Suppose I can not tell the mode of a thing, shall I therefore the less believe the fact of a thing? Modes and essences are mainly a terra incognita to men, especially to one who has a microscope of his own invention, through which his optics are exhilarated as with the consciousness and the illusion of philosophic vision. Some men are so short-sighted that they can not see to the limits of human knowledge, and hence conclude that those limits exist not. To know how the will of the immaterial tenant, the soul, can inhabit and actuate the machinery of the material tenement, the body, to write a letter, or to wield á sword, or to touch with skill some sweet instrument of music, all real philosophers know to be exactly impossible, in our present state of being. But the facts of the case every one knows that he knows, with or without philosophy, and with or without a microscope-or system of his own metaphysics. › Now it seems that the system in question has its chief affectation here-it can tell how things are, how they move or act, how it is possible, and how it is impossible; so that, without such system, a man can neither tell, nor know how! Hence, in this important knowing, the system is a theologicometaphysical NOVUM ORGANUM, and a sine qua non at that, with all right philosophers. The word yvwois was not more potential or central with the ancient Gnostics. A friend of mine, an original thinker and a gifted lawyer, who was then an acute-angled and sharp-pointed Emmonsite, but afterward saw through the system and piously renounced it, once related to me, with high approbation at the time, the following conversation, as a part, that he had with Dr. Emmons, whom he visited with reverence bordering on adoration. He said, The doctor asked me, after I had told him my views and how I admired his theology, if I knew why it is that theyhe called them Hopkinsians in the argument—are afraid of no other religionists, and why all other religionists are afraid of them? GREAT ANSWER TO A GREAT QUESTION. 3. I answered, No, sir, the fact is as you state it. 173 I do not; nor am I aware that Are they all afraid of us? 2. Yes, and Hopkinsians are afraid of none of them. there is a good reason for it. And 3. Well, doctor, I confess this is a new view of the subject. At least I never thought of it before. 2. The doctor rejoined, The reason of it is plain, and good, and true, accounting honorably for the fact. It is this: Hopkinsians understand all other religionists, and see through their system; and other religionists do not understand Hopkinsians, or see through their system. 3. The lawyer added to me that he was struck with the boldness and the grandeur both of the fact and the reason, and that he could never forget or cease to admire it. The latter, however, he cordially did, some years afterward, by the help of some of the eye-salve of Christ. I relate the narrative, because so exceedingly characteristic both of the system and its author. It is, however, a glaring instance of the petitio principii, to say nothing of its modesty. Where is there any proof of the alleged fact of universal fear on one side, and none on the other? Where any, that the reason of it, if it were fact, is true, apart from his modest assertion? What excessive vanity in reference to his system of theology! And just so his out-and-out disciples every where view it, as the то Tаv, the instar omnium of all religious wisdom. My own conviction of the system is, that it often tells what it does not know, often what is false, and, as a medium of theological exposition and enforcement, is a vile perverter of the truth of God; that facts with it are less, modes more ; the scripture subordinate, its own wisdom perilously superior. Take a few illustrations : Say this man is an enlightened moral agent; that is, a creature accountable, and acting under law, to his Creator. The law says this do; temptation says-that. The result 174 GOD SINCERE AND HOLY. is, he sins. The question then occurs, How MUCH did God desire him to keep the law? Emmonsism answers, In itself considered, not all things considered; but, in this latter respect, God desired him, with an infinite preference, to do just as he did; and just as God worked in him to do; and just as God positively energized all things to induce him to do; and just as, if he had not done, it would have been an everlasting blight, and an immedicable malady to the creation and the Creator; and just as, having done, the substantial and eternal optimism of the universe is gloriously and indispensably sustained by it. How well one knows when he has competently learned all this; fit now to preach any where-except, at least, in the pulpits of some unsophisticated and intelligent ministers of the truth as it is in Jesus! Let us now answer the question by common sense, in accordance with the Bible, and conscience, and experience. How much, in the case supposed, does God desire that the moral agent should obey, and not transgress? Answer, In a degree infinitely intense, perfectly