42 WHY INFIDELS REJECT CHRISTIANITY. to profess his disbelief in it? Is it to be wondered at, that, having steeled his heart against the force of reason, and closed his eyes against the light of revelation, an individual should have the courage to go one step farther in the denial of a God? It is a well known principle in morals that, whenever an individual strongly desires, by repeated trials he may bring himself to believe. The whole of the mental and moral faculties are polluted and weakened; and by excessive discipline the conscience itself may be brought to approve of thoughts and actions the most vicious. 2. Pride is a very common source of infidelity. Pope has well observed that, "Of all the causes which conspire to blind There is certainly no vice which exercises a more deleterious influence over the human understanding than this. It is not only a source of error, but it renders its subject unfit for the calm and patient examination of any question. The proud man is the last to relinquish his prejudices. He affects a superior wisdom to those about him; upon whom he looks down from his imaginary elevation with profound contempt. It is beneath his dignity to believe with the multitude. As a philosopher, he wishes to be distinguished by some kind of singularity, that he may be regarded as one of the knowing ones. This is not unfrequently the case with men of real ability. Religion is regarded by them as mere superstition, and the Bible as the record of antiquated ignorance. This aversion to religion is the product of pride, or in other words so far as this question is concerned, of ignorance; for in consequence of this state of the moral feelings, such persons think it demeaning to their character to examine the evidences of religion, They must have something more refined,-according to the modern ideas of refinement. But the doctrines of the gospel do not meet with their taste. They must hear of nothing which will be mortifying to human nature, those doctrines styled by Hume "monkish virtues." The main principles, indeed, of religion are inadmissible by them. Like the ancient Grecian philosophers, who imagined themselves at the pinnacle of human knowledge, the 'preaching of the cross is foolishness to them.' Of all others, they like to hear that doctrine least which teaches us that, if any man seemeth to be wise in this world,' he must 'become a fool that he may be wise.' It is disgusting to the proud man to hear that he is to be humble and submissive, meek and condescending, and that without these virtues he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." But the young especially are liable thus to be seduced. Wishful to free themselves from the disagreeable regulations of the gospel, and to appear as cavalierly as possible in the world, they frequently start off, with a smattering of learning, in the course of infidelity. A wish to be thought wise and to appear singular, seems to be their prevailing motive. It is not an uncommon case to hear an individual of this class,-fresh from his Alma Mater, with a little Greek and mathematics, vapouring forth invectives against the Bible, and strongly reminding one of the acuteness of Pope's maxim—. "A little learning is a dangerous thing." WHY INFIDELS REJECT CHRISTIANITY. 43 Dr. Barrow has given a forcible, though rather quaint illustration of this. Speaking of the proud man he remarks: "Shall I, (he will say,) such a gallant as I, so accomplished in worth, so flourishing in dignity, so plump with wealth, so highly regarded and renowned among men, thus pitifully crouch and sneak? Shall I deign to avow such beggarly notions or bend to such homely duties? Shall I disown my perfections or forego my advantages? Shall I profess myself to have been a despicable worm, a villanous caitiff, a sorry wretch? Shall I suffer myself to be flouted as a timorous religionist, a scrupulous precisian, a conscientious sneaksley? Shall I lie down at the foot of mercy, puling in sorrow, whining in confession, bewailing my guilt, and craving pardon? Shall I allow any man better or happier than myself? Shall I receive those into consortship or equality of rank with me who appear so much my inferiors? Shall I be misused and trampled upon without doing myself right, and making them smart who shall presume to wrong or cross me? Shall I be content to be nobody in the world? So the proud man will say in his heart, contesting the doctrines and duties of our religion, and so disputing himself into infidelity." 3. An utter ignorance of the nature and evidences of religion, generally gives rise to infidelity. Some individuals never trouble themselves to examine into the evidences of the religion they profess; they receive it upon credit from their tutors and guardians; they have been habituated from infancy to reverence the Bible as the word of God, and to observe the ordinances of religion; and hence their faith in the gospel is blind and irrational. Infidels have often held up this fact to the world, as an argument against the Bible,- -as a proof that religion is based upon ignorance. But though the fact is admitted, we deny, in toto, the inference they draw from it. The very opposite of this inference is correct. Instead of being based upon ignorance, Christianity is never less secure than when found in combination with it. For example,-let such an individual as the one just alluded to, be brought into contact with an acute infidel, and having no rational ground for his belief, he falls an easy prey to the opposer, and is in the greatest danger of being turned aside. Scepticism is soon generated in his bosom, and he is hurried onward to infidelity. This is the way in which a great many persons, possessing little wit and totally destitute of religion, become infidels. Had they more of either one or of the other they would be able to stand. But infidelity itself is formed by the combination of ignorance and viciousness. Infidels, though generally wishful to be esteemed good logicians, are seldom able