Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1861-03-11
A Article.

hJNSN9s PoAhVu AhOI6 hHdn
surprised, for the very name under which
that journal appeared, suggested apprehen-
sions Of latitudinarianism. Freedom runs
by indehnable gradations to license. In
fact, liberty and libertine come from the same
Latin word iber, a freedman; and we all
know that "%free," when applied as a qualify
ing term to the sentiments, affections.
thoughts and reason, is generally regarded
as a stigma and reproach. 1t is a strange
qualifying term for a religious journal, when
that which religion requires of man, is not
freedom, but the most perfect subsection of
his human nature, passions, natural senti-
ments, emotions, affections, thoughts, reason
and belief. Freedom was what Satan sought,
according to st. Paul and Milton-although
cotemporaneous Scripture says nothing
about it, and we all know what came Of that.
These facts naturally suggested apprehen.
sioDs of the term Free Nation, when adopted
as the descriptive name of a religious Jour
nal, and coupled with apromise of liberality:
a quality as homogeneous with true re-
ligion, as light is with darkness; for to &C.
cept and fraternize with truth, is not liber-
atty; and to be liberal to error, in matters
which peril eternal salvation, is not religion.
We learn also from a sermon by the Rev.
Henry j. Van Dyke, Pastor of the First
Presbyterian Church, Brooklyn, which is
published extensively in the Democratic
p~apers-whose devoutness on this subject is
gratifying to see-that "Abolitionism has
no foundation in the Scriptures" and that
ut leads i'll multitudes of cases, and by a
logical process, to utter infdelity.p
These propositions constituted the firstly
and thirdly of Mr.. Van Dykes discourse, in
which-if we may be permitted to use, with
out Intentional irreverence, a holy pun on
Mr.. Van Dyke's name-he essentially damned
the Abolitionists.
Therefore we might apprehend that a
journal which by nam and by nature seems
to be given to the Abolition heresy, would
treat the Scriptures with levity, especially
those parts which tell of the pure and golden
age Of mankind, when there was no law,
aud therefore no sin.
[NoTE.-For this we have the authority of
st. Ambrose, one of the most eminent of the
Christian fathers, who, writing in defense of
Abrabam's intercourse with Hagar, saws
Abraham lived before the law of Moses, and
before the Gospel, when adultery does not
appear TO be forbid the punishment of
crime takes place from the time that the law
fcrbids it, nor is there any condemnation of
a thing before the law is being."-Ambro,
lib. q. de A6rah, cap. iV.]
To the above we might add, to make the
vindication of Abraham perfect, that the
Mosaic law does not seem to have restricted
this liberty.
We seriously inquired of the Free Nation
if it denied that Noah, by the habit of ours
ing with which he clothed himself when his
inebriated condition had left him with no
other garment, condemned the race of Ham
to perpetual slavery. We inquired, also, if
the Free Nation denied the divine origin and
authority of slavery.
These are pertinent questions, relating to
religious faith, moral obligations political
duty and national peace: relating also to
the declaration which the Free Nation sets up
in its title and we desired to know whether
we might reason with it on the Scriptures
as the whole rule of faith and practice, or
whether we must avoid it as one who sets
up the reason of fallen human nature as
above the inspired oracles. But the Free
Nation evades these momentous inquiries,
and resorts to ~levitous remarks about Satan,
d%isrespectful to him and entirely irrelevant
to any useful discussion.
But this only demonstrates the proposition
of the holy Van Dyke, and is a lamentable
f1inofrotion IF tho srrovarn-o. kz-o- III
Scriptural affairs which results from inidelity
toward the divine ordinance of slavery. Why
should Satan be singled out as a subject for
the Free Ndtion's ridicule2 What has he
done2 Certainly nothing, so far ss we are
informed. but what was Of divine appoint
meat. There is nothing in the character of
the Satan of the Bible, to warrant any irrev-
erenoe toward him, nor to justify dragging
him into the public journals.
And here we will remark that we suppose
the Free Nation is not SO ignorant of the
Scriptures as to believe the tradition of the
common vulgar, that Satan was the tempter
Of Eve, when there is nothing in the account
of that unfortunate domestic affair that con-
meets him with it at all. 1t states explicitly
that 1t was the serpent and accounts for the
strange fascination Of Eve by declaring that
1.-THE serpent was more subtle than all the
beasts Of the field" That Satan had any
thing to do with this affair, is but one of the
thousand ietions which have been invented
by those who set up their own imagination
as superior to The written Word.
Thus the learned Nicholas de Lyra men.
tions 8 prevalent fiction in Europe, that the
serpent assumed the face of a beautiful maid,
when he would tempt Eve; and in the Ger
man Bibles, printed before Luther, among
other figures may be seen that of a serpent
with the face of q very handsome maid. The
eonceit that the serpent was Satan, was first
invented by the h~ereties. The learned
Christian Father, EpiphAnius, mentions a
sect Of bereties who alleged that Satan as
sumed the form of a beautiful young man,
and tempted our first parent while Adam
was asleep, and from that came Cain and
Abel.
These follies are the natural result of foist.
ing human traditions upon the inspired
word. Besides, it has recently been demon
strated by a revision of the translation, and
with much appearance Of truth, that the
tempter Of Eve was a negro, and that Cain
was the result and slavery the consequences
and the mark which was set on Gains brow
was his color. Even in this the skepticsl
try TO make out that Satan was the negroi
but for this there is no warrant, and it is
positively refuted by the subsequent history
Of the acts and associations Of Satan. These