Author of "Exposition and Defense of Universalism,” “Argument for Christianity," "Endless Misery Examined and Refuted," etc., etc. CINCINNATI: Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1870, by WILLIAMSON & CANTWELL, In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. STEREOTYPED AT THE FRANKLIN TYPE FOUNDRY, CINCINNATI, OHIO. INTRODUCTION. THE following work does not claim to be an elaborate or extended system, either of theological or moral science; it only essays to unfold some of the rudimental truths which are common to both. It is well, however, to understand in the outset, that theological and moral philosophy are so nearly allied, and so blended and interwoven with each other, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate them, so that we can indicate the precise point where one begins and the other ends. Neither of them can be complete or perfect without the other. Theology treats primarily of God and his government, and it is manifest that if its principles are not carried out and applied to the affairs of men; or if it does not teach the source of moral obligation and the science of duty, and furnish a test of virtue, it is imperfect and of little value. In like manner ethics or moral philosophy is the science of duty, teaching the source of moral obligation, and unfolding a universal and infallible test of virtue. But it is easy to perceive that a moral philosophy, which has no God in it, which does not recognize the principles of the divine government, is no philosophy at all, for the simple reason that, apart from the idea of God, the Creator and Ruler of the Universe, there neither is, nor can be, any such thing as duty, moral obligation, or virtue. It is evident, therefore, that moral science must go to theology for its first principles on the one hand, and on the other, theology must unfold the mysteries of moral science, or remain inoperative and of little worth. The two must go hand in hand. On this assumption the author of this work has proceeded, so far as its method is concerned. Hence, he has not thought it necessary to separate the theological from the moral, and hence, also, its title, |