"IT IS MY NAME. ELIZABETH BARKER."
And the moment he had written it, he stretched out his hand, smiling, and shook hands with me again. Whether it really was so or not, I will not say, but his smile seemed the smile of my mother, and the expression of his face was the old expression of my mother"s face; and when he shook hands with me, he drew his hand away in the manner in which my mother had always drawn away her hand. The tears started into my eyes, and my flesh seemed to creep on my bones. I felt stranger than ever. I opened the paper, and it was my mother"s name: ELIZABETH BARKER. I asked a number of questions as before, and received appropriate answers.
But I had seen enough. I felt no desire to multiply experiments. So I came away--sober, sad, and thoughtful.
I had a particular friend in Philadelphia, an old unbeliever, called Thomas Illman. He was born at Thetford, England, and educated, I was told, for the ministry in the Established Church. He was remarkably well informed. I never met with a skeptic who had read more or knew more on historical or religious subjects, or who was better acquainted with things in general, except Theodore Parker. He was the leader of the Philadelphia Freethinkers, and was many years president of the Sunday Inst.i.tute of that city. He told me, many months before I paid my visit to Dr. Redman, that _he_ once paid him a visit, and that he had seen what was utterly beyond his comprehension,--what seemed quite at variance with the notion that there was no spiritual world,--and what compelled him to regard with charity and forbearance the views of Christians on that subject. At the time he told me of these things, I had become rather uncharitable towards the Spiritualists, and very distrustful of their statements, and the consequence was, that his account of what he had witnessed, and of the effect it had had on his mind, made but little impression on me. But when I saw things resembling what my friend had seen, his statements came back to my mind with great power, and helped to increase my astonishment. But my friend was now dead, and I had no longer an opportunity of conversing with him about what we had seen. This Mr. Illman was the gentleman mentioned on a former page, whom I attended on his bed of death.
The result of my visit to Dr. Redman was, that I never afterwards felt the same impatience with Spiritualists, or the same inclination to p.r.o.nounce them all foolish or dishonest, that I had felt before. It was plain, that whether their theory of a spirit world was true or not, they were excusable in thinking it true. It _looked_ like truth. I did not myself conclude from what I had seen, that it was true, but I was satisfied that there was more in this wonderful universe than could be accounted for on the coa.r.s.e materialistic principles of Atheism. My skepticism was not destroyed, but it was shaken and confounded. And now, when I look back on these things, it seems strange that it was not entirely swept away. But believing and disbelieving are habits, and they are subject to the same laws as other habits. You may exercise yourself in doubting till you become the slave of doubt. And this was what I had done. I had exercised myself in doubting, till my tendencies to doubt had become irresistible. My faith, both in G.o.d and man, seemed entirely gone. I had not, so far as I can see, so much as "a grain of mustard seed" left. So far as religious matters were concerned, I was insane. It makes me sad to think what a horrible extravagance of doubt had taken possession of my mind. A thousand thanks to G.o.d for my deliverance from that dreadful thraldom.
15. I have been asked how I meet my own old objections to the Divine authority of the Bible. I answer, some of them originated in misinterpretations of Scripture. Others originated in mistakes with regard to the character of Christ. Some things which I regarded as defects in Christ were, in truth, excellencies. Some were based on mistakes with regard to the truth of certain doctrines, and the value of certain precepts. I looked on certain doctrines as false, which I now am satisfied are true; and I regarded certain precepts as bad, which I am now persuaded are good. Some things which I said about the Bible were true, but they proved nothing against its substantial perfection and divinity. Much of what I said in my speech at Salem, Ohio, about the imperfection of all translations of the Scriptures, the various readings of Greek and Hebrew ma.n.u.scripts, the defects of Greek and Hebrew compilations, and the loss of the original ma.n.u.scripts, was true; but it amounted to nothing. It disproved the unguarded statements of certain rash divines; but it proved nothing against the divine inspiration or substantial perfection of the Bible as taught in the Bible itself, and as held by divines of the more enlightened and sober cla.s.s. That which is untrue in what I wrote about the Scriptures is no longer an obstacle to my faith, now that I see it to be untrue. And those remarks which are true in my writings on the Bible give me no trouble, because my faith in Bible inspiration is of such a form, that they do not affect it. They might shake the faith of a man who believes in a kind of inspiration of the Bible which is unscriptural, and in a kind of perfection of the Book which is impossible; but they do not affect the faith of a man who keeps his belief in Bible inspiration and Bible perfection within the bounds of Scripture and reason.
