THE TESTS SUSTAINED.

95

sibility that any human art should construct a system so identical in its principles, and yet so diverse in its manifestations. Nor, indeed, could there have been any motive to induce such an attempt; for, besides its inherent difficulty, Christianity so far dropped all the peculiarities of the Jews as to forfeit every hope of benefit from their strong exclusive feelings, while at the same time it came before other nations subject to all the odium which it could not fail to excite as based on the Jewish religion. We accordingly find that, in point of fact, it was equally opposed by Jews and Gentiles. But such was the system-exclusive, typi cal, ceremonial, external, magnificent, addressed to the senses between which and Christianity, simple, universal, without form or pomp, it was necessary to show a correspondence; and this the apostle Paul, and the New Testament writers generally, did show.

Christianity and nature-extent and grandeur.— How different the test to which Christianity is now put! The works of God are acknowledged to be from him, and, as now understood, how simple in their laws, how complex in their relations, how infinite in their extent! And can the same system, which so perfectly corresponded with the narrow system of the Jews, correspond equally with the infinite and unrestricted system and relations of God's works? Is it possible that the religion once embosomed in the ceremonies of an ignorant and barbarous people, which received its expansion and completion in an age of the greatest ignorance in regard to physical science, should yet harmonize, in its disclosures respecting God and his government, with those enlarged conceptions of his nature and kingdom which we now possess? Could Newton step from the study of the heavens to the study of the Bible, and feel that he made no descent? It is even so. The God whom the Bible discloses, and the moral system which it

reveals, lose nothing when compared with the extent of nature, or with the simplicity and majesty of her laws; they seem rather worthy to be enthroned upon, and to preside over, such an amazing domain. The material universe, if not infinite, is indefinite in extent. We see in the misty spot which, in a serene evening, scarce discolors the deep blue of the sky, a distant milky way, like that which encircles our heavens, and in a small projection of which our sun is situated. We see such milky ways strown in profusion over the heavens, each containing more suns than we can number, and all these, with their subordinate systems, we see bound together by a law as efficient as it is simple and unchangeable. "They stand up together. . . not one faileth!" But long before this system was discovered, there was made known, in the Bible, a moral system in entire correspondence with it. We see at the head of it, and presiding in high authority over the whole, one infinite and "only wise God," "the King eternal, immortal, invisible." Of the systems above us, angelic and seraphic, we know little; but we see one law, simple, efficient, and comprehensive as that of gravitation, the law of love, extending its sway over the whole of God's dominions, living where he lives, embracing every moral movement in its universal authority, and producing the same harmony, where it is obeyed, as we observe in the movements of nature. We find here none of the puerilities which dwarf every other system. The sanctions of the law, the moral attributes revealed, the destinies involved, the prospects opened up, all take hold on infinity, and are in perfect keeping with the solemn emotions excited by dwelling upon the illimitable works of God. "Deep calleth unto deep."

ARGUMENT SECOND: COINCIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY WITH NATURAL RELIGION.- ARGUMENT THIRD: ITS ADAPTATION TO THE CONSCIENCE AS A PERCEIVING POWER.- PECULIAR DIFFICULTIES IN THE WAY OF ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING A PERFECT STANDARD.-ARGUMENT FOURTH: IF THE MORALITY IS PERFECT, THE RELIGION MUST BE TRUE.

IF, as was attempted in the last lecture, a distinct analogy can be shown between Christianity and the constitution of nature, it will afford a strong presumption that they both came from the same hand. But if such an analogy can not be shown, it will not be conclusive against Christianity, because there is such a disparity between the material and the spiritual worlds, and the laws by which they must be governed, that a revelation concerning one might be possible, which yet should not seem to be analogous to the other.

ARGUMENT II.

COINCIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY WITH NATURAL RELIGION.

Not so, however, with the argument which I next adduce, which is drawn from the coincidence of Christianity with natural religion. Truth is one. If God has made a revelation in one mode, it must coincide with what he has revealed in another. If, therefore, it can be shown that Christianity does not coincide with the well-authenticated teachings of natural religion, it

will be conclusive against it. Nature is from God. Her teachings are from him, and I should regard it as settling the question against any thing claiming to be a divine revelation, if it could be shown to contradict those teachings. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that Christianity coincides perfectly with natural religion, and indeed teaches the only perfect system of it ever known, it will furnish a strong argument in its favor, especially when we consider how the religion originated.

Natural religion defined. — By natural religion, I mean that knowledge of God and of duty which may be acquired by man without a revelation. So far as this phrase is made to imply, as it sometimes is, that revealed religion is not natural, it is objectionable; for I conceive that the original and natural state of man was one of direct communication with God, and even now, that revelation is, in the highest sense, natural. It ought to be used simply to contradistinguish the knowledge, which man might gain from nature, from that which revelation alone teaches. Of natural religion the ideas of many are exceedingly indefinite; but that the definition now given is the true one is obvious, because it is the only one that can give it any fixed and definite meaning. It can not mean what men have actually learned from nature, for this has varied at different times. We should be doing injustice to the teachings of nature if we were to call that knowledge of God and of duty, which has been attained by the most enlightened heathen, the whole of natural religion. We mean, by revealed religion, not the partial and perverted views of any sect, but that system which God has actually revealed in the Bible, and which the diligent and candid can discover to be there. And so we mean, by natural religion, not what indolent, and biased, and selfish men have discovered, but that which nature

TEACHINGS OF NATURAL RELIGION.

99

actually teaches, and which a diligent and candid man could discover in the best exercise of his powers.

Teachings-how made known. If this, then, be natural religion, how are its teachings made known? Its mode of teaching concerning God, and concerning duty, is not the same. Its teachings concerning God and his attributes are made known chiefly by reasoning from effects to their cause. In addition to this, it is supposed by some that all men have certain intuitive and necessary convictions concerning the being of a God. But, however this may be, I think that the being of a God, and the perfection of most of his natural attributes, might be inferred from nature as now known. That nature and Christianity agree in their teachings concerning these attributes, I have already shown; concerning the moral attributes of God, it is more difficult to say what nature does teach. Certain it is that man has never so learned them, from her light alone, as to lay the foundation for any rational system of religious morality; or so as to free the best minds from great and distressing uncertainty.

Her mode of teaching duty is by the tendencies and results of different actions, and courses of action. We can not doubt at least natural religion does not permit itself to doubt that the object of God, in the constitution of things, and in the relations established by him, is the good of man. If, therefore, we see any course of conduct tending to, and resulting in, the good of man, individually and socially, we infer that it is according to the will of God. If we see a course of conduct tending to, and resulting in, the unhappiness of the individual and of society, we infer that it is contrary to his will. It is in this way, solely, by the tendencies and results of actions, that natural religion teaches us our duty.

Not adapted to the common mind. But it must be