INQUIRIES AND SUGGESTIONS
IN REGARD TO
THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
IN THE
WVORD OF GOD.
BY
ALBERT B ARNES.
"Long before positive laws were instituted, the moral relations
of justice were absolute and universal. To say that there was
no justice or injustice but that which depends on the injunctions
or prohibitions of positive laws, is to say thatt the radii which
spring from a centre are not equal till we have formed a circle to I
illustrate the proposition."-MONTaESQUEU.
P H I L A D E L P   I A:                        tA
PARRY AND MCMIL L A N.
1859.




NOTE.-In this Essay, the question about the actual evidences of
a revelation is not discussed, nor is the inquiry started as to what
would be proper external evidences of a revelation from God. My
object did not lead me to inquire into that subject, but it has been
rather to prepare the way for a proper appreciation of those evidences.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1858, by
PARRY AND MCMILLAN,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United
States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
COLLINS, PRINTER.




CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
MAXIMS, OR SETTLED PRINCIPLES, AS BEARING ON A REVELATION
FROM GOD.
PAGE
Sect. 1. There is such a thing as truth.               5
2. There is that in man which responds to truth, or
which is a just ground of appeal in regard to truth    7
3. Truth depends, for its reception by the mind, on its
being perceived as truth.10
4. There is a distinction between right and wrong, and
this distinction is founded in the nature of things  13
5. There is that in man which responds to the distinction of right and wrong.17
6. A revelation from God will not contradict any truth,
however that truth is made known..    18
7. A pretended revelation which should contradict established truth, could not be received by mankind   26
8. A revelation on the same line of subjects will, so far
as coincident, carry forward the truth already
known; not contradict it.28
9. A revelation will not, in its teachings, be a violation
of the constitutional principles of our nature  30
CHAPTER II.
APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLES IN JUDGING OF A
REVELATION.
Sect. 1. Reason as an element in judging of a revelation.  37
2. The moral sense as an element in judging of a revelation..44
3. Science as an element in judging of a revelation.  53




iV                       CONTENTS.
CEHAPTER III.
THE STATEMENTS OF THE BIBLE IN VIEW OF THESE PRINCIPLES.
PA~GE
Sect. 1. The Bible appeals to the reason of mankind..  65
2. The Bible appeals to the conscience, or moral sense,
of mankind.                                     81
3. The Bible in relation to the discoveries of science. 109
a. Geology.... 119
b. The unity of the race.. 132
CHAPTER IV.
CONCLUSION. VIIHAT IS THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH IN THE WORD OF
GOD?.159




TIIE
1foUnhation of 4ait1  in t t l 1orx   of 6A.
CHAPTER I.
MAXIMS, OR SETTLED PRINCIPLES AS BEARING ON A
REVELATION FROM GOD.
~ 1. There is such a thing as truth.
Truth may be regarded as comprising two things:(a) Truth considered as spoken-stated-represented;
that is, as exhibited either by words, by signs, by pictures, or by statuary. In this sense, and as the word
is commonly employed, truth is the representation of
things as they are. Thus we say of a painting or a
poem, that it is "true to nature." A painting, in this
sense, is true if it is a proper representation of a landscape, a water-fall, an historical scene, or of the human
countenance. A drama is true if it correctly represents human nature, or is a just delineation of the
passions of men. Astronomical truth is a correct representation of the heavenly bodies; botanical truth, a
correct representation of plants; geological truth, a
correct representation of the world before the creation
of man as disclosed by fossil remains; historical truth,
2




6           THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
a correct representation of events as they have occurred
in past ages; mathematical truth, a correct representation of facts in regard to number and quantity; metaphysical truth, as the phrase is commonly understood,
a correct representation of the nature and operations of
the human mind. In all these, and in all similar cases,
the essential idea is that of a representation of things as
they are-not as we might imagine them to be; and not
as made better by leaving out offensive or incongruous
parts, but as they actually are. In this respect, it makes
no difference in what mode the representation is made;
whether by words, by painting, by sign, by symbol, by
metaphor, or by plain didactic statement. If the representation conveys to the mind a correct idea of
things as they are, that representation is truth.
(b) Truth considered as found in the reality of things,
or in the events and facts which are thus represented,
or which lie at the basis of the representation. This
sense of the term is less common than the other, and
yet it is plain that this idea is included in the full
notion of truth. In all truth there is not merely a
representation, but there is a basis for the representation, or something on which the representation is
founded, and to which it must conform. Thus, if the
statement is made that two and two make four, or that
all the angles of a triangle are equal to two right
angles, the statement of these facts is truth as represented,
but there is truth as the basis, or as the foundation of
the statement; or, in other words, it is a fact that two
and two make four, and that all the angles of a triangle
are equal to two right angles. These facts or realities
remain the same whether there is any representation
of them or not; whether they are known or not;




