Profession of Faith from Rousseau, continued.

What if a man fhould come and harangue us in the following manner: "I come, ye mortals, to announce to you the will of the moft high; acknowledge in my voice that of him who fent me. I command the fun to move backwards, the ftars to change their places, the mountains to difappear, the waves to remain fixed on high, and the earth to wear a different aspect." Who would not, at the fight of fuch miracles, immediately attribute them to the author of nature? Nature is not obedient to impoftors; their miracles are always performed in the highways, in the fields, or in apartments where: they are displayed before a small number of fpectators, previously disposed to believe every thing they fee. Who is there will venture to determine how many eye-witnesses are neceffary to render a miracle worthy of credit? If the miracles intended to prove the truth of your doctrine, ftand themselves in need of proof, of what use are they? There might as well be none performed at all.

The most important examination, after all, remains to be made into the truth of the doctrines delivered, for as those who say that God is pleased to work thefe miracles pretend that the devil fometimes imitates them, we are not a jot nearer than before, though fuch miracles fhould be ever fo well attefted. As the magicians of Pharoah worked the fame miracles, even in the presence of Moles, as he himself performed by the exprefs command of God, why might not they, in his abfence, from the fame proofs, pretend to the fame authority? Thus : after proving the truth of the doctrine by the miracle, you are reduced to prove the truth of the miracle by that of the doctrine, left the works of the devil fhould be miftaken for thofe of the Lord. What think you of this alternative?

The doctrines coming from God, ought to bear the facred characters of the divinity; and fhould not only clear up thofe confufed ideas which enlightened reafon excites in the mind; but should also furnish us with a fyftem of આ ગ્રંથ વા

religion and morals, agreeable to thofe attributes by which only we form a conception of his effence. If then they teach us only abfurdities, if they infpire us with fentiments of averfion for our fellow creatures, and fear for ourselves; if they defcribe the deity as a vindictive, partial, jealous and angry being, as a god of war and battles, always ready to thunder and deftroy; always threatening flaughter and revenge, and even boafting of punishing the innocent, my heart cannot be incited to love fuch a deity, and I fhall take care how I give up my na tural religion to embrace fuch doctrines. Your God is not mine, I should say to profeffors of fuch a religion. A being, who begins his difpenfations with partially felecting one people, and profcribing the reft of mankind, is not the common father of the human race; a being, who destines to eternal punishment the greatest part of his creatures, is not the good and merciful God who is pointed out by my reason.

With regard to articles of faith, my reafon tells me, they should be clear, perfpicuous and evident. If natural religion be infufficient, it is owing to the obfcurity iu which it neceffarily leaves thofe fublime truths it profeffes to teach it is the bufinefs of revelation to exhibit them to the mind in a more clear and fenfible manner; to adapt them to his understanding, and to enable him; to conceive, in order that he may be capable of believing them. True faith is affured and confirmed by the underftanding, the beft of all religions is undoubtedly the clearest that which is clouded with myfteries and contradictions, the worship that is to be taught by preaching, teaches me by that very circumftance to diftruft it. The God whom I adore is not tho God of darkness; he hath not given me an understanding to forbid me the use of it. To bid me give up my reafon is to infult the author of it. The minifter of truth doth not tyrannise over my underftanding, he enlightens it.

We have fet afide all human authority, and without it I cannot fee how one man can convince another, by preaching to him an unreasonable doctrine. Let us fup.

pofe two perfons engaged in a difpute on this head, and fee how they will exprefs themfelves in the language; generally made ufe of on fuch occafions.

DOGMATIST.

"Your reafon tells you that the whole is greater than part; but I tell you, from God, that a part is greater than the whole."

RATIONALIST.

"And who are you, that dare to tell me God contradicts himfelf? In whom fhall I rather believe? In him who inftructs me, by means of reason, in the knowledge of eternal truths; or in you who would impofe on me, in his name, the greateft abfurdity?"

D.

"In me, for my instructions are more positive; and It will prove to you inconteftibly, that he hath fent me."

R.

"How ! will you prove that God hath fent you to depose against himself? What fort of proofs can you brin, to convince me, is it more certain that God fpeaks byour mouth than by the underftanding he hath given

me?"

D.

"The understanding he hath given you! Ridiculous and contemptible man! you talk as if you were the firft infidel who ever was mifled by an understanding depra ved by fin."

R.

"Nor may you, man of God! be the firft knave whofe impudence hath been the only proof he could give of his divine miffion."

D.

"How can philofophers be thus abusive ?”

R.

"Sometimes, when Saints fet them the example.”

D.

10 Oh but I am authorised to abuse you. I fpeak on the

part of God Almighty.”

R.

"It would not be improper, however, to produce your credentials before you affume your privileges."

D.

"My credentials are fufficiently authenticated. Both heaven and earth are witnesses in my favor. Attend I pray you, to my arguments."

R.

Arguents! why you do not fure pretend 'to any! To tell me that my reafon is fallacious, is to refute whatever it may say in your favor. Whoever refuses to abide by the dictates of reafon, ought to be able to convince without making use of it. For fuppofing that in the course of your arguments you convince me, how fhall I know whether it be not through the fallacy of reason, depraved by fin, that I acquiefce in what you affirm? Befides, what proof, what demonftration can you ever employ more evident than the anxiom which deftroys it? It is full as credible that a juft fyllogifm fhould be falfe, as that a part is greater than the whole."

D.

"What a difference! my proofs admit of no reply; they are of a fupernatural kind."

R.

"Supernatural! What is the meaning of that term? I do not understand it,"

D.

"Contraventions of the order of nature, peophecies, miracles and prodigies of every kind."

R.

"Prodigies and miracles! I have never feen any of these things."

D,

"No matter; others have feen them for you: We can bring clouds of witneffes-the teftimony of whole nations..

R.

"The teftimony of whole nations! Is that a proof of the fupernatural kind?”

ས

D.

"No. But when it is unanimous, it is inconteftible."

R.

"There is nothing more inconteftible than the dictates of reafon; nor can the teftimony of all mankind prove the truth of an abfurdity. Let us fee fome of your fupernatural proofs then, as the atteftation of men

is not fo."

D.

"Infidel wretch! It is plain the grace of God doth not fpeak to thy understanding."

R.

"Whofe fault is that? not mine; for according to you, it is neceffary to be enlightened by grace to know how to ask for it. Begin then, and speak to me in its ftead."

D.

"Is not this what I am doing? But you will not hear me: What do you fay to prophecies ?"

R.

"As to prophecies; I fay, in the firft place, I have heard as few of them as I have feen miracles. And in the second, I say that no prophecy bears any weight with me."

D.

"Thou defciple of Satan! And why have prophecies no weight with you

To be continued.

New-York: Published every Saturday, by ELIHU. PALMER, No. 26, Chatham-street. Price Twe Dollars per ann. paid in advance.