INTERNAL EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY DEDUCED FROM PHRENOLOGY. PART I. THE argument to be illustrated is, THAT THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF GOD, AS REVEALED BY CHRISTIANITY, IS CONFORMABLE TO THE PRINCIPLES OF OUR NATURE, AS DEMONSTRATED BY PHRENOLOGY. In establishing this, four propositions will be offered for consideration: first, That man is so constituted as to be constrained to worship some being; second, That he is endowed with certain faculties, enabling him to decide on what ought to be the object worshipped; third, That this object must be such as these faculties, unbiassed, approve of; and, fourth, That the God of Christianity is the only such object. The first proposition that requires demonstration is, THAT MAN IS SO CONSTITUTED AS TO BE CONSTRAINED TO WORSHIP SOME BEING. Such a proposition may, to some minds, be so self-evident as to need no proof. Indeed, one writer says, that "it is morally fit that man should reverence his Maker, is a proposition self-evident to all that rightly understand the terms." In proof, it has been urged, that man is called a religious animal. That he should have received such a distinguishing appellation without some adequate cause seems unreasonable. Indeed, this characteristic of human nature is very evident, even upon a superficial observation; and so strong and so general has been the impression of a superintending power, and of our duty to bow in homage before the same, that the most civilized of nations banished Pythagoras, one of their philosophers, for denying the existence of a God, and put another, called by the Delphic oracle the wisest of men, to death, for maintaining the existence. of a being thought by his countrymen to be in opposition to their superintending powers. The lifting up the hands and eyes towards heaven, the natural language of distress, seems to bear testimony to the general impression, both of the existence of a Deity, and of the duty of bowing before him. And, though, in health and prosperity, many among the heathens, and, in modern times, still many more, have pretended to doubt the existence of God, and consequently their duty to worship him; yet, in the days of adversity and sickness, we find, as Seneca remarks, that these skeptics show themselves to be most fearful of this Being, who, according to them, when in health, is the fancy of men. And few will doubt what Cicero says; "There was never a nation so savage, or people so barbarous, but always confessed the existence of a God." The objects of worship may be, not God, but devils, or, sometimes, even men; and the means for obtaining the favor of the being worshipped, may be not beneficent, but cruel; yet, the impressions that there is such a being, and that this, as such, should be worshipped, seem to be general. And it is a curious fact, that the very name the Greeks gave to the Deity, Osos, theos, signifies fear. If language consists of signs of things, this affords most striking illustration and evidence of the opinions of the Greeks upon this subject. However evident these conclusions may seem, and however fairly deduced from facts, some have disputed them. So evident, indeed, are they thought by one writer, that he attests "it would be as absurd to demand a reason why man should reverence his Maker, as to ask why a whole is greater than its part." But this is no argument; for it should always be remembered, that, before we can be convinced of the fitness of any thing, it must be evident to ourselves; it being clear to others, unless they be infallible (an attribute which a real Protestant will not be willing to allow to any man), is no reason why it should appear fit to us. Indeed, two objections have been urged against these conclusions, thus deduced: the first is, that there is no cause for a belief in a superior existence; and second, supposing that a superior being exists, there is no reason why he should be worshipped. These objections must be refuted; and, in their refutation, an opportunity will be afforded to show the importance of Phrenology, in giving the force of demonstration, to conclusions deduced from otherwise disputable observations. The * See Synge's Method, p. 11. |