Revival Reformation Classics: Can Change the World Again.

A Critical History of Philosophy.

By Asa Mahan

1883.

PART III.

BOOK I.

THE CHRISTIAN EVOLUTION IN PHILOSOPHY.

AMONG thinkers the impression very commonly obtains, and we often meet with statements to the same effect, particularly in treatises on the History of Philosophy, that the writers of the Old and New Testaments held and taught no system of Philosophy—that they simply taught doctrines, or facts, without any specific reference to questions of Ontology, or Ultimate Causation. In certain respects such statements are true, and in others, of equal importance, they are far from being true. In the multitudinous writings of Plato we find no systematic statement of truth. The careful readers of these writings, however, find everywhere underlying the same certain great principles which may readily be aggregated into a system. The same holds true of the Scriptures. Underlying all their teachings we find all the ultimate truths and principles which can be reached by science. Here we find a distinct hypothesis of Ultimate Causation—an equally well-defined doctrine of Cosmology—all the principles of fundamental morality—and a doctrine equally well defined of the eternal future of mind. We propose to notice and set forth the specific teachings of the Bible on these varied themes.

SECTION I.

DOCTRINE, OR HYPOTHESIS, OF ULTIMATE CAUSATION.

THIS hypothesis is distinctly stated by the Apostle (Heb. xi. 3), 'Through faith we understand that the worlds were made by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.' Here the Theistic hypothesis of Ultimate Causation is distinctly set forth both in its positive and negative forms. Positively, it is affirmed that the universe as now revealed to us took its existing form as the result of THE WORD, act of will, or creative fiat, of God. This is but a restatement in another form of the doctrine set forth in Gen. i. 1, 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' In other words, when the universe was originated 'the heavens and the earth,' that is the entire universe, became an orderly and organized whole as the result of the creative agency of God. Then the sacred writer descends to particulars, and ascribes the organization of 'the heavens and the earth,' the world on which we live, together with the sun, the moon, and the stars, and the existence of all vitalized forms of being around us, to the will of God. 'He spake, and it was done: He commanded, and it stood fast,' that is, He willed that things should be thus, and so, and they took form accordingly. The doctrine of creation in its entireness as the exclusive result of the agency of the will of a personal God, is the specific hypothesis of Ultimate Causation set forth in the sacred Scriptures.

In its negative form the doctrine of creation through the will of a personal God is set forth in direct and specific opposition to the dogmas of heathen and Anti-theistic philosophies. The united teaching of all systems then taught was organization by natural law, or the development, or evolution, of 'things seen from things which appear,' that is, from preexisting natural conditions. The whole passage is thus literally rendered by Conybeare and Howson: 'By faith we understand that the universe was framed by the word of God, so that the world which we behold springs not from things which can be seen.' 'The doctrine negatived,' they correctly say, 'is that which teaches that each successive condition of the universe is generated from a preceding condition (as the plant from the seed by a mere natural development, which had no beginning in the will of God.' If we will carefully study the teachings of the Scriptures in respect to the doctrine of creation, we shall find that not only is the organization of the universe ascribed to the direct and immediate agency of God, but also the origination of every species of animals and plants. Moses, who was 'learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,' understood fully all the Oriental Philosophies. The common doctrine of all these systems was creation by emanation, or the development of all particular species from preceding ones of a lower type. Creation by natural law, by emanation, development, or evolution, was the common doctrine of all these philosophies in all their forms. In opposition to such philosophies we are informed that 'in the beginning,' not natural law, but 'God created the heavens and the earth.' The sacred writer then descends to particulars, and affirms that in the origin of animals and plants the agency of God was just as direct and immediate as it was in the creation of the universe, that all orders of vitalized existence were so organized at the beginning that each species should immutably propagate its kind, and not evolve itself into something higher, or diverse from its own kind, 'the fruit-tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself.' 'And God made the beast after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind.' Nothing can be more evident than is the deduction, that at the beginning, species were originated, and not embryotic forms which should evolve themselves into species endlessly diversified. Then, as if to anticipate the modern monkey hypothesis, man is affirmed to have been created, and located at his creation in a definite region of the earth where monkeys have never existed. Taking into our reckoning not particular words merely, but the whole account of the organization of the Universe given in the first chapter of Genesis, and the deduction is absolute, that the fixed intention of its author was to present the revealed doctrine of creation throughout, in direct and open opposition to the teachings of the ungodly religions and godless philosophies of all prior ages, and this, not in their principles merely, but also in all their details. The conclusion is undeniable that Darwin or Moses has fundamentally erred. No explanation can be given of the peculiar phrases 'after his kind,' and 'whose seed is in itself,' but upon the hypothesis that the specific intent of the sacred writer was to deny the doctrines of emanation and development, or evolution, which were the fundamental characteristics of all the great systems of religion and philosophy then existing.

THE DOCTRINE OF PROVIDENCE.

Equally specific is the Doctrine of Providence taught in the Scriptures. God as here revealed is not only 'the former of all things,' but exercises a direct and immediate providential control over 'the things that are made,' the will of God being the supreme law of the universe, the wants of mind the end for which all material objects exist and are controlled. God is also distinctly revealed as present amid passing events around us, so that He is to His rational offspring, relative to their moral and physical necessities, a hearer of prayer. Every intelligent reader of the Scriptures is aware that the above statements perfectly accord with the plainest and most express teachings of the Sacred Word. All the facts of order which everywhere appear, all the movements of the sun, moon, and stars, sunshine and darkness, and all events of all the seasons, are revealed as determined by the will of God. In express reference to sickness and health, rain and sunshine, and all our daily concernments, prayer is affirmed to be of great avail.

Relations of the above Doctrines to Science.

Such, undeniably, are the Theistic teachings of Scripture on the subjects before us. What are the relations of these doctrines to science? To this question we answer:

1. All events which are, or may be known to science, are fully explicable on this hypothesis. The doctrine of a free, intelligent, personal God, infinite and perfect in all His attributes, fully explains the organization of the existing universe, with all the facts and events which it presents. If the facts of geology, for example, facts which are supposed to favour the doctrine of Evolution, can be explained in accordance with that hypothesis, they cannot be shown to contradict the doctrine of the origination of species by the direct and immediate agency of God. The facts, to say the least, are just as explicable on the latter as on the former hypothesis. The same holds true of all facts and events known to science throughout the wide domain of universal nature. All such facts and event are undeniably explicable through the doctrine of a personal God. If visible and conscious facts do not affirm, they do not contradict the doctrine of Providence and of the efficacy of prayer. All that the Bible teaches in respect to creation, providence, prayer, miracles, and we may add, redemption, also appears as possible and fully explicable facts and events through the cause which it assigns for all these facts. In Natural Theism, and in that of the Scriptures, we have, we repeat, an hypothesis, in accordance with which all events known to science as possible in the nature of things may be fully explained and elucidated. There is no denying this deduction.

2. This fact, we remark in the next place, renders absolutely impossible all disproof of, and positive evidence, or even antecedent probability, against this hypothesis, on the one hand, and all forms of proof, evidence, or even probability in favour of any contradictory hypothesis on the other. All that can be done in any conceivable case in favour of the hypothesis of Natural Law, Emanation, Development, or Evolution, would be to prove, not that such hypothesis is in fact true, but that it may be true, that is, that in accordance with it existing facts are explicable. As long as the same facts remain equally explicable on a different and opposite hypothesis, all disproof of the latter, and proof, positive evidence, or even antecedent probability, in favour of the former, remain strictly impossible. The reader should bear in mind that while modern Scientists talk so loftily of the science of Emanation, Development, and Evolution, they are dogmatizing in respect to hypotheses which by no possibility can attain to the prerogative of science, hypotheses in favour of which no possible form of real proof, positive evidence, or antecedent probability, can be adduced. Granting all the facts adduced by Mr. Darwin and other Evolutionists, for example, said facts do not prove this hypothesis even probably true. The reason is obvious and undeniable. Said facts are all, to say the least, equally explicable on the hypothesis of the origination of species by the direct and immediate agency of God. The same holds true in all other cases. The hypothesis of ultimate and universal causation affirmed by Natural and Revealed Theism accounts fully for all facts and events in the universe. No form of disproof, positive evidence, or antecedent probability can by any possibility, we repeat, be adduced against this, and in favour of any opposing hypothesis.

3. While it ever must remain true that upon no conditions, actual or conceivable, can the doctrine of natural and revealed Theism be disproved, or any real proof, evidence, or antecedent probability be adduced in favour of any opposite hypothesis, the common deduction of all the sciences bearing at all upon the subject, render the former hypothesis a demonstrated truth, and the latter, in all its forms, a demonstrated error. There is not a science that has the remotest bearing upon the doctrine of ultimate causation, a science which does not culminate in the deduction of the organization of the universe as an event of time. There is no doctrine in which the final deductions of all such sciences, and the admissions of all eminent scientists of all schools, more absolutely agree, than they do in the hypothesis of the non-eternity of the present order of things. Universal order from universal chaos is demonstrably explicable by no hypothesis of natural law. Universal order from any law of nature, or any necessary cause, order as an event of time, can no more be accounted for than the existence of an event without a cause. A necessary cause, whatever its nature, must act as soon as the conditions of its activity are fulfilled. The conditions of the activity of the ultimate cause of these facts must have been fulfilled from eternity, or said cause would not be the ultimate. That cause, on the other hand, which fulfilled these conditions would be said cause. Creation as an event of time; creation through any natural law, or necessary cause of any kind, is a palpable contradiction. A free cause, on the other hand, may or may not act in any given direction when the conditions of its activity are fulfilled. Hence creation from such a cause, creation as an event of time, is both possible and explicable. Either the final deduction of universal science is utterly false, or the Theistic and Christian hypothesis of ultimate causation is true.

