THE METHODIST NEW CONNEXION NOVEMBER, 1857. ESSAYS, &c., ON THEOLOGY AND GENERAL LITERATURE. CHRISTIANITY, ITS ADAPTATIONS TO MAN. A BELIEF in the existence of the Deity has ever been regarded, by all rational and well-constituted minds, as the basis of all virtue, as lying at the foundation of morals and responsibility, and thus forming the grand cement which binds together the whole fabric of human society. It is natural to expect that a truth like this-the importance of which can never be overestimated-would be attended with such corroborative proofs as to render the denial of it, not only inexcusable, but as evincing the most consummate folly and impiousness. And such is the fact. The existence of the Deity is attested by ten thousand voices from the works of Nature, all speaking in terms of unmistakable import, and rendering the question exceedingly problematical, whether such a thing as confirmed atheism really exists. That there are those, however, who openly and undisguisedly avow the principles of atheism, is a fact too palpable to be questioned; hence a controversy has been maintained upon this fundamental principle, which, so far from shaking its basis, has tended to throw around it accumulated and incontrovertible argument. Perhaps the most potent argument which has been adduced in support of this great truth, is that which is supplied in the evidences. of design, so strikingly exhibited in the works of Nature. Into whatever department of the works of the Great Architect we direct our minds, we discover the existence and operation of those laws which cannot fail to impress us with unmistakable evidences of intelligence and design. If we look at the skilful and perfect adjustment of those forces which influence the planetary system in its revolutionary movements around the central luminary, or the diurnal motion of our own planet, which affords to all parts of its surface the genial and fructifying influences of light and heat; or if we look at all the varied forms of organic life-from the blade of grass on which we tread, up through all the diversified forms of vegetable life to the stately and majestic oak; or from the meanest worm that crawls beneath our feet, up through all the varied species of animated existences to the highest intelligence; or if we confine our attention to the study of the human system alone, we are furnished with instances of contrivance and adaptation more than sufficient to justify our belief in the existence of an Intelligent Designer. The logical force of the argument from design we think cannot be questioned, if there be such a thing as intelligence in existence at all; for unless we be the sport of chance or the creatures of an inflexible necessity, we can almost intuitively discover the distinction which exists between those actions of our conduct, which are the result of intelligence and design, and those which are involuntary in their nature; and the same principle which teaches us the existence of intelligence in our own minds, leads us to refer similar effects, when seen in others, to a similar cause; and when we meet with phenomena such as are exhibited in the visible universe which infinitely surpass the intelligence of man to devise, or the power of man to execute, we judge that we are logically consistent, when we regard them as nothing less than the product of Infinite Intelligence and Skill. The value of this argument, then, in the atheistic controversy is unquestionable, not as abstracted from other sources of proof, but, regarded collaterally, as a necessary and highly important branch of evidence. The same value is attributable to it, when used in the service of Christianity. If the all-wise Creator has been so profuse in those objects of creative energy which so clearly demonstrate his eternal power and Godhead, have we not every reason to expect that, in that more stupendous manifestation of his wisdom and grace exhibited in the Gospel, he would present us with those instances of its adaptation to man which would stamp it with the impress of his own image and authority? And if the numberless adaptations existing in universal nature warrant the belief in an Intelligent Designer, then, if Christianity possess the power of adaptation to man in all the varied aspects of his being, are we not equally warranted in regarding it as emanating from the same divine original, and as intended to guide and govern man in all the spheres of his existence? To the discussion of this question we now invite your candid consideration, and in the prosecution of our object we shall aim to show that Christianity is adapted to man both individually and socially. To man as an individual, its influences are restorative and progressive; to society they are conservative and reformatory, adapted to its secular as well as spiritual aspects. First, then, we are to show its adaptation to man individually. That he is a thinking, reasoning being, that he possesses powers of intelligence and thought which raise him in the scale of being far above the brute creation, so far as we are aware, has never been questioned; but that he possesses also moral and religious capabilities, which not only ally him to the brightest intelligences, but even proclaim his relationship to the Deity, is a truth no less evident, though one which has been questioned in different periods of the world's history. fidelity has long sought to ignore the fact of man's religious susceptibilities, and thus to reduce him to the position of an intellectual animal, raised a few degrees