it ought to be communicated. All speculations as to the mode, must, of necessity, come subsequent to the establishment of the fact: and no knowledge derived through the medium of a fact can prejudice our believe in the fact itself. But we have not yet done with the subject of these objections. If it can be shewn that the moral facts, on which they profess to be founded, are analogous to certain physical ones which are every where observable-it will follow, that the existence of the one class ought no more to affect our faith in revelation, than that of the other our belief of natural theology. Do we then perceive in the operation of those physical principles, of which we confess our ignorance when we call them laws of nature, any such entire, undeviating, inevitable uniformity, as to authorize the belief that in the case of a revelation of moral principles, the operation of those principles must of necessity be inevitable, entire, and undeviating? Do the various processes of animal life observe such a certain and uniform precision? Does sickness never impede, nor disease derange them before their exercise is finally suspended, and the vital principle extinguished in death ? Does every seed germinate and grow; and every blossom ripen into fruit? Do the seasons return with monotonous punctuality? Do the stars never oscillate in their bright career? Is it really so? or do we perceive throughout the vast circumference of being a mixture of imperfection, a liability to disorganization, a principle which an ingenious writer with his usual felicity of expression has named the law of compensation, involving the existence, as it denotes the correction, of certain defects in the economy of nature-defects which we cannot deny, and which impeach not, if properly considered, the perfections of that Almighty Being, who once pronounced, that "all was very good?" Now if we know this on the evidence of our senses, and if we do not on this account hesitate to ascribe creation to a God of perfection: if we distinguish in the one instance between the author and his works; and satisfy ourselves as to the traces of imperfection, mutability, and decay, which are discernible around us, by referring them to some larger economy which we cannot scan, but which subordinates them all to its comprehensive revolutions-why should we refuse to admit the distinction in the other? Why should we expect that any system of principles subsequently revealed should be furnished with such efficacy as literally to absorb humanity wherever they were embodied, to preclude the exercise of its individual peculiarities, to allow no room for its inherent imperfections, and so to subdue it to their plastic energies, as to fix at once, radically, and unalterably, the character with which they became connected? Why should we expect that the principles of revelation should form a solecism in the government of God, or deem ourselves justified in rejecting them as spurious, because they failed to answer such a notion? Why should we not rather anticipate, if we ventured to anticipate at all, that there would appear, amidst all the diversity apparent, in systems essentially different, some such analogy as the one before us, some such indications of a common source? and why should we not, when one was established beyond doubt, invest the other with just so much probability as it might reasonably claim on the merits of such analogy? Let it be remembered that the practical effects of Christian principles were obvious and powerful, wherever they were proclaimed by the Apostles of Jesus; that they were general, in proportion as the religion became general; and of such undisputed publicity, that they were appealed to by the advocates of the Gospel as proofs of its authenticity, and of the superintendence of that Being from whom it proceeded. In this respect they resemble the great laws of the material world, which are every where operating with an energetic vitality. But the principles of Christianity did not in all instances produce their full effect, in consequence of certain adventitious circumstances of character or situation with which they came in contact. In this respect they do not differ from the efficacies impressed on matter, whose results are continually modified by the agency of other coincident principles. Whether such an analogy be allowed to establish any probability of a common origin or not, against the objections, to which it has been applied, it is quite in point. If it appear hence, that an entire accordance between the principles of a revelation and the conduct of its witnesses is not to be demanded on independent grounds; it is still more certain, that no such accordance is necessary from any thing deducible from the Christian system. This is indeed so obvious throughout the Sacred Scriptures, that it may appear almost frivolous to confirm the assertion by express quotation. A few instances are all that shall be offered; and these by way of illustration rather than proof. Using then the term revelation for any manifestation of the being and attributes of God, themselves objects only of faith, through the intervention of other objects palpable to sense; the phenomena of nature are all of them in some sort revelations from God: according to the language of the royal psalmist, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth forth his handy work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night shewesh knowledge." And St. Paul refers the Lycaonians to a similar testimony, when he tells them that "God left not himself without witness."2 But, if we restrict the term, to such a discovery of divine truth, as can only be communicated by supernatural means, we shall find in Scripture great variety of such discoveries, and that with great variety of circumstance. We shall see, that not only the appearances of the physical world, but even intelligent beings, may become materials rather than agents of testimony; like the lepers healed by our blessed Lord, all of whom were evidences to his miraculous power, whilst but one seemed conscious of a divine energy, and alone "returned to give glory to God"-or that they may be conscious though unwilling agents of testimony; like the foul spirits who acknowledged the presence of their Judge, by deprecating a premature, though not unexpected sentence1-or conscious and voluntary, like Moses standing before the face of Pharaoh, to vin 3 3 Luke xvii. 14. 1 Psalm xix. 1-3. 2 Acts xiii. 14. |