rience that he does, in the dispensations of his providence? Why does he care for still more contemptible creatures, insects and animalcules, whom he brings into existence by his power, and sustains by his bounty? To reason from the greatness of God and the littleness of man, would lead to conclusions which we know to be false. The proper question, therefore, in. the present case is, not what in our apprehension did it become God to do, but what has he actually done? But we may give the argument a different shape. You say that man was not worthy of all this care, which is implied in redemption. But consider distinctly what was its object. It was to deliver millions of human beings from perdition, and to raise them to a state of consummate and interminable bliss. Was this an insignificant object? Can any person estimate the value of one soul, when viewed in connexion with eternity? And what is the value of myriads of souls? Although the salvation of men had been the sole object of redemption, we must have pronounced it to be worthy of the benevolence of the Deity, and to be a noble display of wisdom and goodness. But are we sure that this was the only design? Is there no reason to think that it is a part of a great moral scheme, and that its effects extend to the whole intelligent creation? Was it not intended to be a manifestation of the character and perfections of the Deity, by which he would be exalted in the eyes of all orders of rational beings, the authority of his law would be more solemnly established, the obedient would be confirmed in their allegiance, and their felicity would be augmented. Taken in this connexion, our little world, and insignificant race, acquire an importance which, viewed in themselves, they did not possess. Man has been made the object of this wonderful dispensation, not for his own sake only, but for the good of the whole family dispersed among the countless worlds which roll in the immensity of space; and the earth is the chosen theatre for the display of the glories of the Godhead. The spot is nothing, the display is everything; but surely a more proper scene could not have been devised, than the habitation of beings as mean as they were vile; in whose salvation there would be an impressive manifestation of the unsearchable riches of the love and grace of the Most High. This is the centre from which rays diverge in every direction throughout the universe, to illuminate and gladden the myriads who people its numerous provinces. The hour of our redemption is the most memorable era in its history, the commencement of a new order of things which will last for ever. In the fifth place, infidels object to many of the facts related in the Scriptures, as absurd and impossible. The story of the temptation of our first parents, has afforded an abundant subject of ridicule, because the agent was a serpent, and the sin consisted in eating an apple. With regard to the sin, in a moral estimate, the matter of it is of little account; it is the disposition which is to be considered. The action may be trifling in itself; but it assumes another character when it proceeds from resistance to lawful authority. Those who cannot make this distinction, are unfit to be reasoned with. The agent was a serpent, but not the dumb irrational reptile alone; for we learn from other places, that it was merely the instrument of a malignant being, who was permitted to utter articulate, sounds through its mouth, for the trial of the primitive pair. It would require more knowledge of the invisible world than infidels possess, in order to prove that this was impossible. The story of Balaam's ass has been also held up to ridicule; but most unjustly. We do not suppose that the animal had the power of speech, and understood the sounds which it uttered, but merely that it was enabled to express a few words for a particular purpose; and all objections should be silenced by the statement, that "the Lord opened its mouth,"* for none but an atheist will deny * Num, xxii. 28. that this could be done by omnipotence. He who made man's mouth could make other creatures to speak like men; and we know that some irrational creatures are taught by human art to pronounce words, without understanding them. The history of the deluge has been assailed by many objections, although our earth exhibits every where proofs that it has suffered a dreadful convulsion, in which water was the agent. If it be asked, where water could be found in such quantity as to cover the whole surface of the globe? I cannot tell; but does it follow, that he who made the sea and the dry land could not provide it? If it be asked, how the various kinds of animals could be brought together from their distant abodes into one place? I can see no difficulty in believing the fact, since they are always under the control and direction of the Author of their instincts. If it be asked, how they could all be contained in the ark? I answer, that it has been proved, by accurate calculation, to have afforded ample space for them, and for food to sustain them during the time of the confinement. If it be asked, how such an unwieldy body could be prevented from oversetting in the waters, and being overwhelmed by the fury of waves and currents? It is enough to know, that it was under the protection of Providence. The miracle recorded in Joshua, where the sun and moon are said to have stood still, has been pronounced to be impossible according to the constitution of nature. It is pitiful to say that the sun could not stand still because it does not move; for the history speaks according to the ideas of the age, and was intended to record simply the appearance to the eye, to which the language of men, whether philosophers or peasants, is still conformed in common conversation. Whether the effect was produced by a supernatural refraction, or whether the motion of the earth around its axis was suspended, we do not possess the means of determining. In either case there was a miracle; and both were alike easy to Omnipotence. He who gave law to nature could stop its course without the slightest injury to the system. I shall take notice, in the last place, of the fate of Jonah, who was three days in the belly or stomach of a whale, or rather a great fish, for the word is general, and does not inform us of the species. To account for the fact upon natural principles, it has been stated, that a living substance is not acted upon by the juices of the stomach, and that persons in whom the foramen ovale remains open can live without