The Athens post. [volume] (Athens, Tenn.) 1848-1917, 1858-04-09
ATHEISTS.

The New York Tribune says the Leglsla-
ture of Massachusetts has repealed, by large
majority, the law which forbade the persons
usually STYLED Atheists to testify in courts oil
Justice. Upon this the Buffalo Advertiser
observes, "that there is such a creature as an
atheist, one who does not believe in the exls-
tance of God, Superintending, Omnlpo-
tent, Omniscent, and creative Providence, we
cannot conceive" We can conceive it, readily
enough, depIorable as the fact may be. There
have been many fools "who said in their
hearts there was no God, long since the days
of Solomon. Among these was the Cory
pheus of infdeliiy in Great Britain. David
Hume himself as may be easily shown from
his boosted argument, that prophesy must be
false, because prophcsy is of itself a miracle,
aud miracles are impossible because they vio-
late The laws Of nature, which cannot be al
tered. Now, aay man way believes in God,
believes that he created nature herself, and
all her laws. To believe then, that an ON.
nipotent being cannot alter laws which he
himself has made is an absurdity. And if the
laws in question cannot be changed, then
there is no Omnipotent Being, there is no
God. Such is the inevitable consequence of
Humes argument when pushed home. That
he believed it to be impregnable, there is
ample evidence in his correspondence. We
admit that man may disbeIieve a particular
prophesy, or particular miracle, without dis
believing the existence of Supreme Being.
He may even believe that no miracle ever
happened, and that no true pfo2hesy ever was
uttered, and may still be n believer in the
existence of God. But when he brings his
mind to believe that there cannot be either
miracle or prophesy, he comes very near to
believing that there is no God. 1t is a great
triumph of the scriptures, that the God whose
glory and power form their theme, is the God
OF the unbeiever in christian community, rs
well as of the believer. Ask him to say what
he considers as constituting God, and he will
ascribe the very attributes ascribed by the
sacred writings. Now, if he does not believe
the sacred writings, why does he take his
notions of Supreme Being from them?--
That he does so is very certain, for it can be
found no where else. 1t certainly is not to
be found in the writings of Greece or Rome.
Then where do they get their idea of the
Divine Nature? From the Scriptures, and no
where else. From no other source can we
obtain the slightest glimpse of Him. The
God of Nature, that inidcls talk of. is the
God of Abraham, OF Isaac, and of Jacob We
should have known nothing Of him but for
these records, as EgEpt and Assyria, Greece
and Rome, knew nothing of him in the oden
time, and as India and China know nothing
of him even now. The step from nidelity
to atheism, we take to be not a very long one.
When man rejects the only evidence We
have of Supreme Being, we should think
there would be no great difficulty in rejecting
the existence of the Supreme Being ITSELF
1t is very certain, at least, that our unassisted
reason could never have led to our present
ideas with respect to Omnipotence; for the
earth, and the heavens, and the whole creation
were formed before the Greeks and Romans,
but did not open their eyes.
We partially agree with the Advertiser,
that the custom pursued with regard to oaths
is radically wrong. If a man will lie without
an oath, he will lie under one. We should
like to see some reformation, if it be practi.
cable.