NVe do not mean to attend any farther to the distinction between natural and revealed religion There are, no doubt, some grounds for thc distinc tion, if not in reality, at least in our conceptions, and in our manner of viewing the subject. But we know not where the line is to be drawn; we are inclined to think, that if it is not an imaginary, it is at least a movable boundary, which will gradually disappear as we advance in knowledge; and when, at last, " we shall know even as we arc known," the most mysterious parts of the Christian revelation will be found to be as essentially connected with the nature and government of God, as his providence, or any of his most obvious attributes. It is no mark of reason to affect to despise the resources of human reason; and still less to slight the light of revelation, which alone can conduct our reason to just and profitable conclusions. Reason is the com pass by which we steer our course; revelation is the polar star by which we correct its variations.
We are to look to the word of God, then, as con tained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa ments, for the only sure rule of faith and practice. But there is this singularity in the sacred Scrip tures, that we do not find in them a set treatise on any one of the interesting subjects which engage our attention as moral and religious beings. No at tempt is made to prove the existence of a God; such an attempt would have been entirely useless. because the fact is universally admitted. The error of men consisted not in denying a God, but in ad mitting too many; and one great object of Scrip ture is to demonstrate, that there is but one. No metaphysical arguments however are employed for this purpose. The proof rests on facts recorded in the history of the Jews. from which it appears that they were always victorious and prospered so long as they served Jehovah, the name by which the Almighty made himself known to them; and uni unsuccessful, when they revolted from him to serve other gods. What argument could he so effectual to convince them that there was no god in all the earth but the God of Israel ? The sovereignty and universal providence of the Lord Jehovah, are proved by predictions delivered by the Jewish prophets, pointing out the fate of nations and of empires, specifying distinctly the cause of their rise, the duration of their power, and the rea son of their decline; thus demonstrating that one God ruled among the nations, and made them the uncon scious instruments of promoting the purposes of his will. In the same manner, none of the attri butes of God are demonstrated in Scripture by reasoning; they are simply affirmed, and illustrated by facts; and instead of a regular deduction of doc trines and conclusions from a few admitted princi ples, we are left to gather them from the recorded feelings and devotional expressions of persons whose hearts were influenced by the fear of God.
These circumstances point out a marked singular ity in the Scriptures, considered as a repository of religious doctrines. The writers, generally speak ing, do not reason, but exhort and remonstrate; they do not attempt to fetter the judgment by the subtleties of argument, but to rouse the feelings by an appeal to palpable facts. This is exactly what might have been expected from teachers acting under a divine commission, and armed ‘iith undeniable facts to enforce their admonitions.
But though there is no regular treatise in the Scriptures on any one branch of religious doctrine, yet all the materials of a regular system are there. The word of God contains the doctrines of religion in the same way as the system of nature contains the elements of ph) sisal science. In both cases, the doctrines are deduced from facts, which arc not presented to us in any regular order; and Ns hich roust be separated and classified before we can ar rive at first principles, or attain to the certainty of knowledge; and in both cases, a consistent system can only be made out by induction and investiga tion. The very circumstance of no detailed sys tem being given, renders it necessary to form one; for although a portion of religious and physical knowledge sufficient for the common purposes of life, may be obtained by traditional information, and men may work conveniently enough by rules without possessing much general knowledge; yet they who would teach with profit, must generalize, and they who would explain the ways of God must arrange the materials which are so amply furnished, but which are presented apparently without order or plan.
We would therefore consider all objections to sys tems of Divinity to be about as unreasonable as it would he to object to the philosophy of Newton, for having elucidated the laws of nature, and arranged the phenomena of the heavens. A man totally un acquainted with natural philosophy may get com fortably enough through life, for he can work by rule, though ignorant of the principles on which the rule depends. But when a change of circum stances requires a variety of practice, his want of science will appear, and his attempts at renovation will lead to misapplied labour, injudicious expense, and ultimately to disappointment. Ignorance of the principles of religion may be attended with still worse consequences. The ways of God are very complicated; the manifestations of his will are infi nitely diversified, and sometimes appear as if they were opposed to each other; and it is only by an enlarged view of his dispensations, and a careful comparison of the procedure of his providence, that we can see the beauties and estimate the value of that revelation which lie has given. It is the great est of all mistakes to suppose that a revelation has been given to save us the trouble of thinking; its object is to teach us to think aright, to prevent the waste and misapplication of our faculties, but not to supersede their exercise. And though we are fully persuaded that no degree of study would ever have enabled men to arrive at accurate conceptions of God and of his government, without the aid of revelation, we are no less certain that revelation itself will not endow men with religious knowledge without study, meditation, and reflection. We do not mean to say that very profound study is neces sary to make a good practical Christian: they who are imbued with the spirit of Christianity are led, as it were instinctively, to a conscientious discharge of its various duties; though they may, at the same time, be quite unable to give a connected view of its doctrines. But it is necessary that some should be able to do this; and we know no subject that re quires a greater variety of talent, extent of informa tion, and application of judgment, than the suc cessful illustration of the doctrines and duties of Christianity.