;
every service is suited to the relative situation of
the creature to the Creator-is well adapted to foster a spirit of devotion-is not pretended to be necessary to the Deity, but is the pledge of obedience
to his requirements.
We may now be permitted to ask, where are the
special indications in the administration of Moses,
of his oppressions and exactions, or of a disposition
to make the most of his high authority? Whether
we consider his disregard of the interests of his family, the integrity and rectitude of his personal
conduct, or the nature and utility of the institutions
which he established, the world has never furnish17




ï~~258

MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS.

ed his equal. If it were admitted that he was not
inspired, he must certainly be considered the wisest, greatest, best of statesmen and rulers. This,
skepticism itself would cheerfully admit, were it
not for the claim to inspiration, on which all his
authority and actions are founded. If he were not
inspired, how is it to be accounted for, that he was
some three thousand years in advance of his age,
and brought his people, in moral science and views
of the Deity, to a station of pre-eminence which all
the efforts of philosophy never conceived nor attained.  And we press the question, whether
what is absolutely and undeniably good, is or can
be the worse for having, been derived from superhuman aid? Is the unbeliever prepared to reject
as useless or corrupt, those benevolent institutions,
which do honor to human nature, merely because
they are professedly of divine origin? Would he
wish us to believe, that he considers the high morality inculcated in the Decalogue-and which he
knows is only taught there, except in the Christian
system-as less pure, proper, and necessary, because avowedly dictated by the inspiration of God?
Will he do, what has never yet been done-assign
a respectable reason, why Moses was capable of
doing what he did, and of establishing the institutions for which his nation was distinguished, if he
were not inspired?
Again--does it follow, because certain leaders
and conquerors have attained their pre-eminence by




ï~~MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS.

259

fraud and violence, and ruled with a rod of iron,
that therefore no man can rise to authority, and govern and direct the affairs of a nation, without being oppressive and tyrannical? If so, we may expect, in the next age at least, that unbelievers will
charge, in this country, upon Washington, the character of usurper, rebel, and tyrant-that his forbearance was cowardice, his modesty but hypocrisy, and his retirement but imposture! And suppose, further, that the armies and people of the United States, had testified universally, that they had
seen him work miracles, and had witnessed the
descent of the visible symbols of the Deity in attestation and confirmation of his right to lead, and his
authority to govern-on this principle, his pretensions must be founded in venality, his institutions be
cumbersome, or costly, or nonsensical, and his people dupes and slaves.
Now, we have the united testimony of a whole
people, that Moses was divinely appointed to lead
them out of Egypt-that they saw, and were benefited by his miracles-that they witnessed the palpable indications of the divine presence in vindication of his authority, and in approbation of his institutions. And this testimony is further sustained
by the maintenance of certain opinions, and the
performance of certain rites or ceremonies, by that
people, through a succession of ages. It goes still
further, and proves that all this power was attained
and exercised without an appeal to the sword, and




ï~~260

MOSAIC INgTITUTIONS.

that these remarkable institutions were adopted and
obeyed-not because any compulsory measures
were employed in the first instance, but because
their recipients were convinced that they were sent
from Heaven. What right, then, has any man to
assert, that the Hebrew Legislator was either
usurper, tyrant, or impostor, that could not be assumed, as far as mere authority and power are
concerned, of King Alfred, or of Washington? But
every one knows that it can not be done of the latter, with decency, and much less with the show of
reason. Nor can it be done, for the same, and yet
higher considerations, of the Lawgiver of Israel.
Having now followed the skeptic through his supposed parallel of the pretensions and institutions of
Moses and Mahommed, and having shown that he
is mistaken in his inferences, and that no parallel
exists, we must be permitted to ask him, in turn,
to accompany us in the consideration of certain
points and bearings of the Law, which appear to
have wholly escaped his observation. It is not a
little singular, that certain persons never discover
what is good and praiseworthy in the lives or precepts of the sacred writers-while, at the same
time, they can find much to admire in the stubborn
insensibility of Zeno, and more in the filthy semibeast, Diogenes, in his tub. They fasten upon
some imperfection or indiscretion in the conduct of
a patriarch, or prophet, and set it down as a plain
and incontrovertible truth, that both the persons ir



ï~~MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS.

261

plicated, and all others enrolled as Scripture writers, were weak and contemptible enthusiasts, or
base and impious pretenders. And all this, when
an accidental discovery of a single moral truth or
respectable wise saying, among a cart-load of vulgarity, sophisms, and nonsense of Heathen extraction, is quite enough to sanctify a whole system of
philosophy. They appear to be so completely
baptized into this prejudice, that they want little
besides a few portable divinities, to identify them
with the disciples of some antiquated and long since
exploded Pagan theory.
To say nothing of the moral aspect of the Mosaic
dispensation, there is enough to recommend it, at..
least, to respectful consideration, if not to unqualified approbation. Let any one attentively read
the benevolent provisions of the Law, for the
"stranger, the fatherless, and the widow," so often repeated, and so variously modified in its objects and bearings, and then ask himself whether
there is nothing useful, or appropriate, or necessary
in its requirements?  Thus it is said, "Thou shalt
neither vex a stranger nor oppress him.....ye shall
not afflict any widow or fatherless child." When
the time of the vintage and the harvest came, the
fIebrews were forbidden to gather the whole for
themselves-the scattering bunches of grapes-the
corners of the field-the forgotten sheaf-must be
left for the "stranger, for the fatherless, and for the
Widow." Ozce in three yedre, every householder




ï~~MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS..

was required to bring out a portion expressly set
apart for the use of the " Levite, the stranger, the
fatherless, and the widow."  Where else in all the
wide world, shall we find any specific, and appropriate, and well-ordered arrangements for these
classes of persons? The murdered traveller, the
plundered caravan, the Christian prisoner and
slave, bear ample and appalling testimony to the
benevolent provisions of the system of Mahommed!
Its well-known maxim is, "No faith with infidels"-.by which is meant, all who do not profess
the faith of Mahommed. And until since the recollection of many of the present generation, this
rule was carried out in fearful practice. Piracies
of the most atrocious description, under the connivance of the Sublime Porte, and at the very foot of
the throne of the successors of Mahommed, were
only prevented by purchase and tribute, until our
own government applied a more effectual remedy,
and taught the Mussulman, what the Koran never
did-to respect the rights of strangers. Let the
skeptic review the history of the infamous and unprovoked robberies, and murders committed upon
merchants and travellers, under the sanction of the
Arabian prophet, and by his followers, and then, if
he dare, assert that there is a perfect parallel, o
any parallel at all, between the institutions of Moses
and Mahommed.
It need: scarcely be remarked, that among the
Heathens, there were no suitable provisions for the




ï~~MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS.

263

"stranger, the fatherless, and the widow."  But it
should be admitted, that the courtesies and even
charities of social life, were in general better sustained by them, than they have ever been by Mahommedans. A species of conventional hospitality
entitled the stranger to protection, and civility to a
limited extent, in some Pagan countries. This,
philosophy encouraged, but went no further. And
man was left to the operation of his undirected syrmpathies, in giving or withholding charity, unimpressed by the sanctions of authority either human
or divine. So that, in fact, the Mosaic institution
stands alone, transcendently above any and all
other systems, except the Christian, in its hospitable and benevolent provisions for the solitary alien,
the helpless and distressed. And how is this to be
accounted for? Must we suppose the author of
the Hebrew institutions, so much more humane
than all the world besides-not only more so than
the age in which he lived, but pre-eminently more
so than any age of philosophy and Gentilism?
Certainly, skeptics and unbelievers will not admit
all this, without at least heaving a sigh over the
comparative degradation of their venerated philosophers! But this they must admit, or admit his
inspiration!.
But we must' not suspend this comparison of the
humanity and kindness of the legal dispensation,
with other systems, as yet, And, however reluctantly, the skeptic must go with us through a few




ï~~264

MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS,

more particulars, evincive of the superior benevolence of the Mosaic system-that system which he
considers so repugnant to all good sense and sound
philosophy. Does he so view it, because it is so
superior in philanthropy to any merely human
theory, or because it is so repugnant to some of the
practices which the interests and policies of men
have rendered it convenient for them to pursue?
Some of its venerable requisitions, it would be particularly gratifying to see more generally embodied
in Christian practice, and, especially, illustrated in
a more benevolent treatment of the poor. And
were this done, it would exclude some of the speculations built on human suffering, and annihilate
much of the wealth wrung from the hand of the
sons of peverty---often, of industry.
From time immemorial, it seems to have been
the practice for one man to borrow of another, what
he particularly wanted, and could not command
by other honorable means. And the inference
usually corresponds with the fact, that in a great
majority of eases, the poor borrows and the rich
lend. The hazard incurred of losing the thing
or the amnount loaned, naturally suggested some
expedient for rendering payment certain. This we
call security, One of these expedients always has
been, the acoeptance of some article of the required
value, as a pledge. And it appears-to have ben
cuutonary with the Hebrews, to pledge some articl of clothing, or Qf owImoe ad cesary ves




ï~~MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS.

the business of life. All this was very properand all this is still done in most countries, in the
every day transactions of man with man. But
how is it done? Is the least attention paid to the
wants or the privations of him who makes the
pledge? Is a thought apparently turned upon the
sacrifice which the poor may make, by giving security in this manner? Is not interest, rather than
the comfortor the wants of the needy, the great
matter of concern, and the established and acknowledged rule of action? And does not the lender,
accordingly, pursue every means that law or public opinion will warrant, in order to compel the
payment of his dues, regardless of all wants, or interests, except his own?
Now it is questionable whether the skeptic is
aware of the regulations prescribed by the Mosaic
institution, in relation to pledges. If he is not, he
may be surprised to find that they are such as no
worlding, or oppressor, or impostor, alike reckless
of means or measures to compass his ends, would
be likely to impose! They are indeed far, very
far from every thing of the kind. For they breathe
a spirit of genuine charity and kindness, such as no
other then existing institutions knew, and such as
no part of mankind, save the Hebrews, have ever
practiced with equal fidelity. But let them speak
for themselves. "If thou at all take thy neigh,
bor's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto
him, by that the sun goeth down." "If the nian




ï~~266

MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS.

be poor, thou shalt not, sleep with his pledge; in
any case, thou shalt deliver him the pledge again
when the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his
own raiment, and bless thee." Provision is also
made for preventing the acceptance of certain indispensable articles of common use. Thus-" No
man shall take the nether or the upper millstone
to pledge; for he taketh a man's life to pledge."
Are these benevolent arrangements, the indications of total apathy to the welfare of the distressed?
Are they to be regarded as the exclusive offspring
of personal interest? or are they the unmeaning
aberrations of a fanatic's mind? or yet, the unprincipled and unhallowed usurpations dictated by an
unfeeling impostor?  Can they with decency, or
sense, or honesty, be ascribed to either? And if
not, they prove their author to have been more than
three thousand years in advance of his age, inconceivably more benevolent than the best of the
Heathens--or, what is infinitely more reasonable,
that he was inspired. Their existence only among
the Hebrews, proves, also, that while they were
known to be the most useful and benevolent institutions in all the world, the philosophers and moralists of other lands, were too vain of their own
theories to adopt them. And we leave it to the
advocates of the all-sufficiency of the light of nature, to determine whether they are not, at this
day, rejecting "the counsel of God against themselves," in the same way, and for the same reasons,




ï~~MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS.

267

Another benevolent provision of the Mosaic Law,
relates to usury. "If thou lend money to any of
my people that is poor by thee, thou shaltnot be to
him as an usurer; neither shalt thou lay upon him
usury." And this prohibition is repeated under
such modifications of expression, as leave no doubt
respecting its import, or of the moral bearings to
which it was directed. Where shall we look for
an instance of attention to the circumstances of the
poor, like this, among the high-sounding institutions
of a worldly philosophy? Where else can we find
an insurmountable barrier interposed for the protection of the poor 'gainst the rich-the weak
against the strong? And can any man in conscience say, that this looks like courting the. favor
and countenance of the most powerful and influential class of the nation, and building up and establishing authority without right-divine right?
We do not particularly object to the established
custom of paying interest for the use of money.
The borrower is, or ought to be, benefited by its
use; and it is difficult to conceive of any reason
why he should not render a suitable compensation
for the privilege, except that assigned by the law
under consideration-the national kindred, and
poverty of the borrower. However this may be,
it is certain that the modern shaver would find him.
self sadly bereft of his gains, were he brought under the unflinching regulations of the Hebrew Law,
giver. A fact that may aid in accounting for the




ï~~268

MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS.

antipathy of certain members of that fraternity
against the Bible, and who appear to hold the Pentateuch in special and utter abomination. We
may be assured, that neither the light of nature, nor
human policy, nor yet the wisdom of an exclusive
philosophy, ever dictated these benevolent provisions for the needy. It remained for the Hebrew
institutions alone, to recognize the true principles
of human kindness, and to enforce them under sanctions from which the heart can make no appeal.And these considerations, when the age of the
world and the general state of morals are taken into
the account, constitute a mass of unimpeachable
testimony, which it seems impossible to resist, in
favor of the inspiration of the author of the Pentateuch.
One of the most remarkable regulations that ever
distinguished legislation, remains to be noticed.
It is the universal right of resuming personal freedom, and all possessions previously alienated,
whether by the misfortunes or indiscretions of the
individual concerned. "And thou shalt number
seven Sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times
seven years; and the space of the seven Sabbaths
of years, shall be unto thee forty and nine years.And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclahm
liberty throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you; and
ye shall return every man unto his possessions,
and ye shall return every man unto his family."




ï~~MOSAIC INSTITUITIONS.

