LECTURE I.

THE FOLLY OF ATHEISM.

“THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART, THERE IS NO GOD." Ps. XIV.

Introduction.-Note.-Different modes of reconciling the facts of geology with the Mosaic account of the creation.--Different views respecting the creation of light.--The various tribes and species inhabiting the earth-their existence had a beginning-this fact taken as a starting point in the discussionthe cause of that existence.-Argument from contrivance and design.-Note, on the existence of mind--evidence of causation.-This argument vindicated from an objection. The universe made by a Supreme Being, himself uncreated and eternal.--Note, evidence from the existence of the human mind.- Mr. Hume's objection to the argument from contrivance and design. This objection answered.-Note, Chalmer's Natural Theology and Lord Brougham's dissertation.-The laws of nature-these laws cannot account for the arrangement of the universe,-Intelligence, power, knowledge and holiness of God.--Human depravity, the secret source of atheism and infidelity. The divine origin of the Bible.--The way of salvation.--The influence of the Spirit.-Conclusion.

To a man of refined taste, glowing imagination, and exalted capacities, ambition seldom presents greater attractions, than when it kindles in his bosom the aspirations after literary fame. It is pleasant to roam over the tract of ages to converse with the master-spirits of by-gone generations to climb the altitudes of the past, and survey the progress which has been made in the march of truth. It is delightful to grapple with problems, which have called forth the energies of the most gifted inquirers, and to enter the field of scientific investigation, as a candidate for intellectual renown. There is often a high gratification in merely becoming acquainted with the discoveries of others,

without adding any thing ourselves to the stock of human knowledge; but not content with this, the mind sometimes wanders forth in quest of unknown pathways, and returns from these interesting excursions, laden with treasures which place their possessor in a far more enviable situation, than any which can be found in the aristocracies of wealth and power. In all such researches however, there is great danger from that spirit of pride and self-sufficiency, which is so natural to man: there is danger of substituting the gorgeous coloring of fancy for the plain dictates of enlightened reason, and mistaking rash, and confident, and unauthorized assumptions, for well-established and legitimate conclusions in a word, there is danger of "the weak vaunting themselves to be the strong," and perishing in the effulgence of their own presumption, like the fabled enthusiast of antiquity, who attempted to guide the chariot of the sun. The danger to which we have alluded, is perhaps no where more strikingly exemplified, than in the wild vagaries of Atheism, which we hold to be not merely at variance with the Christian religion, but a manifest departure from the plainest and simplest, and most unquestionable principles of natural science. We shall accordingly endeavor to demonstrate to the satisfaction of every impartial and candid inquirer, who will favor us with his undivided attention, that he who attempts to disprove the existence of a Deity, and to sweep from the track of immensity every vestige of an intelligent Creator, has in this respect no claim to the character of a sound philosopher. He may have investigated the physical structure and developments of the globe which we inhabit-he may have studied, and mastered the glittering alphabet, which is spread out in glowing colors on the tracery of the heavenshe may have searched the records of antiquity, and become familiar with the literature and science of every age-he may have gained a reputation for intellectual acumen be

yond the proudest of his rivals, and entwined around his temples the garlands of a deathless fame, but when he denies the existence of an intelligent Creator, whatever may be his claim to wisdom in other respects, in this particular he verifies the fearless and uncompromising declaration of the Psalmist, "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."

In entering upon this discussion, we shall make our appeal at the outset to that science from which modern infidelity has swelled her loudest notes of triumph. We mean the science of geology. And here we might proceed to show, that there is no real contradiction between the truths of natural science and the Bible when correctly and properly interpreted;* but this would carry us too far from the

• There are two methods, which are now generally adopted to reconcile the facts of Geology with the Mosaic account of creation. One is to consider the six days as literal days of twenty-four hours, in which the world was framed and fashioned for the use of man, and to refer the geological phenomena which have occasioned the difficulty, to a long succession of ages supposed to have elapsed between the original creation of matter and the specific work of the six days. The silence of the historian, it is said, is no proof against the existence of such a period. This view is maintained by the Rev. Dr. J. P. Smith, one of the most distinguished biblical scholars of the age. See his work on "Scripture and Geology."

The other method is, to consider the six days to have been six long epochs of duration, in which many of the geological phenomena occurred. This view does not conflict with the idea, that a very long period besides that of the six epochs elapsed between the original creation of matter and the work of the six days. It differs from the former, in understanding the word “day” to represent a very long period, and not merely a space of twenty-four hours. This view has been maintained by the learned Professor Silliman, of Yale College, New Haven, Ct.; by Professor Bush, of the New York University, by the Rev. R. C. Shimeall, and many others. See Silliman's Outlines, appended to Bakewell's Geology, Bush's Notes on Genesis, and Shimeall's "Age of the World and Signs of the Times."

Both of these views distinguish between the age of the world geologically, or from the original creation of matter, and the age of the world historically, or from the creation of man. The age of the world geologically, that is from

question immediately under consideration. The point now before us is not whether the Bible is a revelation from God, but whether such a Being as God has any existence. We care not, therefore, so far as the present argument is concerned, whether the world has flourished for six thousand years, or six millions of ages. We simply call your attention to a fact, in which all geologists are agreed, and that is the fact, that there was a period previously to which, the different tribes and species of animals that now inhabit the earth had no existence. There was

a period, when these different species had no existence; and of course their existence must have had a beginning. We wish you carefully to bear in mind this acknowledged

the original creation of matter may, according to some writers, be many thousands, and according to others many millions of years, but the age of the world historically, or from the creation of man, when stated in round numbers, is only about six thousand years.

There are also two views respecting the Mosaic account of the creation of light. One is, that on the first day light was created, and afterwards concentrated in the sun, which is regarded by those who hold this view, as not having been created till the fourth day. This explanation is given by the Rev. Andrew Fuller, Sharon Turner, and others.

The other is, that the sun was really created previous to the emanation of light, and that as the disk of the sun and the other heavenly bodies would not have appeared to the eye of a spectator on the earth, had one been present, till the fourth day, when the atmosphere was fully cleared of mists, etc., these bodies may be said to have been made on the fourth day, just as we say the sun rises and sets, because it so appears to the bodily organ of vision. Those who adopt this view think, that the light on the first day was the light of the sun passing through the clouded atmosphere to illumine the earth, as it now does on a foggy or cloudy day. This interpretation proceeds on the principle that the Bible describes physical facts, not in the abstract terms of philosophy, but in the popular language of common life, not as they really are, (scientifically considered,) but as they would appear to the eye of a spectator. This view is maintained by the Rev. Dr. John Pye Smith, the Rev. Dr. S. H. Turner, (of the New York Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary,) and Professor Bush. See Turner's "Companion to Genesis," Smith's "Scripture and Geology," and Bush's Notes on Genesis, Andover and New York edition, 1839, vol. i. p. 35.