to distinguish between things utterly different in themselves. Thus, we often hear the old and stale objection advanced against religion, that it produces wars and divisions; and the history of the crusades is pointed to as proof of this. Who needs to be informed now, for the ten thousandth time, that superstition and pride, grown chivalrous, were the parents of those unchristian events? The way in which the infidel should prove his point, is by an appeal to the precepts of Jesus. Now, we are ready to admit, that if the Christian religion had not existed, there would have been no crusade; but, at the same time, we deny that the crusades were the products of that religion. If all the thieves and blacklegs in this island had their hands bound behind their backs, we might expect that their would be no robberies. But are robberies and thefts the effects of suffering men's hands to remain loose? or in other words of natural 44 WHY INFIDELS REJECT CHRISTIANITY. liberty? If there were no kind of ropes or cords, many individuals would not have been hanged; but are rope and cordmakers the cause of people suffering the extreme penalty of the law? I do not see why we should not extend our ideas a little farther, and say that hemp-fields are the causes of many people being executed, since without hemp we could not have rope with which to furnish out the gallows; or, as we are in the way of it, we might attribute such things to the sun and clouds, since without their influence hemp would not grow, and ropes would not have been fabricated, and consequently people would never have been hanged. Marvellous discovery! O ye sun and clouds, how much have ye contributed towards the execution of criminals, and without your causal influence how small would have been the number of suicides! We might go on to show the absurdity of such logic, but it is needless. Yet this is the mode of reasoning often adopted by infidels against Christianity,—a mode of argumentation by which we might almost prove any thing, provided it be preposterous enough. For by the very same kind of logic that the infidel proves Christianity to be the cause of wars and persecution, we might easily show that the heavenly bodies made telescopes,—that iron-mines produced sea-fights by furnishing materials for cannons, and that the sea itself built ships and invented steam vessels. 4. Some people profess opposition to Christianity on the ground of mystery. We apprehend that such objectors would be unable to tell one what they mean by their objection. If the infidel intend by it that some of the doctrines recorded in the Bible cannot be comprehended by the human faculties, we assent to the fact. But what does it prove? That the Bible is not the word of God? This cannot be. It is rather a presumptive proof of the contrary. It is not natural to conclude, a priori, that in a revelation of the will of God, some doctrines would be taught which must necessarily be superior to the human faculties? If the book of nature is full of mysteries, are we to expect that a revelation should contain nothing of a mysterious kind? If man is a mystery to himself, is it to be supposed that he should be able to comprehend the divinity without the shadow of mystery? Such a supposition is absurd. It cannot be, therefore, that this is the meaning of the objection. If the infidel intend by his objection that the Bible contains, and requires us to believe, doctrines which are contradictory to human reason, we deny the allegation. Any thing contradictory to reason must of nccessity be false, since reason is the pure light of truth. Now, we state, without hesitancy, that no doctrine of revelation contradicts the light of reason, though most of those doctrines far transcend it. This, we apprehend, is one of those instances to which we have before alluded, in which infidels prove themeslves incompetent to distinguish between things totally different. Let us take an example. The doctrine of the Trinity is generally seized upon as an illustration. It is asked with an air of confidence, "Who can believe that three is but one, and one three?" We reply, no sensible person can; for the proposition involves an absurdity. Three cannot be one, in the sense in which they are three: three persons cannot be only one person, for this implies contradiction. But this is not the case with the doctrine of the Trinity as taught in the Bible. No Trinitarian affirms that the divine Being is three in the same sense in which he is one, or that there are three persons, and yet but one person in the Godhead. Christians admit that the word 'person,' as employed on this subject, does not accurately express the idea it is intended to convey. They believe that there is THE DEATH OF THE ONLY CHILD. 45 some kind of distinction in the Godhead, but what is the positive nature of that distinction they deem themselves inadequate to explain. Now, where is the contradiction in this? It is of no avail to reply that you cannot understand it,this we fully believe. But, can you understand how God is one, or eternal, omnipresent, or omniscient? We confess that there does not appear to us any more difficulty in the doctrine of the Trinity than in these. All transcend the human faculties; none contradict reason. Many apparently contradictory propositions are clear and plain enough when fully understood. Nothing is more common than to hear man spoken of as a mortal and an immortal being. Both these predicates are true, without contradiction. We ask, then, how can the doctrine of the Trinity be pronounced contradictory to reason? ence. But the scriptures do not require us to believe anything of a contradictory kind; and mysteries are, in no sense, the objects of faith. We have before stated, that most of the doctrines we are desired to believe, are mysterious; but it by no means follows that we are required to believe mysteries. Let us try to make this plain. The objects of faith are analogous to those of knowledge. We know that the loadstone attracts