269

It will doubtless be observed, that similar laws
were occasionally introduced among the Romans;
and that, consequently, this is but a common iny
stance of agrarianism. But here the objector is
mistaken: there is no general resemblance, much
less parity, in the respective instances. The Ro
man law was, at least, but a temporary expedient
for special purposes. The Hebrew, on the contrary, was one of early and perpetual institution,
and was never suspended when its application was
practicable.  The Roman agrarian law    seized
upon the immense possessions of the affluent, and
distributed them only among citizens, while it left
every servant and menial in the commonwealth, to
all the wretchedness of poverty and oppression.
At the same time, its operation was both oppressive and unjust, in its entire disregard of the rights
of the rich. On the contrary, the law of the jubilee
was instituted long before any Hebrew came into
possession of a single foot of territory. Their inheritance was also to be equally divided, in the first
instance, among the individuals of the whole nation, except a single family. And in every purchase of either land or slaves, the purchaser was
previously instructed to graduate the price by a
careful estimate of the number of years to the jubilee. "According to the number of years after
the jubilee, thou shalt buy of thy neighbor, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he
shall sell unto thee-according to the multitude of




ï~~270

MOSAIC  NSTITUTIONS.

years, thou shalt increase the price thereof; and
according to the fewness of years, thou shalt diminish the price of it." In this case, neither party was
wronged; while every bond-servant, male and female, was restored to freedom, and every portionless family acquired competence.
In view of these peculiar and humane provisions
of the Mosaic institutions, it is surprising that
many honest Christians believe that the Law-in
all its bearings, objects, and requirements-was
abolished by the Gospel. And it is to be feared,
that by so doing, they have contributed greatly to
the general disgust entertained by unbelievers
against the Old Testament, and especially against
the Pentateuch. For, however we may concede
that these regulations might with propriety be modified in some respects, when brought into universal application-still, it seems impossible to suppose that the Gospel could be designed to expune
them forever from the catalogue of human obligations. But whether this be so, or not, can not affect the argument with unbelievers. it remains
for them to account for the existence of these requirements, on their own hypothesis, that Moses
was no better than Mahommed, or that he was not
inspired.




ï~~CHAPTER IV.

SUPERSTITION.
It will not be doubted, that one of the most extraordinary traits of human character, is its tendency to superstition. And however we may be
told that superstition is the index, as it is the neverfailing concomitant of ignorance, it is, nevertheless,
an ignorance which has very generally prevailed
in all ages, and among all classes of mankind. By
superstition, is here meant the belief in diabolical
spirits, ghosts, and hobgoblins, and the consequent
apprehension of their witcheries and sorceries. All
of which, the skeptic or unbeliever will probably
admit to be wholly unworthy of the serious regard
or respect of reasonable and enlightened men. So
far, then, all are agreed-and it remains that we
apply this admission to the comparative conduct of
the sacred writers and Gentile philosophers, with a
view to ascerthin their respective claims to consistency, reason, and sound philosophy.
Now, there is throughout the Bible, a constant
series of facts, which conclusively prove, that the
sacred penmen regarded these popular superstitions not only with disapprobation, but as utterly
repugnant to the purity of religion and morality.




ï~~272

SUPERSTITION.

And they are particularly explicit in the avowal of
their own opinions, as well as definite in the expression of the views which they would have others
entertain respecting this subject. Thus giving to
their productions the appearance of some solicitude,
lest they might at some period be misunderstood.
They are no less distinguished for their opinions relating to this subject, than for many other things by
which they were so signally set apart from the rest
of mankind. And in this, as in others, their views
and principles are shown to be of a higher origin
than can be consistently claimed for the productions
of any other class of writers. It proves that they
were inspired, or were infinitely sounder thinkers,
as well as better moralists, than any other part of
the world could boast. A few examples will illustrate and prove what is here assumed.
In the Pentateuch-a part of the Bible which
unbelievers hold in particular and profound detestation-Moses says, "There shall not be found
among you any one that maketh his son or his
daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter,
or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizzard, or a neeromancer......For
these nations which thou shalt possess, hearkened
unto observers of times, and unto diviners; but as
for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so
to do." Again, in reference to the same subject, he
says, "Regard not them that have familiar spi



ï~~S UPERS TITIO-.

273

tits, neither seek after wizzards, to be defiled by
them."
The language of these prohibitions, is too plain
to admit of misapprehension. And they embody
and establish several facts which the skeptic will
do well to notice. One of these is, that the Canaanitish nations were addicted to a most loathsome,
gross, and degrading superstition, which encouraged
a set of pretenders, jugglers, soothsayers, and diviners, and which also embraced among its consequences, the inhuman practice of sacrificing children to Moloch, the fire-god. This catalogue of
witches, wizzards, necromancers, and consequently the whole machinery of demons, ghosts, and
vampires, are plainly of Heathen origin.
Another important fact is, that the Hebrews were
Ibrbidden, in the most express and comprehensive
terms, to show any countenance or favor towards
these pretensions. They were not permitted to
adopt any of these opinions or practices, nor might
they suffer those who did, to live among them. No
part of this formidable system of superstition, can
even remotely be attributed to the Mosaic dispeasation. So far from this, the language above quoted,
shows, that the Israelites were required to consider
it as utterly false and infamous, alike unworthy of
men, and offensive to Heaven.
Another equally interesting and important fact
is, that the Hebrews were taught to regard this systern of demonology and jugglery, not only as false
18




ï~~auInFsi'ITIOY.

ad fabulous, but as matter of positive moral defilement. Nor was this a subject of empty speculation
aloe--it was carried into practice. And during
m4ay ages, except in times of general and notorious
apotacy, they are not chargeable with the folly
azd impiety of believing in or countenancing
withcraft, or of suffering the terrors of demoniacal
vw,.ation.
That we are correct in relation to this matter, is
firther shown by the manner in which the Hebrew
writers 'speak of what they call their wicked kings.
Thus, of Manasseh it is said, that "he made his
on to. pass through the fire, and observed times,
and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar
spirits and wizzards." And all this was done under such aggravations of guilt, as to induce the
farther remark, that he seduced the people to "do
more evil, than did the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel." There is
no possibility of mistaking the meaning of this quota*ion. And it shows that the acknowledged rule
of action and sentiment among the Hebrews, in all
ages,, was the same in relation to superstition.
Whiat Moses had established, was authoritative in
t1)i, as in other particulars, and except during seasof undoubted apostacy, was never for a moment called in question.
The propltds, in a variety of ways, speak of the
&urtjtioeof the Heathens    e $metimestheyssia=ely rebke their nation for indioning to their




ï~~SUPERSTITION.

adoption--at others, they treat the subject of prognostication and witchcraft, with playful irony, or
bitter sarcasm and contempt; but always in a manner that clearly show s that they rejected every
part of the entire system of demonology. Jeremi.ah writes-" Thus saith the Lord, learn not the
way of the Heathen, and be not dismayed at the
signs of heaven; for the Heathen are dismayed at
them." Isaiah says, that the Lord had forsaken
his people, because they were "soothsayers like
the Philistines"-and he rebukes them in no very
mineasured terms, for their idolatry. "Their land
is full of idols; they worship the work of their own
hands, that which their own fingers have made.....
And the mean man boweth down, and the great
man humbleth himself." On another occasion he
taunts the idolators in this style-" Seek unto them
that have familiar spirits, and unto Wizzarcls, that
peep, and that mutter-should not a people seek
unto their god?'y The high and low stand openly rebuked, in these instances; while the whole
system of divination is contemptuuasly exploded.
But it is not necessary to multiply quotations~It is indisputable that the institutions of Moses constituted the only acknowledged rule of faith and
practice among the Hebrews, at all times, and ander all circumstances, when they can be supposed
to act upon their own peculiar principles. Accordingly we iay expect to find-jst what we' d.
ind  every whewe s0WR ed' thr&ghout.the m*4




ï~~276

SUPE RSTITION'.

writings-allusions more or less distinct, to the ide
tical prohibitions of witchcraft and demonology, under consideration. And in every instance of such
reference by the prophets, it is done in perfect accordance with the maxims of their great Lawgiver.
Kings, in several instances, acted upon this authority, and expelled or put to death the pretenders to
what is termed a familiar spirit, or a spirit of divination. And the fooleries and abominations of superstition, in all its forms, are held up for the nation's'abhorrence, in contrast with the substantial
truths and useful instructions of the oracles of God.
To these remarks it will probably be objected,
that, in defiance of the institutions of Moses, the
power and authority of kings, and the remonstrances
and rebukes of the prophets, the Hebrews, at different periods, appear to have fallen into the common error respecting the belief of invisible spirits,
and finally to have universally sunk into a faith
in ghosts, witches, and demons.
All this is cheerfully admitted-but neither the
facts nor their admission, affect the position assumed and proved, that the Hebrew institutions disavowed and reprobated the whole scheme of idolatry and superstition. On the contrary, it serves
more fully and conclusively to show, that the
whole nation had eventually departed from their
own acknowledged principles; and, at the same
time, to exhibit in stronger light, and to hold up to
higher admiration,. the extraordinary men who




ï~~5UPEISTITION.

'277

taught them to reject the whole system of demonology, and to regard its instruments and abettors,
as the corruptors and enemies of mankind. Nothing can be more marvellous, than the character
which is thus unequivocally confirmed to their
great Lawgiver, their prophets, and the wisest and
best of their kings!
But the unbeliever is concerned to know, by
what means the Hebrews came to believe in all
the Pagan superstitions-and, especially, why
this belief became so much more identical with the
last ages of their national existence. The reasons,
and the process by which this was effected, were
both easy and natural. The Hebrews, for some
five hundred years previous to the Christian' era,
were successively tributary to the Chaldeans,
Greeks, and Romans; whose mythological systems were substantially one and the same. For,
setting aside the consideration of the particular
deities which they worshipped, and some minor
peculiarities in the prevailing systems of philosophy, neither of which is involved in the present
instance, they entertained the same general views
of matter and spirit, and spiritual existences, and
the same notions concerning the state of the dead.
Among them all, the belief in ghosts and in demoniacal possessions, appears to have been universal.
And it was perfectly natural for the Hebrews, ia
their necessary intercourse with them, to imbibe,
to a greater, or lesser extent, the views and princi



ï~~IPR5TITiOfi.

pls of their coaquerors. And that they did imbibe them, there is abundamt evidence.
The Chaldeans supposed the existence of differeit graes of spiritual beings-" gods, demons, heroes."  And besides these, the oriental nations generally, "and among the rest, the Chaldeans, admitted the existence of certain evil spirits, clothed
in a vehicle of grosser matter; and in subduing or
couateracting these, they placed a great part of the
efficacy of their religious incantations." The great
oracle of the oriental world, Zoroaster, maintained
that there are "various orders of spiritual beings,
gods or demons, which are more or less perfect, as
they are at a greater or lesser distance in the course
of emanation from  he'eternal fountain of intelligence."
It was plainly from Babylon, that the Hebrews
brought the rudiments of that system of demonology, which was gradually incorporated with their
own, and which, in the process of a few ages, was
perfected under other influences, in its power over
the public mind. Here, Heathenism first fixed,
deeply and permanently, its hold upon the recipients of revelation, and inspired the faith of infernal
agency in the production of hunian ills.  And
here, the belief in "certain evil spirits, clothed in
grosser matter," successfuly induced the Israelites
to adopt the further opinion, that they were gross
enough to be seen. Hence evil demons and sturdy
ghosts, were as common as other viitor--aiways




ï~~PZ'rIO s

th

viewed as the messengers of evil, and the neca..ry
associates of darkness and misfortune.
Socrates, the father of the Greek moral phiko
phy, and the patroh-saint of modemrn unbelieers,
was a believer in, and promoter of the doctri
of familiar spirits, or demons. And it is not a Â~iti
tle remarkable, that, with the admiration of his
many noble virtues and excellences, Which amounts
almost to idolatry, skeptics appear not to pert'ceive
that he entertained views respecting demons atl
auguries, for which they affect to despise some
weak and superstitious Christians. Is it indeed
so, that the faults of a favorite are sanctified by
what are esteemed his better and more amiable
qualities; and that these very qualities are rendered
despicable, and false, and hateful, by the contanating influence of similar faults in those against
whom, and whose opinions, we have imbibed a
prejudice?  So it appears, in this case. For Socrates "believed the divine origin of dreams and
omens, and publicly declared that he was accomprnied by a demon or invisible conductor, whose equent interposition stopped him from the eommision of evil, and the guilt of misconduct." A good
demon is no doubt intended in this instance, because his influence resulted in preventing the commission of evil. But it is very evident that he
would, for the same reason, ascribe the evil act s
of wicked men to the machinations of malignant
demons. The authority for these sttement, wit,




ï~~280

SUPERSTITION.

it. is hoped, be entirely satisfactory, as it is derive'
from Heathen writers, among whom are Diodorus
and Plato.
The most distinguished disciple of Socrates was
Plato, who. evidently imbibed the superstitions of
his master. He maintained that the "souls of
men were formed from the remainder of the rational soul of the world, which had previously given
existence to the invisible gods and demons."  He
also maintained the doctrine of "ideal forms, and
the pre-existence of the human mind."*    The
same general opinions were, with trifling modifications, universally adopted by the multitude of philosophers, who subsequently flourished in the Heathen world. To multiply instances, is only to re-,peat what has been already quoted, and which,
none will dispute, exhibits the sentiments of those
to whom these superstitions are aseribed. It is,
therefore, an established truth, that the whole raee
of Pagan philosophers believed and taught what
an. apostle calls "the doctrine of devils;" and
that the most eminent among them, like the most
ignorant and superstitious, maintained that mankind were the subjects of their visitation, and of
their beneficent or diabolical influences.
In view, therefore, of the universal prevalence
of this general system of demonology among the
Heathens, and also of the further fact, that the He'*Enfield'sHistory of Philosophy, and Lemprier '
Clasical Dictionary, for these extracts.




ï~~SUPERSTITION.

