be conceded that the young, of all others, stand most in need of being made familiar with the rightful claims of other beings, and of their own moral nature: it will also be conceded that the highest interests of society are dependent on the proper moral culture and behavior of those who are in a course of school education: it will also be granted, that Moral Philosophy, to be well understood, deeply felt, and regularly practiced, must be carefully studied and inculcated in seminaries of instruction, even though for the sake of this, some other branch of learning be neglected, or receive less than the usual share of the student's and instructor's time.

In fact, to know, to love, and to perform our duties, in the various relations we sustain, is the highest end and attainment of man. The proper means therefore should be provided and employed for this purpose.

1. What are some of the definitions of Moral Philosophy that have been given by popular writers upon that science?

2. What is the proper basis of this science?

3. Is reason capable of itself to derive, simply from the study of human nature and society, a correct and ample system of morals?

4. What course have moral philosophers generally pursued?

5. Is it wise or expedient, at this day, and in this Christian country, to attempt to separate Moral Philosophy from Christianity?

6. In order to acquire a practical knowledge of our duty, and of the proper motives to its performance, is it necessary to study voluminous systems of ethical science?

7. What then may be said of the philosophy which aims to discover moral rules simply by elaborate research into the moral constitution of man?

8. What then is the proper business of Moral Philosophy?

9. What further advantage may be derived from a system of Moral Phi'losophy that is derived, in a good measure, from the sacred scriptures? 10. In a work upon Moral Science, is it proper to aim at nothing more than an exhibition simply of the relations and duties of life?

11. Method adopted in the treatment of the science, in this volume? 12. What importance deserves to be attached to the study of Moral Philosophy?

NOTE. In teaching the following work, it may be expedient to allow scholars of undisciplined mind, to omit the study of the first four Books, until they shall have become familiar with the following Books.

The questions at the end of each section may be neglected or used, according to the ability or incompetency of the scholar to study the work thoroughly without them; and according to the judgment and taste of the instructor. They are of such a nature generally, as not to supersede the necessity of close application on the part of students that may use them; and by a large number of teachers they may be found to diminish the labor of instruction, and to render it effective.

ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM.

7

BOOK I.

THE BEING, PERFECTIONS, AND MORAL GOVERNMENT OF GOD, MADE KNOWN BY THE CREATION.

CHAPTER I.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

13. NATURAL Theology explains what human reason can discover or prove, concerning the being and attributes of God. In respect of certainty it is equal to any science, for its proofs rise to demonstration. In point of dignity it is superior to all others, its object being the Creator of the universe. Its utility is so great, that it lays the only sure foundation of human society and human happiness.

14. The proofs of the divine existence are innumerable, and continually force themselves upon our observation; and are withal so clear and striking, that nothing but the most obstinate prejudice and extreme depravity of heart and understanding could ever bring any rational being to disbelieve or doubt of it.

15. To say there is a God, we have only to see the impress of his being and attributes; but (says Dr. Chalmers), to be able to say with "the fool" there is no God, we must have roamed over all nature, and seen that no mark of a divine footstep was there; we must have searched into the records not of one planet only, but of all worlds, and thence gathered that throughout the wide realms of immensity, not one exhibition of a living and reigning God has ever been made. For man not to know of a God he has only to sink beneath the level of our common nature, but to deny him he must be a God himself.

"The

Upon this point, Foster also has well observed :wonder turns on the great process by which a man could grow to the immense intelligence that can KNOW that there is no God. This intelligence involves the very at

tributes of Divinity while a God is denied―omnipresence and omniscience.'

Atheism in its tendency is utterly subversive of morals, and consequently of happiness. They therefore, who teach atheistical doctrines, or who endeavor to make men doubtful in regard to this great and glorious truth, THE Being of God, do everything in their power to overturn government, to unhinge society, to eradicate virtue, to destroy happiness.

When we profess to demonstrate the existence of God, we speak of a being, underived, independent, immutable, and possessed of every possible perfection. If one or more perfections were wanting, we might conceive another being who possessed them all, and that other would be God.

16. The FIRST ARGUMENT we shall adduce in proof of the divine existence, consists of an inference from the present existence of ourselves, and of the other parts of the universe, and may thus be stated: "Since something exists now, something must have existed from eternity."