4. This common deduction of all the sciences, viz., creation as an event of time, not only demonstrates the validity of the Theistic hypothesis, but utterly annihilates all objections to the doctrine of supernatural events as recorded in Scripture, and to the revealed doctrine of Providence, and of God in nature as a hearer of prayer. Either science, itself, is a lie, or creation is a supernatural event, and the occurrence of such events in nature is both possible and probable. Nothing is, or can be, at a greater remove from the domain of true science than the boasted Naturalism of the present and all past ages. These scientists never have adduced, and never can adduce, a single fact which presents the remotest degree of real proof, positive evidence, or antecedent probability, in favour of any one of their godless hypotheses. The fundamental fallacy in the reasoning of all these scientists is this, that a given hypothesis may be proven true by facts which are equally explicable on a different and opposite hypothesis. Take any fact, or class of facts, ever adduced by any of these scientists to prove any one of his godless hypotheses, and place that fact, or class of facts, in the clear light of scientific induction and deduction, and the conclusion becomes at once demonstrably evident, that said fact, or class of facts, is just as compatible with, and explicable by, the hypothesis which he denies, as with and by that which he affirms. True science does and must affirm his proofs to be no proofs, his evidence to be no evidence at all, and his probabilities to be nothing but improbabilities. The real facts of the case can by no possibility, from the nature of the case, be otherwise.

SECTION II.

ONTOLOGY OF THE BIBLE.

IN the Scriptures also we have a distinct recognition of the doctrine of Ontology as developed in this Treatise, that of the real existence of four distinct and separate realities, namely, Matter, Spirit, Time, and Space. The terms everlasting, or eternity, and immensity represent the last two realities; while the terms earth, or dust, and spirit represent the two first designated.

Nothing can be more distinct, definite, and specific than is the distinction made in the Scriptures between matter and spirit, and the soul and the body. 'Then,' says the sacred writer, 'shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.' Here the body is clearly affirmed to be material, and the spirit to be immaterial. The exact meaning of the passage may be thus expressed: 'Then shall the dust' (that part of man which is material) 'return unto the earth as it was, and the spirit' (that part of man which is not matter) 'will return to God who gave it.' The same distinction is most fully presented in the New Testament. 'Man,' we are informed, 'may kill the body, but cannot kill the soul.' The body is represented as a house, tabernacle, or tent, and the spirit as the occupant. The Scriptures make the same distinction between spirit and matter, the body and the soul, that all mankind do between a house and its occupants. The spirit of the believer, 'while at home in the body,' is affirmed to be 'absent from the Lord,' and when 'absent from the body,' to be 'present with the Lord.' During life the soul is affirmed to 'abide in the flesh,' or the body, and at death, not to die with, but to 'depart' from the body. Nothing can be more manifest than is the distinction made in the Scriptures between matter and spirit, and the recognition of both as distinct and separate entities.

With the same distinctness is the doctrine of the immortality of the soul presented in the Scriptures. 'We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, ETERNAL in the heavens.' 'Then shall we be FOREVER With the Lord.' 'Neither shall they die any more.' No intelligent reader of the Bible doubts that according to its express revelations the future being of the soul is coeval with 'the eternal years of God.'

With similar distinctness, also, is the future of the soul revealed as a state of retribution. 'It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.' 'We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.' 'For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.' 'These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.' 'He hath appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness.' In the opening revelation of the soul's eternity, God is revealed as 'the Judge of all.' The united consent of the ages fully verifies the correctness of the interpretation which we have given of the teachings of the Scriptures in respect to the doctrines now under consideration. The exceptions are too few to weaken at all this verification.

Relations of Science to the Doctrine of Scriptural Ontology.

No candid reader of the Bible will deny that we have correctly stated its doctrine of Ontology. The question which now arises pertains to the relations of the deductions of science to this doctrine. On this subject we remark:

1. All facts known to science, and all relations of such facts, are absolutely compatible with, and explicable by, this doctrine. If we postulate the actual existence of the four realities under consideration—to wit, Matter and Spirit, Time and Space, there is not a fact or event in the wide domain of nature—a fact or event which is not scientifically explicable through this postulate. No fact or event can be conceived of which is not perfectly explicable as an attribute or relation of matter or spirit, and as occurring in time or space. No one who holds as actually existing these four realities, finds any occasion to go outside of the same, or to postulate any other or different form of being, to account for any event known to science, or representable in thought. Take the ideas of Matter and Spirit, Time and Space, just as they exist in the Universal Intelligence, and in their light we can give a scientific explanation of the origin and character of all the sciences pure and mixed, and of all facts and events represented in human thought. No candid thinker will deny the validity of these statements. In the light of these same ideas, and of the principles and laws of thought which said ideas necessarily imply, we can, as we have demonstrated in former portions of this Treatise, explain the origin and character of all the assumptions and deductions of false science. In short, all forms of thought existing in mind, all the sciences true and false, and all facts and events known to science, are most fully explicable in the light of the ideas and principles under consideration.

2. Such being the undeniable facts of the case, disproof of the ontological doctrine of Scripture is an absolute impossibility. Equally impossible is it, and must it be, to adduce any form of valid proof or positive or even probable evidence in favour of any doctrine of an opposite nature. To accomplish any such result, we must, as formerly shown, adduce some fact of the reality of which we are, and must be, more certain than we are of the existence of each of the four realities under consideration—a fact incompatible with the existence of such reality. Every fact representable in human thought must be a property, quality, or relation of Matter, Spirit, Time, or Space. As the existence of any one of these realities does not imply the non-being of any other, no perceived or apprehended property of any one of them can imply the non-being of its subject, or of any other reality or any of its attributes or relations. How, then, can the non-reality of Matter, Spirit, Time, Space, or the non-validity of our necessary apprehensions of the same, be an object of valid proof? All attempts to prove the doctrines of Materialism, Idealism, or Scepticism, in any of their forms, involve the senseless endeavour to realize the demonstrated impossible. If the advocates of any one of these dogmas could show that all facts and events known to science are explicable on their hypothesis, this would merely prove said hypothesis to be a possible truth. As long as the same facts are equally explicable on another and opposite hypothesis, the former can never take rank as a truth of science. To talk of the science of Naturalism in any of its forms, in other words, to speak of the science of Materialism, Idealism, Scepticism, Development, Evolution, or of any of the deductions of the New Philosophy, is simply to betray a fundamental ignorance of the nature of real science itself. No hypothesis which cannot be scientifically verified, no one, especially, in favour of which any positive or probable evidence can be adduced, can have a place within the sphere of true science.

Apply the principles under consideration to the doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul. By no possibility can the materiality of the soul be proved, no fact of consciousness or external perception verifying it as such a substance. The fact of its immateriality is, to say the least, just as evident and probable in itself as that of its materiality. The fact of its conscious existence as exercising the functions of thought, feeling, and voluntary determination, removes absolutely all grounds and arguments against its future existence. We began to think here. Why may we not continue to think hereafter? The beginning of thought, feeling, and voluntary determination is just as mysterious as is their future continuance. If the soul is now in the body, and not of it, it may continue to think, feel, and, act when out of the body. To prove, or render even probable, the mortality of the soul, its materiality must be absolutely verified. This can no more be done than can proof be found that scarlet colour is identical with the sound of a trumpet. All the known facts of the soul are, undeniably, just as compatible with its immateriality and immortality as with its materiality and mortality. Hence all disproofs of the former, and proofs of the latter, doctrines are absolute impossibilities. The same holds true of the Ontology of the Bible in all its forms.

3. While disproof of this Ontology is wholly impossible, its truth as fully accords with the immutable intuitions and convictions of the Universal Intelligence. 'Mankind generally,' says Alexander of Aphrodisias, 'do not greatly err.' 'In any matter whatever,' says Cicero, 'the consent of all nations is to be reckoned a law of nature.' That which accords with the universal and necessary intuitions and convictions of the race must be an immutable law of nature, that is, of universal mind, or we have no means of determining what a law of nature is. Now there is not a mind on earth—a mind in whom any ideas at all are developed—a mind in whom the same identical distinction is not made between the body and the soul, that is made in the Scriptures—in whom the body is not regarded as constituted of 'dust,' and the soul as an ethereal unity which is distinct and separate from 'dust.' There is not, consequently, on earth a mind void of the ideas of matter, spirit, time, and space, and of an immutable conviction of the actual existence of all these realities. Mind cannot exist and think at all without becoming possessed of these ideas and convictions; and in all their essential characteristics they are the same in all minds. All that 'know fact and law' know absolutely that here are fundamental facts and an immutable law of nature. The same remarks are equally applicable to the revealed doctrines of Duty, Immortality, and Retribution. By an immutable law of the Intelligence, universal mind apprehends and affirms the validity of these doctrines. Each member of the human family does, and must stand revealed to himself as a free moral agent, and as a child, not of time, but of eternity. We must cease to be conscious at all before we can cease to be conscious of our subjection to the law of duty, and accountable to a higher power for our moral conduct. Nor can we cease to be conscious of our spirits as naturally endowed with an immortal vigour, and as acting as probationers for a future state. Hence it is, that when these great central doctrines of inspiration are distinctly presented to universal mind, they 'commend themselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. When universal science shall reach its consummation, Natural and Revealed Theism, and the system of Rational and Revealed Ontology, will have a prominent place within the sphere of scientific truth. The disciples of the New Philosophy have much to say about 'fact and law,' and about their absolute authority in science. In all this they are right. In obedience to conscious 'fact and law,' we believe in Matter, Spirit, Time, and Space, God, the Soul, Duty, Immortality, and Retribution. In disregard of conscious 'fact and law,' they disbelieve in these eternal verities. With them, it is science to believe in 'fact and law,' as far as matter is concerned, and un-science to believe in conscious 'fact and law,' as far as spirit is concerned. With us, it is science to believe in 'fact and law' in both particulars, and 'science falsely so called,' to disregard 'fact and law' in any sphere of thought whatever. Here lies the real difference between Theists and Anti-theists in all ages. The latter disbelieve in 'fact and law,' but in one exclusive sphere of scientific thought. The former believe in 'fact and law' throughout the entire domain of such thought.

SECTION III.

THE MORALITY OF THE SCRIPTURES,

THE questions, What ought we to be and to become, and, How ought we to act, enter, as problems of fundamental interest, into all systems of Philosophy. Modern Unbelief is now devoting its highest energies to prove that the morality of the Bible is in no essential particulars superior to, or diverse from, that taught in other systems of religion, and in the Philosophies of the world ancient and modern. The object of the present section is to develop the fundamental difference between the moral systems under consideration. On this topic, we designate the following particulars in which the moral teachings of the Bible are peculiarized from those of all the other systems referred to.

