New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-04-07

both physical and mental. Rev. DIR. C. points
YOU instead TO the crippled mendicant, and sol
EMMY asks where you ever beheld clutches
more commodious, or plasters half 30 canningIy
spreadl
against my book, is toward two passages OF
the same general tenor, in one OF which
declare that since the world has stood no one
has ever violated divine law; and In the other,
alleee that while moral distinctions or the dis
tinctions Of good and evil among men, are OF great
importance In our regard, they are OF no import
apce whatever in Gods regard, who. being the
equal Creator of all men, beholds all Of coarse
with an equal love. | submit that the meaning
Of these passages is very plain, bat Mr.. Lewis in
ssts that / " boldly" declare what really mean by
them. By the first one, then, really mean nothing
more nor less than this that man is so intimately
dependent upon the divine power for every breath
he draws, whether spiritual or physical, that be
can do absolutely nothing whatever contrary 70
the divine will. But Mr. Lewis will ask me
to the Divine will Not absolutely so, for then
obviously these things could never have taken
place. They are contrary to the Divine will, az
that will shall yet be revealed or expressed tR the
perfect man. the man who being delivered from
the bondage of Nature and society, shall have be-
come obedient to the voice of God, as heard Ia
his own spontaneous attractions. The coming
man will do none Of these filthy things. But they
are not contrary to the Divine will, as that will
stands expressed in the imperfect man, or the
man whose actions are still constrained by the
tyranny of Nature and convention. Had they
been So of course it would be simply impossible
for any one to do them, unless you foolishy allow
the ere ature power superior to the Creator.
The moral law of whose interests Mr.. Lewis is
80 superHuous guardian, says indeed, Thou shalt
not steal kill lie commit adultery, nor covet But
il has long seemed more consonant with my In
stincts of the divine goodness to look upon these
sayings a. purely pr0mtss0ry rather than mania
tory to regard them rather as so many gracious
promises on the part OF God towards His strag
Cling and benighted progeny, than as so many
stern and pitiless commands. felt bound, more
over, to take this view by two weighty exegetl.
cal considerations. One was, that these reputed
commands were preceded by certain other com
mands to love God with ell the heart and to honor
ones parents and knew that neither love nor
honor could properly be commanded, since their
life was purely spontaneous. Evidently, then,
these first iDjunctions could only be promissory,
could only be viewed as promise on the part OF
God to his people, that He would yet place them
under such an experience of His bounty, as that
they should love Him with all the heart, aud
honor all those who were in any way mediatory
Of hit goodness. But fthe first claimed this as
pect, | had no right to look upon sbe others in
different light, no right to regard them bat as
80 many promises on the part of God, that He
would yet deliver His creature from theft adultery,
murder and every other evil incident to his present
social immaturity.
The second exegetical necessity was conclusive
upon the point For found that these repeated
commands of God were addressed not TO Tom,
Dick and Harry, or the mere sons OF earth who
are yet fighting for bare foothold upon It's sur
face but to an emdncipated people, who had just
been delivered out of Egyptian bondage, and will
deness peris, in short out OF all lnimlcal CIR
cumstances, and were about to be placed In
land flowing with milk and honey" where every
want of their souls and bodies should be met by
Gods penary satisfactions. l could easily un-
derstand the relevancy Of such a code TO such a
people, since their relation to the giver was the
sure guarantee Of its ful6llment, turning all Its
seemingly minatory commands into so many
rainbO w.hues OF golden promise. But viewed Ia
the ordinary light, that is as mere commands ad-
dressed to men still struggling with the advers'-
ties Of nature and society, and making no account
Of their temptations, the code seemed impairment
and insulting, seemed utterly unworthy OF God.
For as all my instincts of the divine perfection
forbade nae TO regard God as desiring 20 reap
where He had not sown, could not believe dim
capable of asking anything from His creature
which He had not first given the creature both
the ability and the disposition to perform. Thus
concluded that as the law bore the unvarying
preface | am the Lord thy God who broughtthee
out of the land OF Egypt and the house OF bond.
sge,' no person had any right 20 regard himself
as a subject OF the law until he felt himself free
of every temptation which Nature and Society
combine to impose upon him, until he finds him
self, in other words, in that new heavens and
earth which Gods true mediator, Science is now
rapidly constructing for US. In fine, discovered
that the Law and the Prophets bore reference ex-
clusively to the Christ, or coming perfect man !;
and that viewed apart from this reference. they
were not merely impertinent to q present regard,
but were actually incredible and absurd. How
ever this is DEPRESSION.
What "really" mean again by my second al
legation, which was, that "God is not privy TO
the moral differences among men," is neither
more nor less than what l apparently mean,
namely, that God has not particle more respect
for the morally good than He has for the morally
evil man, that however great the interval be TO
our eye which separated DR.. Charming from Mon
roe Edwards-even the interval between heaven
and hell-that interval does not exist to the di-
vine eye. Mr.. Lewis has too little appreciation
of Christianity, the Christianity of Jesus TO adj
mire this statement. He thinks that God cannot
but love John Howard better than Caesar Borgia,
and "has such an irrepressible feeling OF 40
horence" for the obvious attitude Of Jesus on this
question, that he does not hesitate to twist the
famous incident of his clemency to the aduteress,
out Of its immenorisl significance, and convert 1t
into mere condemnation Of the hypocrisy Of
those who instead of procuring legal trIdl, aud
an execution upon her Of the appointed sentence of
the l0p brought her to him for false and malev.
client purposep Was there ever more
precious specimen of exegess than thisl How
much more honest would it be in Mr.. Lewis to
impesoh the veracity of the incident, like Mr..
Granville Penn, whose inhnitesimal soul was so
shocked by the damage it might do in respect
able circles to the character of Jesus, that he
boldly omitted the whole narrative from his re-
cent translation OF the New Testament as mani
r - l.. Al, ..kw .Aak
ludicrously snobbsh. But to convert Christs
conduct on this critical occasion into mere zeal
for the regular execution of the Law, exceeds all
bounds of innocent jugglery. According to this
improved gospel, "He that il without sin among
you, let him frat cast q stone at her," means-not
aslbitherto conceived, that the hearts OF all men
are the same at bottom or in Gods sight, and that
men ahonld nor therafnra cnndemn each other: but