Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1843-05-03
' o l.. XIV: NO. 81,


as !! IS senseIess. A small share of IL.
cernment will enable any one to see IN,
The truth OF the case is directly the levers
OF what the supporters of theology bav.
made it to be. If anything of chance
work be attributable to either side, il INNS
certainly stand connected with the via,
expressed when it is said He sp,L1
and II was done-He commanded and
s'ooo fhsr'-thus making everything ID
depend on an arbitrary word. But Wild
knows that this language, and all Of II
like will not soon be made to yield to Be-,
ter interpretations of all on which i d.
pends2 Theology is the most supple and
yielding thing in the world Like ev-rv
other ,yrant, it will do everything it \
compelled to do, wrong or right.
Brother Peck asks" who can beHevI
that man came into being bv certain
combination Of elementary principles, IkI
musketoes, snow-heas. bed-bugs or lice u
And then adds Il here quote YOUR own
language" There is something in lbc
fixing up" ofthe representation here thai
savors little Of the trickishness OF heo].
ogy. Perhaps it is work of "c4onc.n
with him, and not ofdesign. The Bro,h.
err shall be bis own Judge" If he will
say that be would as soon have sad hors.
es. lions and elephants, as musketoes
snow feas, bed bugs and lice, provided j.
had happened SO to come into his mind, |
will let him off on The score Of the thto.
! logical doctrine OF chance! Be all hat
as it may, lsuppose the question between
him and me to be, not whether man was
created as other animals and insects were
! that is, after the same manner of work
ing, or the same way Of using means,
without reference 10 the materials USED
but hoto were they all created! Were
they produced 1oithOUt the action Of gener.
al laws, ora certain combination Of Gle.
mentarY princi PISS" as he has i, ?-cr
ruth and By the action of those laws and
the combination Of those principIes?-
This Is The question. | do not suppose
that brother Peck or any other one will
pretend that man was formed in one Of
these ways. and that other animals and in.
sectS were formed in the contrary way
Ii he will. he is more unreasonable .fan
had supposed him TO be- When he con.
tends that man was brought into expytercp
'0tfh0"t the Goa binalion of elementary
principles, suppose him to hold that all
other anlmrled existence was brought into
being in The same way. o herwise, it
will be fer him to draw the distinguishing
line, and say which were created in this
way, and which in that.
Brother Peck asks" IF beings came
on the earth III this way, tby general awsI
once, why not Il thousand times ?" The
same Question might be asked, with equal
tproprie'y, ofthe osher system. Ifthings
were spoken into existence, or produced
oy special, arbitrary acts, once, why nvta
thousand times Indeed this appears to
me to be far the more rational question Of
the two. For fnothing was needfuI bu
Tor God 10 speak the word, aud this is the
way man and o1her animals and vegeta-
o'es were created, no good reason can pos,
SIbIJ be given for furnishing The first gen.
Grafton OF men and things with the meas
OF propagation and perpetualion. If God
could create whatever things he pleased
on The face OF The earth, at whatever time
he pleased, by merely speaking the word,
without any regard 10 the means to be
used or general laws 10 govern the woE,
why should he have lief! anything 10 g.
pend on the will. or The instinct, or tho
nature Of beings or things, in regard to
the pro-creation and perpetuation of their
kind2 Why should he not always have
carried on the work by speaking a wod'
He could then have regulated the Whole
affair 10 suit himself; and will. iostnc!
and nature would not have exhibited soch
sad works as they sometimes have Way
| should 1t be thought thing more derog'
atory to God TO create by the working OF
established laws, than TO prOcreare BY e',
tabllshed laws! That he does the later
nobody can deny. That he did the form
er, can fad 40 possible reason TO dIsbe.