1. Moral virtue in all its forms, according to the Bible, has its spring and source in the inner man, the heart, and consists in supreme respect for the will and character of God on the one hand, and in impartial and universal goodwill to man on the other. Revealed Morality, consequently, assumes two forms—piety, or loving God with all our powers—and universal and impartial philanthropy, or 'loving our neighbour as our selves.' In the exercise and practice of Christian virtue, man becomes, in the absolute sense, morally pure; in other words, he becomes pure not only in the visible, but also in the inner life. 'We shall search in vain among all heathen religions or philosophies, for any such ideas of moral virtue. With very few, if any, exceptions, moral virtue pertains rather to the outer than the inner life, and is therefore fundamentally imperfect. A system of morality which does not include piety and philanthropy both, and has not a fundamental reference to the inner life, cannot induce real moral purity in those who perfectly conform to said system. An individual, for example, may 'keep the whole law' as announced by the Brahminical and Buddhist religions and philosophies, and have no inner respect for moral virtue at all. An individual cannot be moral at all in the Christian sense, without being pure in the outer and inner life in common.

2. When we descend to a consideration of particular precepts of a fundamental character, the perfection of the Christian, in distinction from all other systems, becomes still more manifest. The only parallel ever adduced to the universal rule or maxim of our Saviour—to wit, 'Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye also unto them,' is the negative principle of Confucius, namely, 'Whatsoever ye would that others should not do to you, refrain from doing unto them.' The real difference between these two precepts is world-wide. The latter requires no positive well-doing in any form, and is perfectly fulfilled when we refrain from positive acts. The former requires not merely refraining from wrong acts, but positive and unselfish well-doing in all its forms. When we contemplate such precepts as the following, however—to wit, 'Love your enemies,' 'When your enemy hungers, feed him,' 'Avenge not yourselves,' and 'Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good,' we then find ourselves in the presence of a system of morals which stands in open contrast with that taught in all other religion, and in all the godless philosophies of ancient and modern times. Yet, without these peculiar and special principles and precepts, all moral systems are fundamentally imperfect and defective. In all particulars in which Christian morality becomes absolutely perfect, all other systems are fundamentally wanting.

3. Completeness and universality constitute another peculiarity which distinguishes the Christian from every other code of morals. In the Christian system no conceivable principle necessary to its absolute completeness and perfection is wanting. No such principle has ever been reached by human thought, a principle which has not a distinct and specific place in this system. On the score of completeness and perfection, all other systems are manifestly, and in fundamental particulars, defective; while they announce some excellent principles, they fail to present others equally important. Hence they have no adaptations whatever to take rank as universal systems.

4. While the Christian system is thus complete and perfect, it embraces no false principles. There is nothing in it which mars its beauty or perfection. While all other systems lack completeness and perfection, they also embrace principles fundamentally false, and subversive of all morality. While Confucius, for example, taught many excellent principles, he taught others which sanctify the absolute despotism of China, and shut out freedom of thought and action from one-third of the human race. How perfect in certain particulars are the moral teachings of Plato. Yet in his Republic he in fact and form abolishes marriage, annihilates the family, makes the individual a mere commodity of the State, and sanctifies human servitude. Similar principles of false morality mar all the systems under consideration.

5. Hence it is that while the system of Christian morals has absolute adaptation as the guide of universal human life and conduct in all ages and all conditions of human existence, every one of the other systems under consideration failed almost utterly in their adaptation to the age and the people in which and among whom it was originated. In whatever light Christian morality is contemplated, it, like the Bible amid all other books, stands alone in the world, and stands revealed to us as not only having come down to us 'from God and heaven,' but as having originally proceeded from the heart of Infinity and Perfection.

SECTION IV.

SPECIAL AND PECULIAR DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY.

EVERY religion has certain special doctrines and principles which peculiarize and separate it from every other religion. Such is the case with Christianity. Its revealed doctrines peculiarize and separate it to an infinite remove from all other religions. Among these doctrines we shell refer to but the following: The Tri-Unity of the Godhead, Incarnation and Atonement, and The relations of God to believers as a hearer of prayer. We shall refer to these doctrines in the order above designated.

THE TRI-UNITY OF THE GODHEAD.

Every individual who is at all acquainted with the Scriptures in their original languages, is aware of the fact that the first time in which the term 'God' appears therein, that term has not the singular, but the plural form. 'In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth.' Nor at that era of the world's history were any plural forms of words employed, as 'We, the king,' to represent any single personage. Immediately after this opening revelation the idea of a mysterious form of plurality in the Godhead is expressed in words utterly incompatible with the idea of absolute unity. 'And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us.' By no usage in any age has any such form of words ever been applied to any single individual. There is, then, a plurality in some form in the Godhead. Nor is the doctrine of the divine unity ever affirmed in the Scriptures in the absolute sense, but always and specifically in opposition to the plurality of heathenism. 'For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many and lords many); but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.' In opposition to the plurality of heathenism, so the Scriptures teach, 'there is one God,' or Godhead. In opposition to an absolute unity there is a form of plurality in the Godhead. In the New Testament this plurality assumes a definite form, and is represented by the terms, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The fact of this unity and plurality is clearly revealed. The ground, or nature, of this unity on the one hand, and plurality on the other, are not revealed at all. The fact, as coming within the sphere of revealed truth, 'belongs to us, and to our children.' The ground, or nature, referred to is among 'the secret things which belong to God,' and is consequently wholly excluded from the sphere of Theology and Speculative Thought.

As the immutable condition of a rational admission of any doctrine pertaining to God as true, science justly requires that said doctrine shall not be self-contradictory on the one hand, nor undeniably incompatible with our essential idea of infinity and perfection on the other. Neither of these objections, in any sense or form, holds against the doctrine under consideration. No one pretends that there is anything in the doctrine incompatible with our essential idea of infinity and perfection. Equally free is the doctrine from even the appearance of self-contradiction, neither the nature of the divine unity on the one hand, or plurality on the other, being even professedly defined in the Scriptures. The only appearance of contradiction ever found in the doctrine has arisen, not from the doctrine as revealed, but from the presumptuous attempts of theologians to define 'secret things which belong to God.' As a revealed fact, the nature and ground of which God has left a profound and inexplicable mystery, we rationally hold the doctrine of the Tri-Unity of the Godhead, the issue between the Trinitarian and Unitarian believer in the Scriptures being left as a simple and exclusive question of Biblical interpretation.

Revealed Relations of these Tri-Personalities to one Another.

While the nature of the divine Unity, on the one hand, and plurality, on the other, is not revealed, these Tri-Personalities do sustain certain revealed and consequently definable relations to one another. Whatever, for example, is represented by such words as original, ultimate, and absolute authority; supremacy, and paternity, is expressly in the Scriptures ascribed to the Father. The Son and Spirit in all they do act in absolute subordination to the Father, and exercise no form of power or authority but what is delegated to them by Him. As the Creator of the universe, the Son exercised a delegated power; 'the Father creating all things by Jesus Christ.' As the sovereign and judge of all, Christ thus acts because 'the government has been laid upon His shoulders,' because 'all power is given unto Him in heaven and in earth.' and 'the Father hath committed all judgment to the Son.' 'Christ came into the world, not to do His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him.' The same holds equally true of the Spirit. Like the Son, 'He speaks not of Himself, but what He hears, that He speaks.' and by the Father the Spirit was sent into the world, as Christ was sent into the world.

The Son, on the other hand, represents the Godhead in what may be denominated supreme executive power, authority, and majesty, the Son being the supreme authoritative executor of the Father's will. The agency of the Father is not directly exerted in creation and providence. The Father, on the other hand. 'created all things by Jesus Christ.' To the Son, the Father thus speaks: 'And Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth; and the heavens are the works of Thy hands.' By the same delegated power, 'Christ upholds all things,' and 'by Him all things consist'—are sustained and controlled. All the revelations of the Godhead are made through Christ. He being to the universe 'the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of His substance.'

The Holy Spirit, we remark, lastly, in this connection, represents the Godhead as that invisible divine energy, which everywhere acts potentially in nature, and directly and immediately brings to pass those results which God wills. 'And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.' Had we witnessed the results here referred to, nothing would have been visible to us but the simple agitation of the watery elements. Were we infidels, we should have attributed all to the exclusive action of natural law. The same holds true of the results produced by the agency of the Spirit everywhere, in the universe of matter and spirit. The results are manifest. The cause is invisible, and events appear as they would, were they the exclusive results of the internal powers of nature itself. All the miracles of Christ, we are told, were directly and immediately performed through the invisible agency of 'the Spirit of God.' Christ, for example, said to the winds and waves on the Sea of Galilee. 'Peace, be still.' The Spirit invisibly 'moved upon the face of the waters,' and energized in the atmosphere around, and thus induced the subsidence of the waves and the stillness of the atmosphere which immediately ensued. So in all other instances. As our object is simply to indicate the relations under consideration, we do not enlarge.

Between these Tri-Personalities, we remark once more, there is the revealed action of the social principle—relations analogous to those which result from the intercommunion and fellowship of mind with mind. Finite minds have 'fellowship (intercommunion) one with another,' while all the pure in heart have 'fellowship with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ,' the Finite with the Infinite. In the Godhead we have the revealed intercommunion and fellowship of the Infinite with the Infinite. The love, for example, which the Father exercises towards believers is affirmed to be the same in kind as that which He exercises towards the Son. 'That the world may know that Thou hast sent Me, and hast loved them AS Thou hast loved Me.' 'That the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them, and I in them.' The love also which Christ exercises towards the faithful believer, is affirmed to be the same in kind, and secured on the same conditions as that which the Father exercises towards the Son. 'As the Father hath loved Me, So have I loved you: continue ye in My love. If ye keep My commandments, ye shall abide in My love; even as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love.' The union and fellowship existing between true believers is also affirmed to be the same in kind as that which exists between the Father and the Son. 'That they may be one, even as we are one'—'That they all may be one: as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us.' Nothing can be more plain than is the revealed fact, that between the Tri-Personalities of the Godhead, there is a form of the action of the social principle analogous to the actual intercommunion and fellowship of mind with mind—that of the Infinite with the Infinite.

Considerations which commend this Doctrine to our Reason and Judgment.

While there is nothing whatever in the doctrine under consideration against which science can object, there are considerations connected with this doctrine which commend it to our highest regard. Through this doctrine, for example, the Godhead is revealed to us in absolute accordance with our conscious necessities as creatures, and more especially as sinners. We consciously need a 'Father in heaven,' whom sinners may approach through a more than human—through a really and truly divine Mediator. We as consciously need an indwelling divine and 'eternal Spirit,' through whose infallible teachings and illuminations we can see ourselves as God sees us, can know ourselves, not only as sinners, but as 'the sons of God,' can 'behold with open face the glory of the Lord,' and thus become God-like and Christ-like in character and blessedness. Nothing can be more reasonable than a form of divine revelation which thus accords with the conscious necessities of universal human nature.

