Page images

all the difficulty that he makes out of the assertion of James, that every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lusts. For the devil cannot operate on the mind to its injury, but through its own lusts.

Obj. 8. “It is also a fact that men in sinning are never conscious of the influence of the devil upon them.” And this is very true, and for a good reason. For in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird. But does our unconsciousness of satanic influence disprove it. Is Mr. B. conscious of that agency of God in which he lives and moves and has his being ? Can he feel the touch of the invisible hand, that expands his lungs, and propels his blood ? yet I suppose he does not doubt

of that agency.

Obj. 9. “It is also a fact that the common opinions entertained of the devil, whether right or wrong, are the effect of early education, and popular opinion.” It may be so; but such a fact is no proof of the right or the wrong of the opinions. Most of the right opinions we have in religion came to us originally through such sources. And some Universalists get their opinions from early education, though none would rely on such a proof of their falsity. Is it not rather strange, that all the rationality and freedom from bias, and all the unprejudiced examination of the scriptures, should be on the side of the Universalists?

Obj. 10. “The last fact which I shall mention is, that allowing the personal existence of the devil fully proved, it is beyond all doubt that he had been much misrepresented and his character abused by many christian people.” It may be so, and it is

very kind in Mr. B. to undertake his vindication. May he have all success in this part of his learned labor. “ Give the devil his due.” But I see not what this has to do as a showing that the devil is not a fallen angel or a real being," yet it is so called in the heading of the chapter. Many persons have been abused and yet they retain a personal existence.

Mr. B's reply to objections anticipated by himself, I am not interested to notice. It embraces few if any of the arguments which an intelligent believer of satanic agency would use,

6 fact

His last chapter is employed in painting the ill effects of a belief in the existence of satan, and in ranting and railing against orthodox views in general. Now the effects of orthodox doctrines may be very bad in his esteem, and yet these doctrines still be found in the word of God. And it is therefore not needful to controvert him here. But if the question turned on the effects of the respective systems, it is to be hoped that orthodoxy would not shrink from a comparison with Universalism.



A CAREFUL observer of the different systems of religious error will generally find them the most wanting in respect to those things, wherein their pretensions are highest. The Infidel boasts of a great enlargement and deliverance from superstitions, but if the biography of many of the leading Infidels can determine the matter, infidel character is especially prone to superstitions. Infidels are fond of dwelling upon and magnifying the existing differences among Christians, on questions with regard to religion and morals, while the writings of Infidels on these subjects, furnish one complete mass of contradiction and jargon. No class of persons make higher pretentions to candor than Infidels, and none violates its plainest rules more egregiously. None accuse their opponents more largely of credulity, while the charge of credulity attaches with unanswerable force to the Infidel. The compass of infidel credulity is thus vividly set forth in the language of Horne —“They admit that a few illiterate Jews devoted to a national religion, conquered their prejudices, and published a universal religion, which was free from the numerous rites and ceremonies of their nation, that they taught religious and moral doctrines, surpassing the wisdom of the highest heathenssubdued the power and policy of Jews and Gentiles-speedily propagated their tenets among many nations, and conquered the pride of learning, without divine assistance. The opposers of revelation admit that many persons united in propagating a forgery which produced them no advantage, and that not one of them was induced, either by promises or threats, to betray a plot, or disown a testimony which exposed them to in

conveniences, to insult, imprisonment, tortures and deaththat impostors were attached to virtue, and voluntarily endured every evil, in order to propagate opinions that were beneficial to society, but detrimental to themselves—that bad men reformed the religion and manners of all nations, or that good men attempted it by fraud and imposture. They admit that a few ignorant fishermen were able to make proselytes in opposition to power and prejudice, to eloquence and learning,—that crafty men chose for their hero a crucified malefactor, and suffered every evil in order to establish the religion of an impostor who deluded them by false promises, if he did not rise from the dead." Yet these are the men who pity the credulity of all the world except themselves. Universalism makes equally large pretensions to deliverance from superstition, and credulity. But it were easy to show, that few are more credulous than he who admits the various tenets embraced in that system. The truth is, that as when the heart of man throws off the pressure of moral restraints, it becomes the more a slave to lust, exchanging deliverance from the fear of God, for bondage to satan ;-so the understanding, when it exchanges the dominion of truth for that of error, affects to rest on a more solid basis than before, while leaning on the most airy delusion. The man congratulates himself on his rationality, his ability to make the word of God harmonize with an improved philosophy, and feels the sincerest pity for those who can be so credulous as to satisfy themselves with vulgar opinions ; while in fact, all he has gained is, that strong delusion to believe a lie. He has come to such a state of mind, that the greatest absurdities can be devoured on the one hand, and the most cogent reasons despised on the other.

Having examined at some length, the most material of Mr. B.'s views and interpretations, I have thought best here to go back, and get some illustrations of the credulity of those who embrace the system of Universalism, according to Balfour. In the first place, that so large a part of the Bible should relate to the destruction of Jerusalem, is a matter that requires some credulity to digest. I have deemed it worth the while to be

stow some labor, and patience in order to ascertain, how much of the New Testament is made, in the books of Messrs. B. and W. before me, to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the national calamities connected with it. For this purpose I have selected the gospel according to Matthew, and undertaken to analyze it with reference to this question. I have divided this gospel into three parts—those passages which contain the mere narrative of the historian–those which contain the discourses of Christ, and are made to refer to the destruction of Jerusalen, and the national judgments connected with it—and those containing such of Christ's discourses as have not been made to refer to that event. I have done this, that it may be seen how much of this gospel is left after taking out all that they refer to that event. And I have chosen this Book as a fair specimen of the other gospels,-presuming that the proportion so referred in them also, will not materially differ.*

By this examination it appears, that by the amount of one chapter more of the preaching of Christ, reported in Matthew's Gospel, respects the destruction of Jerusalem, than was employed on all other subjects. Before we can admit the interpretations of these men, we must bring our minds to believe that Christ in his discourses said more about the destruction

*The whole of the first and second chapters contain the genealogy and history of the birth and childhood of Christ, and must be placed under the head of narrative. The third chapter, giving an account of John the Baptist, and his preaching, and the baptism of Christ, is all narrative, except that portion which is a report of John's preaching. This, though not one of Christ's discourses, may with no unfairness as it relates to this enquiry be counted with them. And these verses are by Mr. W.p. 1, made to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. The fourth chapter, contains the narrative of the temptation of Christ, and of the calling of his disciples; and is all narrative. The fifth, sixth and seventh, contain the sermon on the mount. None of this is narrative, except the first two verses of the fifth and the last two of the seventh. Chap. 5, verses 21—26 is referred by Mr. B.'s Inq: p. 135 to the destruction of Jerusalem. Verses 27—30, p. 137 is referred to the same. Chap. 7: 15—20 Mr. W. p. 25 refers to the same. 21-27 Mr. W. p 28 refers to the same. The next chapter is all narrative, except verses 11 and 12: and these Mr. W. refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. Of chap: 9, all narrative except 12–17. And

« PreviousContinue »