Year: 1869

Whoever will look back into the his
tory of Theology will find that its enc
mics have made their attacks on it from
several positions. At one time, there
was a set of fashionable philosophers
who were for the most part Atheists, and
who ascribed every thing to chance, fate
or necessity. These mighty giants, who
fought against Heaven, being at length
overthrown by the absurdity of their
own principles, and the superior abilities
of their adversaries, retreated to the more
tenable post of Deism. But here again,
being frequently worsted, they at last
took shelter under the covert-way of
Rationalism, where they now make their
stand and attack Revelation, and with
more success than from the open plains
of professed Deisni, because many are
ready to reject the whole of the Chris
tian religion, who would be shocked at
the thought of relinquishing the name.


Many learned and ingenious writers of
this class seem to regard the doctrines of
Christianity so contradictory to all the
principles of reason, that they cannot as
sent to them, nor believe that they can
be derived from the Fountain of all truth.
In order, therefore, to satisfy themselves
and others, who may labor under the
same difficulties, they have undertaken
the arduous task of reconciling revela-
ton and reason. Their merits would
have been great if they had begun at the
right end, that is, if they had endeavored
to exalt the human understanding to the
comprehension of the sublime doctrines
of the Gospel, rather than to reduce
those doctrines to the low standard of
human reason. But unfortunately for
themselves and many others, they have
made the choice of the latter method,
and as the shortest way to effect it, have
with inconsiderate rashness, expunged
from the New Testament every divine
declaration, which does not exactly agree
with their notions of truth and rectitude.
This they have attempted by no other
means than by absurd explanations, or
by bold assertions that they are not there,
in direct contradiction to the sense Of
language and the whole tenor of those
writings. In similar manner some
philosophers have ventured, in opposition
to the senses of all men, aud even their
own, to deny the existence of matter,
for no other reason but because they find
in it properties which they are unable to
account for. Thus they have reduced
Christianity to mere system of ethics,
and retain no part of it but the moral,
which in fact is no peculiar characteris-
tic of it at all, as this, though in a man
ner far less perfect, makes a part of
every religion which ever appeared in
the world. This method of perverting
Christianity by Rationalism, cannot fail
of acquiring many proselytes; for every
decent man who insists upon it that he
would be Christian if he could, that is,
who processes to reverence the name of
Christianity, but cannot assent to its
tenets, is glad to enlist under the stand
ard of any leader, who can teach him to
be Christian, without believing any one
principle of that religion.


If Christianity is to be learned out of
the New Testament, and if words have
any meaning affixed to them, the funda-
mental principles of it are these; That
mankind come into this world in de-
praved and fallen condition; that they
are placed here for while to give them
an opportunity, by repentance towards
God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,
and corresponding life of new obedi


ence, to recover their lost state of hap
pness and innocence that this they can
not perform without the grace of God,
and the work of the Holy Spirit in their
hearts and lives and that after all they
have done, they cannot hope for pardon
from their own merits, but only from the
merits of Jesus Christ, and the atone
ment made for their transgressions by
his suferings and death. This is clearly
the sum and substance of the Christian
dispensation; and so adverse is it to all
the principles of human reason that, if
brought before her tribunal, it must in
evitably be condemned. If We give no
credit to its divine authority, any attempt
to reconcile them is utterly useless; and
if we believe it, then it is presumptuous
in the highest degree to attemptit. The
fact is, to prove the reasonableness of a
revelation is virtually to destroy it; be-
cause revelation implies information of
something which reason alone can never
discover, and therefore must be different
from its deductions, or it would be no
revelation. If, for instance, God had
told us, that we came into this world in
state of perfect innocence, void of all
propensities to evil; that our depravity,
;ne+ood of hainn innata nroceeded en-