draw. Above all it was manifest, that the theory of Woman's Rights which affirmed the entire equality of the sexes, and repudiated all subordination of woman to man, was in point-blank antagonism to the testimony of Paul.There was no possibility of compromise or evasion. In this crisis the Misses Grimke, who led the van of the Woman's Rights reform, declared independence of the authority of Paul. Thus a third public injury was inflicted on the Bible by the spirit of reform. And it is worthy of notice that as T. D. Weld was accessory to the first, and the principal actor in the second, so he made himself accessory to the third, by publicly connecting himself and that, too, in avowed allegiance to the theory of the equality of the sexeswith Angelina Grimke.

Finally, Non-resistance became the prominent subject of benevolent enthusiasm. And once more the Bible stood in the way. The wars of Moses, and much of the morality of the Old Testament, seemed hideously repugnant to the ultra peace-principles. Some were prudent and patient enough to forbear railing, and seek a reconciliation of the morality of the Old Testament with that of the New. But others had chafed against the Bible in the previous reforms, till they were irritated, and veneration gave place to combativeness. When the angel of the Lord with a drawn sword had confronted Balaam three times, and his ass had crushed his foot against the wall, the prophet's anger was kindled. Moses was the object of hostility in this reform, as Paul had been in its predecessor. Thus the bulwarks of the Old and New Testaments were assailed.

The last of the series of Radical Conventions which were held in Boston in 1841-2, gave utterance to the growing spirit of infidelity. The attempt was made to place the Bible in the same category with the Sabbath, Church, and Ministry; and although the movement was apparently a failure, many were emboldened in their irreverence. Since then, a considerable class have gradually receded from their allegiance to the Bible, until they now lack little or nothing of the ordinary characteristics of downright infidelity.

We believe this is a true account of the disorder now prevailing among ultraists; and we present it with unceremonious and perhaps offensive plainness; not because we are opposed to the objects of the several reforms concerned-for all our predilections are in their favor; nor because we bear any malice against such men as T. D. Weld-for we have long been accustomed to regard him with respect, and even affection; but because we reverencé God more than all ultraisms and ultraists together, and are determined, at all hazards, so far as in us lies, to expose the machinations of the devil against the Bible.

$3. THE MORAL CHARACTER OF UNBELIEF.

The following remark, taken from an article which was published in the Herald of Freedom in 1843, (N. P. Rogers, editor,) presents one of the most popular apologies current among unbelievers :

"The Clergy charge infidelity upon abolitionists. I, for one, reply that I regard it as no accusation. If it were true, it is not any thing that calls for defense, or needs any vindication. It is neither a fault nor a virtue, in itself. Belief or disbelief are, of course, mere results of evidence, or of the lack of it."

The avowal of a sentiment so grossly unscriptural, and anti-scriptural, as that contained in the sentences which we have italicized, is good evidence that the writer is actually an infidel of the most foolish sort. His doctrine, if it were true, would utterly stultify and condemn Jesus Christ. If belief or disbelief are mere results of evidence, or of the lack of it,' having no moral merit or demerit, Christ miserably abused his disciples when he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.' Mark 16: 14. According to Mr. Rogers, they might justly have repelled these upbraidings, and asserted their innocence, on the ground that their disbelief of the report of Christ's resurrection was an inevitable misfortune-the mere result of the lack of evidence!' Nothing in all the records of the evangelists stands out in bolder prominence, than the truth that Christ treated unbelief as the worst of moral abominations, and offered all the premiums of his administration in this world and the world to come to those who should believe in his mission and doctrine. Go ye (said he to his disciples) into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature: he that believeth [that gospel] shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.' Mark 16: 15, 16. Here is salvation and damnation suspended on acts of the mind, which Mr. Rogers says are neither faults nor virtues,' but mere mechanical effects of evidence, or the lack of it! It is needless to multiply citations. Every one who is familiar with the Bible can see without much study, that Mr. Rogers' principle aims a blow at the heart of Christianity. We are safe in assuming that he

is an infidel in the worst sense of the word. Having then to deal with one who does not receive the Bible as a judge of controversy, but tramples it under his feet' (as he says in another article of the same paper) if it crosses his notions of right and wrong, we will leave the Bible argument, and try the dogma which he has propounded, in the court of common sense.

