The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1869-10-21
Inhdelity.

lnndelJy.
In every age of the world and in
every country, infdelity, in some form
or other, has existed. This is not
strange. Man, by nature, is sinner,
and we might expect all his acts to be
of a rebellious character. Men univer
sally hate God because they have viola
ted his law BY this hatred we demon
strate the depravity of our hearts and
our spiritual blindness to our best in
terests. Most infdels manifest not
only heart depravity, but intellectual
ignorance. "The fool hath said in his
heart there is no God" No more ap-
propriate title could be given to the
atheist. He denies the testimony of
his senses. .,a.,... ;.,a. .'
But there is class of individuals who
oppose the teachings of the Bible on
the ground that it is not the word of
God. These persons try everything by
their reason, aud conclude that the Bi-
BILE will not stand this test. But the
truth is, most Of those who make SO
much parade about reason are very un-
reasoable. They will be found.to be
exceedingly ignorant of the teachings
of the Bible. They condemn it un-
heard. What facts they have learned
about the Bible have been received from
the mouths of the enemies of the Bible.
They do not search the Bible for them
selves, but receive, as true, what some
culmiuator says. This is "a most un-
reasonable course of procedure. No
man that was searching after truth would
take such a course.
The Bible courts Investigation, and
moral honesty demands that it be care
fully examined before it is condemned.
There can be no difficulty in coming.
to the conclusion that the Bible is the
word of God or that it is not. If it is,
the word of GodJ common sense.teaches
Us tia gheald = - - -
reverence which its heavenly origin de-
mands. If it is only the production OF
mere men, then its teachings should
have that weight which their merit
claim. No sensible man can have any
doubt whether a tree is the work of
God or man. lie knows tree is not
tao work of man; for no created being
can make sprig of grass, much less
stately oak. BY the same process, we
conclude the Bible is the work of God.
1t bears the impress Of His hand as
much as the oak of the forest does.
There is practical argument for the
Bible, and against infdelity, which those
who claim to be inflels ought to ponder
we'll. 1t is this. All those who reject
the Bible as rule of faith and action,
are morally and mostly very bad men,
whilst all those who practice the pre-
cepts of the Bible are good men,
Practical inGdelity makes thieves and
robbers, murderers and midnight assas-
sins. drunkards and Observation-Disclosures
of God and man. A community filled
with Bible rejecters would present a
vivid picture of the lake that burneth
with fire and birthstone, Inhabited by be-
ines filled with malice and hatred. On
the other hand, the practical reception of
the Bible makes the bad man a good
man. It is no weak argument for the
Bible that all good men love, and all
bad men hate it.
But some individuals reject the Bible
because there is some of it that they
cannot fully understand. This ispuerlle
in the extreme. There are none OF
Gods works that we can understand
No man has learned the philosophy
which will explain the simplest part OF
creation. No man understands any
thing fully. If we are at liberty to be,
lieve nothing that we cAnnot understand
we must believe nothing, not even our
own existence. There is a point beyond
which We cannot go. Chemical and
capillary attraction will, in part e1'
plain why the sap circulates in the tow
erius pine;. but they explain it only IN
port, and hence the philosopher calls
into his aid, in explaining the process
what he calls the vital principle. Inns
d.. = 10 evident there