And here I may say a few words about the objections I advanced in my debate with Dr. Berg.
1. The great ma.s.s of those objections prove nothing against the Bible itself, as the great and divinely appointed means of man"s religious instruction and improvement. They simply show that the theory held by Dr. Berg about the inspiration and absolute perfection of the book was erroneous. If Dr. Berg had modified his notions, and brought them within Scriptural bounds, this cla.s.s of objections would all have fallen to the ground.
2. But some of my statements were untrue and unjust. For instance, in one case I said, "The man who forms his ideas of G.o.d from the Bible can hardly fail to have blasphemous ideas of Him." Now, from the account of the Creation in Genesis, to the last chapter in Revelation, the one grand idea presented of G.o.d is that He is good, and that His delight is to do good,--that He is good to all, and that His tender mercies are over all His works. Whatever may be said of a few pa.s.sages of dark or doubtful meaning, the whole drift of the Bible is in accordance with that wonderful, that unparalleled oracle of the Apostle, "G.o.d IS LOVE."
3. Another statement that I made was, that the man who studies G.o.d in Nature, without the Bible, is infinitely likelier to get worthier views of G.o.d, than he who gets his ideas of G.o.d from the Bible without regard to Nature. Now the truth is, no man _can_ get his ideas of G.o.d from the Bible without regard to Nature; for the Bible constantly refers to Nature as a revelation of G.o.d, and represents Nature as exhibiting the grandest displays of G.o.d"s boundless and eternal goodness. The Bible and Nature are in harmony on the character of G.o.d. The only difference is, that the revelations of G.o.d"s love in the Bible, and especially in Christ, are more striking, more overpowering and transforming than those of Nature. And lastly, the notions of G.o.d entertained by those who have the light of Nature alone, are not to be compared with the views entertained by those who form their views of G.o.d from the Bible alone, or from the Bible and Nature conjoined.
4. One of my strongest objections was based on the 109th Psalm. This Psalm contains strong expressions of revenge and hatred towards the enemy of the Psalmist. The answer to this objection is,
1. That the Psalmist is not set up as our great example, and that his utterances are not given as the highest manifestation of goodness.
2. The Psalms are exceedingly instructive and interesting, and must have been of immense value, both as a means of comfort and improvement, to those to whom they were first given; but the perfection of divine revelation was yet to come. The Psalms are of incalculable value still, but they are not our standard of the highest virtue. John the Baptist was greater, higher, better than the Psalmist; yet the least of the followers of Jesus is higher than he.
3. But thirdly; we must not conclude that the feelings and expressions of the Psalmist were wicked, merely because they fell short of the highest Christian virtue. "Revenge," says one of our wisest men, "is a wild kind of justice;" but it _is_ justice notwithstanding, when called forth by real and grievous wrong. It is goodness, though not goodness of the highest kind. It is virtue, though not perfect Christian virtue. And the revenge of the Psalmist was provoked by wrong of the most grievous description. Read the account of the matter given in the Psalm itself.
"Hold not thy peace, O G.o.d of my praise; for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue. They compa.s.sed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause. For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself unto prayer. And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love." This was injustice, ingrat.i.tude, cruelty of the most grievous kind. And these wrongs had been continued till his health and strength wore reduced to the lowest point. "I am gone," says he, "like the shadow when it declineth. My knees are weak; my flesh faileth; so that when men look at me, they shake their heads."
And a similar cause is a.s.signed for the revengeful expressions in the 69th Psalm. There we find the persecuted Psalmist saying, "They that hate me, and would destroy me, are my enemies wrongfully, and they are many and mighty. Then I restored that which I took not away. For _thy sake_ have I borne reproach: the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. I was the song of the drunkards. Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some one to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but none appeared." Thus the men that wronged and tormented the Psalmist were enemies to G.o.d and goodness, as well as to himself.
We know that the virtue of the injured and tormented Psalmist was not the virtue of the Gospel; but it _was_ virtue. It was the virtue of the law. And the law was holy, just, and good, so far as it went. If the resentment of the Psalmist had been cherished against some good or innocent man, it would have been wicked; as it was, it was righteous.