281

brews were for ages the tributaries of those very
nations whose pre-eminence in arms and arts, secured the transmission of their mythology to other
times, as well as its general adoption during their
triumphs-we must cease to wonder that the institutions of Moses were corrupted by exotic superstitions. Where the Law was silent, the Hebrew
would feel at liberty to innovate-where its injunctions were absolute, ingenuity would contrive evasions. And the inducements to do both, were urgent and perpetual, in view of the captivating
splendor of a popular philosophy, and in the natural
desire of pleasing their conquerors.
From these considerations, the inference is plain,
not to say unavoidable, that the system of demonology, with all its parts and appendages, with all
its supposed possessions and real terrors, is of Heathen origin. And, as if to render this conclusion
so obvious, as to exclude all possibility of mistake,
the proof is abundant and clear, that while Heathenism cherished and promoted, by its most refined
philosophy, all the grossness of superstition, the
Hebrew institutions rejected the whole as fabulous
and absurd.
It will probably be objected in this place, that,
however clear the proof may be that the Mosaic
institution rejected and forbade the system of demonology and witchcraft, it is quite obvious that
it is recognized angd approved by Christianity--
that many of the reputed miracles of Christ, wero




ï~~euripttnlow
professedly wrought in the expulsion of demons,
which implies their admission by the great Founder
of the Christian system; and thatthere are reasons
for believing thai his followers were of the same
op mmon.
The plausibility of this objection, has misled
many, though its unsoundness must be apparent to
every careful reader of the New Testament.*
The instances in which the miraculous powers of
Jesus are said to have been exerted in the expulsion of' demons, are plainly cases of lunacy or
madness, palsy, blindness, epilepsy, and a few
other diseases. Of this, any one can satisfy himself, by carefully observing the description of the
respective cases. Take, for instance, the man
among the tombs, the person who was occasionally
thrown into the fire or water, and another who is
expressly said to have " a demon, and is lunatic,"
and it is believed that none can mistake the facts.
These instances not only show, that demoniacal
possession was ascribed to the plainest cases of
disease, but they enhance the value, and demonstrate the certainty of the miracles. For they leave
no room for cavil respecting the apparent removal
of what the skeptic might otherwise call imaginary
diseases. Nor, in either case, do they furnish any
evidence that out Saviour entertained the least con-.Lardner on cases  f Deraoniace-4to ed. England.




ï~~SUPERSTITIG.

283

fidence in, or designed to give the popular opinion
any encouragement.
It is too evident to need the labor of argument or
proof, that the whole fabric of demonology rests
upon the doctrine of the existence of different grades
of spiritual beings, some good and others evil, and
upon the supposed pre-existence of souls. For,
certainly, if it were not believed that these'existed,
it could not be supposed that they could possess and
and torment, as well as occasionally visit and
alarm mankind. And we have seen, that the philosophers believed in the emanation of successive
cons, or spiritual beings, good and bad, from the
supreme mind, before that of human souls. Now,
this doctrine is very expressly disavowed by our
Saviour. This appears from his answer to the
question of his disciples--" Who did sin, this man
or his parents, that he was born blind?"-than
which, nothing can more distinctly convey the idea
of his having existed and acted in some previous
state, and that his present misfortune was the result of former wickedness in himself or his parents.
Let it be remembered, then, that Jesus positively
denies that the blindness of the person referred to,
was either the result of sin, or of any supposed preexistence-" neither hath this man sinned, nor his
parents, that he was born blind."  His silence in
other cases, can not, therefore, be construed into
their admission-it only proves that he did not, in
all cases, choose to meet and repel the superstitions




ï~~284

SUPERSTITION.

of his countrymen. But we shall see that his disciples rebuked this lying spirit of Heathen creation,
with all the firmness and decision which the subject demanded.
It is well known, that the Heathens believed
their deities to be superhuman spirits, and that they
were present in some mysterious manner, with the
images by which they were represented. The
idol and the god were, therefore, supposed to be
identical. And to reject the one, was to deny and
reject the other. This is accordingly done by the
apostle Paul, in the following distinct and intelligible manner:-" As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto
idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world,
and that there is none other God, but one." It is
difficult to conceive of terms which would convey
the idea of an utter rejection of the system of demonology, more distinctly and in a more comprehensive manner, than is done in this quotation.
Nor is this all: the apostle appears to speak in the
name of the whole Christian community-" we
know"-and in a subsequent instance, in relation
to the same general subject, "to us"-terms that
imply the well-known -prevalence of the same
common views. Whatever, Then, the opinions of
Christians may -have become in the general corruption of the dark ages, it is sufficiently clear,
that primitive Christianity was exempt from the




ï~~SJUPERSTITION,

charge of a superstitious belief in the existence or
power of infernal spirits.
Again-it is notorious that the system or doctrine
of emanation, maintained by Plato, either directly
or indirectly led to the belief of a succession of
eons, or spiritual existences, whose natures gradually receded from the perfections of the "soul of
the world," in an infinitely descending series. In
this way, certain Platonists peopled the atmosphere
with myriads of invisible demons. Some of the
first Gentile Christians were converts from this system of speculative philosophy, and were evidently
very anxious to introduce their views into the Christian church. How well they succeeded, we need
not inquire; since the whole machinery of saintship or intercessory mediators of the Papal church,
and the ghosts and witches of the Protestant, are
very obviously derived from the modifications of
this very opinion.
No attentive reader of the New Testament, can
have failed to remark, that the apostles labored to
induce the Christian congregations, to repel every
attempt to palm upon them these fabulous notions
of a vain philosophy. They use a language, too,
in relation to this subject, which scarcely admits of
mistake, and which never has been misunderstood
by ecclesiastical writers of tolerable candor and intelligence.* Thus, the apostle, in writing to the
*See Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History-Priestley's
History Christian Church, and others.




ï~~286

SUPERSTITION.

Galatians, enumerated "idolatry and witchcraft"
as kindred parts of the same system, and which
are to be avoided as among the works of the flesh,
and hindrances to an entrance into the kingdom of
God, or the Gospel. He assures Timothy, that
the church would in time apostatize from the simplicity of the faith, by "giving heed to seducing
spirits, and doctrines concerning demons." A fact,
that abundantly and clearly proves that these were
not then considered legitimate partsof Christianity.
And again, he admonishes him not to "give heed
to fables and endless genealogies, which minister
questions rather than godly edifying."  Nothing
can more appropriately designate the popular theory of the emanation of the eons, than the language
of this passage. The same view is further urged
by this apostle, in his directions to Titus to "avoid
foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions,
and strivings about the law," assuring him that
they were "unprofitable and vain."  Here, as in
the former instance, by genealogies, those respecting the derivation of the eons, are intended, as those
of the Jewish law were never matters of question
in relation to the circumstances of the Gentiles, nor
were they supposed of any importance to the Go~pel minister.
From these examples-and they can be multiplied tothe heart's content of any one-it is put beyond'rea8onable doubt, that the writers of the New
Testament, like. thse of theOld, rejected the entire




ï~~SUPERSTITION.

287

system of demonology. And, indeed, we could
not expect to find, in an improved system of morals
and religion, standing as the Gospel plainly and
avowedly does, in the most intimate connexion
with the Hebrew econQmy, the admission of principles and doctrines from the Heathens, which
were so distinctly prohibited by the legal dispensation. The accordance of the several parts of the
whole system of revealed religion, might have been
safely and certainly argued without an appeal to
instances.  But the instances given, leave no
ground of cavil; for they prove beyond question,
that both the Jewish and Christian dispensations
maintain, in this respect, the same principles, and
reject, as unworthy of faith or confidence, and
equally foolish and injurious, absurd and wicked,
the doctrine of demonology, and all its concomitants.
If, therefore, the Hebrews and Christians, when
best obeying their respective institutions, were free
from those superstitions which constitute the common subjects of vulgar credulity, why are they
called superstitious? Was the unbeliever ignorant of the fact, that what he calls, and rightly
calls superstition, is the exclusive production of his
proud systems of philosophy inspired by the mere
light of nature? If he was ignorant of this, why
has he ventured to be so confident, when the
means of correct information are easily obtained?
But if he was not ignorant of it, how can he excuse
himself for charging upon the: Bible an influence.




ï~~288

SUPERSTITION.

which it has not, but which attaches exchlusively to
his own favorite views? And if the sacred writers
must be called superstitious, what name is befitting
the gross and contemptible credulity of the philosophers who fabricated the doctrines of ghosts and
diabolical spirits, and who were themselves the
dupes and slaves of their own terrors and silly hallueinationps?
We must now be permitted to ask the unbeliever
to assign a competent reason, if he can, for the
facts which have here been presented for his consideration. Why, with the universal example of
mankind before him, should the Hebrew Lawgiver
have departed so widely from the superstitions of
the whole world?   Why were the prophets and
the whole nation, when best obeying and illustrating the spirit of their institutions, entirely exempt
from all belief in, or fear of, the various and multiplied demons, ghosts, and spiritual powers which
haunted the Heathens from   time immemorial?
Why did the apostles and primitive Christians,
with the exception of certain would-be philosophers
among the Gentile converts, reject with contempt
and abhorrence, the "endless genealogies," "old
wives' fables," "idolatry, witchcraft," and "doetrings of demons," that constituted the superstitions of the rest of mankind? These are problems
which infidelity never has solved, and never can
solve without abandoning its principles and pretensions. It possesses no  means of accounting for




ï~~SUPERSTITION.

289

these facts, on its own hypothesis! For it assumes
that the light of nature is, and always was, sufficient for the guidance of man, in all cases-but it
is compelled to admit, that this very light led men
into superstitions which the sacred writers rejected,
and which unbelievers now affect to despise. It
assumes that Socrates, Plato, and other Heathens,
were more consistent men, and more profound philosophers, than Moses or Christ-but it is forced to
acknowledge that these admired philosophers were
absurd enough to be grossly superstitious and idolatrous, from which the Patriarchs and the Master
of Christians are entirely exempt. It assumes
that the Mosaic and Christian dispensations are the
foster-parents of all the fanaticism and superstition
of the world-while the fact stands proved by the
prohibitions and rebukes which both have uttered
against the philosophical theories of the Heathens,
that they are, and ever have been entirely exempt
from such imputation!
And how can infidelity maintain its position, and
make--what it must do-all these concessions?
How can it consider a few philosophers as the only
miracles of mind and moral excellence-how regard the Bible as the exclusive instrument of superstition, while the latter rejects, and the former
maintains the system of demonology? It can not,
we repeat, maintain its position, and account for
these facts, on its own principles. It must cease to
regard Socrates as the most illustrious specimen of
19




ï~~SUPES TITIOr(.

human wisdom-or it must admit that the sacred
w tes were inspired. Take your choice, gentlemea unbelievers, for, in either case, you admit
what in your 'estimation amounts to a miracle!
And the admission of either, will annihilate forever
the charms and the parade of Heathen philosophy,
and, place the Bible where it ought to be-high in
the estimation of all mankind. But the most obvious and reasonable conclusion is, that because
the sacred writers were not superstitious, therefore
they were inspired.




ï~~CHAPTER V.

SOCIAL SYSTEM.
No fact is more fully established, or better understood, than this-that man is a social being. His
mental capacities, his surprising powers of speech,
and his kind and generous sympathies and affeetions, all impel him to seek and maintain the fellowship of his species. Add to these, his wants and
his interests, and he will form associations with a
greater or lesser number of individualsy proportioned to his views of the importance of the end to be
attained. So that while one man is satisfied with
the society of a few relatives, or neighbors, another
whose prejudices are fewer, or whose business or
profession leads him to broader views, enlarges the
sphere of his affections, by endeavoring to acquire
friends in every place and on every occasion in which
he comes in contact with man. This is denominated the social prixciple. Whatever, therefore, has a
tendency to widen the field of its operation, or to
augment the happiness of all concerned, is termed
a social system. And that which secuies these Qbjects in their broadest extent, and with the greatest
tertainty, is the best ad most worthy of adoption.




ï~~292

SOCIAL SYSTEM.

But this supposes that the social principle needs
direction, or rather instruction, in order to the attainment of its proper and highest end-the perfection of social intercourse. And the directions for its
attainment, should be such as meet all social
wants, and adapt themselves to all ages and conditions of mankind. For since men are constituted
alike, the shades of character produced by diversity
of condition, furnish no exception to the general
rule. Nor do the local prejudices growing out of
the consideration of family, country, or party, and
which engraft themselves upon the features of the
social state, materially influence the nature or character of the means requisite for the attainment of
the highest social good. The means, then, whatever they are, must operate, or be calculated to
operate uniformly upon all classes of society, and
throughout all time, in order to effect the best social results. And our inquiries should be directed
to ascertain whether such a system has been devised and published, as embraces in its legitimate
operations the highest social improvement and consequent happiness of mankind.
It is very cheerfully admitted, that in the infancy
of society, many defects must have existed, which
experience alone would rectify-and that others
would be remedied or removed, by the progress of
science, and arts, and civilization. But it is an established and well-attested fact, that neither experience, nor science, nor civilization, nor the attain



ï~~SOCIAL SYSTEM.