This doctrine, also, has in its favour the analogy of universal nature in all departments of sentient existence. How universal, in all departments of such existence, is the action of the social principle. If the same principle obtains in the Godhead, we have an explanation of the facts of sentient nature otherwise inconceivable, and the analogy between God and His works is perfect.

This doctrine and this exclusively, we remark once more, renders conceivable to us the infinite blessedness of God. The action of the social principle seems to be the immutable condition of real happiness on the part of all sentient, and more especially of all rational, finite natures. Nor could the action of this principle between the Finite and the Infinite meet the wants of the latter. A mind dwelling apart and alone in infinite and eternal solitariness, how can we conceive of the full and perfect blessedness of such mind, though it is infinite and perfect in itself? If there is, on the other hand, in the Godhead the actual intercommunion and fellowship of the Infinite with the Infinite, the result must be infinite and eternal blessedness. Hence it is, that whenever the idea of a divine unity which excludes wholly all plurality obtains, the idea of God as void of emotion prevails, and any thought of His blessedness has a very obscure and unimpressive place. Whenever, on the other hand, the doctrine of the Tri-Unity of the Godhead is held, then we find a distinct and vivid impression of the infinite blessedness of God. The reason is obvious. The idea of infinite blessedness, and that of infinite and eternal solitariness, seem to be incompatible ideas, while the former idea naturally arises when that of the intercommunion and fellowship of the Infinite with the Infinite has place. Reasons of infinite weight, therefore, commend this doctrine, as a revealed truth, to our highest regard.

THE DOCTRINE OF INCARNATION AND ATONEMENT.

In the Old Testament God is affirmed to have made direct and audible communications with men. These communications were commonly made through some visible form of divine manifestation, as in the 'burning bush,' the pillar of cloud and of fire, the thunder cloud and thick darkness, or angelic or human forms. The term, 'Angel of the Lord,' was appropriated, as all careful readers of the Scriptures are aware, to represent the idea of Jehovah, not as He exists by Himself, but as thus manifested. Thus we read, at one time, that God, and at another that 'the Angel of the Lord,' spoke to Moses in the bush, and went before the hosts of Israel in a pillar of aloud by day, and of fire by night, the two terms being everywhere employed interchangeably in the Scriptures. In Mal. iii. l, this visibly manifested Jehovah, this 'Angel of the Lord,' by whom the covenants, and all divine manifestations, were made, is identified with the promised Messiah, that is, with Christ. 'Behold, I will send My messenger, and He shall prepare the way before Me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger of the Covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, He shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.'

In the New Testament, this 'Angel of the Lord,' this 'messenger of the Covenant,' 'the Lord,' who was not only 'the delight' of the Jews, but 'the desire of all nations,' 'the Word who was in the beginning with God, and was God,' the Word by whom 'all things were made, and without whom was nothing made that was made,' is affirmed to have 'become flesh, and dwelt among us.' Here we find ourselves in the open presence of the mystery of the Incarnation—'God,' not visibly manifested in transient, vanishing forms, but 'manifest in the flesh,' and 'dwelling among us.' What has reason and science to say of such a doctrine? We answer:

Relations of the Doctrine of Incarnation to Reason and Science.

1. There is no element, or feature, or characteristic of this doctrine which has even the appearance of a natural impossibility. If a personal God exists, and there is no fact, truth, or principle known to science which contradicts this doctrine, it is undeniable that as a self-conscious personality God may, when He chooses, make communications to His rational offspring, and may do this through any visible forms he may select.

2. Nor is there anything in this doctrine which has the appearance of incredibility. If creatures need divine communications, and we all know that they do need them, it is not reason, but unreason, to suppose that such revelations will not be made. The making of such revelations through visible forms, renders God's personality, personal presence, and love and care for us, more distinct and impressive than is otherwise possible. Such considerations undeniably remove wholly every shade of incredibility from every form of divine manifestation recorded in the Bible. Grant the being of a personal God, and the conscious needs of universal mind, and the only mystery about the matter is that such manifestations have not been of far more frequent occurrence than the revealed record indicates.

3. The crowning glory of all such manifestations is 'God manifest in the flesh.' That God, in a human form and condition, should descend to us in our sin, ruin, and misery, should become our example, teacher, and guide, should reveal to us, not only our sin, but the conditions of escape from its bondage and curse-power, and should 'bring life and immortality to light' in the midst of our darkness and gloom—this great fact will fill eternity, and to eternity will constitute the central theme of thought and study with the great intelligences of the universe. The scoff of Unbelief at such a doctrine is nothing but a revelation of debasing ignorance, consummate folly, and reckless presumption. What does the unbeliever know of what is, and is not, possible with God? On what authority does he dogmatize in respect to God's thoughts and ways? With an effrontery at which 'devils tremble,' the unbeliever advances boldly to the eternal throne, and questions God in respect to His judgments, thoughts, ways, dispensations, and forms of manifestation. God, while He responds not to such impious questionings, holds in reserve retributions according to deeds.

ATONEMENT.

The main revealed purpose of the Incarnation is Atonement, which embraces two chief elements—Substitution and Satisfaction. 'Christ died for our sins, the just for (in the place of) the unjust.' There is substitution. His sufferings and death, as 'a sacrifice for sin,' renders it 'just' in God to 'justify,' pardon, treat as just, or as if he had never sinned, 'him who believeth in Jesus.' There is satisfaction. Angels and redeemed sinners are together in heaven, and God and the rational universe are equally satisfied to have them together there. The former are there on the ground of personal desert, they having never sinned at all. The latter are there because Christ 'was slain, and redeemed them unto God by His blood,' that is, made atonement for them. The reason in both cases is equally satisfactory. Such is atonement. What are the relations of this doctrine to reason and science? We answer:

Relations of this Doctrine to Reason and Science.

1. While neither reason nor science can affirm Atonement to be impossible with God, for aught we do or can know, there may be in the Divine mind reasons of infinite weight why it should be known to the rational universe, that without an atonement sin will never be forgiven. The revelation of such provision may also be to the universe what revelation affirms it to be, the crowning glory of all the divine works, government, and manifestations. Through no conceivable form of manifestation can such love to creatures, such regard for their well-being, and such wisdom in making provision for their immortal interests, be shown. While atonement is above reason and science, they can appreciate the grace and glory manifested in it.

2. The fact that this is God's revealed method of 'making an end of sin, and bringing in everlasting righteousness,' should for ever silence all objections on the part of creatures against it. Salvation from sin is undeniably the great conscious necessity of universal humanity. If God has revealed a method for the accomplishment of this result, a method satisfactory to Himself and to the Intelligence of heaven, how impious in man to object against it?

3. This doctrine, instead of being opposed to reason, does in fact accord with the intuitive convictions of the race. The consciousness of sin and the consequent need of pardon is co-extensive with the human consciousness itself. In all minds, in all ages, the idea of pardon has been immutably associated with that of some sacrifice as atonement for sin. The natural cry of conscious sin as the creature approaches his God is: 'Wherewith shall I come before the Lord?'—'Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?' The atonement of Christ is but the antitype foreshadowed by the sentiment which thus lies upon the soul of universal humanity.

4. The pardon of sin, we remark once more, through a divinely originated atonement, is far more honourable to God, and more safe, as a method of Divine administration than any other conceivable condition. Pardon, under a purely legal administration, is one of the most perilous principles known under any form of government, inducing, as it does, in all minds the hope of impunity in crime. Pardon through atonement is not only most honourable to God, but renders perfectly safe all interests concerned, the law 'being magnified and made honourable,' while its penalty is remitted. While the doctrine of Incarnation and Atonement is above reason, it has, as a revealed truth, the most absolute sanction of the highest reason.

RELATIONS OF GOD TO BELIEVERS AS A HEARER OF PRAYER.

'Give us this day our daily bread.' 'The prayer of faith shall save the sick.' 'Is any man afflicted, let him pray.' 'The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.' 'How much more shall your heavenly Father GIVE good things to them that ask Him.' 'And He spake this parable unto them, that men ought always to pray and not to faint.' 'Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in My name, He shall give it you.' 'Ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full—casting all your care upon Him, for He careth for you. We give the above as examples of the teaching of inspiration on this subject. If we may credit 'what is written,' prayer has 'much avail,' not merely in the sphere of our spiritual interests, but equally in reference to all our temporal cares and concernments, and has power to secure changes which would not otherwise occur, not only in the wide realm of our moral and spiritual relations, but equally in respect to physical events in the world around us. Unbelief affirms that here, as elsewhere, Scripture and science are in conflict. What are the real facts of the case? On this subject we remark:

Relations of this Doctrine to the Teachings of Science.

1. No fact known to science affirms, or renders it even antecedently probable, that the Spirit of God, as a self-conscious personal agent, is not Omnipresent in nature, that every law of nature is not the expression of His will, and that every event in nature is not under His direct and immediate control. This fact has been rendered undeniably evident in our former discussions.

2. The dogma that all events in the world of matter are under the inexorable control of mere physical law, is perpetually contradicted by visible and conscious facts. Changes in nature—changes which would not otherwise occur—are perpetually visible all around us as the exclusive results of the action of free-will in man. The action of free-will in nature, and the contingency of physical events upon its action, is a fact just as manifest as is the occurrence of any events through physical law. The doctrine, that all physical events, not to speak of moral and spiritual, are under the same rule of physical law, is undeniably false in fact.

3. There is not a fact known to science, or within the range of human observation and thought, a fact which, in the remotest sense, contradicts, or renders improbable the doctrine that changes in the current of events in nature around us are produced by the action of the free-will of God, in a manner analogous or similar to that in which similar changes are being produced by that of the free-will of man. What, if the facts revealed through the telescope, the microscope, in the laboratory of the chemist, and the dissecting room of the anatomist, were adduced to prove that no changes in nature do, or can, occur through the free action of the human will? Such reasoning would be no more illogical than is the inference from the same and similar facts, or from any facts known to man, that no such changes are ever induced through the free-will of God.