True, if the Psalmist had lived under the better and brighter dispensation of Christianity, he would neither have felt the reproaches heaped on him so keenly, nor moaned under them so piteously, nor resented them so warmly. He might then have learned
"To hate the sin with all his heart, And still the sinner love."
He might have counted reproach and persecution matters for joy and gladness. And instead of calling for vengeance on his enemies, he might have cried, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." But the Psalmist did _not_ live under the dispensation of the Gospel. He lived under a system which, good as it was, made nothing perfect. And he acted in accordance with that system. And the intelligent Christian, and the enlightened lover of the Bible, will not be ashamed either of the Psalmist, or of the Book which gives us the instructive and interesting revelations of his experience.
5. Another of my objections to the Bible was grounded on the statement, that G.o.d visits the iniquities of the fathers on the children. But it is a fact, first, that children _do_ suffer through the sins of their fathers. The children of drunkards, thieves, profligates, all suffer through the misdoings of their parents. It is also a fact, that men generally suffer through the misdoings of their fellow-men. We all suffer through the vices of our neighbors and countrymen. The sins of idlers, spendthrifts, misers, drunkards, gluttons, bigots, persecutors, tyrants, thieves, murderers, corrupt politicians, and sinners of every kind, are in this sense visited on us all. And we derive advantages on the other hand from the virtues of the good. And it would be a strange world, if no one could help or hurt another. It is better things are as they are. The advantages we receive from the good, tend to draw us to imitate their virtues. The sufferings entailed on us by the bad, tend to deter us from their vices.
And so it is with parents and children. Children are specially p.r.o.ne to imitate their parents. If they never suffered from the evil ways of their parents, they would be in danger of walking in those ways themselves for ever. When they suffer keenly from their parents"
misdoings, there is ground to hope that they will themselves do better.
I have known persons who were made teetotalers through the sufferings brought on them by the drunkenness of their fathers. And on the other hand; the blessings entailed on children by the virtue of their parents, tend to draw them to goodness. And I have known fathers, who would venture on evil deeds when they thought only of the suffering they might bring on themselves, who have been staggered, and have shrunk from their contemplated crimes, when they have thought of the ruin they might bring on their children. And where is the good parent who is not more powerfully stimulated to virtue and piety by thoughts of the blessings which he may secure thereby to his offspring? The whole arrangement, by which our conduct is made to entail good or evil on others, and by which the conduct of others is made to entail good or evil on us, tends to engage us all more earnestly in the war with evil, and to make us labor more zealously for the promotion of knowledge and righteousness among all mankind.
6. Another of my objections to the Bible was based on those pa.s.sages which represent G.o.d as causing men to do bad deeds. Joseph tells his brethren, that it was not they, but G.o.d, who sent him into Egypt. David says, "Let Shimei curse; for G.o.d hath bidden him." Of course, the words of men like Joseph and David are not always the words of G.o.d. But Jesus Himself speaks of Judas as appointed or destined to his deed of treachery. What can we make of such pa.s.sages? Does G.o.d make men wicked, or cause them to sin? We answer, No. How is it then? We answer, What G.o.d does is this: when men have made themselves wicked, He turns their wickedness to good account, by causing it to show itself in some particular way rather than in some other. G.o.d did not make the brethren of Joseph envious and malicious; but he caused their envy and malice to induce them to sell their brother into Egypt, rather than to kill him and throw him into a pit. The wickedness was their own; the particular turn given to it was of G.o.d. G.o.d did not make Shimei a base, bad man; but Shimei having become base and bad, G.o.d chose that his villany should spend itself on David, rather than on some other person. G.o.d did not make Judas a thief and a traitor; but Judas having made himself so, G.o.d so places him, that his avarice, his dishonesty and his treachery shall minister to the accomplishment of a great beneficent design. G.o.d did not teach the spirits that deceived Ahab to lie; but those spirits having given themselves to lying, G.o.d chose that they should practise their illusions on Ahab rather than on others. G.o.d did not make Pharaoh mean or tyrannical; but Pharaoh having become so, G.o.d chooses to employ his evil dispositions in bringing about remarkable displays of His power.
