herents in modern times. But are the unassisted faculties of man adequate to lead him to a proper knowledge of the will and law of God, of true happiness, and of his future destination? We answer unhesitatingly, No! This is evident to every individual who will reflect on the endless differences and inconsistencies which prevailed among the most celebrated heathen philosophers, some of whom taught gross immoralities, which aided very little in rectifying the notions, and reforming the lives of mankind.

This fact is farther corroborated in the gross ignorance which extensively prevailed at the time of which we are now speaking, respecting the most important truths of revelation. Respecting the nature and worship of God, the creation of the world, the origin of evil, and the cause of the depravity and misery which actually exist among mankind, any method by which a reconciliation could be effected between God and man,-the supreme felicity of man, the certainty of future rewards and punishments, and the resurrection of the body;-of all these they were either profoundly ignorant, or their notions were confused and imperfect. Indeed, how could it have been otherwise, while they were ignorant or destitute of divine revelation? It may be asserted, as undeniably true, that, aside from the word of God, sufficient light on the above points cannot be obtained. It is the Bible alone which reveals the sublime truths so essential to man's salvation. Of these, to give due credit, human reason could have but a very inadequate conception.

Who that has taken but a cursory view of the history of the world, has not been forcibly impressed with the unremitting efforts which have been made to exalt and eulogize human reason? The days of polite literature, so called, seem to have been replete with panegyrics and encomiums on this faculty of man, while entire ignorance prevailed respecting its power and province. No wonder the most distinguished sages of antiquity frankly acknowledged and confessed the uncertainty of its researches. Natural religion was prevalent in the days of Christ; and, during the scholastic ages, it seems nearly to have taken the place of all other religions. Its multifarious and bewildering speculations have reached our times, and men of talents and erudition have set aside the light of revelation for its glimmerings and uncertainties. But, that we may more clearly discover the superiority of revealed to natural religion, we will examine some points in which their dissimilarity is strikingly manifested. Truth will shine increasingly bright when contrasted with error. The lustre and utility of revelation will more forcibly impress our minds when contrasted with the impotency of human

reason.

1. The first point we shall adduce to elucidate the subject is, that revelation gives us clear and correct views of the being and perfections of God; while unassisted reason, whenever it has attempted it, has not only failed, but exhibited its entire weakness and incompetency to do it. As it respects the proofs of the genuineness, authenticity, credibility, and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, we shall say but little directly; though it is apparent to every candid inquirer that we have every evidence of their truth and divinity which can be reasonably expected or desired. We shall proceed, VOL. VIII.-October, 1837. 37

then, on the supposition that the Bible is what it purports to be, viz.: a revelation of God's will to man.

To possess correct knowledge of the Supreme Being, so far as he has been pleased to reveal himself to us, is of paramount importance. This has generally been acknowledged in ancient as well as modern times. The question, then, is this, viz.: Is the Bible the only source of correct information on the subject? We answer, It is. We need no farther proof of this than the fact that all, in whatever nation, country, or period, who have labored to obtain this knowledge by rational induction, whether drawn from the works of nature or metaphysical principles, have utterly failed. But it may be inquired, Cannot the being and attributes of God be demonstrated from the works of creation, which are so impressively spread out before us? We answer in the negative, aside from revelation. It is true, with the light of revelation shining upon them they speak forth their divine Original; but without it, in this respect they would leave us in awful darkness. We admit that all nations have been disposed to have their gods of veneration and worship; and, rather than to have no gods, no objects were considered too mean or insignificant to be worshipped. On this account some have chosen to define man a religious, rather than a rational animal. But the character of the "only true God" has never been understood but where the Bible has made it known.

Many of the most learned heathen philosophers entertained the most confused notions of the true character of God, while others rejected the idea of a Supreme Being altogether. Hiero, the tyrant of Syracuse, once asked the philosopher and poet, Simonides, that important question, What is God? The prudent philosopher required a day's time to consider it; the next day he asked two; and so on increasing in the same proportion. Hiero, weary of procrastination, required the reason of this delay. Because," said the philosopher, "the more I reflect on it the farther the subject appears from my comprehension." Socrates, who was properly denominated the hero of the pagan world, in regard to moral virtues, though he expresses a belief in the one only God, eternal, invisible Creator of the universe, and Supreme Director and Arbiter of all events, yet he dare not give public testimony to these great truths. At times he expresses doubts of the existence of such a Being. All the true light received on this important doctrine, in this distinguished age of philosophy, was unquestionably received from traditional notices, handed down from previous ages. The Greek philosophy rejected the idea of a God as Creator of all things. The Ionic, Pythagoric, Platonic, and Stoic schools all agree in asserting the eternity of matter. They taught that matter was eternally coexistent with God. That matter was created out of nothing seems never to have entered their minds. Reason never informed them that God created all things.