293

mnent of the necessary or fine arts-no, nor the
highest acknowledged philosophical discoveries,
accomplished the desired end of social existence.
Neither were the approximationsmade by all these,
towards the attainment of that end, sufficient to
warrant the belief that they were adapted to its accomplishment. All these united, did little more
than improve the physical condition of mankind;
while they left the wisest among them, to feel the
conviction that something more was necessary to
the perfection of society, without aiding them to
discover its nature or mode of operation.
It will doubtless be readily admitted, that whatever improves the morals, refines the manners, expands the charities and benevolent affections, and
renders the properties and persons most secure,
of the greatest number of individuals, is at the
same time, the system best adapted to our social
nature.
1. Now that none of the systems of philosophy
met the wants of mankind, in any one of these particulars, there is abundant evidence. For the propriety and uses of theory, are determined by the
working in its application. And however true it
is, that some of the Heathens, as Socrates, were
examples of moral virtue; still their principles
were so defective, that neither their precepts nor
example had any perceptible influence upon the
moral condition of their countrymen, or the world.
The reason is contained in their systems, which




ï~~SOCIAL SYSTEM.

required men to be philosophers, and their theories
were speculative rather than practical-or if prac--
tical, they were neutralized by the admission of
other and opposite practices. And while it is admitted that their systems were splendid in theory,
it must, on the other hand, be also admitted, that no
corresponding practice ever followed, except in a
very few individuals. Indeed, any thing like a
consistent system of morality, was little known,
and still less regarded. For as all the philosophers
considered the soul and body as no further related
than a prisoner to his cell, they consequently regarded the wants and acts of the body, whether
virtuous or vicious, of very little importance. It
is manifest, therefore, that though this opinion
might produce no evil effect upon the mere philosopher, it could have no good effect upon the mass
of mere mankind. And so long as revenge was
considered a virtue, and public prostitution and the
lowest excesses as parts of religion, the philosopher
would in vain insist on the duties of chastity
and temperance, or teach the propriety of loving
enemies.
2. Of the exercise of the benevolent affections,
we hav spoken elsewhere. But we may be petmitted to remark again, in this place, that the maxims of the philosophers never were, and never
could be carried into effect on theirown principles.
Fbr the same system that taught the exercise of
kindness towards friends, and mercy to a prostate




ï~~SOCIAL SYSTEM.

enemy under certain circumstances, also taught
that it was pusillanimity not to revenge an insult,
and pursue an enemy t6 his overthrow or death.
How far, then, could benevolence proceed, when
thus encumbered with obstructions and limitatione
Let the eternal feuds, and animosities, and massacres, and assassinations, which mark the career of
the most refined nations of antiquity, answer!' The
pages which record their history, are emphatically
written in blood-not of the national enemies alone,
but of their most worthy and honored sons. Personal friendships did indeed exist; but seldwn
where the means of rivalry could interpose. And
where these existed, their influence and results are
illustrated in the case of Brutus and Julius Cesar,
and in Mark Antony, Lepidus, and Augustus. All
human ties dissolved before the magic touch of personal interest; and all plighted faith was mere
form, when weighed in the balance against some
remembered injury, or the sheer pretence of political zeal.
3. In the necessary operation of the principles of
self-interest, and the sanguinary system of revenge,
there was little room for the protection of property,
orpersonal security. The strong usually oppremetd
the weak; and the minions of power seited and
appropriated the estates of any and of ail whom
they chose to regard with envy for their wealth, or
of whose power and influence they felt any apprhension. And the banishment or asainatiom of




ï~~296

SOCIAL SYSTEM.

rivals, were the every-day occurrences of the most
enlightened ages of the Greeks and Romans, and.under their most renowned social and political institutions. Let him who doubts this, read the histories of those nations--select the most favored periods, and, if he pleases, when their best systems of
philosophy were exerting their widest and most beneficent influence, and he will find that they are
times of. national splendor, of the triumph of arts,
of men of pre-eminent talents, and of depraved morals. And all these, and more than these, under
the very meridian light and influence of that proud
philosophy whose decline is so desperately bewailed by the whole family of modern unbelievers.
The great difficulty encountered by the systems
of philosophy, was their want of general adaptation
to the moral and social condition of mankind.
They met the case of the mere philosopher, the
man of leisure and scientific pursuits, so far as
either was abstracted from the collisions of interest,
the race for fame, or the struggle for place, or power, or empire. But even popular favor was sufficient to make unflinching rivals of Plato and Xenophen. The best systems were but mere cobwebs,
which were instantly brushed away by the considerations of expediency, or interest, or passion.They never took permanent hold of the affections
of the heart, nor became the governing principles
of action. So far from this, they were held as general and abstract truths, furnishing subjects of




ï~~SOCIAL SYSTEM.

297

speculation and discourse, and themes of declamation. They were never designed to remove a single superstition, or to abolish a single custom of the
multitude; nor were they calculated to suppress
one of the popular vices. They were rather intended to widen and confirm the distinction between
the high and low, the learned and ignorant, than
for reducing all to a common standard, and approximating all minds towards one given point of social
and moral perfection.
The result was precisely what might be expected,
under the existing circumstances-that though the
social condition of man was improved, it was still
far fiom being what any enlightened people of the
present day, would think tolerable or supportable.
No system of merely human origin, had fully met
the social wants of mankind. None has yet done
so. None has effected more than partial improvements in society, or more than half civilized its
subjects. The overwhelming evidence of all that
is here assurimed, is written upon the history of the
most cultivated nations of antiquity, and is impressed upon the present social condition of every
people and family on earth, who have not been
blessed with the light and influence of Christianity.
The Hebrew system was immensely better
adapted to the situation and soeial wants of those
for whom it was intended than any merely philosophical theory which the world ever produced.
It was limited, it is true, to a particular people;




ï~~298

SOCIAL SYSTEM.

but it was clearly designed to benefit and improve
every member of their social compact. It had but
one rule for the monarch and the subject-for the
heads of families, and their respective membersfor the elders in the gate, and the meanest citizen.
It bound every member of the commonwealth to
the acquisition of the same knowledge, and to the
practice of the same duties. It based the power of
its social influences, not upon abstract and speculative opinions, but upon practical moral principles.
And these principles were designed to reach, and
did reach and influence every department of society.
They regulated the offices and duties of religion,
the institutions of civil government, the personal
intercourse of man with man, and the domestic arrangements of every household. With this, there
is no parallel in the history of all the rest of mankind. No where else, was every parent a professed
and duly constituted teacher of political science,
morality, and religion. The Hebrew father was
indeed a peripatetic in mode; for his instructions
were given during his labor in the field, and as he
walked by the way, as well as at his fireside.But he was a teacher of truths, incalculably more
sublime and practical, than ever entered the mind
of Arfistotle, or any other Heathen philosopher.
Leaving the consideration of the social system of
the Hebrews, whose institutions were limited in
their operations to that extraordinary people, we
may turn our attention to the social character of




ï~~SOCIAL SYSTEM.

299

the Christian dispensation. Like the Hebrew
economy, Christianity was designed for, and adapted to all the possible subjects of its influence-but,
unlike that dispensation, it meets the social wants
of all mankind. And as the result of this adaptation, it has long since effected for man, what nothing
else ever did or could accomplish. It has humanized more hearts than all other systems since the
creation; and it has inspired and diffused a kindness and charity, which will finally give peace and
concord to the world. It has inspired principles,
which regulate and control the passions; and it
has purified the fountains of human thought and
action. It has exalted one-half of our species,
where men have received and cherished its spirit;
and placed WOMAN in the station worthy of the importance of those duties, which she was evidently
destined to perform. And it has accordingly improved the morality, and enlightened the intercourse, and refined an tsoftened the manners and
customs, and liberalized the institutions of men,
wherever its benign light has been diffused.
Will it be contended that the light of nature and
philosophy were sufficient for these things?  Why
then were they not done? The world was evidently left to its own resources and expedients
quite long enough, even on the Scripture chronology, to effect these objects, had human wisdom
been sufficient for their accomplishment! And we
Would by all means have the skeptic inform us



ï~~300

SOCIAL SYSTEM.

on his own theory, that man eternally existed-how
long he would have us wait for the development of
these results. For if a whole past eternity was
not sufficient to teach philosophers, by the mere
light of nature, a single system  which can be
deemed respectable for its social influences, can he
feel assured that a similar terrestrial eternity to
come, would produce any better effects? And if
he would blush for the anti-social aspect of even
Greek and Roman refinement, engrafted upon the
courtesies of modern times, he ought also to blush
for being the advocate of a theory which would restore it to the world, by extinguishing the light of
Christianity. Every moment of time that the unbeliever adds to the chronology of the Bible, must
add to his embarrassment in assigning a reason
why the world was not wiser and better before the
era of the Gospel. For if one-half of an absolute
eternity was not enough for the light of nature to
effect any substantial improvement in the social
condition of mankind, we have no reason to suppose that a longer period would induce upon the
order of things, a single useful and effectual innovation. But what ages of philosophy could not do,
has been, to a great extent, already performed by
the Christian tioctrine. This will appear by the
following considerations:1st. Christianity has improved the moral condition of mankind. This, unbelievers have seldom
he;.iated to admit-nor can it be denied with any




ï~~SOCIAL 3YSTEM.

3U1

show of propriety or reason. For in a few centuries it completely abolished some of the most brutal and beastly practices which ever polluted the
Heathen world. It turned the gladiators out of the
amphitheatres, and left the Colliseum itself, to
combat with the lapse of ages-a monument of architectural grandeur, and of refined barbarism.
And it has expunged from the catalogue of human
enormities, the beastly indulgences, and public indecencies and impurities of Pagan worship and
superstition. We do not intend to labor this particular part of our subject, because it has often been
done-but as morality constitutes an important item
in whatever relates to the social interests of man, it
should be among the first subjects of regard in the
present instance. For it can not require proof that
society is neither greatly improved, nor susceptible
of material improvement without the intervention
of sound moral principles. Let the strong want
respect for the rights of the weak-let truth and
chastity be disregarded-let theft and mere cunning
he considered as accomplishments-and we care
not who may controvert the position, such a state
of society is evil, and can never be much improved
but by a radical change in its morality.
But such was the state of morals-such the character and condition of the best human society at
the introduction of Christianity. No effectual refledy could be found, to check or counteract the
torrent of popular vice, among the various and nu



ï~~302

SOCIA. SYSTEM.

merous attempts and expedients adopted with that
view. Because, while the fountains of knowledge
and the principles of action are both corrupt and
corrupting, the endeavor to purify the streams of
vice which flow through community, must be abortive. This was not attempted by the Gospel. It
went to the fountain-head whence evil flowed, and
there poured in the ingredients of healing. It taught
men to regard each other as members of one great
family--to restrain and control their bad passions;
and it instructed them to cherish good principles as
the only sure ground of good practices. And it
sanctioned and enforced all this, by an authority
from which there is no appeal-the approvings of
conscience for good, and its disapprobation for evil
intentions.
It is not assumed that these principles, this power and purpose of the Gospel, have been carried
out to their proper results. And any proper attention to facts, will satisfy every dispassionate mind
of the reason. Itis, that Christianityhasnever yet
been permitted to exert its own undoubted influences. At the moment of its introduction, it was
corrupted, and as far as possible, neutralized by the
Platonic philosop by, under its thousand modifications, as well as by the endless prejudices and superstitions of both Jews and Gentiles. And after
struggling forward in defiance of these obstructions,
for some three centuries, it was taken under the
prtection and management of the state, where it




ï~~SOCIAL SYSTEM.

303

has ever since remained in vassalage. It is but
now just emerging from its thraldom, and developing its native powers. But in defiance of all these
embarrassments, Christianity has, from the begin.
ning, exerted a favorable influence upon the morals
of its recipients; and that power is acquiring new
resources from day to day. This will never be
questioned by those who have compared the state
of the Christian world at the Reformation, withthe
present time. We are now but beginning to witness and to feel the controlling moral power which
appertains to the Gospel-and with it, that measure of social enjoyment which it is so emiently
calculated to diffuse over mankind.
2d. Christianity has enlightened the intercourse,
and refined and softened the manners and customs
of its recipients. It has done this principally by
enabling every one to understand and appreciate
the rights of others---not moral rights, alone, but
the social fights produced by their application. It
has removed from society,'to some extent, the overbearing assumption of one class, and the tame and
degrading servility of another, by rendering human
intercourse ostensibly reciprocal-an open field
where a nominal equality attaches to all who enter.
It is very true that some ages of the Christian
church, are not 'particularly distinguished for refinement. But there is little danger of mistaking
the reasons of the fact. At all events, none will
doubt that these were, of all others, the particular




ï~~304

SOCIAL SYSTEM,

periods in which Christianity exerted the least influence, since its first introduction into the world.
One of the great instruments of softening the affections, and improving the manners and customs
of society, is the Christian Sunday. This day has
been observed for the purposes of religious worship,
since the apostolic age; and most of the time, as a
day of rest from the ordinary business and labors
of life. On this day, therefore, the moral requirements of the Gospel have been pointed out and
enforced in the lectures and homilies delivered from
the pulpit, and which have never failed to make
impressions favorable to humanity and benevolence. Especially since the Reformation, a spirit
of inquiry has been kept in constant progress, which
has already effected the expulsion of many gross
and illiberal opinions from the church, and which
has shown that the principles and bearings of faith
are necessarily and intimately connected with the
social as well as moral condition of man. Those
who would have been contented with the humblest
of all religious attainments-its mere profession and
forms--have been induced to enter upon repeated
examinations of the nature and objects of the duties
devolved upon them by the Christian doctrine.
And the consequence has been, that the purest and
loftiest sentiments, and the most affectionate and
amiable manners, have distinguished in many instances, the inmates of the abodes of penury and
grief.




ï~~SOCIAL SYSTEM.