4. For aught that man does or can know upon the subject, the perpetuation of the universal order and harmony of nature through the exclusive action of mere necessary physical law, may be a natural impossibility. The preservation of the universal order we witness, the balance of worlds in empty space, and the harmony of events around us, may, for aught we do or can know, be necessarily contingent on changes produced by the direct action of the free-will of God. Of one fact we are absolutely sure, that our own ignorance on this subject is absolute. Equally assured are we that the ignorance of all scientists on the same subject is, and must be, as absolute as ours. Nothing can surpass the impiety and presumption of men who boldly and dogmatically assert, 'that they know fact, and that they know law,' and that all events are under the exclusive control of mere physical law, and that the free-will of God, equally with that of man, is not active in nature.

5. According to the infidel hypothesis, the free-will of God is less free, and more confined and limited in its action in Nature than is that of man. The free-will of man undeniably can, and does, produce constant changes in the current of events around us, and this with no violation of any material law. What dogma can be more absurd than is the idea, that the free-will of the Author of Nature is limited in the Nature which he constituted to the exclusive control of blind, unconscious and bald, natural and necessary law? No more absurd conception ever danced in the brain of a crazy philosophy. The Christian hypothesis, as an object of thought, is infinitely superior to the godless dogma under consideration. The idea of a universe under the immediate direction and control of an infinite and perfect mind is as much superior to that of a godless universe under the domain of necessary physical law, as mind is superior to matter; while the most debasing and absurd of all possible conceptions is that of an infinite and perfect free Spirit in Nature, and that Spirit chained down and limited there to the iron control of blind material law. Nothing can be more senseless and absurd than is what Mr. Beecher rightly calls 'the perpetual twaddle of infidelity' about the universal and iron rule of necessary law in Nature.

6. Hence we remark finally, that no truth of nature or inspiration can be more reasonable in itself, more accordant with conscious facts of the human Will, more correlative to the conscious needs of human nature, and more in harmony with all proper ideas of God, and of His relations to His own works, than is the Doctrine of Prayer as set forth in the Scriptures. There is not a fact of nature known to mind that is in conflict with that doctrine. There is not a want of mind, or a known attribute of God, which is not in full harmony with this doctrine, and does not affirm its validity. Receiving as deductions of science this 'twaddle of infidelity' about the reign of universal and necessary law in nature, and the consequent limitations of our ideas of the proper sphere and efficacy of prayer, has been most manifestly a chief cause of that eclipse of the faith of the Church in God, and of His revealed truth. When our unbelief has closed the ear of God to our prayers relative to our sicknesses and daily cares and concernments, as well as to passing events in the world around us, we shall find our God nowhere. We may still chatter the words, 'Our Father, which art in heaven,' 'Give us this day our daily bread.' Our words, however, will be not only void of real meaning, but as powerless to stir the spirit of devotion, thanksgiving, faith, or hope, in our hearts, as if they were addressed to Juggernaut, or an iceberg. We stand before God as 'mockers,' when we ask of Him favours which we say in our hearts He will not give. Those who would take lessons about prayer from such men as Protagoras, Tyndall, Spencer, and Huxley, would do well to hold the admonition of Socrates about such teachers. The following passage we have quoted once before. It will well bear a second reading.

'Is not, O Hippocrates, a Sophist, a seller or vendor of articles on which the soul is fed? He seems to me to be something of that kind.'

'What, Socrates! is the soul fed? On what, I pray?'

'On the lessons of teachers, and we must take care that the Sophists do not cheat us in selling their wares, as the sellers of food for the body often do. For they, without knowing what is really good for the body, praise all their wares alike, and the buyer knows just as little, unless he be a physician or a training-master. And just so these vendors of lessons, who carry their wares about from city to city, and sell them to everyone whom they can persuade to buy, praise all the articles which they sell; but very likely some of these, too, know very little what is good for the soul, and what is not; and the buyer knows just as little, except any of them be soul-physicians. If, then, you are a judge of what is good in this way, and what is not, you may safely buy lessons of Protagoras, or anyone else. But if not, take care, my good friend, that you do not run a dreadful risk in a vital concern; for there is far more danger in buying lessons than in buying victuals.'

For myself, I would as soon purchase henbane as food for the body, as buy lessons from these men on so vital a subject as prayer.

The most senseless and perilous of all ideas pertaining to prayer for temporal good is, that its design is, not to secure help from God, but to quicken our own efforts in the use of means. Prayer, prompted by such a sentiment, will be as powerless to quicken our activities as it will be to move the heart of God. Prayer has the power which inspiration ascribes to it, or it is a senseless mockery of God.

BOOK II.

PHILOSOPHY OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN ERA.

THROUGHOUT the entire sphere of philosophic thought which we have thus far traversed, one idea has everywhere, and in all systems in common, lifted its divine form before our minds—that of a personal God. In every system which the human mind has ever originated, this one idea has been omnipresent, either in its affirmative or negative form. In all systems alike the doctrine of God has been, in fact and form, specifically affirmed or denied, thus evincing the absolute omnipresence of the doctrine in human thought. Nor did Philosophy ever present or discuss this doctrine as an idea which scientific thought had of itself originated, but as an object of the pre-existing faith of the race. Philosophy never originates its own problems, but attempts the solution of those which the primitive thought of the race has previously originated. Had not the idea of Ultimate Causation, of the Organization of the Universe as an event of time, and consequently that 'the worlds were framed by the word of God,' previously presented itself to human thought, and become an article of the primitive faith of the race, Philosophy would never have originated the idea, or concerned itself with inquiries in respect to its validity or invalidity. Mind cannot exist and think at all without being confronted with the ideas of matter and spirit, time and space, of an organized universe, of proximate and ultimate Causation, and consequently, with those of God, Duty, Immortality, and Retribution. The central problem which Philosophy has ever concerned itself with is, Ultimate Causation by Natural Law, or by the Word of a personal God. This problem Philosophy cannot ignore if it would, and it should not do it if it could. Human thought will never rest until the doctrine of Ultimate Causation shall be finally settled, and that upon a strictly scientific basis.

Since the introduction of the Christian Era, the problem under consideration has assumed, in fundamental respects, aspects entirely new. In former ages Theism and Anti-theism confronted each other. Now the main issue, as presented in all philosophical systems, lies not merely between Theism and Anti-theism, but between the latter and Christian Theism. The old issue is not ignored. Yet the main interest turns upon the real relations actually existing between science and the Christian religion. Wherever any contact occurs between the latter and any of the sciences, there a special issue is raised, not so much with Theism as with the idea of God as developed in the Christian Scriptures. Facts of Geology, for example, facts bearing also upon the antiquity of the human race, and the doctrines of Evolution and Development, are seldom or never adduced to disprove the doctrine of Theism by itself, but Theism as developed in these writings. With few and honourable exceptions, all who deny the divinity of Christianity impeach Theism itself. The leaders of the Broad Church openly avow a deeper sympathy with the Rationalism, Atheism, and Scepticism of the age than with Christianity. Such being the obvious state of facts, certain fundamental inquiries here arise, inquiries each of which demands a specific answer as preparatory to our future elucidations.

SECTION I.

RELATIONS BETWEEN THEISM PROPER AND CHRISTIAN THEISM.

WERE we to provide an illustration of our idea of the relations of Theism proper to Christian Theism, we should present the natural eye, in the first case, and then the same organ as aided by the microscope, on the one hand, and the telescope on the other. The real difference in the forms of vision in the two cases lies here. Vision in respect to all objects is far more distinct and impressive, and infinitely more enlarged in the latter case than in the former. In no respects is there a conflict between the two forms of Theism under consideration. As far as their revelations and deductions pertain to the same verities, a perfect harmony obtains between them. Yet, like that which obtains between the revelations of the natural eye and those of the microscope and telescope, an essential difference in important respects obtains between the revelations of natural and of Christian Theism.

Christian Theism renders infinitely more distinct and impressive the real verities apprehended through Natural Theism.

As we have stated, where the teachings of the two systems relate to the same verities, a perfect unity obtains between them. Yet even here an essential difference obtains, as far as the elements of distinctness and impressiveness are concerned, a difference like that which obtains in our vision of objects when seen under the dimness of star-light and the cloudless illumination of the noonday sun. The facts of nature, for example, facts material and mental, have rendered omnipresent in all minds in common the idea of a personal God, 'the Former of all things,' and rendered equally omnipresent the conviction of His being, perfection, and universal dominion. Nor are unbelievers of any school real exceptions to these statements. Notwithstanding all their affirmations to the contrary, in the interior of their own minds they as really believe in the actual existence of matter, spirit, time, space, and God as the universal Creator and Governor, as do the rest of mankind. When an individual, for example, enters into an earnest argument with me, to prove to himself and me that neither himself nor myself really exists, I am necessarily reminded of an ancient utterance, 'professing themselves to be wise, they become fools.' I know, in short, that he does not believe in the validity of his own theory or argument. If he truly believes that neither himself, myself, nor anybody else really exists, where is the ground for his solicitude to convince these nobodies that nobody exists? While no one does or can sincerely doubt his own or the existence of other beings, and of the universe around him, he must of necessity as really believe in the being of God. Yet God, as apprehended in the light of these mere facts, is to the mind one reality. As apprehended through the superadded light of inspiration He is the same, and yet quite another reality, the Supreme and all-overshadowing Presence. In the former state we believe in God. In the latter we need not only believe in, but know God, 'beholding with open face the glory of the Lord.'

The consciousness of sin and of ill desert on account of sin, is coextensive with the action of human consciousness itself. Yet sin and its desert, as apprehended in the twilight of the natural conscience on the one hand, and in the light of inspiration, and especially of the convicting power of the Eternal Spirit on the other, hardly appear as the same thing. The same holds true of all verities of Nature, when apprehended under the sun-light of Revealed Religion. In the latter state they have a distinctness and impressiveness which do not and cannot belong to them in the former, 'Life and immortality are brought to light' (not originated, but brought out of obscurity and set in distinct and all-impressive visibility), 'through the Gospel.'

Christian Theism extends our vision of truth beyond the possible reach of Natural Theism.

Revealed religion not only illuminates what was previously known, but extends our vision of truth to spheres and relations of existence which lie wholly beyond the reach of our faculties when under the exclusive light of nature. Man is consciously a sinner, and is burdened with a conscious forfeiture of the Divine favour, and a corresponding desert of the Divine displeasure. If any destiny awaits us but that demanded by pure justice and our ill-desert, and especially if God has chosen to make special provisions for our deliverance from the curse-penalty of sin, and the power of evil principles and tendencies—in short, if we are under a dispensation of grace and not of justice, and if God is consequently in other than purely legal relations to us on all such subjects, all our knowledge must be a matter of pure and special revelation. We are in the midst of verities of infinite and eternal moment to us, verities, however, 'which lie wholly beyond the possible reach of our unaided faculties. All our light here must undeniably come directly and exclusively from God Himself.

