INFIDEL OBJECTIONS

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 19, 1861

INFIDEL OBJECTIONS.

(Concluded.)

Objection 5. "It can be proved by mathematical calculation, that there is not water enough in the world for a general deluge; and therefore the account which is given in the Bible of such a deluge is a fable, and the book which contains such fables is not worthy of any credit."

Answer. 1. It is difficult to know how to reply to a man who has such a crooked mind as to think that he who made all worlds, and holds the ocean in his hand, is unable to roll a flood of waters over this little globe. The God of the deist must be impotent indeed, if he cannot make a flood of any dimensions to suit his purposes. The God of the Christian is all powerful, there is nothing which he cannot do.

2. But even this frivolous assertion is not to be assented to as true. Nearly three-fourths of the whole surface of the globe are now covered with water, and it is not so easy to prove that the comparatively small portion of land may not sink and be inundated by the deep. Bold assertions are not arguments.

3. The fact of a deluge is almost universally asserted by geologists. The present appearance of the rocks and mountains and caverns of the earth, irresistibly proves that it must have been at some former period covered with water. This is now admitted by every distinguished geologist, whether he be friend or foe to the christian cause. The wreck and ruin everywhere visible upon the surface of our planet, have satisfied every careful observer that wild floods and rushing torrents have swept over the globe. Thus does science give her testimony to the truth of revelation.

Skeletons of whales have been found upon the sides of high mountains far from the ocean. The remains of animals which can live only in the torrid zone, are found far away in the frigid regions of the north, showing that they must have been borne there by the mighty rush of waters. Immense forests are found many feet beneath the surface of the earth, indisputably proving that the action of the water must have washed them down and covered them with earth. And there are evidences still more striking in the position of the various strata of which this earth is composed. The fact that there has been a deluge is written in living characters upon the face of nature. Blot out the record from the Bible, and still the evidence remains indisputable.

Objection 6. "Noah's ark, as described in the Bible, was not large enough to contain one half of the animals for which it was intended."

Answer. By an accurate measurement, taken from the proportions given by Moses, it is ascertained that the ark was about as large as eighteen of the largest ships of the present day. The distinct species of four-footed animals, known, amount to but about two hundred and fifty. These eighteen ships will carry twenty thousand men, with eighteen hundred pieces of cannon, and provisions for six months. Who then can for a moment doubt that the ark, built not for speed nor for beauty, but merely for buoyancy and strength, would afford accommodations for these two hundred and fifty pairs of quadrupeds, with the specified number of birds and insects, and eight human beings, with provisions for a year? It seems almost like trifling to answer such arguments, and yet deists are scattering them about among the ignorant and the credulous as powerful objections to the credibility of the Scriptures. The fact is, as stated by bishop Wilkins, "that of the two, it is more difficult to assign a number and bulk of necessary things to answer to the capacity of the ark than to find sufficient room for the several species of animals, and their food, already known to have been there."

There is one very interesting fact in this connection, deserving of notice. "It can be proved to demonstration, that the proportion of the length to the breadth, and of both to the height, in Noah's ark, is exactly that which renders any substance most buoyant, and the most perfectly secure even in a storm." Now it is a question really deserving of thought, how did Noah obtain such skill in architectural dimensions? It has been the result of long experience and careful observation, by which architects of the present day have obtained this knowledge. It did not come to them intuitively. How then did it happen that Noah, far back in the infancy of the world, was so accomplished a ship-builder? It is not an easy question for the deist to answer.

Objection 7. "The Israelites were ordered to wage exterminating war against the Canaanites. They were to show no mercy, they were to feel no compassion. Neither helpless age nor innocent infancy were to be spared. Men, women and children were to be exterminated by indiscriminate massacre. Is it possible to believe that God would issue such a command—that he would commission one nation to carry fire and blood to the habitation of another?"

Answer. 1. May not God use any instruments he pleases in the execution of his judgments? God poured an ocean of burning lava on Herculaneum and Pompeii. He spared neither age nor infancy, neither mother nor babe. All were overwhelmed in indiscriminate destruction. He shook the foundations of the earth, and opened one wide grave, in which was swallowed Lisbon, with her thousands of inhabitants. He sends pestilence and famine to desolate a city and a nation. Neither women nor children are spared. For hours and days they cry in the protracted agony of incurable disease. And are the horrors of war more fearful? May not God with as much propriety deliver up an abandoned city to the horrors of war as to the ocean of liquid fire, or the earthquake, or the all-devouring famine, or the dreadful plague? They who urge this objection, seem to be perfectly unconscious that it is just as powerful against the God of nature as against the God of revelation. In point of fact, God is continually sending judgments which spare neither age nor sex, neither female helplessness, nor unoffending infancy.