IN THE WORD OF GOD.               7
whether they are thought of or not; whether the
representation be made by words, by signs, or by symbols-in the language of a vision, or on a blackboard.
And, moreover, these facts remain the same though
there should be a false representation of them: for, if
it should be said that two and two make five, it is still
a fact that they make but four; if it should be affirmed
that all the angles of a triangle are equal to three or
more right angles, it is still a fact that they are equal
to two; and this fact will remain the same forever.
These facts iiake it certain that there is such a thing
as truth-truth in the reality of things, or as the basis
of a representation-and truth as a representation.
Truth is not arbitrary, fluctuating, vacillating; truth
is not the subject of creative power; truth is not capable of being changed by mere power: for no power
could make two and two equal to seven, or the angles
of a triangle equal to four right angles; and no power
could make such a representation conformable to truth.
It is not needful to inquire how it is that things
come to be true. All that is affirmed is, that there is
such a thing as truth, and that this is of such a nature
that it cannot be changed by mere power or will.
~ 2. There is that in man which responds to truth, or
which is a just ground of appeal in regard to truth.
The human mind is so made as to perceive truth, or
to receive an impression corresponding to its nature;
to be affected by it as truth. It is so constituted that
an impression is made upon it by truth different from
the impression made by error. It is so constituted that
it may be an element of calculation in endeavoring to
influence others, that they rnay be, and will be, affected




8           THE FOUNDATION OF' FAITH
by truth if it is fairly brought before their minds; so
constituted that it is fair to presume that there will be
a un5fform result in regard to the same individual, and
in regard to different individuals, by the proper exhibition of truth. In other words, in reference to the same
individual, so long as personal identity remains, whether
in childhood, youth, manhood, or old age, and so far
as the truth produces its appropriate effect in the outward changes of life, in sickness or health, joy or sorrow, prosperity or adversity, ignorance or learning, the
impression produced by truth is alway~ the same; and
so far as different individuals are concerned, the impression is the same on all. Wherever man is found,
civilized or savage; whatever language he may speak;
under whatever government he may live; whatever
laws he may obey, or whatever form of philosophy or
religion he may embrace, so far as truth makes any
impression, it is always the same impression, for it
always finds that in the mind which responds to it in
precisely the same way.  This fact, not capable,
indeed, of demonstration, we always assume as a
maxim, or as an elementary thought in our endeavors
to influence others. We have the fullest conviction
that, to the minds of two boys in a school, the proposition that two and two make four, conveys precisely
the same idea, and that it conveys to them exactly the
same idea which it will when they reach middle life or
old age. We cannot doubt, also, that it conveys to
those boys exactly the same idea which it did to Newton, in the maturity of his powers; or that to an American savage, to a wandering Bedouin, or to a New Zealander, it would convey precisely the same impression.
In like manner, also, although we may not be able




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             9
absolutely to demonstrate it, we have the fullest assurance that the impression or image conveyed to the mind
by a tree, a landscape, a waterfall, a flower, is exactly
the same: the same always to the individual mind in
all its changes; the same to all minds, whether civilized or savage. On the same principle, so far as the
minds of men are enlightened to appreciate truth, the
same fact occurs in regard to moral truths. That a
parent should love his child; that a child should venerate its parent; that ingratitude is base; that treachery
is wrong; that to do good to others is right-all these,
and similar propositions, we have every reason to suppose convey exactly the same idea to every mind.
We may suppose it possible, indeed, that it might have
been otherwise; that the eyes of men might have been
so made that what to one conveys the idea of white
would have conveyed to another the idea of red, and
that what to-day seems to us to be yellow might tomorrow seem to be green or blue; that men might have
been so made that what seems to one to be a triangle,
might convey to another the idea of a square; or that
what now seems to be honorable and virtuous to one,
might have seemed dishonorable and wicked to another;
or that, in respect to the same individual, there might
have been an utter confusion on these subjects at different periods of life: —but it is evident that, in that case,
the world could not have moved on at all; all would
have been disorder; language would have been useless;
any communication of ideas from one to another would
have been impossible; society would have been impracticable; speech, schools, writing, printing, painting, statuary, would have been useless, and the world
would have been a universal, though temporary, Babel,