Mr. Rogers' position obviously is, that praise and blame attach only to acts that are voluntary, and that belief and disbelief are involuntary-the 'MERE results of evidence or of the lack of it,' and of course, are not deserving of praise or blame. On the other hand, our position is, that belief and disbelief are, in many cases, voluntary. We do not say that there are not cases in which evidence compels belief. In the clear simplicity of mathematics, or in the spiritual brightness of the eternal world, there may be such a thing as involuntary belief. But in such a world as this, where evidence is often

deficient, or apparently contradictory, and especially in subjects so deep, and to worldly eyes so cloudy, as those of which the Bible treats, men have an opportunity, nay, are compelled to exercise their wills in forming their opin ions.

We will advert particularly to only one of the many ways in which volition is concerned in belief and disbelief. Evidence that is actually conclusive, does not necessarily insure that the conclusion will be drawn in the mind of him to whom that evidence is presented. A man may take two steps in a sound syllogism, and yet refuse to take the third. is demonstrated to a slaveholder, first, that all men are created free and For example, suppose it equal;' and secondly, that negroes are men; the necessary conclusion from these premises, if any conclusion is drawn, is, that negroes are of right free and equal with the whites. But the drawing of this conclusion is an act of the mind, separate from and independent of the perception of the premises on which it is founded, and the slaveholder has the power to stop the action of his mind even at the point where the evidence is complete and admitted, and turn from that evidence to some more agreeable subject, without ever drawing the conclusion. In such a case (and ten thousand such cases occur daily) the unbelief of the man in respect to the rightful freedom and equality of negroes will remain-not for lack of evidence, but because he voluntarily refused to look beyond the evidence to the truth evinced.The general principle which we affirm, is, that in all cases where truth is reached, not by instantaneous clairvoyance, but by a series of steps, man has the power of arresting his mind at any stage of the process; and belief is not the mere inevitable result of evidence perceived, but depends on a continuity of thought which he has power to choose or refuse. The lack of this conti nuity of thought, which we may call unfaithfulness of mind, is a very general cause of unbelief in respect to the advanced truths which are propounded from time to time in science, philanthropy and religion. Multitudes habit ually act as a judge would do, who, after hearing the evidence in a suit, should dismiss the case without judgment.

Universal consciousness is an unanswerable witness to the fact, that the transition from evidence to conclusion- the making up of the mind'—in a word, the act of believing, is in many cases heroically voluntary. When apparent self-interest clashes with the conclusion to be formed, however peremptory may be the evidence, it requires effort, self-denial, courage to be lieve. No man has ever made any valuable progress in wisdom, who has not again and again summoned all the energies of his soul to the work of decisive judgment upon evidence. And when a conclusion has been once attained by the clearest demonstration, if it is unfamiliar and offensive, or if the evidence of it is concatenated, and not easily perceivable, every body knows that it costs many a struggle of the will to keep it in the mind, and) make it a permanent element of thought and action.

The Bible is not alone in making belief and unbelief the criterion of char acter and destiny. The grand difference between man and man in the esti mation of human society, lies in the different degrees of wisdom in worldly matters which each possesses; and wisdom is the result of faithfully and

heroically pursuing evidence to its conclusions: indeed, it is but another name for the belief of truth. Common sense, the world over, gives its highest praise and rewards to mental faithfulness, and awards blame and contempt to mental cowardice and imbecility. And in this matter abolitionists are by no means behind the rest of the world. They have a creed, not religious, but social, a creed on the subject of slavery; and there is not a church or clergy in the world who blame unbelief and persecute heresy (with the tongue and pen) more unsparingly than the church and clergy of aboli

tionism.

Does N. P. Rogers account the imperviousness of the South to antislavery sentiments, its unbelief in respect to the expediency of immediate abolition, the mere result of the lack of evidence'? Or does he think there is no 'fault' in the belief of the popular clergy that he and his compeers are evil doers? If so, his treatment of them strangely belies his opinions.

