good reason is there, why the onus of finding a principle of reconciliation should be made to rest entirely on the theologian? We cannot consent to this. We cannot quiescently permit philosophy to assume so lofty a bearing; to take her own decisions for granted, and, with the port and tone of a self-sufficient superciliousness, leave the divine to make what he can of their consistency with his Bible. We cannot allow the authority of this document to be thus unceremoniously left out of the account. We insist upon it, that, on every point respecting which it delivers a testimony, the proofs of its authority, or of its want of authority, are amongst the evidences, on that point, which every lover of truth - that is, every true philosopher should feel himself under imperative obligation carefully to examine. As the philosophy is of no sterling worth, that conducts not to truth; if the authority of the document can be established, and the verity of its statements consequently ascertained, then it becomes, on all matters of which it treats, the only philosophy; unless we are determined to dignify with the honourable appellation a system of falsehood. If any man is prepared to avow, that he would prefer falsehood, as the result of one process of inquiry, to truth, when ascertained by another, then may he, consistently, leave out of his investigation the evidences on which the claims of this document rest. But should we call such LECT. I. LECT. I. a man a philosopher? It were a miserable misnomer; inasmuch as no procedure could be more thoroughly unphilosophical, than to refuse any light, be it what it may, that promises to conduct to what is the sole end of all rational inquiry. Exemplification of these Allow me to illustrate my meaning by a case principles of two, in the way of exemplification. They are not at all connected with our present subject, but merely explanatory of the principle, which it is my aim to establish. I purposely indeed select my illustrative examples from departments unconnected with the one under discussion, that I may at once avoid anticipation, and keep myself clear of any charge of prejudging the question. They shall be cases that relate not to doctrine but to fact. 1. In the case of the com It has been a subject of controversy, whether, mon origin of as is usually supposed, the race of mankind mankind. in all its varieties, had a common origin ; whether, that is, all these varieties sprung from In common origin; and which proceeds, through- _LECT. I. out, upon the assumption of God's having "made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the face of the whole earth." Without intending, in the least degree, to lay any interdict on philosophical investigation, to put a stop to the continued collection and comparison of facts, and the free and unembarrassed discussion of whatever these facts may seem to indicate,-my simple affirmation is, that the authority of this document is fairly entitled to be examined upon the question :-nay more, that it is not only so entitled, but that the man who professes to be actuated by a sincere desire to ascertain the truth, does not act consistently with his professions, so long as he either refuses or neglects such examination. I am not now assuming the authority of the document, and attempting to silence philosophy by an appeal to divine testimony: all I contend for is, that its claims to authority be fairly investigated; that the competency or incompetency of the witness be ascertained; that his pretensions be not set aside without inquiry. He may not, on the one hand, be found worthy of confidence; or, on the other, his deposition may be so attested as to render it creditable, material, and even decisive. But, whichsoever of these may be the result, the question at issue has not, we affirm, been fully, impartially, and in the true spirit of philosophy, investigated, if the pretensions of the witness be LECT. I. not candidly inquired into, and the credit due to his testimony correctly appreciated :—and, on this principle, the entire evidence, in all its variety, of the genuineness, the authenticity, and the divine inspiration, of this document, does come, not legitimately only, but imperatively and indispensably, within the range of investigation belonging to this question ;--there being nothing more pregnant with folly, than summarily to discard, without a deliberate and rigid examination of his character and credentials, any guide, who promises to lead our steps to the oracle, where doubts may be settled, and truth satisfactorily learned. 2. In the case of the Deluge. The same principles might be further illustrated from the case of the general Deluge. Various conflicting theories have been framed, respecting the cause or causes of particular appearances which present themselves to scientific inquirers, on and under the surface of our globe: one geologist demonstrating that these appearances cannot be accounted for on any other hypothesis than that of the earth, at some remote period, having been subjected to a catastrophe of this description; while a second, pronouncing such a cause totally incompetent to explain the phenomena, has recourse to others, real or conjectural, which, in his estimation, are both more appropriate, and more adequate. In these circumstances, here is an ancient document, in which the awful event is recorded, and its more awful cause is assigned._LECT. I. Is no heed to be given to the claims of such a record? Suppose scientific investigation to leave the case undecided-adhuc sub judice;—is that man entitled to the character of a lover of truth, who will be satisfied to let it remain in this undetermined state, rather than even examine the evidence on which the authority of this document rests? I presume there can be but one answer to this question, unless philosophy is prepared to disown the love of truth as a principle of her character. plication of principles :1. To the question whether , the Bible be a revelation we from God. I may frame these statements more generally; General apand, in their general form, without any abatement of decision.-With every man of sound wisdom, the very first of all inquiries ought, without question, to be, Have we, or have not, in the book called the Holy Scriptures, a revelation from God? This is an inquiry which no sane man can treat with lightness; nor can we allow any man to deserve the designation of a philosopher, who has not bent the entire energies of his mind to its investigation and settlement;-sifting out every atom of proof,adjusting the balance with impartial accuracy, and giving to every argument its legitimate weight. I know that there are some self-called philosophers, who will receive such an assertion as I am about to make with a sneer of ineffable scorn, but I shrink not, on that account, from making it, confident as I am that, even in their C |