305

Nothing built upon the factitious distinctions of
society, can stand long before these influences.
They must, and they will in due process of time,
level all distinctions but those of talent and worth;
for their tendency, though slow, is still certain to
liberalize the mind, purify the affections, and enlighten and humanize the intercourse of mankind.
Every step in this process, is marked by the influence of Sunday-a day which skeptics affect to
regard as an idle or useless institution; and by the
gross and indecent contempt of which, they unwitiingly furnish the clearest evidence of the social
state to which their own opinions directly tend.
We have stated that Christianity had exalted
WOMAN, and placed her in a situation to discharge
with more propriety and success, her high and responsible duties. And it is probably too late a
day, to look for questions of doubt, respecting the
social influences which she exerts over that part of
the world where Christianity is professed. But if
the skeptic wishes information on this subject, he
may find it in the customs of the Orientals, and in
the children of nature who have yet a place in our
own land, in the disgusting slavery and degrada-.
tion to which females are reduced. Or, if he considers these as inappropriate examples, he may review the pages of Roman history, and there learn
that the sturdy pater-familias was accustomed to
treat women as an inferior species of a common
race, and to shut them out from the converse of his
20




ï~~306

sOcrAL SYSTEM.

enlightened friends-from all the usual means of
mental and social improvement, and to subject
them to ignorance, servility, and perhaps crime.
Such they were, and such they were destined to
remains when Christianity poured its benign light
upon this dark world1 and put to shame "the igno
rance of foolish men."
It is not pretended that the genius of Christianity
has, in all instances, or perhaps in any, exerted its
full might in raising woman from her degradation,
But it has already, and long since, done that to
which no other moral system ever made any pretensions. It has made her in all respects the companion of the "lords of creation," and introduced
her as an equal, into the social circles from which
she had been excluded from time immemoria
And it is now throwing over her mind the illuminations of science, calling her talents as well as her
affections into requisition, and making her the cultivated instrument of training, the young mind, and
opening up the pathway of wisdom, and honor, and
usefulness before us, in the bright morning of our
days. She chastens the stern and rude aspect,
and restrains the fierce and angry passions of man,
and aids in humanizing and socializing his nature.
But it should not be overlooked, that however great
and interesting her influence in softening the manners of society, that influence is the result of the
power of Christianity over her own character and
destiny.




ï~~socIAL SYSTEMt.

307

Bd. Among the social benefits of Christianity, we
must not overlook its political influences. The
skeptic may smile, if he pleases; but he must employ far other means, in order to account for the
bearings of Christianity upon the social compact.
Whether this subject has received that attention
which its importance demands, is a question which
the present frame of the public mind may not admit of being dispassionately answered. The world
certainly has not been in circumstances very favorable to correct ideas respecting it; and it is doubted
whether, in our own country, the habits of thought
and tone of feeling are such as to secure an unprejudiced decision. For in some parts, it is not long
since religious duties were performed much as the
same persons paid their debts-because the laws
enforced compliance. So that probably the experiment has not been fairly and fully made, even
among ourselves, of the native and unsophisticated
political influences of Christianity.
Probably the best illustration of these influences,
is to be found in the progress of Christianity during,
the first three centuries, when it forced itself forward into notice and general acceptation, in defiance of every obstacle. Not that the state of community was more favorable to its political developments, or by any means as much so, as at the
present time; but the simplicity and greater purity
of the Gospel, left it to the exercise of a proportionate might and energy over the views and feeliings




ï~~308

SOCIAL SYSTEV.

of its subjects. And in reviewing these, we shall'
find much to admire in the power it exerted over
particular persons, and ultimately upon national
policy. We shall hear injunctions, and witness a
course of conduct based upon them, of which the
world furnishes no previous example; and we
shall contemplate results as rapidly formed, as they
are extraordinary in character. And all this, independent of any connection with, or favor from the
constituted authorities.
The apostles had much more occasion to express
themselves fully on this subject, than their Master.
His labors were confined to Judea-but their's extended to nearly every part of the world then
known. Besides, they were basely misrepresented
as the enemies of the State. It was, therefore, necessary that they should speak out, and that the
great body of Christians should distinctly understand their political duties. And while they were
very explicit in their instructions, like their Master, they carefully and consistently followed their
own teachings. This greatly assisted the primitive Christians to understand them; and lessens
the danger of any mistakes respecting the subject
at the, present time.
Sinee the time of Constantine the "Great, we
have had little opportunity to test the political genius of the Gospel. That emperor identified Christianity, as far as possible, with t lbeinterests, honors,
atid emoluments of a corrupt government; and by




ï~~SOCIAL SYSTEM.

309

making it subservient to national policy, neutralized or annihilated its native influences. From that
time to the present, it has been thought necessary
in most countries, to make legal provision for the
support of the Gospel, and in many instances, to
reward its more distinguished ministers with splendid temporalities. But the evil did not terminate
here-it left men to the most fatal misapprehensions respecting the whole sum of Christian influences, social and moral. And thus, while a majority supposed that it ought to be sustained by legal
enactments, others thought it had no connection
with, or influence upon the institutions of government. One man believed that it was a necessary
concomitant of arbitrary power-another, that it
was productive of a pusillanimous spirit, and of the
doctrine of "passive-obedience and non-resistance."
Now, whoever will be at the trouble to examine
the subject, will discover that it is neither one nor
the other of these things. It is not the necessary
associate, nor even the friend of arbitrary powerneither does it cherish a tame and unmanly spirit,
nor encourage a blind submission to the dictates of
authority. And the conduct of the apostles furnishes the most decisive proof on this subject. Indeed, it is precisely that kind of proof which, of all
others, is the most convincing and irresistible-the
personal conduct of those concerned.
The apostles preached for the first time, and
with great success, on the day of Pentecost, and on




ï~~310

SOCIAL SYSTEM.

several immediately succeeding days. Their great
success, together with their public remarks respecting the crucifixion of their Master, gave umbrage
to the authorities. Some of the principal speakers
were apprehended and brought before the Sanhedrim, where they were reprimanded for accusing
that council of the murder of Jesus, and were further charged to preach no more in his name. In
their reply, we discover at once their position-and
it should forever settle the question respecting their
pusillanimity.-" Whether it be right in the sight
of God, to hearken unto you more than unto God,
judge ye; for we can not but speak the things
which we have seen and heard."
Is this the language of a tame and broken spirit--
of an unmanly acquiescence in the will of their
rulers? On the other hand, does it betray an unbecoming disrespect for them? Neither-it is the
plain but dignified language of men who have taken their ground, and who have deliberately counted the immense cost at which it must be maintained-who, with a manly ingenuousness, embrace
the earliest occasion to apprise both their minagistrates and the world, of their determination. This
it was proper they should do, as they were acting
upon a question involving immense interests-and
this they did, as men of candor and integrity. And
itwrung from their rulers the just tribute of admiration--" for when they saw the boldness of Peter




ï~~SOCIAL SYSTEM.

311

and John, and perceived that they were unlearned
and ignorant men, they marvelled."
These men welcomed all the consequences of
their disobedience; for they submitted with unparallelled patience and fortitude, to every indignity
and suffering that ingenuity could invent, or power
inflict. In this they seem to act upon the principle, that the violation of a known law might be
justly punished, even when it was understood that
the law itself was arbitrary and oppressive. They
evidently hoped, and with good reason, that peaceful endurance would in due time correct the evils
under which they suffered, and give them liberty
of conscience. And it produced these ends. But
had not the influence of Christianity been favorable
to the political well-being of mankind, these kindly
results would never have been attained.
From these facts, it is shown that the Christian
system is favorable to just views of the nature and
purposes of civil government, and conducive to the
social happiness of 'the human race. Because,
while it allows every one the rights of conscience,
it requires each and all to demean himself as a
quiet and peaceable citizen. And that these things
are intimately connected with the social condition
of mankind, none will probably dispute. For nothing can be plainer than that the improvements
made in the science of government, and the greater
mildness of the laws, are so far approaches to a
mre refined and happier state of society. To




ï~~312

SOCIAL SYSTEM.,

doubt this, would be to doubt whether mild and
equitable laws are better than the most oppressive
tyranny-whether peace and security are to be
preferred to rapine and violence-whether social
order and civilization are more desirable than barbarism.
The more Christianity is purified from the corruptions ofthe different systems ofphilosophy-from
the superstitions of the dark ages-from the forms
and incumbrances of mistaken zeal and scholastic
ignorance-the more direct and obvious its influence becomes in securing the political, and, consequently, the social happiness of mankind. Thisis
evident from the present condition of those nations
which have received its truths, and live under its
illumination. There is a wide and well marked
difference between the social condition of Papists
and Protestants. And in every Christian land, as
the light of the Gospel is diffused, and its moral
and social bearings understood, in that ratio are the.
people politically free and personally secure in the
enjoyment of their inalienable rights.
The skeptic, if he chooses, may compare the
political and social condition of the most refined
nations at the introduction of Christianity, with that
of most European States at the present time. And
although Italy may have made no advances in the
fine arts-though the triumphs and grandeur of its
power, and the overwhelming might of its influence
are no more-still its social and even political state




ï~~SOCIAL SYSTEM.

1.3

is improved. The barbarities that abounded in the
days of Augustus, have become only matter of history; and the unchaste scenes of the feasts of Bacchus, and the unfeeling gladiatorial sports, have
long ceased to constitute any part of public amusement.
Let this comparison be extended to Protestant
Europe, where the reading of the Bible in the vernacular tongue is allowed, and the political condition of the people will be found to correspond with
their advances in religious knowledge. The laws
are milder, and the government is more paternalcrime is diminished, and the security of property
and person is proportionably augmented. To all
this we must add, that there is both more intelligence and more refinement among the mass of the
people in Protestant countries, than in any other;
and that the government is better administered. In
proof of this, compare Britain with France, and
Protestant Germany with Italy, Portugal, or Spain.
And, finally, compare the United States with any
or all of these, recollecting that we have no national
religious establishment, but that Christianity is
left to the exercise of its own might; and it will be.
seen that it is improving the moral character, the
political, condition, the social feelings, relations, refinement, and happiness of this whole people. A
vast proportion of the degradation, ignorance, servility, and crime among us, is here by importation
from abroad, and attaches to the foreigners who




ï~~314

SOCIAL SYSTEM.

have not yet identified themselves with the people,
nor felt the mental and moral power of our institutions, nor amalgamated with the popular character. These facts are palpable and undeniable.
The skeptic will probably endeavor to show that
it is owing to other than Christian influences, that
so great disparity exists in the social and political
condition of mankind. Other causes have no doubt
exerted more or less influence in this matter-nor
does the admission affect the truth of our position.
It will still remain for him to account for the remarkable fact, that the superior intelligence, and
better government, and greater freedom and social
happiness of the people, all occur, and only occur,
where Christianity is best understood and appreciated, He must put his finger on the map of the
world, and show on his own principles, if he can,
why the boundaries of rational views of the social
compact, of sound science and civilization, are also
the limits of the present influences of Christianity!
He can not suppose-he has no right to suppose,
that all this is the result of accident. For all, or
nearly all the facts on which he relies, exist in other countries, and where very few of these high social and political privileges have ever been enjoyed.
It is fair to presume that like causes produce like
effects; and that where given effects are not produced, it is for want of appropriate causes. And
as certain results are visible within the sphere of
the influence of Christianity, which do not exist,




ï~~SOCIAL SYSTEM.

315

and never have existed elsewhere, the inference
is both just and necessary, that Christianity is the
efficient cause of this difference in the condition of
mankind. This is the ground on which we rest the
superior progress of Christian countries in moral
virtue and social refinement.  And from  this
ground, no power of sophistry or evasion-and nothing else can be urged against it-can ever effect
our removal. It is the very ground on which the
intelligent skeptic affects to stand-the ground of
facts, of experience, and of reason.
But it is now time to meet the inquiry, what has
all this to do with the evidence of a divine revelation? For admitting the fact that Christianity has
improved the social institutions of mankind, what
has this to do with its derivation? Other things,
plainly not of superhuman origin, have borne their
part in the melioration of the condition of the human race, and why may not this, without supposing a divine interposition?
The same answer meets all these inquiriesChristianity itself could not have existed without a
revelation. And, consequently, whatever it has
effected, is the result of its derivation. It has done
what nothing else could do-a fact which has been
abundantly proved in the preceding remarks,What other system has sensibly improved the morals of mankind? What, save Christianity, ever
had the least tendency to exalt woman from her
state of slavery and ignorance, and to fit her fr the




ï~~316

SOCIAL SYSTEM.

proper discharge of the high and responsible duties
of the station in which she seems placed by Providence? What else has ever reached forth a hand
that touched the institutions of government with
the spirit of tolerance and benignity, and which
rendered the laws efficient by mental and moral
influences?  That Christianity has done these
things, is evidence of its divine original-inasmuch
as no mere human institution ever approximated to,
or conceived their attainment.
It is notorious that well-informed uribelievers have
generally admitted the superior moral and social
influences of Christianity. If, then, they would
avoid the further admission at once, of the inspiration of the founder of Christianity, they must admit
his intellectual superiority to all other founders of
systems. They must go farther, and also graduate their views of his pre-eminence by the superiority of the system published by him., in its influences and effects upon mankind. And are they
prepared to do this? Can they stand up and out
to public view, and avow their honest conviction
that the obscure Israelite embodied a better systembetter in its morality, its social bearings, its political influences-than ever entered the minds of the
sages of Heathen wisdom? How can they do
this, after having used and exhausted nearly every
term of contempt and reproach upon that very systern and its spotless author!-after having so long
lauded to the skies the wisdom and worth of a few




ï~~SOCIAL SYSTEM.

