I close by adding a few sayings from an old book called the Bible, and said to have been written a long time ago!

"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." I Cor. xv, 19. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Rom. viii, 16. "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Gal. iv, 6.

"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true; and we are in him that is the true God." I John v, 20.

CHAPTER VII.

A BRIEF NOTICE OF A WORK ENTITLED "QUESTIONS ON THE SYSTEM OF DIDACTIC THEOLOGY, TAUGHT IN THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

THE many distinctions, of an abstruse nature, yet glaringly absurd, which have accompanied the gradual development of Hopkinsian Calvinism, go very much to strengthen the truth of the main proposition on which Deism rests, namely, that God has fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass, and that this universal decree is predicated of foreknowledge. I allude to improved modern Deism. The work under consideration, is the production of Dr. Anderson; and while it contains at bottom, all the essential features of old Calvinism, it is deeply spiced with metaphysical madness. I have examined it closely, and I am prepared to say, that all the noxious doctrines of Calvinism are separately considered by the writer, and that too, without any sort of disguise. The tenacity with which the writer holds fast the noxious features of Calvinism, and the metaphysical manner in which he undertakes to make them harmonize with the freedom of man-if indeed he allows to man any freedom at all-betrays him, it appears to me, into a method of reasoning and illustrating, which does great disservice to christianity, by opening a door for all sorts of infidel heresies. And all this mass of licentious stuff, it will be recollected by the reader, is "taught" in the seminary at Maryville! But I have neither time nor a disposition at present, to enter fully upon an examination of this work-to controvert it I mean. I will content myself with giving the first essay in the book,

U

which is on Natural Theology, and which, I unhesitatingly affirm, is rank Deism.

"What is natural theology?.

Ans. It is that knowledge of divine truth which is discoverable by the light of nature.

What is meant by the light of nature?

Ans. The evidence which the works of God exhibit of divine truth, to such minds as ours, if disposed to receive the evidence, and investigate the truth.

What does natural theology teach?

Ans. Many fundamental doctrines, and also the essential duty of man! What first fundamental doctrine do you mention as taught by natural theology?

By what method does natural religion teach the existence of a God! Ans. By the facts presented in the universe.

8th. How do you show from these facts that there is a God?

9th. What fundamental doctrine do you next mention?

Ans. THE ESSENTIAL PERFECTIONS OF GOD!!

10th. Shew that natural religion teaches the omnipotence of God."

11th. Shew that it teaches the unity of God.

12th. Shew that it teaches the wisdom of God.

13th. Shew that it teaches the omniscience of God.

14th. Shew that it teaches the omnipresence of God.

15th. Shew that it teaches the goodness or benevolence of God.

16th. Does God's goodness comprehend all his moral perfections, justice, truth, holiness and mercy?

17th. What fundamental doctrines do you mention in the third place? Ans. God's universal decrees and agency.

18th! Shew how natural religion teaches these doctrines.

19th. Shew how it teaches God's sovereignty.

20th. Shew that it teaches the entire dependence of creatures on God.

21st. Shew that it teaches the essential difference between right and wrong.

22d. Shew that it teaches the justice of eternal punishment.

23d. You have said that natural religion teaches the essential duties of

man.

24th. What do you first mention under this head?

Ans. Supreme love to God.

25th. Shew that it teaches this duty.

26th. Shew how it teaches unconditional submission.

27th. Shew that it teaches the duty of loving our neighbor as ourselves.

28th. Shew that it clearly teaches DISINTERESTED BENEVOLENCE."

REMARKS.-If natural theology teaches all the essential perfections of God, and the whole duty of man, as stated above, then, I say, away with revelation! And if natural theology teaches all the doctrines contained in the foregoing questions and answers, embracing "God's universal decrees," "unconditional submission," and "disinterested benevolence," it teaches more than revealed theology does, for the

Nor would the deist ask

Bible teaches no such doctrines. the christian to grant any thing more, than Dr. A. has granted in the above, in order to silence him. I do not depreciate natural theology, nor would I misrepresent the theology of the Bible. Natural theology has its proper office. Revealed theology has its proper place. But while the former teaches us very little concerning God, with certainty, the latter acts the part of a successful, and a profound teacher. It is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the revelation contained in the sacred scriptures, that, in every important point, it harmonizes with the deductions of sound reason, and the principles of common sense. This however, might naturally be expected; since God is the author both of the reasoning faculty in man, and of the declaration contained in the volume of inspiration.