Suppose a person, whose powers of ratiocination are improved to the utmost pitch of human capacity, but who has received no idea of the existence or attributes of God from revelation, tradition, or inspiration; how is he to convince himself that God is? and whence is he to learn what God is? That of which, as yet, he knows nothing cannot be a subject of his thoughts, his reasonings, or his con

versation. He could get no idea of immateriality from matter, neither could one's self suggest the idea of spirit. For what knowledge the heathens had of a Supreme Intelligence, they were not indebted to unassisted reason, but to revelation, though unwilling to acknowledge it. Cicero declares that "a pure mind, thinking, intelligent, and pure from body, was altogether inconceivable." We may say, with another celebrated author, "Every thing about us being finite, we could have none but finite ideas; and it would be an act of omnipotence to stretch them to infinite."

The above facts undeniably show the insufficiency of human reason in tracing the existence and attributes of God. But there is, as we have already intimated, a higher source from whence we may obtain this information. The doctrine of one supreme, all-wise, and uncontrollable Providence, shines from the sacred pages with unexampled lustre. It may be traced on every page. Thus the superiority of that religion unfolded in the Scriptures is discoverable to reason with all its boastings.

2. As human reason is not sufficient to trace the existence and attributes of God, so it is not adequate to ascertain the true character of man, the provisions of the gospel for his final restoration to the divine image,—his true and proper immortality. That man is a fallen, unholy, and depraved being, seems never to have been a part of those creeds so justly entitled the productions of reason. And, strange as it may appear, the doctrine of human depravity was not only discarded by philosophers and moralists during the dark ages, and when science was in its incipiency, but most of the moral systems of modern times have failed in recognising this important truth. They are based on the hypothesis that man, though fallen, is capable, without relying exclusively on revelation, of ascertaining the true standard of moral rectitude, and the only rule by which mankind are to be governed in their duties to God and man. Among the numerous systems which may be enumerated are those of Cudworth, Clark, and Price, who labored to resolve virtue into agreement with eternal fitnesses of things;-of Adam Smith, Dr. Brown, Dr. Hutcheson, Dr. Dwight, and Bishop Butler, who, notwithstanding the penetration of a discriminative intellect, a superfluous refinement of metaphysical abstraction, and with the elegance of a scholar's erudition and a poet's fancy, have erred in substituting human nature in its present state in the place of revelation, as a standard of moral rectitude. Dr. Wardlaw, in his valuable work entitled "Christian Ethics," has ably reviewed these systems with others, to which my readers are referred.

But while reason, with all its boastings, fails in unfolding the true character of fallen beings, revelation is very explicit on this point. The inspired penmen seem to have dipped their pens in "color's native well" while portraying the true character of man. Here man is "painted to the life."

But, admitting the fact that man is what the Scriptures represent him to be, how could reason have made a development of a sure way by which he might be reconciled to God? How God could be "just, and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus," could never be ascertained only by the light of revelation. Here the mystery is explained. Here the provisions of the gospel are clearly unfolded.