To these inner and higher and most momentous of all verities, revelation professedly introduces us. Natural Theology reveals God to us in His original relations to the universe, and to us as mere rational beings. Inspired Theology reveals God to us in His new, self-moved, self-determined, and divinely adapted relations to our actual conditions and necessities, not merely as rationals, but as sinners in the, to us, remediless ruin of sin. What these new relations are, supposing them to exist, on what conditions the promises of 'life eternal' may become available to us, and what new light the revelation of these new relations may throw upon the Divine perfections and glory, and what, for the want of better terms, we may denominate the modes of the Divine existence and activity—all must be to us blank midnight but as we are directly and immediately, instrumentally it may be, 'taught of God.' The same holds equally true of our special duties and destiny in these new relations. As the Author of this new life and the revealer of God in these new relations, Christ affirms Himself to be 'the Light of the world.'

Christian Theism confirms and reaffirms the validity of the Doctrine of God as taught by Natural Theology.

We now notice one other relation of Christian Theism to the teachings of Natural Theology, a relation, in our judgment, singularly overlooked by Christian Theists. Christian Theism furnishes an independent proof of the being and government of God, a form of proof which would, upon purely scientific grounds, have absolute validity did none other exist. The occurrence of a single supernatural fact in nature, a fact which cannot be accounted for by reference to any inhering law of nature, absolutely evinces the existence in and over nature of a corresponding supernatural power. The great central facts recorded in Scripture, admitting their actual occurrence, furnish the same proof of the doctrine of God, that the known facts of astronomy do of the truth of the Copernican System. Nor does true science require any more valid proof of the reality of supernatural, than it does of that of astronomical facts. All that real science requires in any case is evidence having the known characteristics of absolute validity. All are aware that there are forms of evidence which often prove deceptive, and that there are other forms that never do, and never can, deceive. Nor is it difficult to furnish the criteria which distinguish the former kind from the latter. Were it fully ascertained that the evidence on which the deduction is based, that the sun is the centre of the solar system, is of the class first designated, that one fact would wholly invalidate the claims of the Copernican System to our regard. We believe in that system because the facts adduced, supposing them real, absolutely imply the truth of the system—and because the reality of the facts is evinced by evidence of no doubtful character, evidence which never does, and never can, deceive. Suppose now that the occurrence of facts of an undeniably supernatural character is affirmed by evidence, the same in kind and degree, evidence which never does deceive, and the invalidity of which is absolutely inexplicable. We should subvert utterly the foundation of all the physical sciences if we should then deny the occurrence of these facts, or refuse to admit the validity of all the deductions which they necessarily yield. Mr. Hume, with the entire school of unbelief, in his famous argument against the reality of miracles, an argument based upon the deceptive character of human testimony, forgot that there are two kinds of testimony—one which often deceives—and another which never does mislead. Let the evidence of miracles furnished by testimony be wholly of this latter kind, and let that evidence be confirmed by circumstances which never encircle a falsehood, and affirm its truth—in such a case we displace ourselves from the sphere of true science if we deny the reality of the facts, or the validity of the deductions which said facts yield.

We have, then, the same right to argue from the supernatural facts recorded in Scripture to the existence and agency in and over nature of a personal God, that we can have to argue from the known facts of astronomy to the truth of the Copernican System. In both cases in common the same inquiries are to be raised in respect to the reality of the facts adduced, and the same identical criteria are to be applied in determining the validity of the evidence presented of their occurrence.

We do not argue, it should be borne in mind, the validity of the claims of Theism from the testimony of the Scriptures to their truthfulness. Nor do we, in this connection, argue their Divine origin and authority from these events. All such questions are reserved for another department of our inquiries. What we do argue in this connection is this—that the facts recorded in Scripture, granting their occurrence, do furnish as valid a scientific basis for the claims of Theism, as those of astronomy do for the truth of the Copernican System, or as any facts can furnish for any deduction whatever in any of the physical or metaphysical sciences; and, as we shall hereafter show, we have evidence, the same in kind and degree, of the reality of the facts in the former case as we have in any of the latter cases. Such are the undeniable relations of Christian Theism to Natural Theology.

SECTION II.

THE RELATIONS OF CHRISTIAN THEISM TO THE SCIENCE OF COSMOLOGY.

To have a valid Ontology, that is, a true science of Being and its Laws, all actual facts must be taken into our reckoning, and be fully accounted for. If any real fact, or class of facts, is ignored, or repudiated as unreal, we should of necessity rear up a structure not of true, but of false science. We should assume forms of non-being as realities, and class realities among 'things that are not.' Facts are adamantine realities 'which cannot be shaken,' and every real fact will have its proper place and influence, and be fully accounted for in every scientifically constructed system of Cosmology. In the construction of most systems, facts are manufactured or ignored, assumed or repudiated, as existing exigencies require.

The actual occurrence of a single supernatural fact absolutely implies, as we have before said, the real existence, in and over nature, of a supernatural power. When the occurrence of such an event has been verified by valid evidence, the existence of the implied power must constitute an essential element and feature of our cosmological system. Otherwise the system which we shall construct will be a lie. In the presence of such a verified power, every true philosopher will be very modest in his affirmations about the extent to which passing events around us are under the control of mere naked physical law, or are determined, without violating any such law, by the action of this existing supernatural power. He will perceive nothing incredible in the idea that natural law itself may be so far under the control of the supernatural, that God, without violating any mental or physical law, may determine the current of events in specific accordance with the wants of mind, and be continuously manifested to the pure in heart as a hearer of prayer. The pedant Scientist, on the other hand, will imperiously dogmatize as if he were truly omniscient, just where his ignorance is and must, undeniably, be absolute. Listen, for a moment, to the dogmatic dicta of our embryo scientist. 'Fact I know, and Law I know.' My dear sir, should you ever become older and wiser than you now are, if 'wisdom shall enter into thine heart, and knowledge become pleasant unto thy soul,' you will blush with shame at the remembrance of such a presumptuous and absurd utterance as that. You are omniscient neither in respect to facts nor the ultimate law which determines their occurrence. Your ignorance is absolute in regard to the extent to which the natural may be determined by the supernatural in the current of facts which are moving by you. As a consequence, you stand convicted of imperiously and senselessly dogmatizing in respect to both universal 'Fact' and 'Law,' of which 'One part—one little part—you dimly scan.'

The Question of the Reality of these Facts, to be determined, first of all, wholly irrespective of their bearing upon the Claims of the Christian Religion.

The great central facts under consideration do have, as we have shown, their actual occurrence being admitted, a fundamental bearing in determining a valid system of Cosmology. The same facts, on the same admission, may have, and as we shall see hereafter, do have, a similar bearing upon the claims of the Christian religion. In determining the question whether those affirmed facts did, or did not occur, all inquiry in respect to their bearings in any direction is to be left wholly, for the time being, out of the account. If the facts did occur, and did occur as specific attestations of the truth of a particular religion, they do, undeniably, verify the existence of a supernatural and Divine power in and over nature, on the one hand, and the Divine origin and authority of that religion on the other. The question of the actuality of these facts, however, is to be determined by itself, and that by a rigid application of the laws of historic evidence. For aught we know to the contrary, God may in times past have interposed, and may interpose in the future, in forms undeniably supernatural, and that without revealing the specific reasons for such interpositions, His object being, it may be, simply to remind His rational offspring of His presence and agency in nature. It may be, on the other hand, that in connection with such interpositions the specific reason for their occurrence has been also revealed. All this, however, has nothing to do with the question, did or did not these events occur.

SECTION III.

RELATIONS OF SUPERNATURAL EVENTS, AND THE ACTION OF A SUPERNATURAL POWER IN NATURE, TO THE SO-CALLED LAWS OF NATURE.

IF a supernatural power actually exists in and over nature, the WILL of that power must be the supreme law of nature itself, and the ultimate and all-determining cause of the current of events around us, and each specific order of events must be an expression of the Will of that sovereign power. If the being in whom this power resides should choose that the order of events shall be, for the most part, in the fixed direction of uniform antecedence and consequence, but that as occasion requires there shall be special departures from this principle, there would be in such an arrangement an absolute conformity to the supreme law of nature, and no more violation of any specific law in one case than in the other. It is an immutable law of each physical substance in nature, that its motion shall ever be in the fixed direction of the strongest force acting upon it at each successive moment. It is, as we say, a fixed law of water and kindred fluids to run down an inclined plane. Suppose that by some attracting cause far stronger than that to which they are now subject, they should be drawn in the opposite direction. Their flow up, instead of down, the plane referred to, would in that case be just as natural, and as accordant with all existing laws of nature, as in their present direction. Any change whatever produced in nature by the action of a cause more powerful than those now determining the current of events, is as natural and accordant with all existing laws, as any other event can be. A supernatural, supposing it actual, is no unnatural event, and its occurrence implies the violation of no existing law, but absolute accordance with every such law.

SECTION IV.

SUPERNATURAL, OR MIRACULOUS EVENTS DEFINED—THEIR POSSIBILITY, AND PROBABILITY—THEIR BEARING UPON THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIAN RELIGION, ETC.

Such Events Defined.

WHAT then is a supernatural, or miraculous event, as distinguished from facts of ordinary occurrence? The real distinction, we reply, lies here. Whenever events occur in the fixed order of antecedence and consequence the immediate cause is not manifested. Their occurrence equally accords with two distinct and opposite hypotheses, and therefore implies the truth of neither in opposition to the other—the hypothesis of Divine Causation—and that of natural law. When, on the other band, an event occurs in such relations and circumstances, as necessarily imply its production through the immediate agency of a supernatural cause, such event, to distinguish it from those of ordinary occurrence, is denominated supernatural, or miraculous. It is not thus designated because its occurrence was, in itself, less natural or more contradictory to any natural law, than is any other event, but because the former does, and the latter does not imply, and thus reveal, its immediate cause. A supernatural, or miraculous event, then, is one whose occurrence cannot be accounted for through natural law—an event, therefore, which implies the existence and action in nature of a supernatural cause, and the presence and action of that cause in the production of said event. A supernatural event, or a miracle, implies the violation or suspension of no existing law, but as perfectly as any other event accords with the ultimate and supreme law to which all facts are subordinate, and with the nature of all existing substances. It does, however, imply such a change in the common and visible order of events, as absolutely to imply the presence and immediate action of a supernatural power. If God should, as he often may do, produce invisibly to His creatures changes in the ordinary course of events, such changes, though in themselves as really supernatural as any others, would be no miracle to us. To be to us really supernatural, they must be events of which we can take such cognizance, that we can know that their immediate cause must be supernatural.

