DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9552#0213
TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC.
I83
that the Compiler confined himself to those Precepts,
concerning which all mankind must be of one accord.
As to the question of the Editor, " It can searcely
be unknown to the Compiler, that the very being of a
God has been for numerous ages the subject of dispute
among the most learned of his own country ; does he
account this a sufficient reason for suppressing this
doctrine? We know that he does not. Why then
should he omit the doctrines of Christ and his Apostles,
because men have made them the subject of dispute?"
For a direct answer to this question, I beg to refer the
Reverend Editor to the Appeal of the Compiler, page
27, wherein he will find that he assigns not one, but two
circumstances, as concurring to form the motive of his
having omitted certain doctrines of Christianity in his
selection—rst, that they are the subject of disputes and
contention—2ndly, that they are not essential to reli-
gion. It is therefore obvious, that the analogy between
the omission of certain dogmas, and that of the being of
a God, has been unfairly drawn by the Editor. Admit-
ting that the doctrines of Christianity and the existence
of a God are equally liable to disputes, it should be recol-
lected that the former are, in the estimation of the Com-
piler, not essential to religion ; while the latter is
acknowledged by him, in common with the professors of
every faith, to be the foundation of all religion, as dis-
tinctly stated in his Introduction to the selected Precepts
of Jesus. Every system of religion adopts the idea of a
God, and avows this as its fundamental principle, though
they differ from one another in representing the nature
and attributes of the Deity. The Compiler therefore
could have no motive for suppressing the doctrine
I83
that the Compiler confined himself to those Precepts,
concerning which all mankind must be of one accord.
As to the question of the Editor, " It can searcely
be unknown to the Compiler, that the very being of a
God has been for numerous ages the subject of dispute
among the most learned of his own country ; does he
account this a sufficient reason for suppressing this
doctrine? We know that he does not. Why then
should he omit the doctrines of Christ and his Apostles,
because men have made them the subject of dispute?"
For a direct answer to this question, I beg to refer the
Reverend Editor to the Appeal of the Compiler, page
27, wherein he will find that he assigns not one, but two
circumstances, as concurring to form the motive of his
having omitted certain doctrines of Christianity in his
selection—rst, that they are the subject of disputes and
contention—2ndly, that they are not essential to reli-
gion. It is therefore obvious, that the analogy between
the omission of certain dogmas, and that of the being of
a God, has been unfairly drawn by the Editor. Admit-
ting that the doctrines of Christianity and the existence
of a God are equally liable to disputes, it should be recol-
lected that the former are, in the estimation of the Com-
piler, not essential to religion ; while the latter is
acknowledged by him, in common with the professors of
every faith, to be the foundation of all religion, as dis-
tinctly stated in his Introduction to the selected Precepts
of Jesus. Every system of religion adopts the idea of a
God, and avows this as its fundamental principle, though
they differ from one another in representing the nature
and attributes of the Deity. The Compiler therefore
could have no motive for suppressing the doctrine