Again: The grave and the worm are appalling to the heart, and fill it with fearful apprehensions. Through fear of death, thousands are all their life time subject to bondage. From this undue degree of fear, a man in the enjoyment of revealed religion is delivered. But no man ever was brought to this sense of the endless duration of his soul by the light of nature, nor by a long train of reasoning, the opinion of Dr. Anderson to the contrary notwithstanding. These may satisfy a merely speculative enquirer, but they can never satisfy the man, who is alive to the importance of eternity, and makes it the subject of his enquiries. Death and the grave laugh to scorn what man calls natural religion.

There corruption performs her work in triumph; and he, who rejects the Bible, must look on and despair. It is the gospel only, which brings life and immortality to light, and it is by an honest belief in God's revealed will, that a man first learns to regard himself as the heir of eternity.

The immortal Byron's views of the Bible, as expressed in his dying words, are my views:

"Within this awful volume lies The mystery of mysteries. O' happiest they of human race, To whom our God has given grace To hear, to read, to fear, to pray, To lift the latch, and force the way; But better had they ne'er been born, Who read to doubt, or read to scorn. But the religion taught by Christ and his apostles, must and will prevail. In despite of Julian, the miserable apostate, Hume, the infidel philosopher, Hobbes, the gloomy sceptic, Voltaire, the inveterate, foe to Christ, Rousseau, the witty

profligate, Paine, the detestable, dishonest and vulgar op poser of truth, and the natural religion of Maryville and its vicinity, revealed religion must triumph.

Again: Sooner than I would send a son of mine to this seminary, were I a parent, to study Anderson's system of natural theology, I would send him where he might learn the great system of idealism, as held by Hume and Berkely! Sooner would I embrace the degrading sentiments of Hobbes and Mandeville, the former representing religion as the creation of human policy, and the latter representing its sole principle to be the love of human praise. What! natural theology teach a man all about God, the duties he owes to his God, and to his fellow beings! Strange indeed! Deism to all intents and purposes! But if Dr. Anderson's system of natural theology be a sound one, why send missionaries to the heathens? Why take such pains to send the Bible with missionaries to the different heathen countries under the sun? Verily the Africans, the Indians, and others whom we are laboring to rescue from pagan darkness, have the theology of nature among them in all its splendor! But, neither the book of nature, or of conscience, or any other book in the world, save that of the Bible, gives us either a satisfactory idea of Deity, or the manner in which he is to be worshipped. It is in the Bible we learn, both that God is, and that "he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him." The Bible reflects a light which never dawned on the mind of man, however much he may have been aided by the light of nature. Many of the ancient philosophers felt the propensities to evil, but never could tell, till assisted by revelation, whence they proceeded. Look into the popular mythology of Greece and Rome, and you will see, that many of their most distinguished philosophers, not having learned that the spring was corrupted by the introduction of moral evil, they were at a loss to determine how the streams became polluted. In conclusion, I would calculate on rendering as much real service to the cause of God and my country, by patronizing the University of Paris, or the Military School of France, as that of the Southern and Western Theological Seminary.

CHAPTER VIII.

A BRIEF NOTICE OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE LEADING DENOMI NATIONS IN OUR COUNTRY, AND A WORD OF ADVICE TO THOSE WHO THINK OF UNITING WITH SOME CHURCH.

WITH what church do you think to unite reader?-Perhaps you are ready to conclude as many others have done, that it matters not what your name is called, if you are only a christian. And, say you, there are the Methodists and Baptists, the Presbyterians and Hopkinsians, the Congregationalists and Lutherans, the Cumberland Presbyterians and Quakers; and I see but little difference in them all, as they are all engaged in promoting revivals, and the benevolent enterprises of the day. With one or the other of these churches I shall probably unite, but I do not know which. I am glad, gentle reader, that you are so pleased with the churches, and that you have concluded to associate yourself with some one of them afterwhile. And I readily grant, it is true, that in some things there is but little difference between them; but in many things they differ much; and much of this difference is on very important points. Reader, would you not do well to examine this subject critically, before you join any church? Let us see what the facts are. The name METHODIST, has been applied to different sects, both Papists and Protestants, in France, England and elsewhere. The Wesleyan Methodists are so called from JOHN WESLEY, an eminent scholar and divine, of the church of England, who commenced forming societies in London, about a century ago. The first Methodist society ever formed in the United States, was in the city of New-York, in 1766. And the first Methodist church was built in New-York in 1768. This is now, the most numerous sect on the American continent. The Methodists agree with the leading denominations of this country, in several respects; -and in several respects they materially differ from all other denominations. The doctrines of the Wesleyan Methodists, are the same as the church of England, as set forth in her liturgy, articles, and homilies. The principle means employed of late by other denominations to promote revivals, have been constantly employed by the Methodists, ever since they have been a people: they make a part of their system. And all those doctrines which are so popular in the present day, and which distinguish the Protestants from the Roman Catholics, have long been held in common by the Methodists.