attained at any subsequent age. Eloquence, poetry, rhetoric, nay, some of the severer sciences, were studied with a success which has never since been surpassed. This is universally confessed. Yet what progress did the classic ages make in morals? And hence, we think, it must be admitted that the human mind, even under the most favorable circumstances, has never, when unassisted by revelation, deduced from the course of things around us any such principles of duty, or motives to the performance of it, as were sufficient to produce any decided effect upon the moral character of man.

And hence were we unable to assign the cause of this failure; yet the fact of the failure alone is sufficient to prove the necessity of some other means for arriving at a knowledge of duty, than is afforded by the light of nature.

II. But, secondly, the causes of this insufficiency may, in many respects, be pointed out. Among them are obviously the following:

1. The mode of teaching natural religion is by experience. We can form no opinion respecting the results of two opposite courses of action, until they be both before us. Hence, we cannot certainly know what the law is, except by breaking it. Hence, the habit of violation must, in some sense, be formed, before we know what the law is which we violate. Consequently, from the nature of the case, natural religion must always be much behind the age, and must always utter its precepts to men who are, in some manner, fixed in the habit of violating them.

2. There are many moral laws in which the connection between the transgression and the punishment cannot be shown, except in the more advanced periods of society. Such is the fact, in respect to those laws which can be ascertained only by extended and minute observation; and, of course, a state of society in which knowledge is widely disseminated, and the experience of a large surface, and for a long period, may be necessary to establish the fact of the connection between this particular violation and this particular result. In the mean time, mankind will be suffering all the consequences of vice; and the courses of con

duct which are the causes of misery, will be interweaving themselves with the whole customs, and habits, and interests, of every class of society. Thus, it too often happens, that the knowledge is with great difficulty acquired; and, when acquired, unfortunately comes too late to effect a remedy.

3. A still more radical deficiency, however, in natural religion, is, that it is, from its nature, incapable of teaching facts. It can teach only laws and tendencies. From observing what has been done, and how it has been done, it can infer that, if the same thing were done again, it would be done in the same manner, and would be attended, in all places, and at all times, if under the same conditions, with the same results. But, as to a fact, that is, whether an action were actually performed at some other place or time, or whether it ever would be, natural religion can give us no information. Thus, Thus, we know by experience, that, if a man fall from a precipice, he will be destroyed; but, whether a man ever did so fall, much less whether A or B did fall from it, we can never be informed by general principles. Thus, from the fact that we see guilt punished in this world, we infer, from natural religion, that it will always be punished in this world; we infer, though not so certainly, that it will also be punished in another world, if there be another world; but of the fact whether there be another world, natural religion can give us no certain information; much less, can it give us any information respecting the question whether God has actually done any thing to remedy the evils of sin, and vary those sequences which, without a remedy, experience shows us to be inevitable.

4. Hence, natural religion must derive all its certain motives from the present world. Those from the other world are, so far as it is concerned, in their nature contingent and uncertain. And, hence, it loses all that power over man, which would be derived from the certain knowledge of our existence after death, of the nature of that existence, and of what God has done for our restoration to virtue and happiness. All these being facts, can never be known,

except by language, that is, by revelation. They must always remain in utter incertitude, so long as we are left to the teachings of natural religion.

We see, then, that natural religion is obliged to meet the impulsions from this world, solely by impulsions from this world. Nay, more, she is obliged to resist the power of the present, of passion strengthened and confirmed by habit, by considerations drawn from the distant, the future, and what may seem to be the uncertain. Hence, its success must be at best but dubious, even when its power is exerted upon those least exposed to the allurements of vice Who does not see that it is utterly vain, to hope for success from such a source, in our attempts to reform men in general? Every one, who is at all acquainted with the history of man, must be convinced, that nothing less powerful than the whole amount of motive derived from the knowledge of an endless existence, has ever been found a sufficient antagonist force, to the downward and headlong tendencies of appetite and passion.

And hence, from the fact of the recorded failure of natural religion, as a means of reformation, and from the defects inherent in its very nature, as a means of moral improvement, there seems clearly to exist a great need of some additional moral force, to correct the moral evils of our nature. It is surely not improbable that some additional means of instruction and improvement may have been granted to our race by a merciful Creator.

12

134

CHAPTER EIGHTH.

RELATION BETWEEN NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION.

Ir what we have said be true, the defeots of natural religion would lead us to expect, that some other means of moral instruction would be afforded us. And, indeed, this is the conclusion at which some of the wisest of the heathen philosophers arrived, from a consideration of that utter ignorance of futurity in which they were of necessity plunged, by the most attentive study of natural religion. They felt convinced, that the Deity would not have constructed a system of moral teaching, which led to impervious darkness, unless He intended, out of that very darkness, at some period or other, to manifest light.

But still more, I think that an attentive observation of what natural religion teaches, and of its necessary and inherent defects, would afford us some grounds of expectation, respecting the nature of that revelation which should be made. If we can discover the moral necessities of our race, and can also discover in what respects, and for what reason, the means thus far employed have failed to relieve them, we may with certainty predict some of the characteristics which must mark any system, which should be devised to accomplish a decided remedy.

For example:

1. It is granted that natural religion does teach us some unqestionable truths. Now, no truth can be inconsistent with itself. And hence it might be expected, that whenever natural and revealed religion treated upon the same subjects, they would teach in perfect harmony. The second instructor may teach more than the first; but so far as they give instruction on the same subjects, if both teach the truth, they must both teach the same lesson.

2. It is natural to expect that a revelation would give

us much information upon the subject of duty, which could not be learned by the light of nature. Thus, it might be expected to make known more clearly to us, than we could otherwise learn them, the obligations by which we are bound to our fellow-men, and to God; and also the manner in which those obligations are to be discharged.

3. That it would present us with motives to virtue, in addition to those made known by the light of nature. We have seen that the motives of natural religion are derived from this world, and are in their nature insufficient. We should expect that those in a revelation would be drawn from some other source. And still more, as natural religion may be considered to have exhausted the motives of this world, it is surely not unreasonable to expect, that a revelation, leaving this world, would draw its motives principally, if not entirely, from another, if it revealed to us the fact that another world existed.

4. We should not expect that the Deity would employ a second and additional means, to accomplish what could be done by any modification of the means first employed. Hence, if a revelation were made to men, we might reasonably expect, that it would make known to us such truths as could not, in the nature of the case, be communicated by natural religion.

These are, I think, just anticipations. At any rate, I think it must be admitted, that if a system of religion, purporting to be a revelation from heaven, met all these expectations, its relations to natural religion not only would present no argument against its truth, but would create a strong à priori presumption in its favor.

Now these expectations are all fully realized in the system of religion contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

1. The truths of revealed religion harmonize perfectly with those of natural religion. The difference between them consists in this, that the one teaches plainly, what the other teaches by inference; the one takes up the lesson where the other leaves it, and adds to it other and vitally important precepts. Nay, so perfect is the harmony between them, that it may safely be asserted that not a single precept of