Conditions of the Possibility, or Probability of the Occurrence of Supernatural Events.

If a supernatural power does exist in and over nature, then undeniably the actual occurrence of supernatural, or miraculous events, is in itself just as possible as that of any other event, actual or conceivable. The occurrence of such events, granting the existence of the power under consideration, is just as probable as is the probability that exigencies may arise demanding such interpositions, and is absolutely certain whenever such exigencies do arise. The impossibility of the occurrence of supernatural events can be affirmed but upon one exclusive condition—an absolute denial of the existence of a supernatural power. Their improbability can be affirmed but upon a denial of the probability of the existence, in the past or future, of exigencies requiring their occurrence. The certainty of their non-occurrence can be affirmed, the existence of the power referred to being admitted, but upon an absolute denial of the occurrence, during the eternity past and the eternity to come, of any exigency demanding such interposition. We hold that no propositions can have greater intuitive and demonstrative certainty than those above presented. Omniscience is necessary for a valid denial of all past and of all future miracles.

The Knowledge which all who affirm the Impossibility, Improbability, or Non-actuality of Supernatural Events, do, in reality, assume the possession of.

We have already rendered it demonstrably evident, that the being of a personal God, or the existence of a supernatural power in and over nature, cannot by any possibility be disproved, and that against the doctrine no form or degree of positive evidence can be adduced. There is, undeniably, but two conceivable, and therefore possible hypotheses of ultimate causation—the Theistic, and that of Natural Law—and one of these must be true, and the other false. No form of valid proof, or positive evidence, can be adduced in favour of the latter hypothesis and against the former, because that all facts deducible in favour of the latter, are equally explicable on the former hypothesis. Nor can any antecedent probability be adduced against the Theistic hypothesis, and in favour of that of Natural Law. Against the possibility of miracles, therefore, no form of proof, positive evidence, or antecedent probability can be adduced. The same holds equally in respect to the idea of their probability, and actuality. To know that such occurrences are impossible and unreal, we must know that a supernatural power in and over nature does not exist. To know this, we must, undeniably, be possessed of absolute omniscience. We must have an absolute knowledge of all events, past, present, and to come, and of all substances and causes existing and acting in nature, and in infinite space. If there is any event of which we have not an absolute knowledge, that event may be, or may have been, produced by a supernatural cause. If there is any cause existing and acting in nature, or in infinite space, a cause of which we have not a similar knowledge, that cause, undeniably, may be a supernatural one. All scientists who affirm the impossibility of supernatural events do, in fact, arrogate to themselves the possession of absolute omniscience. They really and truly profess an absolute knowledge of all events of the eternity past, and of the eternity to come, and of all causes acting in infinite space, and eternal duration. On no other condition than the actual possession of such knowledge, can they, without infinite criminality and presumption, deny the possibility, probability, or actuality, of supernatural events in nature. When they make such denials, they positively assume to themselves, we repeat, the actual possession of an absolute omniscience of all events of the past and future, and of all causes existing and acting in infinite space and eternal duration. Well may every sober thinker, in view of the infinite impiety, folly, presumption, and arrogance of such men, exclaim, 'O my soul, come not thou into their secret; and into their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united.' Thinkers cannot be innocent who arrogate to themselves the actual possession of a perfect knowledge of all events of the past and future, of all exigencies which have arisen during the eternity past, or which may arise during the eternity to come, and of all causes which do exist and act in infinite space and eternal duration. We affirm, without fear of contradiction, that these men are not possessed of the knowledge of a single fact which, in the remotest degree, indicates the real impossibility, improbability, or non-actuality of supernatural events.

CONDITIONS ON WHICH WE ARE ABSOLUTELY BOUND To ADMIT THE ACTUAL OCCURRENCE OF SUPERNATURAL EVENTS.

Against the possibility and actuality of supernatural events, as we have seen, no form or degree of real proof, positive evidence, or even antecedent probability can be adduced. On what condition, then, should we hold ourselves bound to admit the actual occurrence of such events in any given case? On this one exclusive condition, we answer: the actual presentation of that form and degree of evidence known to be valid in all other cases. Just this and nothing more nor less have we a right to require, and just this we are bound to require in all such cases. Whenever the occurrence of an event, undeniably supernatural, has been fully verified by such evidence, we violate all the laws and principles of scientific induction and deduction, should we withhold a full and prompt assent to the actuality of the event itself, and to all the consequences which the fact implies. Against the occurrence of the fact, no form or degree of real proof, positive evidence, or antecedent probability can be adduced. In its verification, we have just that form and degree of positive evidence which never in any other case misleads, and which everywhere distinguishes the real from the unreal. No higher, or more abundant, evidence can rationally be required for miracles than for any other events in respect to which certainty is demanded. No more valid evidence have we a right to require, as the basis of religious belief, than is properly demanded as the basis of implicit belief in the science of Astronomy or any other of the á posteriori sciences. When the existence of Jesus Christ and the reality of the 'mighty works' ascribed to Him, have been verified to us by a rigid application of all the known laws and principles of historic verity, we justly forfeit the eternal life which He came to procure for and reveal to us, if we refuse to believe in Him. The sentiment so often repeated, that higher evidence is demanded to establish the occurrence of a supernatural event, than is required to verify, with perfect certainty, other classes of facts, is false in fact, and of most dangerous tendency. If higher degrees of evidence are to be demanded in the former than in cases of the latter kind, who can tell us what the form and degree of this higher evidence is? If evidence, known to be perfectly valid for certainty in all other cases, is not to be received as valid in the case of supernatural events, no one can inform us when and where assent becomes a duty, and dissent a sin. When evidence, known to have full validity in all other cases, is presented in verification of the occurrence of a supernatural event, obligation for assent becomes absolute and the criminality of dissent infinite.

Conditions on which we may Properly withhold Assent to the Actuality of Supernatural Events affirmed to have occurred.

The conditions on which we may rationally and virtuously withhold assent to a statement, that a miraculous event has occurred in any given case, now become obvious. They are the following:

1. The event may be in itself not of a supernatural character, but of naturally impossible occurrence. We meet with a statement, for example, not that an event has occurred in such relations and circumstances as imply the presence and action of a supernatural cause, but that God had actually caused the same thing, at the same moment, to exist, and not to exist. We should dementate ourselves, if we should seriously inquire whether such an event had, or had not, occurred. Those who confound events which no power can produce, with those which a supernatural power, supposing it to exist, may produce, are without excuse.

2. There may be, in certain cases, a reasonable doubt about the character of the event, supposing it to be real. An event may occur, an event inexplicable through any causes known to us. Yet its character may be such as not necessarily to imply the presence and action, in its production, of a supernatural cause. In all such cases assent to the event as supernatural is not demanded. We may, on the other hand, properly wait for additional light. Our assent is demanded when, and only when, the character of the event as supernatural cannot be a matter of reasonable doubt, and when its occurrence is verified by evidence known to be valid in all other cases.

3. The obvious absence of evidence which is required in all cases where strict certainty is demanded is the only other proper ground of dissent in reference to cases under consideration. If our assent to a miracle is demanded on the basis of evidence, known to be deceptive in other cases, duty demands our dissent. Faith, as Christian virtue, is absolute fidelity to valid evidence or rational conviction. Unbelief, as sin, and affirmed as such in the Scriptures, is infidelity to valid evidence or rational conviction. 'He that doeth evil hateth the light; and will not come to the light.' The grounds of our revealed obligation to credit as real the supernatural events recorded as such in the Scriptures, are—that they are not, in themselves, events of impossible occurrence—that, granting their actuality, their supernatural character cannot be denied—and that they are affirmed as real by evidence, which, in all other cases in which strict certainty is required, has absolute validity.

Relations of these Events to the Christian Religion.

For aught that we know, or can know to the contrary, God may, as we have said before, change the visible order of events in forms which imply the presence and action in their occurrence of a supernatural power, and this without any revealed reasons for such interpositions. This, however, is not true of the supernatural events revealed in the Christian Scriptures. These events all stand before us as specific attestations of the truth of this religion. The actuality of these events being granted, no one will deny that Christianity lifts its divine form before us as the supernaturally revealed and attested religion of God.

Nor will any sober thinker question the supernatural character of these events, their actual occurrence being granted. We must absolutely deny their occurrence, or as absolutely affirm, with the magicians of old, 'This is the finger of God.' But one question remains for scientific determination—to wit, Did these events actually occur? This question of fact, as we have shown, is to be determined by a rigid application of the laws of historic verity. If in the light of the acknowledged Criteria which, in all other cases, distinguish the true from the false, and the strictly certain from the uncertain, they take rank among the true and the certain, they stand before us as absolutely verified facts of actual occurrence.

Admitting the actuality of these events, we must also admit the divinity of the Christian Religion, or affirm that God has actually attested the truth of a lie. These same remarks apply equally to all the particular truths of this religion. These supernatural attestations sustain the same relations to each specific truth that they do to Christianity itself. Everywhere they lift their heaven-illumined summits amid the great revelations of this religion, divinely attesting the truth of each and all in common.

Relations of these Events to the Christian Scriptures.

The Christian Religion, with all its specific teachings, exists as a revelation from God nowhere but in the Christian Scriptures. The supernatural events therein recorded, have the identical relations to these writings that the same events have to the religion of which said writings are a record. To deny the proper inspiration of the record, and to affirm that the religion which they record is a divinely attested religion, involves a gross and palpable contradiction. Let us suppose that in recording these events, together with the principles and doctrines contained in the same record, these writers were under no, to us, divinely attested supernatural guidance; that, on the other hand, they merely wrote out, as others might have done, facts as they saw them, and doctrines as they actually held them. We should, on that hypothesis, be bound to regard the facts recorded as supernatural events which divinely attest no religion what ever. Had Josephus, or Tacitus, after the appearance of the Four Gospels, compiled the same into a single treatise, and interspersed through the same his own honest views of doctrine and duty, the facts recorded would have the same identical relations to the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Gospel according to Tacitus or Josephus, that the same facts do have, on the present hypothesis, to the Gospel of Matthew or John. A denial of the Divine authority of the Christian Records, involves a corresponding denial of the Divine authority of the religion which they professedly record, and Christianity stands before us as a religion no more Divinely attested than is that of Brahm or of Buddha. We should on this hypothesis, we repeat, be bound to regard the Scripture facts as supernatural, but as having occurred for no revealed reasons whatever.