G.o.d does not make politicians corrupt; but politicians having become corrupt, G.o.d chooses to place them in positions in which they can rob, and torment, and dishonor us, and so incite us to labor more zealously for the Christianization of our country. A man becomes a thief, and says, I will rob John Brown to-night. And he places himself in the way along which he expects John Brown to pa.s.s, and prepares himself for his deed of plunder. But G.o.d does not wish to have John Brown robbed; so He arranges that David Jones, a man whom he wishes to be relieved of his money, shall pa.s.s that way, and the thief robs _him_. The dishonesty is the thief"s own, but it is G.o.d that determines the party on whom it shall be practised.
I have a bull-dog that would worry a certain animal, if I would take it where the animal is feeding. But I choose to bring it in view of another animal which I wish to be destroyed, and he worries that. I do not make the bull-dog savage; but I use his savagery for a good purpose, instead of letting him gratify it for an evil one. This view of things explains a mult.i.tude of difficult pa.s.sages of Scripture, and enables us to see wisdom and goodness in many of G.o.d"s doings, in which we might otherwise fancy we saw injustice and inconsistency.
I have not time to answer all my old objections to the Bible, advanced in the Berg debate, nor have I time to answer any of them at full length: but I have answered the princ.i.p.al ones; and the answers given are a fair sample of what might be given to all the objections.
As for the objections grounded on little contradictions, on matters of little or no moment, they require no answer. Whether the contradictions are real or only apparent, and whether they originated with copyists, translators, or the original human authors of the Books in which they are found, it is not worth our while to inquire. They do not detract from the worth of the Bible one particle, nor are they inconsistent with its claims to a super-human origin.
And so with regard to the expressions scattered up and down the Scriptures in reference to natural things, which are supposed to be inconsistent with the teachings of modern science. They are, in our view, of no moment whatever. Men writing or speaking under divine impulse, with a view to the promotion of religion or righteousness, would be sure, when they alluded to natural things, to speak of them according to the ideas of their times. Their geography, their astronomy, and even their historical traditions, would be those of the people among whom they lived. Their spirit, their aim, would be holy and divine.
Nor have we any reason to wish it should be otherwise. Nor had our old theologians ever any right, or Scriptural authority, for saying it was, or that it ought to be, otherwise. To us it is a pleasure and an advantage to have a record of the ideas, of the first rude guesses, of our early ancestors, with regard to the wonders and mysteries of the universe, and of the events of "the far backward and abyss of time." It comforts us, and it makes us thankful, to see from what small and blundering beginnings our numberless volumes of science have sprung. And it comforts us, and makes us thankful, to see how the first faint streaks of spiritual and moral light, that fell on our race, gradually increased, till at length the day-spring and the morning dawned, and then the full bright light of the Sun of Righteousness brought the effulgence of the Perfect Day.
And here perhaps may be the place for a few additional remarks on Divine inspiration.
We may observe, in the first place, that a man moved to speak by the Holy Spirit, will, of course, speak for holiness. His aim will be the promotion of true religiousness, and this will be seen in all he says.
He may not be a good scholar. He may not speak in a superhuman style.
His reasoning may not be in strict accordance with the logic of the schools. His dialect may be unpolished. He may betray a lack of acquaintance with modern science. He may not be perfect even in his knowledge of religion and virtue. But he will show a G.o.dly spirit. The aim and tendency of all he says will be to do good, to promote righteousness and true holiness.
And so if a man be moved to _write_ by the Holy Spirit, there will be an influence favorable to holiness in all he writes. His object will be good. If he be a scholar, he will unconsciously show his learning; if he be a man of science, he may show his science. If he be ignorant of science, his ignorance may show itself. The Spirit of Holiness will neither remove his ignorance nor conceal it: it will not make him talk like a learned man or a philosopher; but it will make him talk like a saint, like a servant of G.o.d, and a friend of man. His writings will breathe the spirit and show the love of holiness, and a tendency to all goodness.
And these are just the qualities we see in the Bible. It breathes a holy spirit. It tends to promote holiness. The writers were not all equally advanced in holiness; hence there is a difference in their writings.