breathing for a considerable time. But although these things were true, for what purpose are they resorted to? Is it to prove that what has been accounted a miracle was an event, uncommon indeed, but not supernatural? There is no occasion to summon God's own laws to his assistance; for no person, who believes that he is omnipotent, can doubt that he could have preserved Jonah in his perilous situation. Nothing is more absurd than to object to a miracle on account of its difficulty; for in doing so, we set limits to the power of God, and assimilate it to the power of man, which succeeds in some cases and fails in others. God could as easily make us live in water or in fire, as in air, because, being the sole Author of life, he could support it without means, or in opposition to the natural causes of its destruction. If an alleged miracle is not physically impossible, its greatness does not in any degree diminish its credibility; and all that concerns us is to ascertain that it is fully attested. In the sixth place, infidels object, that some things in the Scriptures are unworthy of God, and reflect upon the excellence of his nature, the purity of his character, and the wisdom of his procedure. The Scriptures, it is said, give us false ideas of God, while they represent him as a corporeal being, who has eyes, ears, hands and feet, and attribute to him human infirmities and passions, as hope, fear, grief, repentance, &c. But the man who seriously advances this objection must be strangely deficient in candour, if his reading has not been confined to the few passages with which he is dissatisfied. There VOL. I.-14 is no book which is so careful to admonish us against supposing that God bears any resemblance to his creatures, and gives such sublime descriptions of him as infinite, independent, immutable, and possessed of every possible perfection. "To whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One."* Such passages are an effectual antidote to those in which he is spoken of after the manner of men, to assist our feeble conceptions, and to impress abstract truths more strongly upon our minds, through the medium of the imagination and the senses. If he has an arm, it is an arm which sustains all nature; if he has eyes, they are eyes which survey the universe at a glance, and see in the dark; if he has ears, they hear the thoughts and desires of the heart. With respect to his hope and fear, his sorrow and repentance, the abuse of these attributions is guarded against by the explicit declaration, that "all his works are known to him from the beginning of the world," and that he" works all things according to the counsel of his will," or that he foresees every thing, and every thing is in unison with his eternal decrees. It is objected again, that the Scriptures make God the author of sin, by representing him as tempting men, hardening their hearts, and putting it into their minds to do evil. But justice requires, that, if possible, we should explain a book consistently with itself; and when we find the Scriptures affirming that God is a being of unspotted purity, that he holds sin in abhorrence, and the great end of the dispensations of providence and grace is to reclaim men from it, are we not bound to put a favourable construction upon expressions which seem to be of a contrary import? Viewed in their connexion, they can only mean that God did not interpose to change the dispositions of the persons referred to; that he left them to themselves and that the circumstances in which they were placed had a tendency to elicit their depravity, and to confirm their criminal purposes. Farther, the morality of some commands which issued from God has been impeached; and they have been accused of sanctioning cruelty, injustice, and fraud. Among the number is the command to Abraham to offer up Isaac. Can it be believed that the Deity would require a human sacrifice? We may say, that God had no design to accept such a sacrifice, and that nothing more was intended than to make trial of the faith of the patriarch, and furnish a noble example of obedience to succeeding generations. But if Isaac had been slain, would any injustice have been done? Not surely to Isaac, whose life was forfeited by sin, like that of all other men, and might be taken from him in this way, as well as by disease. It would have been painful to his father to be the agent; but the right of the supreme Governor to prescribe any service to his subjects is indisputable; and in obeying him they can do no wrong. What shall be said of the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan, which seems rather to have proceeded from the demon of destruction, than from the merciful Governor of mankind? Let the case be stated as it was. These nations were impious and profligate in a more than ordinary degree; and will it be doubted, that if the divine government is moral, they deserved to be punished? Had God employed an earthquake to bury them under the ruins of their dwellings, would any man have thought that he had dealt unjustly with them? There seems no more injustice in rooting them out by the sword of the Israelites; and there was a fitness in making them the instruments, because, having witnessed the sufferings of the Canaanites, and knowing the cause of them, they would be more effectually restrained from imitating their abominable practices. The command to the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians is justified on these grounds; that the Sovereign Proprietor has a right to transfer the property of one person to another, and that the present was an instance of just retribution, because the Israelites * Isa. xl. 25. 