The events under consideration do, in fact and form, stand before us not only as Divine attestations of the Christian religion, but equally so of the Divine authority of the writings which record that religion. The supernatural events recorded in Scripture everywhere present themselves as specific attestations, not only of the truth of a given religion, but equally so, of Moses and the Prophets, of Christ and His Apostles, as the divinely commissioned revelators of the specific truths of that religion. The miracles performed through Moses before Pharaoh and the Israelites, for example, were performed for two specifically revealed reasons—to verify his particular utterances, and verify him, as 'God's Mouth' to those to whom those utterances were addressed. The fire that descended on Carmel in answer to the prayer of Elijah, descended to verify two specific revelations—that Jehovah is the only true God, and that Elijah was His Prophet. 'The mighty works' performed by Christ, as he specifically informs us, divinely attested both the truth of his particular utterances, and verified Him as a 'Teacher sent from God.' Christ, also, gave absolute authority to His Apostles as revelators and teachers of truth. 'Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Christ not only taught the divinity of certain truths revealed in the Scriptures, but equally the absolute authority of the writings themselves. 'It is written'—'The Scriptures must be fulfilled.' 'The Scriptures cannot be broken.' 'Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer.' 'Think not, that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.' The Apostles, also, as divinely commissioned teachers of truth give the same testimony to the Divine origin and authority of the Scripture records. 'Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God.' The supernatural events under consideration do not stand before us as meaningless interpositions of Divine power; nor as attestations of a religion nowhere divinely attested; but as diverse attestations of the absolute authority of specified 'teachers sent from God,' and, consequently, of the Divine authority of specific records of a religion divinely attested to us through such teachers. To deny that the Scriptures are to us of Divine authority in matters of belief and conduct is to affirm that the supernatural events which they record were produced for no assignable reasons whatever. To prove the reality of these supernatural events implies a corresponding proof, not only of the divinity of Christianity itself, but also of the Divine origin and authority of the Scriptures which embody the truths of this religion.

There can be no more fundamental form of error than is embraced in the dogma, that Christianity itself is from God, and is contained somewhere in the Scriptures; but that these Scriptures are themselves of human origin and authority. It is, in fact, to assure us that the needle is somewhere in the hay-mow, and then to tell us to find it if we can. Suppose that God did reveal a religion, and then left the matter to individuals who might choose to attempt to record it to express their own apprehensions of that religion. Who would vouch for the correctness of such apprehensions, in the first case, and in the next for the correctness with which these uninspired men have expressed their own views upon the subject? Who can determine how much, and what form of error, may be intermingled with the truth in their apprehensions and representations? To us, error and truth, as intermingled in these writings, if they are intermingled at all, are alike divinely attested, or Christianity itself is in no form thus attested.

The idea which some appear to entertain, that the vocal, but not written utterances of the Prophets and Apostles were of Divine authority, is one of the most absurd forms of error that ever appeared. The terms 'whatsoever' and 'whosesoever,' in the commission to 'bind and loose,' 'remit and retain,' must have a special reference and application, if anywhere, to their written, that is to their permanently recorded, utterances. If their written utterances do not bind, nothing they ever said could have bound anybody. Will anyone put this construction upon our Saviour's words? 'Whatsoever (except when you write) ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.'

SECTION V.

REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.

Terms Defined.

THE terms revelation and inspiration represent two distinct and separate ideas. The former represents the act of God in making known his truth to creatures. The latter represents a DIVINE GUIDANCE imparted to individuals in communicating to others truths which God has revealed to the mediums of Divine communication. God, for example, revealed certain forms of truth to Moses. This was Divine revelation. God then, by his own Spirit, guided Moses in communicating that truth to the people. This was inspiration. Revelation may pertain to truths previously known, or to such as have not before been apprehended. Truths of the former class, when divinely represented to the mind, or communicated to the world by inspiration, possess a sacredness and impressiveness which did not previously attach to them. The Ten Commandments, for example, contain few forms of duty of which the race was previously wholly ignorant. They now, however, possess a distinctness, sacredness, and impressiveness which could not otherwise belong to them. Revelation also presents to human apprehension truths which lie wholly beyond the reach of human thought.

Revelation, as it comes from God, must present to the mind pure truth and nothing else. To suppose the opposite would imply that God intentionally deceives His creatures. No one who has any respect for his Creator will impute to Him any such monstrous deceptions as this.

Divine inspiration, in all forms which bind the faith and obedience of those who receive its communications, must present the exclusive and pure truth previously revealed. The opposite idea implies the same kind of intentional deception on the part of God that deceptive revelations would. It is undeniable that God may so guide men whom He inspires to communicate His revealed truth that they shall present that truth in its purity and nothing else; or He may so influence their minds that in the same communications they shall intermingle and confound God's revelations with their own imaginings. The dogma that God, whenever He has inspired individuals to communicate His own truth, has chosen the latter in preference to the former method, when both were equally practicable, is, to say the least, a great absurdity.

But which of these is, in fact, the inspired method revealed in the Scriptures? On this subject we have the most clear and positive information in both the Old and the New Testament. In Exod. xx. 21, the people request that God would thereafter communicate with them, not directly, but through Moses. 'Speak thou with us, and we will hear, but let not God speak with us, lest we die.' In Dent. xviii. 15-19, we have a reference to the same subject, with a distinct revelation of the real relations of all future inspired Prophets to God on the one hand, and to men on the other. For the sake of distinctness we present the entire passage. 'The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken. According to all that thou desirest of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire anymore, that I die not. And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put My words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto 'My words which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him.'

This passage undeniably refers to every inspired Prophet that God has since raised up, and not exclusively to Christ, as some have supposed. Nor does Peter (Acts iii. 22-25) cite the passage as having an exclusive reference to Christ, but to Him as, among others, a Prophet. Peter also applies the passage to other Prophets in the same sense as to Christ. The Apostle reminds the people of their obligation to receive the words of Christ as if directly addressed to them by God Himself, for the reason that Christ was to them a divinely attested Prophet, 'a Prophet raised up from the midst of them,' according to Divine promise, His words also being confirmed by the voice of all the Prophets from Samuel onward.

In the passage from Exodus now under consideration, God Himself distinctly reveals the following truths. 1. From that time onward He would uniformly make revelations to men, not directly, but through Prophets whom He should 'raise up from among the people.' 2. To these Prophets He would first make His revelations of truth. 'I will put My words in his mouth.' 3. God would so guide the utterances of His Prophets that they should communicate just what He had communicated to them. 'He shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.' Here God promises that inspired truth, as communicated by the Prophets, shall be identical in all respects with revealed truth, as communicated by Him to the Prophets. 4. The utterances of the Prophets, when given forth 'in the name of God,' shall bind our faith and obedience in the same sense and manner that they would if directly uttered by God Himself. 'And it shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him.' The great truth manifestly set before us in this whole passage is this: God is in the same sense responsible for the truth of all utterances of divinely attested Prophets, utterances given forth by them 'in His name,' as He would be, were these utterances directly addressed to us by God Himself; and these utterances as absolutely bind our faith and obedience in the one case as they would in the other.

The same great truth is repeated in the commission which Jeremiah received as a divine Prophet, 'Thou shalt be as My mouth.' Now, all the Prophets of the Old Testament do stand before us, as divinely attested Prophets of God, and all their communications do come to us 'in the name of the Lord.' We must, therefore, brand them as 'lying Prophets,' or accept their utterances as to us 'the voice of God.'

In the same light did Christ and His Apostles regard the utterances of these Prophets. It was no part of His mission, as He Himself informs us, to annul any of the teachings of the Old Testament, but to confirm them all. 'What is written,' He presents as having absolute authority over even Himself in His relations as a man. The Scriptures, He tells us, 'cannot be broken,' but 'must be fulfilled.' 'He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,' for this reason, that otherwise 'the Scriptures could not be fulfilled.' 'And He said to them, These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, and said to them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoves Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day.' Where is the mustness about fulfilling all that is written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, 'concerning Him,' if these writings are not of Divine authority? Christ did not, or these writings do, 'speak the words of God.'

To the same effect are the express teachings of the Apostles. 'God,' we are told (Hebrews i. 1), 'spake unto our fathers by the Prophets.' Another Apostle affirms (2 Peter i. 16-21) that none of the utterances found in these writings were of human origin. This is the obvious meaning of the words 'private interpretation.' That which is written, we are told, is not what men thought out, and willed to write, but what God thought, and willed to have written. 'What is written,' he affirms, has even higher authority than a mere report of what is seen, and heard 'from God out of heaven.' Let us read the whole passage. 'For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with Him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the daystar arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' Nothing can be more plain than is the fact, that according to apostolic teaching, the thoughts which the Prophets uttered were not their own, but God's, and that the words through which those thoughts are expressed, are the words of God.

But did the Apostles, in this authoritative form, occupy the position of Prophets? They did, we answer, and that in the most important form ever occupied before. To this our Saviour refers (Luke vii. 28), 'For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater Prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.' The term 'greater' evidently refers, not to mental powers, but to position. So after the term 'least' that of Prophet is to be understood, the laws of language requiring this. The meaning of the whole verse may be thus expressed: 'Among those that are born of women,' no Prophet of the past has ever yet occupied a position of greater dignity and importance than John the Baptist occupied; nevertheless, he that shall discharge the office of a Prophet in the lowest form in the New Dispensation, will occupy a sphere of greater dignity and importance than that occupied by John. The manifest object of the Saviour was to impress the Apostles with a consciousness of the dignity, importance, and responsibility of the prophetic office to which they were about to be introduced. In this passage, these Apostles, with Paul afterwards divinely associated with them, stand before us as divinely designated Prophets of God, Prophets in higher and more responsible relations than any Prophets had ever before been in. If the utterances of Prophets of the Old were, much more must those of the New Dispensation be to us, 'the voice of God,' and must, in the most absolute form, bind our faith and obedience.

On this matter we have also the most specific and absolute instruction from Christ himself. The following (Matt. xvi. 19) is the authority expressly conferred upon Peter, as an inspired revelator of Divine truth: 'And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heav