10          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
for it would soon have come to an end. We cannot
advance a step in life without assuming it as a fixed
principle that there is something in man that responds
to truth; that this something exists in individual men,
whatever changes they may undergo, and that it exists
in the races in all the varieties of complexion, climate,
language and art. That the basis may be enlarged by
cultivation, so that new truths and beauties may be
appreciated, there can be no doubt; but we always
assume that there is a basis, and that if the truth can
be brought into contact with the mind, it will always
find something there which will respond to it, and that
it will always make the same impression.
~ 3. Trvuth depends, for its reception by the mind, on its
being perceived as truth.
The mind sees or perceives it to be true. The process
of reasoning conducts to this result, when the truth
arrived at is the result of reasoning; but the effect of
the process of reasoning is, merely to put the mind in
such a state as to perceive that the proposition is true.
MThen the truth referred to is an axiom, it is perceived
at once without any medium; when it is the result of
a demonstration, the process of the demonstration
merely puts the mind, in reference to the truth that
is demonstrated, in the same state in which it is, without any such process, in reference to an axiom or selfevident truth. That the whole is greater than a part;
that if equals be added to equals the results will be
equal, are propositions which commend themselves
at once, without demonstration, to every mind, but it
is equally true that the mind perceives with equal clearness, that in a right-angled triangle the square of the




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             11
hypothenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of
the other sides, though this is the result of a demonstration. The process of reasoning in the case has put
the mind simply into a condition to perceive the truth
of that proposition; if it has not done this, it has accomplished nothing.
In illustration of this, it may be remarked that it is
possible to conceive that the power of perceiving truth
as intuitive, or without the aid of reasoning, might
exist to almost any extent even in created beings, as it
exists in an absolutely unlimited extent in God. We
may suppose that there might be, and perhaps actually
may be now, created intelligences to whom all that is
now perceived by men of the highest order of intellect
as the result of the profoundest analysis, may be seen
to be true at a glance, and may be, in fact, to their
minds, maxims, or self-evident truths, lying, in their
investigations, at the foundation of a vastly higher
method of reasoning than is possible as yet to man,
and bearing the same relation to a system of truth
which is not now conceivable by us, which the maxims
of geometry do to the highest forms of mathematical
reasoning known among men. It is said of Newton
that he read the propositions of Euclid as if they were
maxims or self-evident truths, as being too plain and
obvious to need demonstration. Even the celebrated
forty-seventh proposition of the first book he did not
pause to demonstrate, for he saw at a glance the truth
of the statement in that proposition. Thus, too, in the
ordinary occurrences of college life, we see the same
fact illustrated. One member of a class, endowed with
superior mathematical talent, sees a proposition to be
true almost intuitively, while perhaps his fertile mind




12          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
will suggest half a dozen methods of demonstrating the
truth of the proposition equally as conclusive as the
one which is laid down in the book before him; while
another shall exhaust all his resources in mastering the
train of reasoning suggested in the book by which the
proposition is supported. In either case, however, the
proposition, if believed, is seen to be true. The mind
looks directly at the truth of the statement; in the one
case intuitively, in the other by the aid of that which
has made one step after another clear, until light has
broken on the very truth to be demonstrated —as the
stars of heaven guide the mariner along from point to
point over the ocean, until, the stars that guided him
forgotten, he sees with his own eyes the cities and
hamlets and green fields of the land to which he sails.
The statement here made is, that the mind perceives
truth —perceives it as it is. It does not rest on the
mere reasoning, but on the truth itself as now commending itself to the mind as true. The mental conditions which illustrate this are such as these: (a) There
are simple, elementary truths or maxims which cornmend themselves to all minds, even to the minds of
children, and which lie at the basis of all correct
reasoning. (b) There is a process of reasoning based
on those elementary truths, by which we are led to see
some truth which would not have been plain to our
minds without such aid. (c) There are some minds,
like that of Newton, which, in the ordinary demonstrations of truth, do not need even such aid, but which
start where most men leave off; assuming for themselves
as axioms what to most men would be arrived at only
as the result of labored reasoning. (d) There may be
minds to whom the highest discoveries, even of New