2. It is represented in the Bible, that on a certain occasion God found it to be necessary to check the pride and presumption of the Israelites by sending upon them deserved punishment. A judgment was to be sent sufficiently appalling to produce an impression upon their obdurate hearts. The choice was therefore offered to David, between seven years famine, three months of exposure to conquering enemies, and three days of pestilence. Now, is the sending of the horrors of war a greater impeachment of the divine justice, than sending the famine or pestilence? The deist says, God may send the famine—he may send the pestilence—but he must not send the sword. How perfectly childish such a distinction! And what arrogant presumption, for a man to sit in judgment upon the instruments which God may use in the execution of his will!

3. Is it asked, why did God desire the extermination of the Canaanites? We reply, why did he desire the destruction of Herculaneum and Pompeii? Why does he roll the cloud of pestilence over Barbary and Turkey? Why does he suffer a third part of the human race annually to die in infancy? This asking of questions is easy work, and when the deist has answered one half of those which are continually arising before the thinking mind he may begin to expect that perhaps the human mind will eventually be able to answer all. Even if we could see no reason why God should desire the extermination of the Canaanites, the occurrence would be burdened with no greater difficulties than everywhere meet us as we look upon the universally admitted acts of God.

4. But we can see a reason why God should desire the destruction of the Canaanites. They were abandoned to the most polluting idolatry. They were celebrating their degrading rites, with deeds of impurity and crime of the most revolting character. Will the deist say that it was criminal for God to exterminate such a race? Will

he say that it was expedient to expose the Israelites to the temptation of their sensual rites, or to the attacks of such a savage race? He must indeed be sorely pressed for an answer, to assert this. If God had swallowed them up by an earthquake, or rolled the waves of the Mediterranean over their habitations, or rained upon them the fires of heaven, destroying age and infancy together, all objection would be silenced. It seems, then, the only difficulty is, that God should have made use of the instrumentality of man in executing his judgments.

5. Why, then, the infidel asks, admitting that it was right that they should be exterminated, was it not done in some other way? Why not send pestilence or famine, rather than excite the passions of man, and deliver them over to the fury of the sword? Even here God has so unfolded to us the circumstances, as to furnish us with a conclusive answer.

The great object God had in view, in his dealings with the children of Israel, was to preserve them from the sin of idolatry, and to confirm them in the true religion. This object is to be seen in many of the otherwise unmeaning ceremonies of the Mosaic law. Now, what could produce upon the mind of a Jew such a deep conviction of God's utter abhorrence of idolatry, as to be himself the commissioned executor of the divine judgment? God did not send the pestilence, or the famine, or the flood. They would have produced but a comparatively trifling impression. He said to the Israelites, "Go, and exterminate that abandoned nation. Spare neither age nor sex. Purify the earth from the polluted race of idolaters with which it is now deformed." Can the ingenuity of man devise a measure more effectually calculated to produce the impression desired? Think you that the Israelites, as he passed through these awful scenes of fiery judgment did not feel more deeply than he ever felt before the danger of incurring the displeasure of God? As he saw the armies of God prosecuting their work of extermination from village to village, destroying root and branch, and every vestige of idolatry, think you he could easily be guilty of the same sin, and expose himself to the same awful judgment? The very measure adopted, bears the impress of the hand of that God who is wise in council, and fearful in judgment. In fact, no one can look at the measure, in all its bearings, without seeing that it was dictated by infinite wisdom.

The objection of the deist, then, is simply this, either,

1. God has no right to exterminate an abandoned nation in any way, either by flood, or pestilence, or famine, or sword. Or,

2. He has no right to exterminate them in that way which will produce the deepest impression of the enormity of sin upon the minds of those that remain.

The man who will attempt to defend either of these positions, is beyond the reach of argument. The man who has sufficient candor to admit that neither of them is defensible, must also admit that this much vaunted objection of the deist is completely overthrown.

Will any one say, that if God can wage exterminating war with his enemies, and deliver them over to the sword, man may do the same, and, uncommissioned of God, take the sword into his hand?

And is it so? May man do what God does? God sends disease, and takes away my neighbor's life. May I therefore poison my neighbor? God sends the lightning and burns my neighbor's dwelling. May I therefore kindle the flame of midnight conflagration? These are the frivolous cavils that the deists of the present day are putting forth as arguments which demand refutation. And they are received as arguments only by the giddy who are wedded to worldly pleasure, by the ignorant who are sunk in degraded sin, and the unreflecting who are in chase of the honors and opulence of the world.

Our rulers have authority from God under certain circumstances, to take away life, and leave a family in a situation worse than death. They are thus, as Moses was, the executors of the divine will, and are they therefore murderers? Does it impeach the divine goodness? Why then was Moses a murderer? Why did his conduct impeach the divine goodness?

The destruction of the Canaanites showed the Jews how powerless were the gods on whom the heathen relied, and impressed upon their minds the power of Jehovah, the God of Israel.

Objection 8. "David was a murderer and an adulterer. The catalogue of human crimes can hardly afford one of greater atrocity than his conduct in the affair of Uriah; and yet he is represented in the Bible as a man after God's own heart."