317

Gentile philosophers, and their ethical systems! If
they are really entitled to the pre-eminent distinction, so vehemently claimed for them, in what does
it consist? Certainly, if skeptics know, they can
tell us. But this they have never done.  Do they,
then, seriously believe it?  If not, why do they
persist in its assertion? And if they do, how can
they admit with so much complacency, the supetiority of the Master of Christians?
But we are unwilling that the skeptic should
avail himself of the mere admission that Jesus was
superior to any Pagan philosopher, and that Christianity is simply a better system of ethics, than any
of antiquity. This is but a compromise, a yielding
up of his asperities, with a view to retain his principles. He well knows that the founder of the
Christian system claimed divine authority for his
mission, and the great principles which he inculcated. And every man knows that he has denied
that authority, ridiculed its pretensions, and assaulted the Master of Christians with the appellation of
impostor. To this ground he ought strictly to keep,
or to admit the divinity of the mission of Christ,
and that his doctrines were imparted by divine revelation.
This being the true position of the skeptic, in order to enable him to test the tenure by which he
holds it, and the security which it affords him, we
present him the following considerations. If, as he
thinks, the wisest, and certainly the most polished




ï~~818

SOCIAL SYSTEM.

nations, did not make the highest advances in social
and moral science, how can he account for the
fact, that these very improvements were devised
by an obscure and unlettered Hebrew? Does ignorance or prejudice ever argue deliberately, or
look forward through successive ages, aid anticipate correctly the operation of incipient causes?
No man will pretend this. And yet it is certain
that Jesus and his apostles foresaw the working of
the system which they supported and established,
and ahticipated its results. These, as far as the
present subject is concerned, are the higher and
better moral and social condition of mankind. And
that the Christian system has produced these results, the most distinguished infidels have always
admitted.
Was it accident, then, that suggested the system,
that fixed its adaptations, that argued from cause to
to consequence, that produced the results?  Certainly not; for in that case, the latter, at least'
could not have been foreseen. And if not accidental, is it consistent with the acknowledged imperfection of human wisdom, to suppose that any man,
howeverewise or learned, should, by the mere force
of intellect, be able to judge with precision, of the
influence of his opinions some two thousand years
in advance? None will pretend that this is possible. But Jesus and his apostles did this-and the
record of the fact is in our hands! Consequently,
if all this is impossible from accident, or from mere




ï~~SOCIAL SYSTEM.

319

human foresight, it can only result from actual inspiration.
For authority on the several subjects treated of in this
article, the reader is referred to the Minute Philosopher,
(by Bishop Berkely,) Dial. v. Sec. 28, p. 128, and Dial.
v. Sec. 25,-Godwin against Atheism, Lect. vi, pp. 300 -304-and Guizot's History of Civilization, Lect. ii, pp.
41-43, and Lect. vi, pp. 146-149. These are a few of
many undoubted-and it is believed undisputed authorities which might be adduced.

21




ï~~CHAPTER

VI.

CONSISTENCY OF REVELATION.
Ohe of the principal objections to a divine revelation, is, that it was not necessary, and, therefore,
that it is neither consistent nor reasonable to
suppose that such revelation was ever made to
mankind. In view of this position, it might be
asked, whether the moral and social improvements
in the condition of the world, were in any respect
necessary?  These were shown in the preceding
chapter, to be the result, in a great degree, of the
operation and influence of revelation. And if these
results were necessary to the well-being of mankind, then the means requisite to their production,
were equally necessary. These means are comprised in the system of revelation-and as far ps
can be ascertained from existing and palpable facts,
they are the only means either adequate or adapted
to that end.
But there are other considerations, which should
be taken into the account, and which go far to prove
that it was both consistent and reasonable that a revelation should be made.




ï~~CONSISTENCY OF REVELATIO1N.

'321

None will doubt that it is both consistent and
reasonable for parents to watch over the social and
moral habits of their children; and to give them,
from time to time, such general instructions, and
to point otut such rules of conduct, as their superior
wisdom and experience have proved to be proper.
To such instructions, it is also consistent that there
should be added a distinct reference to results. No
parent can excuse himself for omitting to point out
the consequences of principles and actions, in his
endeavors to improve the character of his child.
Many of these would, of course, be such as the
child, while a mere child, could neither have anficipated, nor argued, nor understood without such
instructions. Being, to a great extent, the creature
of wants, and appetites, and passions, he does, and
he will, unless duly and faithfully taught, indulge
every propensity and gratify every wish without
restraint. It is only by being instructed, and that
right early, that he fully learns and understands the
injury, folly and criminality of unlicensed indulgence. No mere child ever understood, till taught,
that the unrestrained gratification of his appetites
would ruin his health, and bring him to an untimely grave; or that the full indulgence of his passiops
would destroy his own peace of mind, render him
dangerous to the public safety and welfare, and
bring down upon his head a train of unmitigated
chastisements.
And who does not know, that the immense distance between savage and civilized man, is princi



ï~~322      CONSISTENCY OF REVELATION.
pally owing to the difference in the kind and character of early parental instruction?  The former
is the child of nature-revelling in all the latitude
of untutored passions and unrestrained desires-the
latter, influenced by a mental and moral power derived from instruction, appreciates the character
and estimates the consequences of his actions. The
former despises the taste, the tameness, and the restraints of civilized life-the latter pities the ignorance, and abhors the licentiousness of the barbarian. And we may very safely leave itto every
well informed mind, to determine which is in the
right...
We have only to apply the foregoing remarks to
the position in which man is placed, and we shall
perceive that he is a child who needs to'be instructed in the nature of the principles by which be shouJ4
be actuated, in the relations which he is boun4 to
sustain and honor, and in the duties which he is to
perform. In all these respects, itis just as reasonable and necessary that he should receive superhuman aid, as that children should be schoolec anl
counselled by their parents.
Such a revelation, none will doubt, could be
nmae-and it is fair to presume, that it would be
male if the Deity can be supposed to take any interest in the moral and intellectual condition of his
children. That he does take an interest in their
physical condition, is beyond all question. We
have but to open our eyes-to witness the adjustment of the human constitution to t1 world' axound




ï~~CONSISTENCY OF REVELATION.

323

us, to be satisfied that there was a beneficent care
exerted over, and in favor of the human race.*
Let it be remembered, that man attaches vastly
more consequence to his mind and moral nature,
than to his body. In all reason, then, the Deity
should take better care of the intellectual than of
the physical man, and make higher and better provisions for his social wants and improvement, than
for the accommodation of his senses. When we
see him expend so much upon the frail and perishable casket, can we infer that he takes no interest
in, attaches no value to, the inestimable jewel it
contains? This is not to be supposed. Nor do
unbelievers argue on any other subject in this manner. Where religion is not concerned, they would
unhesitatingly admit both our premises and conclusions-and they must do so here, to preserve
their character for candor and consistency. For
there is the same actual difference between men
under the light of the Old and New Testament
revelation, and the rest of the world, as between
well-taught children of modernm cultivated society,
and.the untutored offspring of the most ignorant.
And for the same reason. The light of nature is
no more effectual in the advancement of men in
moral science, than in the production of knowledge
and virtue in children. As a parent, then, who
would secure the knowledge and virtue, and consequently the highest happiness of his children at
* Chaliers on Moral and Intellectual Constitution of
Man---Bridgewater Treatises.
21*




ï~~CONSISTENCY OF REVELAVOt0.

all times, it is both consistent and reasonable that
God should give a revelation to mankind.
It has been suggested, that the question would
arise in this place-why, if a revelation was reasonable and necessary, it was not sooner made, and
so made as immediately to benefit tlhewhole human
race?
It is a sufficient answer, to observe, that were the
vieWs of unbelievers granted, the same questions,
with some little change of phraseology, would remain to be answered by them. Thtis, itwould devolve on them to show, why the oldest nationsHindoos, Chinese, Persians and others, are yet in
the infancy of science and civilization; why the
social and moral institutions of modemrn Europe and
the United States, have not been coeval with humnan society, and why they are not universal. The
volume of nature has been alike open to all, as effectually as that of revelation to a part. And yet
we witness in both, but partial results.
The question is, therefore, quite as easily and as
readily answered by the Christian as the skeptic,
with this great difference in favor of the formerhe sees, in the working of the great plan of divine
government a useful and benevolent issue; while,
if there were no such intelligent providence, there
can be no relief-not even the prospective mitigation of present and apparent evils.
There is in the moral government of the Deity
abundant evidence of the same.general system of
progression, which is observed in his physical pro



ï~~ONStS' ENCY OF,tEVELA-ION..325

videce. It is in this way, that he effects the,gradual developement of his moral purposes in'respect
to mankind, which are only ripened and matured
in their results. And having furnished us:(in.the
Scriptures) with several illustrious examples, we
can not doubt of his having chosen the proper time
and place for making a revelation, and of his employing the precise number best calculated to render that revelation most beneficial to mankind.Among these examples, we may notice the circumstances relative to the death of Christ. Whatwould
unbelievers now say, had the whole nation of Jews
believed in him? Most certainly-that they had
agreed in a body to impose on mankind.! And.by
what means could it have been known that they had
not done so? From this single instance, it will be
seen, that if the reasons under consideration, urged
by the skeptic against revelation had been averted
by the instantaneous conversion of all the Jews of
that age, to Christianity-instead of securing his
belief, it would only have furnished him with another, and much more valid objection. So that
among the obvious and prominent reasons why a
revelation was not sooner made, and made to all
men, we may reckon this-that it was made just
at the time and as it was, for this among other pirposes, to effectually silence the cavils of unbelievers and secure their conversion to the knowledge
an.d obedience of the truth.
Has the unbeliever ever been able to assigz- as
good and sufficient reasons for the rejection.of a




ï~~326

CONSISTENCY OF REVELATION.

divine revelation? Taking the moral and intellectual character of man into consideration, has
he-can he ever assign, one respectable reason,
why God should not take as much and as good care
of the human mind, as of the body?  Ile can not
say that it is impossible, or absolutely improbablehe can not say that it is incompatible with the resources and ability of the Deity, or inconsistent
with the situation and wants of man. All that he
can pretend, is, that such a revelation is contrary to
the established order of things. But does he know
what this established order is? Is he prepared to
say, that he knows that provisions were made for
the production of certain events, in the infancy of
time, and when the new-born earth was placed in
its destined orbit? We greatly mistake, if wellinformed unbelievers will not preserve some little
modesty in these matters, and admit, that they in
this instance, argue from observed phenomena, rather than from any knowledge of the original plan,
or the original laws by which the physical world
is governed.
But if the unbeliever will not make this admission, it would be gratifying to know how he would
dispose of a vast number of facts which have been
incontrovertibly established by geology. There the
developement of successive precesses, is visible and
tangible-some of which, at least, are in many respects contrary to the present established order of
thiigs. These we will notice in another place.
But it will become him to consider the subject now




ï~~CONSISTENCY OF REVELATION.
in hand, if he is disposed to assert his knowledge of
the original principles on which the machineky Of
our world peiforms its operations. In ther me~antime, it is to be kept in mind, that it has been shown
to be both reasonable and consistent that a revyelation
should be made. It can not, therefore, be equ4lly
consistent, that such revelation should not be giyep.
To this the unbeliever ought not to object-since the
conclusions follow from principles which h a mxits.
All the bearings and influences of the Jewish and
Christian revelation, are reasonable and consistent.
That man is a religious Leing, is universally admitted-except that the infidel would substitute the
word superstitious, for religious. But as we have
shown how the world happened to be supersbtipus
in the proper sense of the term-and where superstition exerted its darkest and deadliest power, if4!
still chooses to use it, we have no great ob  cpi
after this explanation. We have all along sup,
sed that he agreed with us in maintaining, th. f
was very desirable to have all these gross supers -
tions removed. And we can not doubt that Iie..il
also agree with us, that whatever meanÂ~ reach th
case, and expel the demon, are so far reasonable i
their operation. Now the doctrines of divine reyelation, have been shown to be effectual n reform
superstition. And this has been fully sustained' y
facts. Where are there the fewest superstitiong,
Who are the most free from superatitious imnu;
eices? It is impossible to mistake the anverwhere Christianity is best understood, and by th~oe




ï~~328

CONSISTENCY OF REVELATION.

most enlightened and controlled by its power. So
far, then, revelation exerts a consistent and reasonable influence in its application to mankind.
We are aware that the need of moral instruction
is denied by unbelievers, who contend that the light
of nature is sufficient for all moral purposes. But
they merely assert this. We repeat-they have
never yet furnished a plausible argument for its
truth, n r the shadow of evidence in its support.
Nor can they ever do either-for the plainest of all
possible reasons; and that is, because all the evidence which has any relation to the subject is on
the side of the needed influence of a revelation.
If theskeptic is disposed to call this in question, he
is again referred to the moral condition of the whole
Heathen world, at the introduction of Christianity.
And he is to contemplate it-not in the light of the
philosophy of Socrates, or Plato, or Seneca, but as it
was in fact-a mass of corruption, violence and degradation. Books, like power and cultivation, were
then the possession of the few, and they related
generally to the condition and interests of that few,
to the exclusion of the many. The great multitude were deemed of too little importance to be
named or regarded, except as the instruments of
the caprice, the.policy, or the pleasure of those by
whom they were controlled. Hence, he who infers the morals of the world, from the ethical systems of philosophy of those times, will find that hQ
La drawn conclusions without premises-and is




ï~~CONSISTENCY OF REVELATION.

self-deceived, perhaps the involuntary instrument
of deceiving others.
But we may be told of an occasional instance of
sterling integrity, of inflexible justice, of unimpeachable veracity, of amiable modesty and hum
mility. Very well. And what does all this prove?
In what individual were all these, and some other
indispensable moral qualities, concentrated? It
would take the united worth of half a dozen of the
best Heathens of which antiquity can boast, to constitute the moral character of any one of the millions of sincere and enlightened Christians! No
well informed infidel believes, that the moral health
of the world was as sound and good two thousand
years since, as at the present time. Nor does he
believe, that his property, his liberty, or his life is
in any where else as safe as in Christian lands.Bluster as he may, about the sufficiency of the light
of nature, or pout if he pleases, at the moral influences of' revelation; still, he knows that it is to that
very revelation, that the world is indebted for all
its advances in moral science. And for the same
reason he also knows, that the moral instructions
of revelation have had a useful and reasonable influence over the moral circumstances of man.These instructions have greatly improved his mo-.
Ial knowledge, enlarged his views of the nature
and extent of his obligations, inspired sound and
correct principles, and promoted their practice.
Such a revelation is therefore reasonable in its ap




ï~~CONSISTENCY OF REVELA'TIOn

p1cation to the moral state, and consistent in its influence over the moral conduct of mankind..But man must die. To say nothing of the theory, that he has entailed mortality upon himself and
his race by sin-it is certain that, with his present
constitution; he is doomed to death. Nor is he unthinking on this subject. Man differs in nothing
from the creatures around him more widely and
visibly, than in his sensibility to the loss of his speciesby death, and in his anticipations of its certainty for himself. If, then, there are any means compatible with truth and propriety, by which he can
be comforted in his sorrows, and sustained in his
approach to the grave, it is both consistent and reasonable that they should be made known. This
divine revelation has done-and nothing but such
a revelation ever did, or ever can, exert any useful
or salutary influence in these matters over the human mind.
The skeptic would have us believe, that any attetzpts to impart this comfort and support, are sheer
impostures-and thatthe pretension 4hat there is
any to be obtained, is altogether illusory and unfounded. And all this-while he himself is ransacking every corner of the universe, except the
Bible, to gather the materials wherewith to tombat
his fate! This is the grand secret of all his parade
about philosophy---the basis of his pompous prer
tensions that nothing but philosophy can either fit
man -toupport his sorrows with becoming patience,
or to live and die with befitting dignity.