We allude thus to abolitionists, not in the way of reproach, but that we may carry our appeal against the dogma of Mr. Rogers in regard to the indifferent nature of belief and unbelief, into his and their own consciousness. The truth is, when a man is certain that he has laid hold of a new and important principle in any department of truth, it is right and good that he should make it a part of his creed,' and endeavor to promulgate it; and when he has established his position by substantial proof in the sight of men, he has a right to their belief, and may justly censure them if they believe not. Abolitionists know that there is something more and worse than the ❝mere lack of evidence' at the bottom of Southern unbelief; and they are right in blaming it. Health Reformers, Phrenologists, Neurologists, the advocates of every new system of truth, know that there is something wrong in the cold repellant obtuseness with which the world meets their efforts to enlighten it. So also, as believers in the divine origin of the Bible, and of the doctrines which it teaches, we know (Mr. Rogers' dictum to the contrary notwithstanding) that infidelity is the result of something more and worse than mere lack of evidence'-that there is voluntary mental unfaithfulness, moral perverseness of the most radical and pernicious kind, where the Son of God is denied.

It is

The gospel of Jesus Christ is peculiarly a system of central truth. the constitution of that universal government in which the principles of all other systems, whether scientific or moral, are but by-laws. It relates to the soul and to eternal existence. It is properly called THE truth, in distinction from mere truth in general. Such a system ought to be investigated first of all, and with principal interest and perseverance by every rational being. Whoever has thus investigated it, has found evidence enough of its truthfulness and divinity; and to such a person, the fact that a man is an infidel, is sufficient proof that he is not a central thinker, not a constitutional patriot that he has never turned his mind with steady, persevering gaze, toward the spiritual, the infinite, the eternal. In other words, believers know that infidelity is the offspring and evidence of superficiality. An infidel teacher is a quack in matters of infinite moment; of course he is infinitely mischievous. Mere unavoidable ignorance is a misfortune; but superfi

23

ciality and quackery are universally condemned as voluntary offenses. If we go back of superficiality, we find all its antecedents of a voluntary, blamable nature. Mental laziness is a very common cause of superficial thinking. It is easier to employ the mind about matters on the surface of existence, and give up one's self to impressions from things visible, than to seek wisdom in the far depths of spiritual, central truth. Sensuality is another cause of superficiality. The same inversion of right order which leads men to attend more to the enjoyments of their bodies than of their souls, disposes them also to employ their thoughts about things physical rather than things spiritual; and propels them as by centrifugal force, evermore farther and farther from the internal light of the universe toward the darkness of mere materialism. Worldliness, which is only a wiser kind of sensuality, is, we may safely say, always in some form at the bottom of that inattention and aversion to things spiritual and infinite, which is the ground of all infidelity. The cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the A mind full of worldly lusts of other things, entering in, choke the word.' business of any kind has no time, and can have no taste for the investigation of central truth; and the most convenient refuge for it, is infidelity.

6

These remarks may be applied to a larger class than that of avowed infidels. A lazy-minded, sensual, worldly Christian,' will as certainly be superficial, and centrifugal in his habits of mind, as the open blasphemer of the Bible. He has within him all the essential elements of infidelity, and is actually an infidel with reference to the internal truths of the Bible; though not with reference to the Bible itself. We might properly extend the meaning of the word infidel to all who turn away from the spiritual knowledge of God and his Son; and then divide them into two classes-the pro-Bible and the anti-Bible infidels. The groundwork of character is the same in both; viz., unfaithfulness and superficiality of mind, originating in laziness, sensuality and worldliness.

6

The infidelity which has infested abolition and other kindred reforms, can be traced beyond mere lack of evidence.' Though it is apparently peculiar, we have no hesitation in attributing it to the same general causes, as in other cases. If the charge of laziness and sensuality, as the ground of superficiality of mind, may be denied, with reference to the Reformers, still we affirm that they are drawn away from central truth by worldliness. Their worldliness, it is true, is of a peculiar-we might say of a very sublicares of this mated sort. It is not the deceitfulness of riches,' nor the world,' in the usual sense of the expression, which chokes the word in them; but it is the lust of other things' than the spiritual knowledge of God. The objects which they have set their hearts upon, viz., the abolition of slavery and war, physical and social reform, are as truly worldly objects as wealth or political power. They relate primarily to the bodies and temporal interests of men. The fact that they are somewhat nobler objects than those which ordinary worldlings seek, cannot redeem them from the charge we bring against them. They are not within the circle of central, constitutional A man may seek truth. They are not the leading objects of the Bible. them all without ever thinking of God, or of his Son, of the spiritual world,