They were not alike in their mental const.i.tutions or their natural endowments. They were not equal in learning, or in a knowledge of nature, or in general culture. They differed almost endlessly. And their writings differ in like manner. But they all tend to holiness. Some of the writers were poets, and their writings are poetical. Others were not poets, and their writings are prose. The poets were not all equal. Some of them were very good poets, and their writings are full of beauty, sublimity and power. Others of them were inferior poets, and their compositions are more coa.r.s.e, or more formal. Some of the writers were shepherds or herdsmen, and their writings are rough and homely. Some of them were princes and n.o.bles, scholars and philosophers, and their writings are richer and more polished. Some of them were mere clerks and chroniclers, and their writings are dry and common-place; others were fervid, powerful geniuses, and their works are full of fire and originality. Their thoughts startle you. Their words warm you. They are spirit and life. All the writers show their natural qualities and tempers. All exhibit the defects of their learning and philosophy. All write like men,--like men of the age, and of the rank, and of the profession, and of the country, to which they belong. They write, in many respects, like other men. The thing that distinguished them is, a spirit of holiness; a regard, a zeal, for G.o.d and righteousness, and for the instruction and welfare of mankind. In their devotion to G.o.d and goodness they are all alike, though not all equal; but in other respects they differ almost endlessly. In their devotion to G.o.d and goodness, they are _unlike_ the ma.s.s of pagan worldly writers, but not so unlike them in every other respect.
The divine inspiration of the sacred writers, or their wondrous zeal for righteousness, is hardly a matter for dispute. It is a simple, plain, palpable matter of fact. We see it on almost every page of their writings. We feel it in almost every sentence.
Take the account of Creation in Genesis. No one could have written that doc.u.ment under the influence of an unG.o.dly or unholy spirit. It speaks throughout with the utmost reverence of G.o.d. It represents Him as acting from the best and n.o.blest feeling. He works, not for His own interest or honor, but solely for the purpose of diffusing happiness. He not only does the greatest, the best, the n.o.blest things, but He does them with a hearty good will. Every now and then He stops to examine His works, and is delighted to find that everything is good. It is plain He _meant_ them to be good. He creates countless mult.i.tudes of happy beings, and does it all from impulses of His own generous nature. All living things are made to be happy, and all nature is made and adapted to minister to their happiness. And when at length He has completed His works, crowning all with the creation of man, He looks on all again, and with evident satisfaction and delight, declares them all very good.
Read the account of His creation of man. "And G.o.d said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So G.o.d created man in his own image, in the image of G.o.d created he him, male and female created he them. And G.o.d blessed them, and G.o.d said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And G.o.d said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And G.o.d saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." There can be no mistake as to the spirit and disposition of the Great Being whom we see working, and hear speaking, in this pa.s.sage.
Everything savors of pure and boundless love.
1. He makes man male and female, that they may have the comfort and advantages of society, and of love and friendship in their highest, holiest, and most intimate form.
2. Then He makes them in His own image, which, whatever else it may mean, means ungrudging and unbounded goodness on His part. There can be nothing higher, greater, better, happier than G.o.d. To make man in His own image, and to appoint him, so far as possible, to a like position, and a like lot with Himself, was the grandest display of goodness possible.
3. And He gives the man and woman dominion over every living thing,--makes them, next to Himself, lords of the universe. And He blesses them, speaks to them sweet good words; and His blessing maketh rich and adds no sorrow. He encourages them to be fruitful; to multiply, and replenish the earth, and to subdue it,--to turn it ever more to their advantage. He in effect places all things at their disposal; every green herb, bearing seed, and every tree yielding fruit, is given to them for food; and they are at the same time given for food to every beast of the field, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth on the face of the earth. A richer, sweeter story,--a story of more cheerful, generous liberality,--a picture more creditable or honorable to G.o.d, one cannot imagine.
And the story is all of a piece. There is not a jar in it from first to last. Its consistency is complete. Whatever else may be said of the author of this account, it is certain that he was moved by a Holy Spirit, that he had the loftiest and worthiest views of G.o.d, and that he loved Him with all his heart and soul. He believed in a good and holy G.o.d, and in a good and holy life.
I say nothing about the harmony or discord between this account of Creation, and the facts of Geographical, Astronomical, or Geological science. I do not trouble myself about such matters. To me it is a question of no importance or concern whatever. And I have no trouble about the interpretation of the story.