Answer. 1. The Bible condemns his sin as severely as it can be condemned by any one. The plain truth is stated, that David was guilty of such a crime, and it is spoken of in terms of the most unmeasured abhorrence. God sent a prophet to David with a special message of condemnation. He punished David for the crime with great severity. "Because," said the prophet, "by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme." 1. Your beloved child shall die. 2. For the remainder of life you shall not have one moment of domestic peace, but shall suffer as severely as man can suffer from domestic sorrows. 3. You shall have no more peace upon the throne. Bereaved of your child, and harassed for the remainder of your days with domestic discord and political disasters, you shall drag out a melancholy existence.

This was the sentence God sent the prophet to pass upon David; and this is the occurrence the deist quotes to prove that the God of the Bible countenances sin. Is this palliating sin? Is this passing it by as a slight occurrence?

What is the objection of the deist? It is, that notwithstanding this sin, God regarded David with approbation.

And what is the answer? It is, that God regarded his sin with the utmost abhorrence, and that for it David suffered to the very last hour of his life. He did not in this respect regard David with approbation. He was approved only for those things in which he did justly, and loved mercy, and walked humbly with God.

Even David himself does not attempt to palliate the sin. He acknowledges the righteousness of God's judgment. He condemns himself in language of the most abject humility and the deepest penitence. Read the fifty-first psalm, which he wrote in reference to this transaction. How heart-rending his penitence. How is he overwhelmed with self-loathing and self-abhorrence. "Have mercy upon me, O God," he cries, "Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgression, and my sin is ever before me. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy Holy Spirit from me." These were the confessions which David made; the feelings with which he was oppressed. And yet, strange to tell—almost incredible to believe, this is the transaction which the deist quotes to prove that the God of the Bible encourages adultery and murder.

Why did the writers of the Bible record this sin of David? They must have been very honest men, to give such an impartial statement of the vices as well as the virtues of those whose lives they describe. The historian surely knew, for he declares "that the deed would give great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme." Why then did he place this deed upon record, to be handed down through all coming time, to furnish occasion of scorn to the enemies of religion? The historian might have been silent upon this point. He might have recorded only the virtues of David. But without one word of palliation or extenuation, he records this sin in all its atrocity.

And these are the writers who, the deist thinks, are trying to impose upon the world; men who are so honest that they state the whole truth, without asking whether it will strengthen the believer, or furnish arguments to the infidel.

This affair of David taken in all its circumstances, is a strong evidence of the truth of religion.

1. It shows the inflexible impartiality of the sacred writers.

2. It shows God's utter abhorrence of David's sin, and the awful judgments with which he visits sin.

3. It shows the nature of genuine repentance with all its heart-rending agony, and the consolation which religion can afford to the penitent soul, burdened with the consciousness and enduring the awful consequences of guilt.

Objection 9. "The prayers of David are dictated by a spirit of most bitter revenge. Instead of forgiving his enemies, and praying that God would bless them, he imprecates vengeance upon their heads, and even pronounces a benediction upon those who shall dash their children against the stones. And yet it is said in the Bible that those prayers are dictated by the Holy Spirit."

Answer. "Suppose there is a horrid murder committed in our neighborhood. The axe and the knife of robbers have covered the floor of our friend's dwelling with the mangled corpses of the family. The Christian, appalled by the horrid spectacle, in the fervor of his morning prayer, says, O God, bring these guilty men to justice; O let them not escape; let swift retribution overtake them; let them suffer the just punishment for their crime, that the honor of our laws may be preserved, and that terror may fill the hearts of the wicked."

While thus praying, the infidel cries out, "What a revengeful wretch this man must be. Instead of praying that these murderers may escape and be prospered, he prays that the unhappy men may be caught and hung; and yet the man pretends that he is a Christian."

And does the infidel really think that David, the king of Israel ought not to pray that the laws should be honored, that the community should be protected, that the violators of law should be punished. Does he really think that it is wicked to pray that those who are scattering firebrands, arrows, and death through the community, may be shut up in prison; may be punished with all the rigor which wholesome laws enjoin? If he does think so, he must think that all law is malignity, and all penalty revenge. Perhaps he does think so; for he most pertinaciously asserts that God must be cruel to threaten transgressors with punishment—that is, to make laws; and that he must be malignant and revengeful to execute the penalty—that is, to shut up the wicked in the prison of hell. No wonder he is unwilling honestly to sit down to the study of the Bible. If he comes to the light, he will see the truth, and his deeds will be reproved.

Such are some of the most plausible and most popular of the arguments urged by infidels at the present day. And there are not a few who are persuaded by such arguments to renounce the hopes and consolations and restraints of Christianity. I cannot find it in my heart to speak of such in any other spirit than that of sorrow. They are depriving themselves of that which magnifies every earthly joy, and alleviates every earthly sorrow; which promotes peace on earth, and good will among men; which sustains in darkness, and gives triumph in the hour of death. Yes, we mourn for the unhappy infidel.—Abbot's Magazine.