THE

BAPTIST PREACHER.

VOL. III.

July, 1844.

NO. 7.

ON THE BENEVOLENCE OF THE MORAL DUTY OF MAN, TO LOVE GOD SUPREMELY, AND HIS NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF A SERMON, BY

REV. M. R. SUARES, OF GEORGIA.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind : and thy neighbor as thyself."-LUKE X: 27.

Obvious as the truth is, that there is a God, yet there have been men in all ages, who denied his existence, and ascribed the fair proportions of this universe to chance. Bewildered in the dark regions of speculative subjects, and rushing from things profane, to things divine, they have clothed the fairest truths in the darkest confusion. It is not strange therefore, that we should be goaded with the baneful systems of atheism and infidelity; and that the fair prospect of man's immortality should be reduced to a system of pure materialism. Siezing with avidity every circumstance that may seemingly invalidate the existence of God, they have published it to the world, with the voice of a trumpet, ere its truth could be fully established. The commixture of good and of evil; the prosperity of the murderous and oppressive; the depression of the benevolent and the good; constitute, in their estimation, an infallible argument, that there is no moral distinction; and that consequently, there can be no moral government. Sentiments like these, have weakened the religious principles of those whose imbecility of mind has made them the sport of 'every wind of doctrine.' Few, however, unaided by the light of revelation, can fail to gather from the storehouse of nature, some evidence of an original and benevolent power. The child of nature, rude and unpolished, whose soul has never glowed with the kindlings of science,

"Sees God in clouds or hears him in the wind."

But if with revelation combined, any can be found who conscientiously disbelieve the existence of God, it will form a singu

lar example in the history of mind. Not unfrequently, men adopt the principles of infidelity, not from a conviction of their truth, but because they are more congenial with their habits and feelings. Man, though he be ever so vile, will think it below his dignity not to be governed by principles, whether they be the natural or artificial convictions of his mind. In surveying the wide field of speculative subjects, one is astonished at the diversity of theories. Many groping their way in the dark_regions of abstractions, are scarcely perceptible. The further they proceed, the more dim is the object of their pursuit, until they find themselves wrapped in darkness, impervious to the ways of truth. The mists of prejudice, which have thus been gathered and condensed, hanging awfully over the light of revelation, have concealed these foul theories in the intensity of their blackness. It is not surprising therefore, that when a pall is thrown over divine truth, the systems of men should conflict with each other, and exhibit the strangest confusion. The origin of man has been ascribed by one to plants-by another, to the race of monkeysand a third, to oysters. More in accordance with the principles of reason, is the Bible's account of the formation of man.

Human arrogance has not been satisfied at aiming its shaft at man's origin; but it has dared to question the validity of the Scriptures. Like the fabled giants, building mountain upon mountain, in order to reach heaven, to know its mysteries, or to be as Gods; so man would pile objection on objection, until he had proved, or imagined he had, that there is no God-no heaven-no hell-no state of retributive justice, and consequently the Bible, purporting to be the word of God, is the production of fiction, and no way binding upon the moral sense of man. Such a system as this, was introduced into the world by Epicurus; and for ages, this theory, dark and foul in its features, was embraced with the fondest devotion. The passions of men gathering around it, audibly proclaimed it the true secret of human happiness. Silencing all remonstrances of conscience, they pressed closer to their bosom the illusions of a false hope. Thus armed, they could lie as sweetly as on beds of roses, amid the thunderings of Sinai. They could smile at the drawn sword of God's justicethey could hear, unmoved, the wailings of the lost; for they were only the creations of a diseased mind, or the fumes of a heated imagination. All the sublime and awful truths of the Gospel were considered by them the results of a superstitious fancy. The practical tendencies of such sentiments, are too obvious to need a passing notice. Their characters are too deeply and painfully written in the history of France. The gradual and silent infection produced by the wide diffusion of infidel sentiments, poisoned the fountain of her moral character. The materials of vice which were gathering for ages, poured their awful contents in every direction, affecting those who felt as well as those who

witnessed their awful explosion. Costly indeed was the lesson taught by this example; and therefore the more likely to be remembered. The tragical scenes that succeeded, will constitute a monument, cemented withblood, teaching all future generations the folly of man in subverting all laws of justice between God and his creatures; and substituting a religion of fancy for that of the Bible. With feelings of unmingled pleasure, coming ages, gazing upon the edifice of divine revelation, and enraptured with the beauty of its structure, will wonder at the philosophy of those materials that compose it, which so far from being defaced by the assaults of men and time, have only acquired additional lustre and glory. And this will ever constitute an infallible evidence, that like its original, it is divine, and the more it is tried, the more illustrious it becomes. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbor as thyself.'

In the discussion of the subject before me, I shall consider several points.

And first, That there is a God, and that He is benevolent. Secondly-That the creation of man is a blessing; and he, therefore, is under moral obligation to love God supremely.

Thirdly-That He who could thus create man, susceptible ofso much enjoyment, is the only being worthy of his (man's) affections; and there is none more qualified to appreciate it.

Fourthly-The rule by which we may determine the supremof our affection for God.

acy

Fifthly-Who is our neighbor? and what is to be understood by the expression, 'Love thy neighbour as thyself.'

