known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor"?" No one doubts the absolute and unalterable certainty of what he has learnt, and consequently never dreams of the possibility of its being necessary for him to go and learn again. Thus is it in doctrine; and in morals it is the same. To love our enemy, is said to encourage enmity. To do good to those that hate us, is supposed to hold forth a premium to malevolence; and to "submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake," is imagined to level into one common mass the merits of a just and the iniquities of an oppressive government. But, say our wise objectors, to encourage strife, to give a premium to malevolence, and to make no difference between a just and an oppressive government, is manifestly irrational, because manifestly inconsistent with the welfare of society. Thus they reason, and thus they conclude about the precepts of the Bible; and the whole matter is then settled in the simplest and easiest of all possible propositions. Revelation, they allege, cannot be true, because its ethical principles are repugnant to the results of their philosophical investigations into the eternal fitness of things! Natural Philosophy might seem, as being deduced from experience and experiment, to be incapable of being thus tortured into an enemy of

a Rom. xi. 34.

b 1 Pet. ii. 13.

Scripture; but even this experimental science will be found in all ages to have fallen into the same unhappy fate. The Natural Philosopher walks forth to contemplate the majestic scenery of nature with a systematic eye, to disturb the silence of her solitudes with the sound of his hammer, and gather the materials of his geological theory from a few petty fragments broken off from the masses of her stupendous mountains. The theory is formed, admired, admitted, and then applied as a criterion of truth to the statements of the sacred writers. An apparent discrepancy is detected, and doubt or censure is immediately thrown upon the Bible, or its transcribers, or its expositors, or any thing or any person, rather than the system or its framer. Yet why should we wonder that the conclusions deduced only from the consideration of a meagre cabinet of insignificant specimens should seem to differ from that account in the Bible which refers to, and comprehends the mighty whole? There is nothing singular in all this; nothing more singular than that we should be ignorant or mistaken with regard to the internal plan and arrangement of a temple whose outward structure alone we had an opportunity to behold. Yet Yet upon such imperfect knowledge is the Bible condemned, and by such fallacious reasonings the unbeliever boasts the glory of a fancied triumph.

Such are a few instances of the fault to which I allude. I object not, it would be most unwise to object, to the discreet study of any branch of science, or to the legitimate application of its principles to any portion of the contents of the sacred Volume. We can never know too much, nor ever think and enquire too much, into the truth of the religion we profess. Examine it in all its bearings, try its difficulties by every principle; but when your theories and the Bible disagree, be pleased to remember the fleeting, unsubstantial nature of all human fabrics, whether material or intellectual, and think how foolish has proved the wisdom of some of the most favoured systems of imagination and ingenuity. Consider, therefore, most seriously with yourselves upon every such occasion, whether it be not possible, at least, that not the Bible but your own theories are false. Never condemn the Scriptures on account of their inconsistency with received opinions, until it has been shewn beyond the power of dispute that those opinions. partake of the nature and perpetuity of truth, and are, like the God of truth himself, eternal and immutably fixed.

Nor is this caution requisite only for those who would turn the difficulties of revelation into an objection to its authenticity or authority. It is

equally necessary for those who would explain, account for, or defend them. As much harm has been done, and as much error propagated by the endeavours of Theologians to meet the unbeliever on his own ground, and by attempts to elucidate "things hard to be understood" upon the principles of reigning theories, as by the efforts of objectors themselves to darken the counsels of Heaven, and pervert the simplicity of godliness by philosophic. subtleties. However plausible those, solutions which are founded upon such sophistry may appear at first, yet as soon as the theories cease to be in vogue upon which they are raised, the solutions themselves will share in the fall of that which supported them, and additional doubt and distrust follow of course. Are the principles of my philosophy true? Though true, are they applicable to the present case? Though applicable, are they applicable in an unlimited sense? and, if not, what are the restrictions to be observed in the manner and extent of their application? These are preliminary and essential points, and if any material mistake exist in these, we can never with confidence rely upon the conclusions we draw, whether against or in favour of revelation.

I have now pointed out several errors which appear to have vitiated the reasonings of those

numerous writers who at various times and with various intentions have endeavoured to turn the obscurities and difficulties of the Scriptures into an objection to their genuineness, authority or truth. Not that these errors are always, if at all, enunciated by the Sceptic himself as the principles upon which his conclusions against revelation are raised. The claims of the Bible to be an extraordinary communication from Heaven are rather forgotten than denied. The existence and nature of its plan for the redemption and restoration of mankind, and the intimate and mutual connection of its subordinate parts, are facts which are rather overlooked than disproved; whilst the application of human theories of morals and human systems of philosophy to those precepts and doctrines and dispensations which profess to be divine, is a mode of reasoning, the propriety of which is rather tacitly assumed than either positively asserted or argumentatively maintained. What arguments indeed could support, or what defence be urged in favour of propositions so manifestly inapplicable? Their refutation is implied almost in the very terms of their statement, and the illustration, rather than the demonstration, of their absurdity is that upon which we have found it most expedient to insist. It is silently, therefore, and not openly, that the conclusions of the unbeliever are in general founded

་

H