It wants no interpretation. It is as plain as the light. And I take it in its simple, obvious, literal, natural sense. I keep to the old-fashioned meaning--the meaning generally given to it before the disputes about Geology and Astronomy seemed to render a new and unnatural one necessary. The days of the story are natural days, and the nights are natural nights. The length of each of the six days was the same as that of the Sabbath day. The seven days made an ordinary week.
The first verse does not refer to a Creation previous to the week in which man was made. It is a statement of the work of Creation in general, of which the verses following give the particulars. All the work that is spoken of was believed by the writer to have been begun and ended in six ordinary natural days.
As to whether the story be literally or scientifically correct or not, I do not care to inquire. I am satisfied that it is the result of divine inspiration--that he who wrote it or spoke it was moved by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of truth, of love, of purity, of holiness pervades it from beginning to end. It does justice to G.o.d; it bears benignly on man; it favors all goodness. I see, I feel the blessed Spirit in every line, and I want no more.
We are told that there are _two_ accounts of Creation, and that on some points they differ from each other. For anything I know this may be the case. But one thing is certain, they do not differ in the views they give of G.o.d or of His objects. They both represent Him as a being not only of almighty power and infinite wisdom, but of pure, unsullied, boundless generosity. In truth, the only impulse to Creation that presents itself is, the natural, spontaneous goodness of the Creator.
And on some points the manifestations of G.o.d"s love and purity, of His righteousness and holiness, are more full and striking in the second account than in the first. G.o.d"s desire for the social happiness of man comes out more fully. Man, according to this second account, is made previous to woman, and permitted for a time to experience the sense of comparative loneliness. He is left to look through the orders of inferior creatures, in search of a mate, and permitted to feel, for a moment, the sense of disappointment. At length he is cast into a deep and quiet sleep, and when he awakes, his mate, his counterpart, an exact answer to his wants, his cravings, perfect in her loveliness, stands before his eyes, and fills his soul with love and ecstacy. Marriage is inst.i.tuted in its purest and highest form. The law of marriage is proclaimed, which is just, and good, and holy in the highest degree.
Provision is made for the comfort and welfare of the new-created pair.
Their home is a paradise, or garden of delights; their task is to dress it and to keep it. Their life is love. The _general_ law under which they are placed is made known to them, and they are graciously warned against transgression. The law is the perfection of wisdom and generosity. It allows them an all but unlimited liberty of indulgence.
They may eat of the fruit of every tree in the garden but one.
Indulgence must have its limits somewhere, or there could be no virtue, and without virtue there could be no true happiness.
Law, trial, and temptation are all essential to virtue and righteousness. Here they are all supplied; supplied so far as we can see, in their best and most considerate forms. No law is given to the lower animals. No self-denial is required of them. They are incapable of virtue or righteousness, and are therefore left lawless. A _child_ left to himself would bring his mother to shame; a man left to himself would rush headlong to destruction. But birds and beasts do best when left to themselves, or when left to the law in their own natures. Their instincts, or G.o.d"s own impulses, urge them ever in the right direction, and secure to them the kind and amount of happiness they are capable of enjoying. They are incapable of virtue, so they are made incapable of vice. They cannot share the highest pleasures; they shall not be exposed therefore to the bitterest pains. Man is capable of both virtue and vice, and he must either rise to the one or sink to the other. He cannot stay midway with the lower animals. Man must be happy or miserable in a way of his own; he cannot have the portion of the brute. He must either be the happiest or the most miserable creature on earth. He must either dwell in a paradise, or writhe in a purgatory. He must either live in happy fellowship with G.o.d, or languish and die beneath his frown. And in the nature of things, the possibility of one implies liability to the other. This is man"s greatness, and bliss, and glory, that he is capable of righteousness; capable of fellowship, unity, with G.o.d; and capable of progress, improvement, without limits, of life without end, and of happiness without bounds.
All this, which is the perfection of true philosophy, the sum of all true wisdom and knowledge, is presented in the most striking, astounding, and intelligible form in this second, or supplementary account of creation. Duty is defined in the clearest manner. It is enjoined in the plainest terms. The results of transgression are foretold with all fidelity. The great principle is revealed that righteousness is life and happiness, and that sin is misery and death.