ï~~CONSISTENCY OF REVELATION.

But the unbeliever forgets, that werehis p6siton
granted, it would be useless-worse thari useless to'
mankind. For men never were, nor are ever likely
to become philosophers in his sense of the term.
And then, what was the great support that mere
philosophers derived from their theories?  It way
rather apathy, than hope-a forced, a sullen, ai
unnatural acquiescence in a decree.of fate, rather
than a chastened submission to the operation of Pan
intelligent and benevolent system. In this ia,'
ner,-a few ancients and moderns have passed the'
ordeal of mourning in gloomy reserve-and in it6
dy silence or affected levity, gone down to the tomnb.
With these facts before us, it is not to be denied
that the skeptic tacitly admits, that the humafin
mind is so constituted as to require something with
which it can be satisfied, and on which it can rest
in view of death. And this something, whatever
it is, must comprise either,absolute annihilation; or
future existence. One or the other of these, is the
utmost that the human mind can imagine, adthe
result of its present existence. But the philosophical systems never did, and never could secure
the fith and confidence of mankind. They lefd
men at the moment of trial--as the grave was abour
to close over them-to all the wretchedness of un=
certainty, to all the horrors of despair. And it will
not be pretended, that men ever were or can be
satisfied, with being forced from existence into utter
nothingness. At this point, revelation meets Us'not with the poor and baseless conjectures, the ill,
22




ï~~332

CONSISTENCY OF REVELATION.

constructed and pitiful attempts at argumentwhich
mark the highest and the best philosophical system; but with sober facts and demonstrative proof
of the resurrection. The reason of philosophers
was at once satisfied of the consistency of revelation, in its bearings upon the mortality of man.They embraced it, preached it, rejoiced in it, and
died for it!
No fact is better established, than that the followers of Plato, were among the early converts to
Christianity; and that they were eminently distinguished for their labors and sufferings in its promotion. These are the men, whose writings in the
various forms of Apologies, Vindications, Expositions, diffused far and wide, the knowledge and the
belief of the Christian religion. And when such
men as Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch,
Tertullian, and many others-in the best days of
ancient science and philosophy, when to profess
Christianity was to invoke the utmost rigor of the
laws, and to bring down the most dreadful tortures--could voluntarily renounce Gentilism, and
devote their lives to the defence of divine revelation, what must be the inference? Most assuredly-that they esteemed it consistent and reasonable,
as well as true. And they found it so under every
t~rial, and have left the record of its triumphant
power in comforting and sustaining them in death.
And are we to suppose, that these men were less
capable, or less disposed to reason on the subject of
the comparative claims of philosophy and revelation




ï~~CONSISTENCY OF REVELAtION.

333

to reason and consistency, than the puny and obstreperous advocates of modern' infidelity? It were
an affront to the understanding of any man, to suppose this. Nor have we any reason to doubt, that
were the laws as sanguinary and inflexible against
infidelity, as they formerly were against Christianity-that every soul of the phalanx of skepticism
would abandon their pretences to superior wisdom,
and skulk behind any profession that would yield
protection to their carcases!
We fearlessly leave it then, to the good sensethe common sense of all men-of unbelievers themselves, whether, with the aspirations of the soul
after a resting place from the pains and sorrows of
mortality, the Christian hope is not both reasonable
and consistent? Revelation alone, permits its believers to feel and act like men-to live and die in
the full exercise of all their sympathies and affections. The philosophy of infidels would turn man's
heart to stone-like stoicism, render him insensible
to sorrow or joy-and bring him down to the grave,
"as the ox goeth to the slaughter." Christianity allows his tears, but wipes them away forever-and
lays him down in death, pillowed on the hope of
immortality.
Revelation is reasonable in its requirements, and
consstent with itself.
It is reasonable that the devotional feelings should
be directed towards a suitable and worthy object.
The God of the Bible is the only worthy object of
devotion, ever pointed out for the rational and do.




ï~~CONSISTENCY OF REVELATION.

v9ut homage of the human mind. And we are re9uired to worship him with gratitude, humility,
reverence and affection-in one word, as children.
This is a reasonable service; such as the world
never performed, and never recognized without the
aid of revelation.
It is reasonable, that moral obligations should be
felt and appreciated, and all the moral duties strictly performed. Personal and social happiness are
deeply involved in the just apprehension and observation of these duties. Revelation, and that
alone, specifically enumerates and enjoins these
duties-upoints out their necessity, their objects, their
resulta  -explains fthie grounds of their application,
the consequences of their neglect, and enforces all
this by considerations, which every mind feels to
be jst, proper, consistent and reasonable. It goes
ifto all the relations sustained among men-aong
rulers and subjects, masters and servants, husbands
and wive&, parents and children, and adapts and
modifies its requisitions to the peculiar situation of
each, and of all. Its rules are comparatively few,
4 they are simple and intelligible. What can
1. nore consistent or reasonable? Infidelity itself
can not object-nay, it has long since admitted the
propriety of the moral requirements of divine revelation.
But revelation requires us to believe in miracles!
And this, we are told, is neither reasonable nor cons tent. How the spiritof skepticism rallies at this
po~nip, an4 once more assumes the attitude of de



ï~~CONSISTENCY OF REVELATION.

335

fence. Strange as it may seem to the unbeliever,
we do not consider a miracle as an absurdity. And
if any thing can be more surprising than this in his
view, we admonish him that it is about-to be uttered.
We do not believe that he, himself, with all his
pretensions, thinks it absurd or inconsistent that
miracles should be wrought! For he, as well as
ourselves, are accustomed to contemplate several
subjects equally miraculous as the resurrection of
the dead, without the slightest suspicion that they
were inconsistent or umnreasonable. This, we now
proceed to demonstrate, by a single instance out of
many.
It is notorious that man is-and equally so, that
he began to be. This is not only asserted by revelation, as well as presumable from the nature of
the subject-but it is demonstrated by the facts of
science; facts which infidelity dare not call in question, and the force of which, unbelievers can not
evade. All geologists agree, that there is abundant
proof, that there was a time when none of the superior animals could, or did exist on this globe.They go further, and also agree, that there are certain evidences, of the existence of several-not to
say many, of the superior grades anterior to the
existence of man. Skeptical geologists are therefore convicted by their own showing-and the evidence they produce is, and ought to be, proof to the
whole fraternity of unbelievers, of the utter fallacy
of their occasional pretence that man always existed. They have done good service in assisting to
22*




ï~~336

CONSISTENCY OF REVELATION.

prove by tangible facts, that, when they make such
an.assertion, they do not themselves believe it, or
may be convicted of their mistake by testimony
which they dare not impeach, and can not deny.i*
w hile this article was in progress, the author received by the politeness of the translator, R. W. Haskins, Esq., of Buffalo, N. Y., a copy of" Considerations
on'the mature of the vegetables that have covered the -swjfe'of the earth, at different epochs of its formation; read
bhefore the Academy of. Sciences of Paris, on the 11th
of September, 1837, by MONS. ADOLPHE BRONGNIART."
In 'consideration of the courtesy'which gave us access
'to that interesting article, we quote the following passages from its pages, as directly in point-premising, that
we merely suppose, that it was published in the American Journal of Science, Vol. xxxiv, No. 2, as it came
regularly paged-without title or date.
"" It (geology) discloses to us, in short, that all these
phenomena, which have necessarily required somarny
enturies for their accomplishment, were prior in point
of time to the creation of man."  Pages 316, 317.
Again-" Indeed, at that epoch when life first began
to be manifested upon our globe, 4he animals tere all
ozfined to the interior of the waters, and even these presented but diminished specimens of their kinds; while
a powerful vegetation, forming vast forests, covered at
-that early-period, all such parts of the earth as were not
submerged by the sea....... and of which the remains
of successive growths, heaped one upon another, have
(been y found our layers of coal, so deep, extensive and
S     teroms; and in this form the remains. of these pri-.m-eval forest& which have preceded byso many centuries,
the existence of man," etc. Page 318.
'Also-" In the animal kingdom; the creation of matntkifers, a- l~ss- which all naturalists concur in plaeingiat
themmmmnit of the animal scale, and by-which nature seems
to have preluded the creation of man," etc. Page 326.
Had we asked for proof of our geneial position, we
-eoaId~,ot have desired iiore fall, clear and decisive,
than is fuwiShed by this interesting tract; for which ~he
translator will please accept our thanks.




ï~~CONSISTENCY OF REVELATION.

This matter being settled, another fact is to be
accounted for-how man came to be.   Was it by
a miracle, or not?  Was it the suspension or vibolation of some pre-existing law?  It is perfectly
indifferent to the answers now necessarily to be
given, and to the nature and character of the facts
themselves, whether the infidel says that men were
produced like fungi from the bosom of a prolific
and genial earth, or were created by the fiat of the
Almighty. In either case, the fact that they do
exist is a miracle-and either case is equally miraculous. Because, it supposes a suspension or a
violation of the previous laws of the physical world.
And that constitutes a miracle-the precise kind of
miracle to which the skeptic objects, which is so
very offensive to all unbelievers; and which, after
all, they are compelled to admit, and do admit to
be necessary in order to account for human existence.
Thus the infidel with all his fastidiousness about
miracles, has been convicted of believing in onein order to convince himself that he exists. He
inust ow submit to believe another-after.which,,we could hope he would cheerfully admit his belief
in the resurrection, without considering it so very.aaus an and unreasonable. The reproduction of our
Apecies, and the consequent perpetuation of the human race,.depend on principles that neither had,.flr can have any place in our conceptions of the
origin of human existence. This the unbeliever
Imst admit-and admit to be equally certain and




ï~~338      CONSISTENCY OF REVELATION,
obvious, in [whatever way man was at first produced. Here then is another miracle-a miracle,
which the infidel believes to have been actually
wrought! And more than all this-it is one which,
if he has ever had any definite notions respecting
it, he has always believed! It is one, that during
his whole life, it has never occurred to him, was
either absurd or inconsistent. But he can not turn
his attention for a moment to the subject, without
perceiving that the perpetuation of our race depends
on a change of the previous oider of things-and
that change is a miracle.
Now if the light of nature, enlightened by science, compels men to believe in miracles, is there
anything so very absurd in the requirements of revelation? The identical argument of the unbeliever against revelation, lies with precisely the
same force against his own opinions. But he can
not abandon his convictions that he exists, merely
because that existence involves a miracle-and to
be consistent, he ought to receive and acknowledge
a revelation, because it asks nothing of him, that
he has not already conceded to the physical world,
nor taxes his credulity beyond the measure which
he has yielded to nature. If the operation of the
laws of nature then, have admitted of the production of beings that did not previously exist, and this
can not be disputed-then the existence of miracles
is both consistent and reasonable. And this has
been proved. The requirements of revelation by
which we are bound to believe in miracles, are con



ï~~CONSISTENCY OF REVELATION.

X39

sequently reasonable and consistent; and therefore
such revelation is consistent with itself.
By this time, it is presumed that the uses and
bearings of geology, when applied to the illustration and proof of subjects in controversy between
infidels and behlievers in revelation, are better understood. And we are greatly mistaken, if the unbeliever does not find in that science, innumerable
evidences of modifications of existence-of periods
of the cessation of one form of being, and the introduction of new and entirely different species,
which he can never reconcile with his favorite position-that nature's laws are uniform and eternal.
And finding this, it is not impossible that he may
come to the conclusion, that he was hasty in seizing upon this interesting science for the purpose of
exploding the belief of a divine revelation. He
may fix the dates of the various epochs which mark
the mighty revolutions of the surface of this globethe periods that attest the erasure of one species
from the page of existence, and the insertion of another form of being-but at every step of the process, he will find new and multiplied correspondences between the facts developed, and the declarations of the Bible-new and accumulated reasons
for the truth and consistency of divine revelation.
We say to him, then-dig deep, make every coaldeposite_ and every rock unfold its mysteries, that
the history of all time may be fully disclosed. For
since he has appealed to geology, let him be tried
by its testimony. But we admonish him to abide




ï~~340      CONSISTENCY OF REVELATION.
its decisions. It has already convicted him of believing in miracles-and if he will not now admit
those of revelation, it is time that he should cease
to charge those with absurdity and want of sense
who believe the Bible.




ï~~CHAPTER VII.