"We think we can show you, that without the revelations of Scriptuve, the goodness of God would have been very doubtfully adumbrated or shadowed forth in nature; and that, without those revelations of his mercy to guilty man, we should have known nothing." It is true, indeed, that many who have acquired instruction from the book of God, guided by its light, can go to nature and providence and find in them many proofs both of his goodness and mercy. But consider how partially they view the subjects presented to them. They take only one single class of the phenomena on which they profess to construct their system. They look, for instance, only at what are obviously the beauties of nature, and do not regard its apparent deformities. They look upon the shining sun, but they forget to look upon the devastating storm. They look at life in its enjoyments, but they forget to look at its miseries. They consider man in his pleasures, but they overlook him in agony, and disease, and death. They look at certain wonderful provisions by which God supplies the wants of his creatures, but they dwell not on those seeming contradictions which the administration of the affairs of the world is continually presenting. Now we, with our Scriptures, can account for all this. We can harmonize all these phenomena, reconcile their existence with the divine character, and rejoice that the Lord is good; but, without revelation, this could not be done. But if, without revelation, our views of the divine goodness in exercising mercy, which implies pity for those who have reduced themselves to a state of misery by sin, would have been thus obscured and doubtful-then of mercy, which implies pardon for the guilty, we should have known nothing. Without this book, where should we go to find a single word to support the hope that God would forgive the sins of his creatures? Certain it is that nature, so called, indicates nothing of this in any of her works. Nor is it indicated by that course of human events which passes before us. If God be favorable to the guilty, he must either waive his just rights altogether, or find some means to satisfy them without the actual punishment of the offender. In either case it is a matter to be determined by himself, and can only be known by us when he is pleased to reveal it. We should, therefore, untaught by this sacred volume, be so unacquainted with the things of God as to be ignorant of what he would do with the guilty. Take the question, "What must I do to be saved?" Universal nature furnishes no reply; the oracle is completely silent; nor can our trembling spirits hear a single accent of mercy, encouraging grace, till revelation directs us to Calvary, and calls on us to "behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."*

If, therefore, reason is insufficient to discover the grand scheme of salvation so unequivocally unfolded in the Scriptures, so it is equally inadequate to ascertain other important truths of which the Bible furnishes an account; as, how we became sinners, and how we can cease to be such; that our spirits are immortal, and that there is a state of existence for the soul when separated from the body; that there will be a resurrection of the dead, a final judgment, and a state of eternal rewards and punishments; on all these points

* See Rev. Richard Watson's sermon entitled "Divinity of Christianity."

reason could furnish no satisfactory information whatever; and, without revelation, we must remain entirely ignorant of them.

Who, by studying the philosophy of Epicurus, Plato, Zeno, and Aristotle, has ever become acquainted with the great truths of the Bible? Indeed, their subtle disquisitions, their blending physics, metaphysics, and ethics together, and treating them dialectically, their absurd subtleties, and endless distinctions without differences, only served to perplex the mind without leading it nearer the great fountain of truth. Dr. Samuel Clark, though a great advocate for natural religion, when speaking of the heathen philosophers, says, "Some professed open immorality; others, by subtle distinctions, patronized particular vices. The better sort of them, who were the most celebrated, discoursed with the greater reason, yet with much uncertainty and doubtfulness, concerning things of the highest importance; the providence of God in governing the world, the immortality of the soul, and a future judgment." Many modern philosophers were no better. Just so far as they rejected revelation they became sensual and immoral. The Bible, then, teaches us what reason has never been able to do. Here its superiority is clearly demonstrated.

3. Again, the superior claims of the Christian religion are strikingly manifest in its admirable adaptation to the capacities of men. The various schemes of religion which have no higher authority than human reason seem to be wanting in simplicity and adaptation. They seem better suited to another race of beings than for sinful man. The Platonists held that all things happened according to the divine providence; and yet they inform us that "God, fortune, and opportunity govern all the affairs of men." The followers of Aristotle, who formed the peripatetic school, held that virtue consisted, in the mean, between two extremes; but what these extremes exactly were was undefinable. The Stoical school inculcated the principle, that the best rule of life consisted in living according to nature; but what they always meant by following nature is not easy to conceive. The doctrines of those contentious sects, the Realists and Nominalists, were equally absurd and inexplicable. Indeed, the whole of the scholastic ages, a period of a thousand years, seem to have been devoted to idle theories, vain speculations, and hair-splitting subtleties. What a religion for fallen man! But, with the dark ages, the absurd speculations of reason did not pass away. Subsequently, and even in our own times, men have been found who make religion consist in the vagaries of a distorted brain, and in the absurdities of a false philosophy. But, conceding the fact that the learned had a clear understanding of the mystical and sophisticated theories, yet they were far from the comprehension of the illiterate. In heathen countries the philosophers always derided the religion of the vulgar, while the vulgar understood nothing of the religion of the philosophers. Among those systems now extant which set aside revelation for reason, may be reckoned that of Socinus, denominated the Socinian system. The true features of this system may be seen in a work entitled,

* It is true, Socinians do not reject the Bible nominally, but they reject all that it reveals as essential to man's salvation.