We are assured of our own existence by consciousness, and of the existence of other beings by the evidence of our senses, to which we give implicit credit by the law of our nature, without paying the least regard to the attempts of skeptical philosophers to invalidate their testimony.

Hence we infer that something must always have existed for if ever there was a time when nothing existed, there must have been a time when something began to be; and that something must have come into being without a cause; since, by the supposition, there was nothing before it. But that a thing should begin to exist, and yet proceed from no cause, is both absurd and inconceivable; all men, by the law of their nature, being necessarily determined to believe that whatever begins to exist proceeds from some cause. Beings could not make themselves, for this would suppose them to have existed before they existed; and they could not have sprung up by chance, for chance signifies no cause of any kind, and is merely a word expressing our ignorance of the cause. Therefore some being must have existed from eternity.

This being must have been either dependent on something else, or not dependent on anything else. Now an eternal succession of dependent beings, or a being which

THE UNIVERSE NOT ETERNAL.

9

is dependent and yet exists from eternity, is impossible. For if every part of such a succession be dependent, then the whole must be so; and, if the whole be dependent, there must be something on which it depends; and that something must be prior in time to that which depends on it, which is impossible if that which is dependent be from eternity. It follows that there must be an eternal and independent being on whom all other beings depend. 17. The atheist, being compelled to concede that something has existed from eternity, tells us that that something is the universe itself; that Nature is underived and self-existent. He has no objection to an eternal being, if that being is not understood to be endowed with intelligence and power, and above all, to be possessed of such moral perfections as justice and purity, the thought of which would lay a restraint upon his conduct, and create the disquieting apprehension of a future reckoning.

18. With respect to the hypothesis that the universe is an eternal existence ;-the human race is an important part of the universe, which, according to this hypothesis, has always existed by an eternal succession. Of the individuals who compose this succession, not one is selfexistent, but each is derived from his immediate predeHere then is a series or succession, every part of which had a beginning; and we ask, how could a succession be eternal, although all its parts had a beginning? How could all the parts have a beginning, and yet the whole be without beginning? It involves an express contradiction.

cessors.

The same reasoning may be applied to the other parts of the universe. The various races of animals and vegetables; the diurnal motion of the earth; the revolutions of the heavenly bodies; and in a word, all things, the duration of which is measured by hours and days and years, must have had a beginning.

19. When atheists affirm that the universe proceeds from chance, they must mean, either that the universe has no cause at all, or that its cause did not act intelligently or with design, in the production of it. That the universe proceeds from no cause, we have seen to be absurd, and therefore we shall overturn all the atheistical notions concerning chance, if we can show, what indeed is easily shown, and what no considerate person can be ignorant

A

of, that the cause of the universe is intelligent and wise, and in creating it must have acted with intelligence and wisdom.

20. The SECOND ARGUMENT for the existence of Deity, is founded on the proofs of design in the universe, according to the obvious dictate of reason, that where design appears there must be a designer; where there is a plan there must be a mind in which it was conceived. The adaptation of means to an end presupposes a being who had the end in view, and perceived the fitness of the means. The universe is full of designs. They are visible in its general frame, and in its particular parts.

21. The refuge of the atheist, when pressed with this argument, is to say, that the wisdom is in nature: but he speaks unintelligibly, and we are sure does not understand himself. Wisdom is an attribute of mind, and must reside in a being distinct from the universe, as the maker of a machine is distinct from the machine itself. That being is God," wonderful in counsel, excellent in working."

22. If we lighted upon a book containing a well-digested narrative of facts, or a train of accurate reasoning, we should never think of calling it a work of chance, but would immediately pronounce it the production of a cultivated mind. If we saw in a wilderness a building wellproportioned, commodiously arranged, and furnished with taste, we should conclude without hesitation, and without the slightest suspicion of mistake, that human intellect and human labor had been employed in planning and erecting it.

In cases of this kind an atheist would reason precisely as other men do. Why then does he not draw the same inference from the proofs of design which are discovered in the works of creation? While the premises are the same, why is the conclusion different? Upon what pretext of reason does he deny that a work, in all the parts of which wisdom appears, is the production of an intelligent author, and attribute the universe to chance, to nature, to necessity, to anything, although it should be a word without meaning, rather than to God?

23. It is impossible to survey the objects around us with any degree of attention, and not perceive marks of design, ends aimed at, and means employed to accomplish those ends.