And rally round
The glorious sound
Of liberty!’
“The reader will see that the piece was designed for home consumption. It was exactly suited to the occasion; and was marked throughout, in spirit, style, and thought, with the elements of his education. And this production, with others in prose and poetry, made him at once a notable in the community; secured to him a wide circle of friends, and opened the way for his promotion to office and honor. The old men were all ready to give him a lift, almost without distinction of ‘party.’ The young folks made his house a place of common resort, to which they gathered to spend their leisure hours; while himself and wife became the central unit which drew them together and kept all in motion.”
“In his political sentiments, he was decidedly democratic. But he had intelligence enough to see that the practical patriotism of men did not depend so much on the party name they took as on their common sense and integrity. He knew that there were bad men enough in either party to ruin the country, if they had the power to do it; and good men enough in the same parties to promote the public prosperity to the best of their ability. His position, therefore, was taken in view of the tendency of different political principles and public measures, in their ultimate bearing on the established institutions of the country. He enjoyed, in a remarkable degree, the confidence of both the political parties of the day.”
“In the case of most men of the world, with the avenues to honor, wealth, and domestic happiness wide open before them, it is not often that a public station so commanding would be voluntarily left for the hardships, privations, and dangers, of the camp. What strong impulses could have turned him off in that direction? Already the business of his office had placed him in easy circumstances. Such was the amount of his business that he kept two horses, one of which he drove, while the other was kept up to rest, week by week, alternately. He enjoyed the respect and unbounded confidence of the public; and he only needed to make himself still as worthy of public favor as he had been hitherto, and then with life and health, all that this world could afford was within his reach. His preference for the army, so far as we know, sprang from these two motives: First, he desired to participate in the glory which rested on the memory of those he held the most dear, in the history of his country and of his family. Second, he hoped to enjoy a more inviting exhibition of human nature in the scenes of military life than experience or books had afforded in civil life.
“His desire for something noble in character was greater than that for wealth or unsubstantial fame. He was satisfied with the trial of what was around him, and wished to try a new field. This is stated by himself in his published memoir: ‘In the meantime, I continued my studies, storing my mind with historical knowledge. The more I read, the more dreadfully corrupt did the character of man appear. I could discern no bright spot in the history of the past. Those conquerors of the world, and heroes of history, were apparently but demons in human form. All the sorrow, suffering, and misery in the world, seemed to be increased in proportion to the power they obtained over their fellows. I began to feel very distrustful of all men. In this state of mind, I entered the service of my country. I fondly cherished the idea that I should find one bright spot at least in the human character, as a star of hope—a love of country—Patriotism.’
“Happy, indeed, should we consider ourselves if there were no drawback to this apparent prosperity to be noted. Rarely is it the case that the honor of God and the honor of man are coincident. If Mr. Miller was not puffed up by the latter, he had lost much of his regard for the former. In his worldly advancement, there was a serious and dangerous departure from the Christian sentiments which were instilled into his mind during his early life. Still there was no defect in his character which the most rigid worldly standard of external morality could detect. He was perfectly upright and honorable in all his dealings. He was generous, almost to a fault, with his friends, compassionate and liberal to the poor, and he held in the highest contempt every act that could tarnish a man’s personal and private honor. He was not profane, even to the extent that too many are who pass for gentlemen. He was not intemperate, although he was very much exposed to this ruinous habit from the example of those into whose company his business called him—a habit which had broken down some of his predecessors in office, by rendering them incapable of attending to their business. He escaped from it without the least stain.
“It could be shown, from sentiments embodied in some of his essays, in addresses delivered before societies existing at the time, and in his poetic effusions, that his moral and religious views were of a type that would pass with the world as philosophical, pure, and sublime. But the men with whom he associated from the time of his removal to Poultney, and to whom he was considerably indebted for his worldly favors, were deeply affected with skeptical principles and deistical theories. They were not immoral men; but, as a class, were good citizens, and generally of serious deportment, humane and benevolent. However, they rejected the Bible as the standard of religious truth, and endeavored to make its rejection plausible by such aid as could be obtained from the writings of Voltaire, Hume, Volney, Paine, Ethan Allen, and others. Mr. Miller studied these works closely, and at length avowed himself a deist. As he has stated the period of his deistical life to have been twelve years, that period must have begun in 1804; for he embraced or returned to the Christian faith in 1816. It may fairly be doubted, however, notwithstanding his known thoroughness and consistency, whether Mr. Miller ever was fully settled in that form of deism which reduces man to a level with the brutes, as to the supposed duration of their existence. And the question is worthy of a little inquiry, To what extent was he a deist?
“Robert Hall, with his usual comprehensiveness and truth, has remarked that ‘infidelity is the offspring of corrupt Christianity.’ It is much more successful in the discovery of supposed arguments against the existence of the Deity of the Scriptures, in the perversion of that which is divine, than in its institution and appointed use. Voltaire chose the ruins of human nature, in their most perverted and blighted condition, and Volney chose the ‘ruins’ of human habitations, for the theater on which to display their mighty but evil genius. And they conjured forth the same evil spirit which had instigated or caused the ruin, in each case, to utter a false testimony, in reference both to ruined man and his ruined habitations. These men became the oracles of that falsehood to the world! But it was never the intention of God, that man, or the world fitted up for his habitation, should be in this ruined condition; it is the work of rebellion and sin!—of sin against the greatest displays of love and goodness that were possible, and against the purest and most reasonable law that could be given; of rebellion that was marked by contempt of the universal Sovereign, and of authority enforced by the lightest test of submission. And God has spoken to us, to inform us that he has made provision for the restoration of all men, and that it is his purpose to restore all who become interested in that provision, with the world now in ruins, to a condition which no history but the Bible has made known.