USELESSNESS OF INFIDELITY.
We have now completed the course originally
contemplated, on the subject of infidelity. It was
not intended to exhaust the treasures of evidence
in favor of a divine revelation, or to say in our own
way, what had been repeated over and over again,
in vindication of Christianity. We have however
often found, that we were treading in paths already
opened, and reaping in fields long since cultivated
by the advocates of the Bible. It remains to notice
the character of the motives of unbelievers, and the
effects of infidelity upon the human mind and human happiness.
It is conceded on all hands, that men never act
without an object, a motive-and that philosophers
at least, pursue an end both suitable and reasonable.
Whatever that end, object, or motive may be, and
by whomsoever pursued-whether it is explained
to the world, or not-it is always understood to be
worthy of those engaged in its attainment. And
this is probably as true, and applies as forcibly to
the motives of unbelievers, as of any other class of
mankind! For it is the perception of the general
objects which any person aims to accomplish, that




ï~~342

USELESSNESS OF INFIDELITY.

determines his character; and he is, and ought to
be considered as a worthy or unworthy member of
society, according as his motives are of useful or
useless, good or evil tendency.
But we are not to suppose, that because man is
a thinking, rational being, therefore all his motives, or hislabors for their consummation, are necessarily reasonable. The mind may have been
warped' by some prejudice, or perverted by some
favorite theory, or its regular operations broken up
by the shock it has sustained in grappling with
some all-engrossing subject. But still it is mindth ugh it may chance to be the mind of an infidel;
an anchorite, ora lunatice. Hence, as the influence
of any of these predominate, both the motives and
their attainment, will be evil, useless, unreasonable.
What then 'are the obvious motives of unbelievers?  What the tendency of their effbrts to win
men to infidelity?
These questions would find a ready and intelligent answer, should the reader discover a number
of pens. employed in undermining and pulling
dowichisold family mansion, under pietence that
itwmaebuilt upon.the sandb-and that it was better
toa it  nt mshelter, thanw one  of which none knew
te v.alue sav~ its occupants! There vould be no
didijlty in.perceiving that the motives of those so
employed, however sincerely they might be felt,
wer.Ampertinent and improper in the last degree;
andth,pretence that they were the suggestions of
sound philosophy, would be treated as the offpring




ï~~tfELE8S~ESS OF INFDELITT.

343

of folly or madness, with contempt or abhorrece.
For it would be seen that the tendency of such efforts, could they but succeed, would be to fill the
world with hordes of homeless and houseless vagabonds-exposed to every form of misery, and eaduring every degree of suffering.
Such is the objectof infidelity-such the employment of unbelievers! They are eternally complaining of the plan, the system, the influences of
revelation. They are constantly devising meanand laboring with commendable industry, were it
better employed, to undermine the confidence of
the Christian, and force him into the labyrinth of
skepticism. And for what purpose? Why, forsooth, that he may become a philosopher! That
he may have no faith, no source of comfort in his
sorrows, no sustaining hopes, no fixed principles,
no religion! Charity itself can grant them nothing
more favorable than this-nothing less can resu t
from their endeavors. For they assume-the motive of making men reasonable and philosophical.
But we have not now to learn, that all this implies,
in the vocabulary of infidelity, neither more nor
less than the design to expunge the Bible from' the
catalogue of veritable books, and to blot out from
the mind of man, all faith, hope and confidence in
divine revelation.
Could they succeed-do they propose toimprove
the morals of mankind?
It is impossible to believe that infidels think'that
morality is of no consequence. All their distin23




ï~~44

USELESSNESS OF INFIDELI'T'Y.

guished writers have felt compelled to say something respecting human virtue. It is very true,
they have not always coincided in their views of
the principles on which they supposed it to be
founded. But still, it has led them to admit its
necessity.  And, indeed, this was unavoidable,
since no human society can subsist without the observation of some moral rules. Do they 'then propose an improved morality?--better than is taught
in the Bible-better than has been learned from
revelation-better than all Christendom acknowledges, and which all Christians desire to see carried out to its utmost results, in the perfection of
individual and public virtue-the consummation of
right principles, in the production of good practices?
No; they have never made any pretences to thisthey have not so much as assumed that this was
any part of the great purposes to be answered by
their efforts against revealed religion. They have
not uttered a word, which intimates the thought of
improving upon the system of Christian morality.
Nor have they any reason to suppose that their
principles are in any manner calculated to advance
the practice of virtue. If, then, the practice of virtue be not rendered more certain, no moral benefit
can follow from infidelity. And the most that can
be allowed to its claims-the most that can be
claimed for it is, that-it is utterly useless! The
world, then, is called to witness, and to admire the
disinterested labors of infidels in the promotion of
principles, which in relation to morals, is of no pos



ï~~USELESSNESS OF INFIDELITY.

345

sible use to mankind! There may be something
out of common-place in these efforts-but they are
rendered in vain.
But this is not all-the whole scheme of infidelity, so far as morals are involved, is worse than
useless. Doubtless many unbelievers are respectable for their morality. But we challenge an instance in which one of their number who was ever
a Christian, preserves the same decorum of speech
and behavior, or cherishes the same high sense of
moral obligation, as when a believer in divine revelation. In the face of tangible facts--of living illustrations--they will not deny that it is too common for their converts to evince a lower tone of
moral sentiment. And in more ways than one,
but especially in the utterance of blasphemous epithets, the impurity of principles is betrayed by impure language-the mutual evidence of corrupted
feelings, and of growing and ill-suppressed depravity. The reader need not be taken to revolutionary France-to the consideration of the awful and
tremendous outbreakings of a nation of atheists;
he can contemplate the minor workings of the same
machinery, divested of its political impulsionnearer home. Every thing said or done for the
support and promotion of infidelity-every influence it exerts over the moral feelings, is, at best,
of no use to virtue; or tends to weaken its power
over mankind. What a comment upon the prin.
ciples, the talents, the exertions of unbelievegs!
What a splendid illustration of the fitness and cor



ï~~USELTSSNES OF INrIDZLITl.

sisteney of the claims which they have so vehemently urged, to exclusive reason and philosophy!
What conclusive evidence, that the world is bound
to consider them the most disinterested and greatest
benefactorsof the human race, because they would
absolve men from the best bonds of social order,
and the highest obligations of moral duty!
Do unbelievers propose to augment the happiness of mankind?
Human happiness is the result of a combination
of physical comforts and mental influences-in
other words, of the condition of the body and the
disposition of the mind. Now it is not to be supposed, that infidelity assumes that it can particularly improve the physical circumstances of man.
It neither builds houses for his accommodation, nor
provides the bread which he must eat, nor yet the
garments which he must wear. It neither ennobles man's nature, or makes him more honorable,
or renders places of trust, power and emolument
more accessible; nor does it multiply the means of
human support and comfort, or distribute them
more widely or with greater impartiality. Most
of these things depend much more upon -personal
industry, enterprise, prudence and the force of talent, than upon individual opinions.
But the quiet and peaceable possession and enjoyment of the external comforts within our reach,
depend very much upon the nature of prevailing
principles. There must be a reciprocal respect for
t e rights and poss.ssions of others, a sacred and




ï~~USELESSNESS OF INFIDELITY.

347

inviolable regard for their safety-or individual
welfare, and public tranquillity are phrases without
any just application. We have seen that infidelity
neither does nor can pretend to improve upon
Christian influences, in these particulars.  And
that as these blessings of the social state, were not
as fully and as uniformly enjoyed before the diffusion of the doctrines of the Bible, as at present, and
do not now exist to any desirable extent, where
Christianity does not prevail, there is abundant
reason to believe that instead of bettering the physical condition of mankind, infidelity would diminish
the amount, by removing or destroying some of the
means of human happiness. Of what possible use
can that system be to our physical existence, which
neither adds to the number of our comforts, nor
protects us with any certainty, in the enjoyment of
the few we may possess?  And how impudent the
claims which it sets up to consideration and adoption, when its most indulgent construction proves,
that it is not merely useless, but palpably injurious,
by weakening the motives of respect for the personal rights of our fellow-men!
As an instance of the domestic and social influences of infidelity, take the undisguised avowals of
some of its advocates-that marriage ought not tobe
considered in any other light than a civil contract,
and binding only so long as deemed agreeable or
convenient to the parties. We would not be understood that this is the opinion of a majority of unbelievers-but it is the deliberate assertion of some
23*




ï~~PTSELZSSNESS OF 1Nr1DI~tkT

who hold a high place in their ranks, who have
given tone and impulse to their fraternity in this
country, and whose Views can not fail to exert vast
influence in their communities. Nor have we any
reason to suppose that this monstrous construction
of one of the primitive laws of our nature, is the
growth of momentary extravagance-a mere freak
of perverted imagination. It is the natural fruit of
system which has been long maturing-its germ
is the sentiment that adultery would be allowable,
if it was more fashionable! Whoever can smile
upon this maxim, has only to follow it to its results,
and so absolve the parties from all obligations to
each other!
Is this the sober moral regard for personal rights,
the social compact, the happiness of mankind, prormised by infidelity? Leaving the parties out of
the question, morality and public happiness are
concerned in the condition of children. Are they to
become public property?-to be claimed by their
nominal parents? or are they to roam over the
world in search of that guardianship and protection
which infidelity has denied them? How and by
whom are they to be provided for? By what
means and in what manner are they to be properly
educated? Are they ever to know and to feel the
endearments of home?-and if so, what is to be the
character of that home? Is it one in which a purehearted and enlightened mother presides, in which
she diffuses her own genius and affections-or
where these have been steeped in passion, and sac



ï~~USELESSNESS OF INFIDELITY.

349

rificed at the shrine of infidelity-to her bed, her
nature, her God?
And this is one of the many lessons of the use..
fulness of infidelity-of its superior claims to the
consideration of enlightened men! This is an integral part of a system which claims to be indispensable to the intellectual renovation of mankind!
This is one of the phases of that grand scheme of
philosophy, philanthropy and truth, only effectual
in promoting and establishing the true dignity of
human nature! It is well that it makes few pretences to the promotion or security of human happiness. For if these principles ever supersede
Christianity, their results are as certain as they
are abhorrent and undesirable.
Human happiness depends in no inconsiderable
degree upon the state of mind with which we view
the events, and are enabled to meet and bear the
trials of life. And that state of mind will be greatly affected. by our perception of the nature of the
causes and final consequences to which every apparent evil tends. Thus, it is not to be supposed,
that a man would submit to the amputation of a
limb with the same patience, the same fortitude,
the same cheerfulness, without, as with the belief
that it would prolong his life and his usefulness.Take this expectation from him, and though he
may be compelled to submit to the operation, it is at
best a dogged and unnatural acquiescence-one,
under which he maintains a sullen silence, or utters perpetual and unavailing complaints.




ï~~350

USELESSNESS OF INFIDELITY.

It is thus that the perception of the operations of
Supreme Intelligence in every event-and, consequently, of ithe favorable termination of all life's
various ills-or of suitable compensation for the
drawbacks which they make on present comfort,
inspires a very different feeling under the miseries
which they impose, from that which supposes them
to be the chance operations of a blind, unconscious
fate, without motive or mitigation. In the former
case, human miseries are borne with meekness and
patience'; in the latter, without resistance. In the
former, with manly and becoming fortitude; in the
latter, with forged and stubborn resolution. In the
former, we see the power of a firm belief in revelation, and in the moral government of a Being of infinite wisdom and goodness; in the latter, the fruit
of infidelity, where, whatever accident may mingle the cup of life, there is no "eye to pity," and
no lenient hand to sustain the victim of care and
sorrow.
Such are a few out of many examples which
might be adduced, of the utter uselessness, the evil
and worthlessness of infidelity. Nor is this all.
While it has nothing to give, it endeavors, with
wanton levity, and ferocious and persevering cruelty, to take from man the only substantial support,
comfort and glory of his being. It is a species of
moral libertinism, trifling with purity, and trampjing upon innocence; and can be regarded with
favor only at peril, or received and embraced at
the price of destruction. It is a systern of nega



ï~~UAE.iNESS OF INFIDRLITX.

iions-..s4r it has neither a God, nor religion,1 t
virtue; it has no good of its own, whichis peuliar to
itself, in possession, and none in prospect; it has no:means of averting or mitigating present evils, and
it would wrest from others those which they enjoy.
It has no just claims to consistency or reaon--none
to respect, or confidence, or acceptance; and it
seems only to find appropriate employment in perpetual efforts to render all others as destitute a4 as
miserable as itself.
And this, be it remembered, is that identical infidelity which is tendered to the acceptance of the
wise and ignorant, the evil and the good, as the
I
consummation of all wisdom, consistency and
truth. As the very thing--for it may not properly
be called a system, which has neither difficulties to
encounter, nor absurdities to answer for, nor mysteries to unravel-which is so simple, consistent
and intelligible, that it commends itself to all the
unprejudiced of all classes and all climes, as the
sovereign cure of superstition, as the intellectual
desideratum which merges all morality in convenience, and all theories in the experience of the
senses. The hardihood and effrontery with which
the reasonableness and propriety of this sceme is
asserted, is only equalled by tij pertinacity with
which it is urged upon mankind. Could it present
but one clear and undoubted instaace of its ability
or design to improve the minds, the morals, or the
happiness of mankind, it would be so far entitled i,
ekiaritable consideration. But it can. not justly




ï~~352

USELESSNESS OF INFIDELITY.

claim even this poor privilege; since it practically
bounds the operations of intelligence by the range
of the senses, and lays a destroying hand upon the
virtues and peace of the human race.
While we have no sympathy for, and no compromise with infidelity, we have no feelings of personal unkindness towards unbelievers-some at
least of whom, we have every reason to think much
better than their acknowledged principles. What
God hath not joined together, may very safely be
sundered, for we can conceive of no natural and legitimate affinity between infidels as men, and the
theory of their adoption. They can not, therefore,
excuse themselves from the consequences which
their principles involve. Here they become active agents, and must be held responsible to the
great and deeply interested public. Tothem, and
to that public, is now submitted this humble attempt to vindicate the reasonableness, utility and
certainty of a DIVINE REVELATION.




ï~~


ï~~t
4
$1
4
(yf
S
i
i




ï~~


ï~~,:...                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         y,
F
f
c
i
i
i
i




ï~~