107 had long laboured for the good of the Egyptians, but had been cruelly oppress- Our limits permit me to take notice only of a few objections of this kind as a specimen. Passing, therefore, many which have been advanced, I shall mention only other two, which are founded on the history of the Israelites. The idea that they were a peculiar people is rejected as implying partiality in the Deity, and establishing a system of favouritism on the ruins of universal benevolence. This objection will deserve an answer when it is proved that creatures have a claim upon their Creator, and that he is bound to treat them But we shall look for such proof in vain, and the whole all upon equal terms. history of providence is opposed to it; for, as individuals enjoy different degrees of understanding, health, and riches, so nations are at present, and have always been, differently situated in respect of soil, climate, civilization, and, in short, in respect of both physical and moral advantages. The peculiar privileges enjoyed by the Israelites include something of greater importance, namely, the exclusive possession of divine revelation; but if God did not owe a revelation to mankind, there was no injustice in giving it to one people, and withholding it from others. The law which was enjoined upon this select people has been boldly condemned as unworthy of the wisdom and goodness of God. Its precepts have been called trifling, unmeaning, vexatious; calculated only to foster superstition, and to substitute external observances for purity of heart. A vindication of the ceremonial law, against which these charges are chiefly directed, would lead to a lengthened discussion. We should always remember, that it was not the only law delivered to the Israelites, but was accompanied with the moral law, which was summed up in the two precepts of love to God, and love to our neighbour, and reminded them that piety and holiness constituted the essence of religion. This being the case, whatever might be the effect upon individuals of the constitution under which they were placed, its native tendency was, not to cherish superstition, but to inspire noble sentiments and holy dispositions. It is impossible for us, who live at such a distance of time, and are imperfectly acquainted with the state of things in that age, to account for every precept; but, from some particulars which have come to our knowledge, we may conclude, that all the precepts were wise and necessary, as preservatives from the customs of the idolatrous nations with In judging of a law, fairness requires which the Israelites were surrounded. that we should consider its design. Now, we know that the ceremonial law was not intended merely to regulate the conduct of the Israelites in matters of religion, but had a reference to another dispensation, the great events of which it prefigured. In this connexion it should be viewed, and then many of its institutions. of which a satisfactory account could not be otherwise given, will appear to have been framed with consummate wisdom, in order to direct their thoughts to the events of futurity, and likewise to furnish, in the exact fulfilment of its types, a new proof of its own divinity, as well as an evidence of the truth of Christianity, in which it received its accomplishment. The wisdom of God is illustrated by the harmony of the law and the gospel. In the last place, the supposed contradictions in the Scriptures furnish a ground of objection: for it is said, How can a book be true which asserts one *Exod. xii. 36 thing in one place, and a different thing in another? And above all, how can it have proceeded from Him who is "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever?" It is not enough to answer, that these discrepancies do not affect the general truth of our religion, because a testimony may be substantially true although the witnesses do not agree in some subordinate points. Contradiction in minute matters is inconsistent with the idea of inspiration; and, instead of evading the objection, we must endeavour to meet it, if we would maintain the divine authority of the record. In some cases, the contradiction is only apparent, and is removed by an explanation of the passages. When Solomon says, 66 answer not a fool according to his folly;" and again, "answer a fool according to his folly ;"* the reasons subjoined to these injunctions show us that he viewed the case in different lights, and intimate that what would be proper at one time, would be improper at another. If "the strength of Israel will not lie, nor repent," and it is affirmed that he repented having set Saul king over Israel,† there is no real opposition in these two statements. God does not repent in the sense of changing his counsels, but he repents in the sense of changing his dispensations; for, like a man who has altered his design, he reversed what he had formerly done. The apostle James seems to be at variance with Moses, because the one says, "Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God," and the other tells us that the Lord" did tempt Abraham;"‡ but the difficulty is removed by the simple observation, that James means by tempting, soliciting to sin, while Moses means, making trial of faith and obedience. It is acknowledged that there are some contradictions which it is impossible to reconcile; but as they may be accounted for by a false reading, candour requires that we should admit this solution; and, in some cases, it is absolutely necessary that we should, because the error is such, that it could not be committed by the original writer. For example, we read that Ahaziah was forty and two years old when he began to reign, although, in the preceding chapter, we are told that his father died at the age of forty, and besides, he was his youngest son. No man in his senses would thus contradict himself, and assert an absolute impossibility; and we therefore believe that the proper reading is twenty-two, as we find it in another book. In the same way we explain the different accounts of the age of Jehoiachin at the commencement of his reign, who is said, in Kings, to have been eighteen, and in Chronicles, to have been eight. From the same cause, too, Solomon is represented, in one place, as having forty thousand stalls for horses, and in another place, as having only four thousand. In a book so ancient as the Old Testament, and which has been so often transcribed, it is not surprising that some mistakes should have been committed; and without a miracle, they could not have been prevented. This is not a mere supposition, but a fact clearly established, by the collections which learned men have made of various readings; and there is no case, in which a transcriber was more liable to err than in numbers, especially if they were expressed not by words, but by letters or arbitrary marks. The following general remarks are applicable to historical and chronological difficulties, and may be successfully employed in many cases to remove them; "that in the Scriptures, as well as in other histories, the order of time is not always strictly observed; that the same persons and places have sometimes different names; and in the case of years and numbers of any kind, * Prov. xxvi. 4, 5. James i. 13. Gen. xxii. 1. 2 Kings xxiv. 8. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9. † 1 Sam. xv. 11. 29. § 2 Chron. xxii. 2. 2 Kings viii. 26. |