Sixthly That the permanency of our happiness is inseparably connected with the observance of this command, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbor as thyself.'

You perceive that I have marked out for myself, a very wide and extensive field. I cannot gather every flower and go through the tedious process of analyzing them for you. I can show you only a few of each class, and ask you to examine the rest for yourself._ And, first,―There is a God.

The existence of God has never been questioned, except by those, who seeming to be wise, have become fools. Who, in gazing on this planet, its mountains, its rivers, its lakes, its volcanoes, and understanding what part they act in the physical economy, can fail to perceive, that it is the production of an intelligent agent. Were it not for the mutual accommodation of laws, visible in every department of the physical universe, the most serious results would succeed. For if the earth's progress around the sun were seven times greater, it would overcome the power of gravitation, and consequently, neither man, nor beast, nor any

To

If

creature could inhabit it. Now, to regulate it by a law, so that its velocity shall be precisely such, as, acting in harmony with other laws, shall produce a beneficial result, surely it would be contrary to all principles of reason and analogy, to suppose it to be the production of any other than an intelligent agent. say the least, it cannot be the effect of chance. Should some novel machine be presented to us, after understanding the relation which the parts sustain to each other, and the laws by which motion is produced, we immediately conclude that it is the production of an intelligent agent; because it betrays design. For if it be not the work of an intelligent mind, it must be the work of chance; and if so, then chance, which made it one thing to-day, may make it another thing to morrow, so that it may become a perfect Proteus. The planet, of which we are the inhabitants, as well as our constitution, abounds with evidences of design. the earth had no motion, its ability to support its inhabitants would cease. If there were no light the eye would be useless if there were no air the lungs could not move. Now, for the action of the planet to be such as to destroy stagnation; for the eye to require just such rays as are essential to produce vision: for the lungs to require just such air as is requisite to produce respiration; is a coincidence solvable on no other supposition that that it is the result of an intelligent, a superior mind. With an air of triumph, and conclusions truly philosophical, the Psalmist has said: Shall he who made the eye not see; shall he who made the ear not hear; shall he who gave man knowledge not know.' Exceptions have been taken to some defect, connected with our physical organization. It has been said, that the eyes are sometimes a source of pain. This, however, does not invalidate the position, that the eye was designed for use. A pen-knife may sometimes cut a man's finger, but he never would presume to say that the knife was made for that purpose. Therefore the failure of any organ to perform its function, is no proof of the want of design. But again

man.

It is a principle in philosophy, that inanimate matter cannot move itself; and unless it be moved, it must remain in a state of rest. It must also be admitted, that the earth was created before The question is, does the earth move? The answer is, it does. The next question is, who moved it? It could not have been man: for, according to the principles of mechanics, he had not the power. Besides, man was made, adapted to the earth, and consequently the earth must have been governed by those laws which now regulate it, prior to its inhabitation by man. Therefore, as the earth does move, and its motion was not produced by man, it must have been made by some agent superior to manthat agent is God. By a similar course of reasoning on moral subjects, we can arrive at the same conclusion; but time forbids me to indulge much longer on this topic. The relation which

one moral law sustains to another, and their final results, incontestibly prove, that laws which are so comprehensive in their design, adapted to all the complicated relations of life, could have originated with no other than an infinitely wise and benevolent being. For the moral economy of God's government carries with it more features and evidences of design, than his physical; or to say the least, it throws more light on the deep and profound workings of his incomprehensible wisdom. To anticipate moral changes, and form laws suited to every exigency, prove not only design, but benevolence—and hence we arrive at the second proposition of our subject; that the creation of man is benevolent.

Men have ever exhibited a strange aversion in acknowledging the extent of their obligation. Any consideration, how forced soever, and unnatural, that can be adduced to lessen their responsibility, will be readily and cheerfully adduced. The love of responsibility is not natural. It is not a native plant of the human mind, though it may be seen flourishing in the more fruitful portions of it. These spots, however, form an exception to the general character of the soil, and should not be regarded as an authorized rule in determining the character of the rest. The love of curiosity may sometimes be mistaken for responsibility. Curiosity is natural, because it is connected with knowledge. It is the very key to knowledge, and its indulgence a source of pleasure; for knowledge is pleasing. Responsibility, on the other hand, though assumed, because it must fall on some member of the human family, is a source of care and anxiety, and therefore not natural; for it is incongruous with the principles of our constitution to impose burdens and duties on ourselves, without the prospect of an equivalent. Motives of ambition, or a sense of duty, may impel to the assumption of responsibility, because of some ulterior good; but no native disposition is sufficiently strong to force us to assume it. Hence, men have always striven to lessen their obligation; and this just in proportion to the responsibilities involved. As the relation we sustain to God is the most important of all relations, the obligations arising from that relation are equally so; (i. e. important) and hence from this native indisposition to assume responsibility, men have questioned, though falsely, whether they are under any obligation to love God with all their minds, and their neighbor as themselves; inasmuch, say they, as God has forced these responsibilities upon us, without our consent; or, in other words, that God has made us and the duties consequent upon that relation without first consulting us. A little reflection will convince us, that although man was not consulted, yet his creation is a blessing, and the duties arising from that relation are in the highest degree beneficial.

Viewing man as he is, we find him a singular piece of machinery, combining in himself the elements of a compound being.