higher than the horse or the dog; while, on the other hand, it has often been compelled to bear a silent, though reluctant testimony to their existence in man's nature. In The deeply-felt wants, and earnest aspirations of humanity, have given rise to the invention of theories and the institution of systems, professing as their grand object the elevation and happiness of man. But, alas! these schemes have only been characteristic of human nature, wanting in that grand element-adaptation-which is essential to the life of any system, and the absence of which is sufficient to demonstrate that humanity has wants of which infidel philosophy never dreamt; and that it is totally incapable of providing that system for the promotion of human happiness which has ever been considered the grand desideratum. We must have a system which, instead of seeking to ignore some of the most palpable facts of man's being, must take him as he really is, recognize, and at the same time make provision for, those peculiar necessities which actually surround him. Man is a moral, religious being, and though he may be so engrossed with the cares, the business, and the pleasures of life, as nearly to forget his spiritual interests, yet somewhere between the cradle and the grave does the voice of his religious nature speak out and inquire about its condition, its prospects, and its destinies. Whence arises that conviction of responsibility which is so deeply inwrought into human consciousness? To what other source shall we refer its existence but to the fact that we are the subjects of moral government? That we possess the attributes of moral agency is so strongly attested by our consciousness, as to justify us in calling in question the sanity of that man who should seriously attempt to deny it. We are necessitated by the laws of our mental being either to admit our accountability or else that our whole moral nature is an enigma, and that we are the dupes of a self-deception. The framework of society is held together by the same principle; annihilate the conviction of responsibility and you thereby undermine the basis of society, throw open the floodgates of tyranny and oppression, and destroy all the bonds of mutual confidence. But the attempts which are made to obliterate this fact from the moral world, are as futile as they are absurd. Infidelity has long and 66 *While we thank Mr. Lee for this able article, and are perfectly satisfied that his theological views are sound, we would respectfully submit that to speak of man as "a religious being," and as possessing "a religious nature," is to use phraseology which is very liable to be misunderstood. Man's mind is, indeed, so constituted as to fit him for religion, and in his original state he was truly a religious being;" but he is now fallen and depraved, and the tendencies of his nature are decidedly sensual and irreligious. The testimony of Holy Scripture is, that man, in his unconverted state, is “carnal and sold under sin;" and the same authority tells us that "the carnal mind is enmity against God; " and if the broad characteristic of man be, that he is in a state of "enmity against God," he cannot be said to be "a religious being," but emphatically an irreligious and a sinful being. True, man has, at various periods, a sense of want which the world cannot supply; but while this sense of want is evidence of his adaptation for something better than the world, it is an evidence, too, that he is not in possession of that something. It is true also that man has at various periods a yearning after God, but this yearning after God arises not from his natural desires, but from the Spirit of God, which operates on the human heart and inclines man towards his Maker. For these reasons we prefer not to speak of man in his natural condition as "a religious being," or to represent him as having "a religious nature;" and we avoid these terms the more carefully because they are current with those who deny the doctrine of hereditary depravity-a doctrine which Mr. Lee evidently holds in perfect harmony with ourselves, as in page 590. indefatigably laboured to destroy this feeling from the human breast; its philosophy has assumed various forms, some of them possessing an air of plausibility, and all of them aiming a deadly blow. But hitherto it has laboured in vain. As well attempt to blot out from the firmament the grand orb which lights our world, as try to erase from the moral nature of man the consciousness of accountability. It is not an accidental exuberance found upon some parts of our common humanity; neither is it a superstitious terror, created as it is sometimes said by the interested teachings of priests; but it is an essential characteristic, it is part and parcel of our nature. It exists more or less in all lands, amongst people of every class and colour and tongue. It may be modified by circumstances; civilization and religious influences may augment its power, or speculative philosophy and practical atheism may diminish its influence, yet while it is not created by the one, neither is it destroyed by the other; it still remains as indestructible as the human consciousness itself. Co-extensive with this conviction of responsibility is the existence of that consciousness of guilt which speaks out from the depths of the human soul. Is this merely the ebullition of religious frenzy, or is it not also a fact of man's nature? However unable we may be to account for the origin of moral evil, and however much men may differ in their views of its introduction