IN THE WORD OF GOD.             13
ton, would be perceived at once to be axioms or selfevident truths, from which they would start off on a
higher career of reasoning than would be possible for
any intellect now known to us. (e) And there is the
mind of God, high above all, to whom all truth is self-,
evident; the mind of One who sees all truth as we
perceive the simplest axioms of geometry, who never
reasons, but sees and states things at once as they are.
~ 4. There is a distinction between right and wrong, and
this distinction is founded in the nature of things.
The amount of this remark, which to most minds
would appear to be self-evident, is, that a thing cannot
be both right and wrong at the same time; or now right,
and now wrong, as the result of appointment; or made
right or wrong by mere will. An object cannot be
black and white at the same time; or now white and
now black, as the result of appointment; or made
white or black by mere will. That cannot be made
right to-day, which, in precisely the same circumstances,
was wrong yesterday; and that cannot be right for one
class or order of beings, which, in precisely the same
circumstances, would be wrong in another. A lie
cannot be truth, nor the truth falsehood; honesty
cannot be fraud, nor fraud honesty; love cannot be
hatred, nor hatred love: and as these cannot be transmuted into each other, so by no authority can they, in
precisely the same circumstances, be made obligatory
in one case, and prohibited in another. What is true,
also, in this respect in regard to man, is true in regard
to God. No one can believe that justice in God depends
on his mere will, or that it would be proper for him
to perform any act which he chose, and to call it jus



14         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
tice at his pleasure. In like manner, no one can
believe that truth in God depends on will, or that it
would be proper for him, as an act of will, to make
any statement which he chose, and to call it truth;
or that it would be right to-day to call one utterance
truth, and to-morrow to call it falsehood. Every man
is so made as to feel assured, whatever theory he
may defend that would seem to imply the contrary,
that God determines to do right because it is right,
to speak truth because it is truth; to be equal and
impartial in his administration, because it is right
and proper that he should be so. And every man is
so made that he cannot believe the contrary; or that,
under any circumstances, it would be proper for God
to reverse things in such a way that it would be right
for Himnto do what he now denounces and condemns
as evil, false, and wrong, or that the mere act of his
doing it would make it right. In no conceivable circumstance can the mind of man take in the idea that
it would be proper for God to give to man a wholly
false representation of things; to do himself that which
he has forbidden men to do; or to require of men, as
an act of virtue, that which he now denounces as
sinful and wrong. Every idea which we can form of
the Supreme Being always implies this, that by his
own eternal nature, he is just, and holy, and true, and
good; not that he has made himself to be just by an
arbitrary act. The mind of man, at all events, has
been so made that it cannot take in the contrary idea,
that he could have made the reverse of that which he
has declared to be holy, true, good, and just, equally
holy, true, good, and just; and this fact is a proof, since
God made that mind, that there is that in the nature




IN THE WORD OF GOD.              15
of things which is right and true. What is right and
true to day was right and true yesterday, and will be
forever.
It is to be admitted, indeed, that there are things
which are, in themselves, indifferent, and which may
be, therefore, subjects of command or prohibition.
Whether one shall, or shall not, eat a certain article
of food; whether he shall or shall not spend a portion
of his time in a certain manner; whether he shall or
shall not devote a portion of a weekly income to a
specified use, may properly be the subject of command,
and may, therefore, be made right or wrong according
to the command. At the same time, however, in regard to even these, it can never be a matter of indifference whether man shall or shall not obey God when
his will is made known, nor is it possible to conceive
that it could be made right for him, in respect to these
things, to disobey God.  In the nature of things,
obedience to the will of God is right; disobedience is
and must be wrong. Why this is so will be seen in
another part of this Essay.
In reference, also, to those things which are in themselves indifferent, and which may, therefore, be the
subject of an arbitrary prohibition or command, the
following principles are plain, and are such as must be
admitted by all men:(a) Such a command or prohibition will not violate
any known principle of right. It will not sanction an
act of injustice, falsehood, or fraud. It will not set
aside the eternal principles of truth and equity.
(b) It will violate no law of our nature. It will not
command a father to hate his children, or children to
hate a father; it will not require us to turn away with