sincere; and both in itself considered, and all things considered, he desires him to do right only, according to the rule of action prescribed to him; so that it is impossible to conceive that he could more desire it than he does. His law is himself. It is his own radiating heart. It is the full-orbed exponent of his bosom and his soul; and to suppose he could have a counter and a paramount desire, at the same moment, in favor of sin, is the very acme of all that is absurd, anti-scriptural, and impious BE YE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY. On the antagonist platform, it were impossible for God to be sincere. Indeed, he is the most-but I forbear. Ecce signum. There is, indeed, one mode of pseudo-orthodoxy that comes near to a parallelism, in the matter of dishonor to the glorious sincerity of God, as the object of our adoring confidence in FALSE OFFER OF SALVATION. 175 the gospel. I refer to that astute and persisting type of theology that offers salvation, in some indefinable and ambiguous sense, to men, when it is all folly and equivocation, because there is none for them; that provides exclusively for a part, and then affects to offer salvation in all the world, and to every creature! There is some erudite sense, we are told, in which this is all consistent, all rational, all wise, all honorable to God. But how much metaphysics, learning, "yvwois et Gopia," it takes to illustrate and prove the sincerity of God, in the dilemma so made for him by his own self-arrogating disciples and official luminaries, who can measure? who knows? who can guess? One of them, now, I trust, in Heaven, who was nurtured in this school of the VATICAN of America, once said to me, "I care nothing for philosophy, I only preach the gospel. Yet this is my principle-I know not for whom the provision is made, or who the elect are; therefore I offer it to all." I replied, When I lately heard your truly eloquent, but very exceptionable sermon, from John 5: 40, you told the people that "God offers them salvation, that the offer is his own." Now, if it is God's offer, what has your ignorance to do with it? And if it is only your offer, and that indebted for its being alone to your ignorance, why not tell the people so, that they may safely despise both the preaching and the preacher! He replied, “True, to a wonder! I declare to you I never thought of that before. It is absurd, sure enough." I would not tell the name, though he was more honest, and sincere, and generous than were some of his teachers—and cordially I love his memory! Before I give the illustration, let me remark, that, in the gospel, God is perpetually offering salvation to every creature. I affirm in it, what I cordially believe, his veritable, and perfect, and glorious sincerity. In this relation, the matter is important beyond all created thought. Men perish, by neglecting, or rejecting, or discrediting his offer, and their guilt is infinitely enhanced as the consequence. If they 176 VIEW OF COMMON SENSE. had reason to doubt his sincerity, how would it prevent their own, how make confidence impossible! He invites, he urges, he forbears, he remonstrates, he weeps over them, he commands, he threatens, he waits, he teaches, he pursues, he repeats, he lightens, he thunders, and at last he destroys them! Was he sincere? I answer, on the system of Emmons, he was infinitely insincere, and nothing better. Now for the illustration, and the appeal to common sense. A friend from abroad visits you. After inquiries, you ascertain his condition, and invite him to be your guest, and make your house his home during his stay. You are sincere. You desire him to accept the invitation, and he will do it, unless self-prevented. Now, suppose the fact that you would like him to stay with you, in itself considered, but not all things considered; that your reasons for the latter you keep a secret, and urge those only that show the former; urging him, on that ground, to remain: what would you think of your own sincerity? What would the whole world think of it, when known? In a reversal of circumstances, would you accept such an invitation yourself? that is, if you knew or only suspected it? If this be sincerity and truth, what are hypocrisy and falsehood? And is this the illustration of the sincerity of God in the gospel? Hell might tremble anew to entertain the thought! In view of the facts of the case, common sense pronounces that no jesuitism in the universe could be conceivably worse, as a system of sublime mendacity and most captivating religious Machiavelism. Shall we theologically endorse or adopt the great maxim of the Bishop of Autun, that "the use of words is to conceal our thoughts?" to say nothing of a late distinguished piece of originality on the nature and use of language, by one of the learned presbyters of New England. Suppose, now, you are sincere in your invitation, and you apprehend that it is his great interest to accept it; that you can make him do it, by some means which it is in your |