into the world, yet with regard to the fact itself there cannot reasonably be entertained more than one opinion. It is as clear as observation and experience can make it. Let it not be - said that Christianity originates the ideas of human guilt and wretchedness-they exist independently of its authority. It does not profess to hold out the remedy for our moral disorders with the one hand while it creates the disease with the other; but it comes to us as the good Samaritan, to heal up the wounds of our humanity-as the grand remedial scheme intended by its Divine Author, to rescue us from that state of guilt and wretchedness into which we have plunged ourselves by a voluntary disobedience to moral law. Not so with infidelity. Being driven from the untenable ground of irresponsibility, the fact of human guilt then becomes too glaring to admit of denial, it is therefore compelled to the admission of the fact, but seeks to neutralize that admission by its metaphysical subtleties. Let us just glance at one objection which is sometimes urged against the view which Christianity takes of human guilt. This objection is founded upon the hypothesis that every violation of law entails its own immediate punishment-that every act of disobedience meets with the full and adequate infliction of the penalty: hence we are challenged to produce a single instance of disobedience which is not visited with a degree of punishment proportionate to the circumstances of the case, consequently all idea of pardon or future retribution is thus entirely superseded. But in reply to this hypothesis, we have simply to state that it proves too much, and therefore proves nothing. If every act of disobedience to law is met with a full and adequate infliction of punishment, sufficient to support the administration of justice, then any further extension of the penalty is not only unnecessary but also unjust therefore the man who defames your character, or defrauds you of your rights, the wretched criminal who has murdered your wife or your children, or who has sought to imbrue his hands in your own blood, has already suffered the just and adequate punishment which his conduct has merited, and any further attempt of yours to bring the offender to justice is nothing less than a usurpation of an arbitrary and unrighteous power. But further, according to this hypothesis, the greater the sinner, the less the punishment: for if those compunctions of conscience, those pangs of remorse which according to this theory constitute the penalty of a violated law, be the full measure of punishment that is to be awarded to the delinquent, then, although at the commencement of his vicious career the individual endures a degree of punishment proportionate to the knowledge he possesses, yet allow him to proceed in his course of wickedness, and the deeper he plunges into sin, the more insensible does he become to those feelings of right and wrong which exist in all breasts; every act of rebellion blunts his moral sensibilities and renders him less susceptible of remorse; and thus by mitigating his penalty the farther he proceeds in a course of sin, you allow him to pursue his career unmolested, until at last death terminates his conduct and his being. But the common sense of mankind will repudiate this theory as being contrary to reason and experience. Those susceptibilities of pain consequent upon human guilt are not to be regarded as the full punishment of human transgression, but as the preludes to that retribution which awaits every transgressor,-as the true detectives who will not only bring the offender to justice, but give important and incontrovertible evidence to the fact of his guilt and merited condemnation. But further, in infidelity there is another gradation still. Compelled to the admission of human guilt and wretchedness, it next brings in its varied pleas of extenuation founded upon the comparative innocence of its votaries, and the pure benevolence of the Deity. But ah! unless you can annihilate that relationship which is comprehended in the idea of moral government-unless you can change the nature of law, show that it has no penalties, or that they may be safely dispensed with, your pleas are all unavailing. A law without penalties cannot exist, and a government that can dispense with them is not a righteous government. Law is the expression of the mind and will of the lawgiver, the penalty attached to its violation exhibits the estimation in which that law is held by him, and its design is to preserve the highest interests of all moral beings in the universe. The character of the lawgiver, and the preservation of moral order therefore demand the infliction of the penalty on the transgressor unless the ends of government can be answered by another expedient. It is just at this point that Christianity steps forward and proclaims the glorious possibility of pardon; that notwithstanding the peculiar difficulties of the case, a method has been devised by which the Deity can uphold the principles of his government on a righteous basis, while he dispenses pardon to his once rebellious but now repentant subjects. The atonement is the grand solution of the problem of man's guilt and his restoration to pardon; the only key which explains the mystery of a righteous lawgiver pardoning his rebellious subjects and receiving them into his favour. It is true that objections have been raised to that view of moral administration presented in the aspect of the atonement, but those objections have been founded on a misapprehension or |