iron,—this we learn from experiBut what in this case is the object of knowledge? The way in which the loadstone attracts? That cannot be,—it is a mystery which we cannot comprehend. It therefore follows that the simple fact, without reference to the mystery, is the object of knowledge. The fact is mysterious, but this does not hinder our knowledge of it. Now, the only difference between this object of knowledge and the objects of faith is, that in the case of faith we admit the facts upon the ground of testimony, and in religion upon the testimony of the God of truth; while in the case of the loadstone we admit the fact upon observation or perception. In both cases the facts, as distinguished from the mysteriousness of their nature, are the objects of knowledge and faith. The objection, therefore, built upon the ground of mystery, is totally without force. THE DEATH OF THE ONLY CHILD. BY FRANCIS C. WOODWORTH. SEVERAL Summers since, being in search of health, I took passage, in company with a clerical friend, in a schooner, bound from Boston to Eastport. The distance is less than two hundred and fifty miles; but we encountered a furious gale from the eastward, and were obliged to make a harbour under the lee of an island in the vicinity of Mount Desert. While laying at anchor, I went ashore. The inhabitants on the island, which is bleak, rocky, and unproductive, are mostly fishermen, and probably, with a few exceptions, are ignorant and depraved. At any rate, such is the character which common fame gives them. Rambling about the island, my attention was directed to a cottage with a neater air than most of the others, and almost hidden beneath a profusion of roses and other shrubbery. Good taste I have long regarded as a kind of cousin of good morals. Neatness and virtue are quite as near related as filthiness and vice. Guided somewhat by this opinion, I entered the open door of the cottage, and soon found myself, without the formality of a detailed introduction, engaged in a pleasant conversation with the mistress of the house, a matron of some three I found her a Christian-more than this-a Christian philosopher. Though rather from the humbler than the higher and educated ranks in life, score. 46 THE DEATH OF THE ONLY CHILD. She bad studied well the science of revealed truth, and had learned, too, to trace the connexion between effects and causes in the moral world—neglecting to do which is sometimes the occasion of so many unhappy errors, theoretical and practical. I felt that it was good to converse with this aged disciple of Christ, and blessed God that an incident, untoward in its nature, according to human judgment, had brought us together. In the course of our interview, I alluded to this circumstance, and took occasion to remark that those things which we were in the habit of regarding as reverses of fortune, were frequently designed by our heavenly Father as the richest of blessings, and that we could readily see that their legitimate influence was of such a nature. "Oh yes," said she, as a tear started in her eye, "I know it, I know it. I was a good while learning it, but the Spirit of God taught it to me at last, and in such a way that I shall never forget it again." She alluded to a painful chapter in her early history, which, though it possesses little of the thrilling incident of a high-wrought romance, greatly interested me at the time, as an illustration of the sentiment just expressed in regard to Divine Providence; and trusting it may be of some, if not of equal interest to the general reader, I shall relate her story as I find it in my portfolio, sketched at the time: "I was young when I first became a mother. My husband and I were children together. Our parents resided in the same little village on the coast of Massachusetts, or Maine, as it is now called. We loved each other with the utmost fondness. We thought our cup of happiness was full, when we embraced our first child. Dear little Alice! I shall never forget her image, though more than forty years have passed since the angels came to carry her home. How our hearts doated on that child! Before she was given to us, I could not have supposed it possible for me to love anything earthly as well. Day after day, as that bud opened, we saw more in it to admire. For myself, I know that as my love for her increased, my love for God gradually diminished. It was wrong-it was very sinful; but so it was. Yes, Alice was an idol. I had humbly trusted that I was a disciple of Christ. My husband indulged the same hope for himself. But I fear that we had both forgotten him, in our attachment to little Alice. I know that such was the state of my own heart, and I have never forgiven myself for that blind and wicked idolatry. For hours I have sat and gazed at the face of the child, while she was sleeping, or amusing me with her innocent glee; and afterwards, when driven to reflect upon my emotions at the time, I knew too well that that gaze was idolatrous. God told me so, as I said before. I was warned. I tried-I thought I tried— to heed the warning. Some kind of an effort I certainly made, and so did my husband, to break away from this idolatry. But the effort was too feeble-or, perhaps, not of a suitable nature-on my part, to be successful. Nearly two years had passed since this flower began to bloom. I pressed it more and more ruthlessly to my breast. I crushed it in my embrace! "Little Alice was taken ill. Through the live-long night we watched her, as the fever struggled with her fame. We did not think she would die-I did not. How could I? Alice must live, I said-she must live. I could not harbour the thought that it was possible for her to be taken from me; and even after the worm of disease had almost destroyed that cherished flower, I cheated myself with the belief that it would soon lift its head again, and bloom as sweetly as ever. It did bloom again as sweetly as ever, but not in this world. Hope began to wane at length. Soon the last ray vanished. As I watched |