grandeur of its imagery, and the majestic force of its expression. It is varied with striking propriety, and enlivened with quick, but easy transitions. Its sudden bursts of eloquence, its earnest warmth, its affecting exhortations and appeals, afford very interesting proof of that lively impression and inspired conviction, under which the writers wrote and spake, and which enabled them, among a people not distinguished for genius, to surpass, in every variety of composition, the most admired productions of pagan antiquity. Is there any book in the world, so perfectly adapted to all capacities, that contains such sublime and exalted precepts, conveyed in such an artless and intelligible strain, and that can be read with such pleasure and advantage, by the lettered sage, or the unlettered peasant?

CHAP. II.

The Introduction of Moral Evil considered.

IT is self-evident, that there is moral and physical

evil in the world. And various have been the theories which men have adopted, in order to account for its introduction. Some have endeavoured to account for its introduction by iron-handed fate and destiny; consequently, they have made God the author of all the evil in the world. While others, not less absurd, ascribe its origin to bad example, and a corrupt education. It is the last opinion which I shall endeavour to confute, as it is adopted by this class of men, who are falsely designated "rational Christians."

I am inclined to think, that Mr. H., as an individual, believes that we were created by God; and this being admitted, he cannot deny that the power which created all things, must be the general Parent of the universe; and that this great, exalted, and incomprehensible Being, is perfection itself, in all uncreated, original, necessary, and never ceasing extremes. In fine, what we conceive of God, is an assemblage of all possible perfection, abstracted from all possible moral evil. It is to this great and exalted being we now turn our attention, and

ask, of what nature and essential properties did he create man? It is infallibly certain, that that Being who is infinitely holy, and contains within himself an unchangeable hatred to evil, could not but create man in a state of moral rectitude. According to every conception we can form of the wisdom and goodness of the Deity, as well as according to the most express and unequivocal language of Scripture "God made man upright." For to say that God created him morally evil, is to charge God with the turpitude of every bad action, and to destroy those attributes which are essential to his nature and existence. Therefore, "God created man in his own likeness, in the image of God created he him ;" and that image, saith the apostle, consists in righteousness and true holiness,

Again, man was not only created without the least iota of inherent depravity, but he was furnished with a clear and sagacious mind, with reason bright and strong, and possessed transcendent qualifications for the most elevated happiness. But that he might be accountable, he was necessarily created free; and that he might never forget that he was under the cognizance and dominion of a moral Governor, a test of obedience was set before him. And in this respect, God did not deal worse with man than with other creatures; he pointed out to them their respective laws by instinct; but as man was designed to be a distinguished link in the great

chain of being, God entered into a covenant with him, and gave him a law, not only as a test of obedience, but as a proof of dependence, and as an incitement to gratitude. This law was easy to be obeyed, because it was plain to be understood. The greater the injunction, the more severity would have appeared, and the more circumscribed must have been human liberty; but God, on the present occasion, reduced the discharge of moral obligation to a single point, promising life on obedience, and threatening death on transgression. But what were the conditions on which these great events were suspended? They follow-"Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."* The cavil about this fruit being an object of temptation, is almost too absurd to deserve a specific notice; for surely no being can be out of the reach of temptation but God alone. He that is essentially, is only unchangeably, good. I am well aware that not only infidels, but this class of men which I am opposing, cry out in the language of impious ridicule against this part of Sacred History; and, say they, "God cannot be supposed to have condemned mankind for the mere eating of an apple." This, however,

*Gen. ii. 17.

is not the language of reason and common sense, but of partiality and prejudice. The phraseology here adopted is absolutely false and absurd. It intimates that God was influenced in his condemnation of our first parents, by a resentment excited only by the value which he fixed on the forbidden fruit. As the value of the fruit was in a sense nothing, they therefore conclude that God could not prize it so much, as to be angry at the transgression, much less to inflict so dreadful a punishment on the transgressor. Were the principle just, on which they profess to argue, I would readily admit it, as would every other sensible man. But the principle itself has no connection with the subject; the argument founded upon it is therefore without the least foundation. Such views of God as these, are not taught in the history, nor in any part of the sacred record. The Scriptures universally declare that our first parents were condemned, because they disobeyed their Maker, revolted from his authority, and rebelled against his government. The fruit, whatever it was, was plainly of no value to him, at whose bidding suns lighted up their fires, systems rolled to fulfil his pleasure, and who could in a moment call into existence a world, or a million of worlds, with all their magnificent furniture. The guilt of our first parents lay solely in rebelling against God, or in eating of that fruit in opposition to his command, and for this they were condemned and punished.