and beverage were either not precarious, or not habitually and speedily indispensable. Represent to yourself man as innocent, and in consequent possession of the unclouded favour of his God; and then consider whether it be probable, that a frame thus adapted to a paradisiacal state, thus designated by characteristical indications as originally formed for a paradisiacal state, would have been selected for the world in which we live. Turn to the contrary representation, a representation the accuracy of which we have already seen the pupil of natural theology_constrained, by other irresistible testimonies which she has produced, to allow regard man as having forfeited by transgression the Divine favour, and as placed by his God, with a view to ultimate possibilities of mercy and restoration, in a situation which, amidst tokens and means of grace, is at present to partake of a penal character. For such a situation; for residence on the existing earth as the appointed scene of discipline at once merciful, moral, and penal; what frame could be more wisely calculated? What frame could be more happily adjusted to receive, and to convey, and to aid, and to con tinue, the impressions, which, if mercy and restoration are to be attained, must antecedently be wrought into the mind? Is not such a frame, in such a world, a living and a faithful witness, a constant and an energetic remembrancer, to natural reason, that man was created holy; that he fell from obedience; that his existence was continued for purposes of mercy and restoration; that he is placed in his earthly abode under a dispensation bearing the combined marks of attainable grace, and of penal discipline? Is not such a frame, in such a world, a preparation for the reception, and a collateral evidence to the truth, of Christianity? Consider, farther, the general amount and condition of human health. In amount it is collectively adequate to the necessities of terrestrial existence. This circumstance simply proves that, so far as health is concerned, man is fitted for his situation. Viewed by itself, it indicates not the cause of that situation. It neither proves nor intimates whether the existing nature of the situation was the original appointment of the Creator, or a subsequent result of human conduct. It is a circumstance, however, which, to say the least, does not militate against our argument. On the contrary, it entirely accords I with the supposition, that man is under a dispensation partly merciful. But in contemplating I human health, for the sake of the inferences which it may furnish, the sufficiency of its gross amount to the urgencies of earthly occupations is a fact commensurate only with a part of the = subject. From other parts may there not flow conclusions most relevant to the enquiries of natural theology, most important in their bearings upon her investigations? Recollect then, that there are numbers to whom the blessing of vigorous health is, by the wisdom of God, denied; is denied perhaps from infancy to the grave. Recollect the precariousness of health in yourself, in every man.. It may vanish with the dew of the approaching morn. It is a vapour which passeth away. Recollect the multitude, the inexhaustible variety, of diseases. Consider days and nights of weariness and pain. Consider the sickening languor, the overwhelming debility, and recurrent pangs, the corroding torturé, the burning agonies, by which health is assailed, enervated, destroyed. Are you not re cognizing, in these inflictions, the character of a partly penal dispensation? They prove by their extent, by their duration, and by their violence, that they are not merely cautionary admonitions, but chastisements; that they are not gentle hints to innocent beings, calling them to attend to the preservation of health, lest they should negli gently fail to enjoy the full measure of the delights which the hand of an unoffended God might pour forth; but that they are judgments on a race of transgressors. There is one particular circumstance, so closely connected with the human constitution, so remarkable in itself, so feebly sustained by analogy in the animal creation; that I know not in what manner it could be explained by natural theology, except by assigning to it that penal character, which is unequivocally affixed to it by the Scriptures. The reader anticipates, that I have in view the agony of child-birth; a dispensation combining in each instance of increase in the human species the severity of pain with the peril of life; sometimes destroying the infant, sometimes the mother; sometimes consigning both to the same tomb, in one funeral procession; and thus changing into the bitterness of grief the expectant joy of a family, and of a vicinity; or, as on the day on which I pen these lines*, darkening with sorrow and consternation the face of an empire.. There is also a circumstance connected with the ordinary support of the human frame, which accords with a fallen state; and, conformably to our best judgment, with a fallen state only: namely, the general necessity for the use of animal food. Familiarity deadens impressions. But that a holy and pure being, in the full radiance of his Creator's approbation and love, should be constrained, for the preservation of his existence, or of his strength, continually to dip his hand in blood; to deprive of happiness and of life a fellow-creature, differing indeed from himself in form, and qualities, and powers, but the workmanship of the same hand from which his own existence flowed: this would be a supposition inconsistent, I think, with any semblance of probability. The inconsistency bears in its measure, attestation to the truth of that volume, * November 19, 1817. |