The Democratic sentinel and Harrison County farmer. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1851-1852, 1852-12-01
t For the SentinsL
ABRIEF REVIEW
Of o. S. WLERS Work en- Rs'iyioa :
DISCOURSE,
Delivered at Asbury Chapel, Harrison Co.
October 26Ih, 1854
mr. J. C. WELLS.
For the Senliasl.
NJ ). C. WELLS.
lCONTTNuED.l

tne BlOle, why was II nOl sent Win IL as an
interpreter? Was it not a singular caprice,
(if may be allowed the expression, to send
sealed book into the world for the benefit
of mankind, which neither the unlearned nor
the learned could understand until the light
of Phrenology should arise upon it. and the
hands of Fowler should break its seals? God
has expressly disclaimed it: 81 have not
spoken in secret, in dark place of the
earth. l said not unto the seed of Jacob,
seek We my face in vain" Isaiah XIV, 10.
1t is utterly inconsistent with the goodness
and wisd I'M of God, yea, and with the plain
est dictates of common sense, to suppose
that such was the case. None but Mr..
Fowler and his coadjutors would venture to
make such an affirmation. They seem to
have fixed their admiring gaze upon the
gsudy colors Of their glorious science, and
TO follow it with such pertnacious vigilance
that they lose sight of every thing else, and
run through bogs and swamps, thro' sense
less contradictions and absuriities, with the
most ridiculous gravityl Some may regard
this as a caricature, but on closer examination
it will be found a true though 6gurative
representation of the reality. Fowler mani
tests disposition to uphold Phrenology at
all hazards, whether by quibbling Or subslan-
tial reasoning, ridicule or nonsense, -.
Page 90. ~, is worthy of remark in this
connection that he Bible no where attempts
to prove, either the existence of a God, or any
of the fundamental principles of natural re-
ligion. 1t takes these matters for granted,
assuming in the start, that man already ad-
mits and understands them. 4
| do not now recellect single argumentative
attempt to prove his Gods existence,
throughout the whole Bible. This was left
for natural theology" ....-......
That men, in the earliest ages Of the
world, were acquainted with the truth that
God exists. do not doubt; and it was
therefore unnecessary to explain it or tc
prove it in the Pentateuch. 1t had bean
handed by tradition from generation to gen
Grafton, from Adam until tue time when
Moses was commissioned to place on record
the events connected with the wondrous
exercise Of that creative power, whence
sprang the earth and all things therein, to-
gether with the ietinue of planetary words.
! M1lCll ICNOlNC III ollGllCt hHu ia bCdhtl IhtO
the spaces assigned them. ........
But it was not only unnecessary to prove
by argument the existence Of God, to those
to whom the Scriptures were first delivered
but it is equally unnecessary TO prove it tc
us. None disputes it but the Atheist, and
he is SO utterly unreasonable, that he woul
not yield to the most conclusive evidence
1t is "the fool" Ps. NV, y who ''ha'
said in his heart, there is no God;" and {
fool cannot understand argument.
Again: There is no argument which
will abstractly prove the existence of Su
premc Being. TO prove ths abstract exist,
cncc of any thing, we can have recourse on
! y to personal observation or to testimony
We cannot have the evidence of the former
to establish the truth that God exists; fo
"no man hath seen him at any time, =
Hence, we must rely upon testimony, ane
this the testimony of God himself Thus
then this truth is presented to the faith o
mankind as a matter of fact, sustained by
testimony.
But as there are many circumstance
which will confirm the testimony Of man
but which abstractly would never lead 10 ;
knowledge OF the thing testified Of, as fo
instance, such as show the reasonableness o
the fact, Or the credibity of the narrator
SO there are circumstances which give con
irmation to the acknowledgment of God
existence, since the truth has been revealed
but which neyer would originally have sug
gested the idea; such, for example, as tn,
harmony of the universe and also all eyi
dence which can be brought to establish thu
credibility of the sacred writer's.
There are certain fundamental principles
which are the foundation of all reasoning
and are consequently not to be proven. |
it were not SO there would be no certainty
in reasoning, for there would be no perma
nent basis, no place from which to start, o
at which to land. Inevery discussion, ther,
must be some principles held in common BY
the disputants, or there can be no disputa
ton. This basis may not indeed always
consist Of fundamental truths, but it may
always be resolved into, or traced back t
principles which are simple and elementary
and therefore not susceptible of proof. One
of these elementary truths is the existence o.
matter. Where men deny this, as lid Bish
op Berkley and Hume, they place them
selves beyond the reach of conviction by ar
gument; for there is no basis for an argu
ment to prove it. Self existence is another
| would like to set Mr.. Fowler to the tasl
of proving by argument his own existence
l think he would hardly succeed.
The existence of God is another. Mr.
Fowler has indeed attempted 10 prove thi'
a pri0ri, but such attempts are vain. Hi
argument, briefly stated, is this: "We have
a faculty called veneraton, adapted to thu
worship of God. 1t is principle in ma
ture, that an adaptation of one thing to an
other, proves the existence of the second
Therefore, the adaptation of veneratien t
the worship Of God, proves that there is ;
God to worship" But it is evident tha
this argument starts out by assuming The
very thing which it is designed to prove
viz the existence Of God. For if there i
no God. all things have been produced BY
chance, and this adaptation is purely accl
dental and perfectly useless. He talk'
however of the uniformity Of Nature, bu
Nature is not invariably uniform. In gen
eral, frozen fluid is heavier than when Ii
liquid state, but water is lighter.
| do nat say if Gods existence be preyi
ously admitted, it may not be confirmed by
such an adaptation as Mr.. Fowler points out
but / do say that such an adaptation dees
not abstractIy prove it, simply because il
naaacsarilv aSan roas tho haeis of fha ar.