16           THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
coldness from the suffering, the oppressed, and the
sick; it will not authorize cruelty, treachery, and falsehood, for these are u-nchangeable principles in our
nature which must have had their origin in God, and
in his sense of what is right, and no mere act of will
can change them or set them aside.
(c) In reference to constituted relations-or relations
which do not exist in the nature of things-the same
essential principles must prevail. So far as those relations are to be regulated by law, the following principles must and will be found in all acts of a correct
legislation. (1.) The legislation will be according to
the design of the relation, or the object which was
contemplated in constituting the relation. (2.) It will
be in accordance with settled and established principles
of justice and right. That will not be made right in
this relation, which is wrong elsewhere.
(d) The legislation will be that which is best adapted
to secure the object of the relation.
There are numerous relations constituted which do
not exist in the nature of things, or by any absolute
necessity of nature. Yet in these relations, wrong
will not be made right, or right made wrong; good
will not be made evil, or evil made good.
~ 5. There is that in man which responds to the distirction of right and wrong.
This proposition is almost too plain to admit even
of illustration.  All men instinctively act on it in
their treatment of others; all legislators assume it to
be true; all parents regard it as indisputable in their
treatment of their children; all authors who write on
the subject of morals take it for granted; and all




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            17
preachers of the Gospel make it the ground of their
most solemn appeals and most earnest exhortations.
As we always assume it to be true that men can be
reasoned with, and can be made to see the force of
argument; that a landscape will appear beautiful to
the eye, and that melody and harmony will be attractive to the ear; that men are capable of friendship,
and that there is that in the human soul which may
be made the basis of most enduring affection-so we
assume it to be true that there is something in man
which will recognize a distinction of right and wrong;
which will perceive the beauty and the claims of the
one, and which will turn from and hate the other.
Even the man who would lead us into the paths of
error and sin does not base his hope on the fact that
error is a thing that ought to be chosen, or that wrong
is a thing that ought to be done, but he labors to convince us that the one is truth, and that the other is
right, or to lead us into sin, contrary to our convictions
of what is right and true. The great Tempter approached our first parents, not on the presumption
that there was nothing in them which would respond
to the claims of right, or that there was no power of
recognizing the distinctions of right and wrong, but
with the hope that he might either convince them that
the evil which he proposed was, in the circumstances,
right, or that he could induce them to do wrong, knowing that it was wrong.
It is not asserted by the remark which is now made,
that there is ability in man, without teaching, or without an external revelation, to ascertain what is right and
true, but only that there is that in man which responds
to the distinctions of right and wrong. It is impossible




18          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
to see how an appeal could be tnade to man on any
moral subject, unless this was assumed; or how even
a revelation could be of any value, unless there was
some such faculty in man. We may ask, for illustration, what would be the use of submitting an argument
to a man, unless it was assumed that there was a rational
faculty which would respond to it when it was fairly
brought before his mind? what would be the use of
exhibiting a beautiful painting to the eye, if there was
not some power in the eye to perceive colors, or in the
mind to appreciate beauty? what would be the use of
the beautiful arrangement in regard to music-the laws
of vibrations in the air by which the notes of the octave
are produced-unless there was an ear to receive such
sounds, and a soul to appreciate such harmony? In
all these cases we assume that there is an arrangement
in the soul which responds to that which is designed to
impress and affect man; and with the same certainty
we assume, in all our attempts to influence others by
argument, that there is that in man which responds to
the appeals of truth and right.
* ~ 6. A revelationfrom God will not contradict any truth,
however that truth is made known.
This, too, may be assumed as an axiom that commends itself at once to the mind; and this can scarcely
be made plainer by any illustration. "All truth is from
the sempiternal source of light divine." One truth cannot contradict another, as one duty cannot conflict with
another.
The following subordinate thoughts may be suggested here as undoubtedly true, or as following from
the maxim now under consideration:



IN THE WORD OF GOD.             19
(a) A revelation will not contradict its own teachings; that is, it will not deny in one place what it
affirms in another; or will not state as a doctrine in
one place what is a palpable contradiction of what is
stated in another. He to whom a pretended revelation is submitted, to be received by him, has a right to
demand this; he who urges its claims on mankind is
bound to show that this is so.
The remark here made is, that in a true revelation
there will not be a contradiction; that that will not be
stated in one place to be true which is denied in
another; and that there will not be two statements
which are not susceptible, by fair construction, of being
reconciled, or which cannot be shown to be consistent.
It cannot, indeed, be demanded that we shall be able
to show How the one can be reconciled with the other,
for there are numerous cases in science where it is impossible to show how two facts can be reconciled with
each other, though there can be no doubt as to the
certainty of each of the facts taken separately; but it
may be demanded that there shall not be one statement
which can be demonstrated to be wholly irreconcilable
with another statement in the book. It could not be
required, for instance, if those were doctrines of revelation, that we should be able to show HOW matter may
be infinitely divisible, or HOW two lines may approach
each other forever, and never meet; but it might be
required that we should be able to demonstrate that
this is not absurd, or that it is not impossible that this
may be true; or, more to our point, it might be required that it should not be affirmed, in one place, that
lines so produced would meet, and in another place
that they would?ot; or that it should not be affrmed




20          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
in one place that matter is infinitely divisible, and in
another that it is not.
(b) A revelation from God will not contradict scientific truth.
This proposition is so plain, also, that it could not
be made more clear by any demonstration. No revelation from God could make an affirmation that two and
two make seven, or that all the angles of a triangle are
equal to three right angles. If a pretended revelation
should affirm such a thing to be true, men would at
once, of course, reject it. It would be impossible to
demonstrate that such a pretended revelation was a
real one; and however strong the external arguments in favor of such a pretended revelation raight
appear to be, mankind would feel assured that there
must be some mistake in the evidence.
What is affirmed here must be true also of all scientific truth. As the universe must have one author; as
there cannot be independent sovereignties in the universe, so that that would be true under one form of
administration which would be false in the other; as
there cannot be different departments under the one
great administration of the universe, in one of which
that would be true which would be false in another;
and as all truth is connected, and the facts in science
must bear in numberless ways on the truth of revelation, it follows that a revelation could not contradict
any established truth of science.
Three subordinate remarks, however, should be made
here, which there. may be occasion to illustrate more
fully hereafter. (1.) One is, that the propositions which
are affirmed to be scientific truths should be such. It
should be settled that these are truths. There are many




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             21
things affirmed in the sciences which are not yet demonstrated to be true, though they may be true; and
there are many things affirmed which time and more
full investigations may demonstrate to be false. All
sciences, in their beginning, have many things attached
to them, and affirmed in them, which a more full comprehension of the subject demonstrates to have no proper place in them; and before anything can be definitely
asserted of the bearing of science on a proposed revelation, the scientific truth itself should be placed on a
sure basis, and the different parts of the science properly
adjusted. (2.) It should be made clear that the proposed
revelation actually makes any statement on that subject,
or utters anything in regard to it. The main purpose
of a revelation, in fact, is not to teach science; at least
it will not be pretended now that such a purpose is a
distinct one in a revelation, though it might have beenfor there is nothing in the nature of things which would
have made it impossible to communicate all the truth
now known in regard to astronomy, anatomy, botany
and geology in a revelation. But such, it will now be
admitted, was not the purpose of any revelation, for
it seems to be assumed that these things, so far as
needful to be known by man, lie within the proper
range of his own faculties, while revelation must
have reference mainly to things which lie beyond the
compass of his natural powers. The truths of science,
therefore, if taught or if alluded to in a revelation, it
is to be presumed would be communicated only accidentally, and by the way, and the statement made must
be regarded and treated as all obiter statements are
made, and interpreted as statements incidentally made,
or made by the way; not as forming the direct teaching
3




22         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
in the case, and, therefore, as not affecting the main doctrine which it was designed to communicate. If a
statement is made it should, indeed, be true, and the
friend of the revelation maybe required to show that the
statement is not false; but it may be properly required
that it should be clearly proved that the author of the
revelation meant to make any affirmation on that subject. It may be that he only used the common language
of men when speaking on that subject, without intending either to affirm or deny the correctness of that
language. (3.) Proper allowance must, therefore, be
made for this consideration that, as the purpose of
revelation is not to disclose the higher truths of astronomy, geology, botany, anatomy, and the kindred
sciences, it would be natural that the allusion made to
them, if any should be made, would be according to appearances, or as things appear to the mass of men, and
in the language which men commonly employ. Thus,
for example, in speaking of the sun, if there were any
occasion to allude to it, it would be most natural to
expect to find in the revelation such language as occurs
in common life, and even among astronomers, when
they speak of the sun as rising and. setting, and not
language which could be adjusted to the truths of the
Copernican system, and which would be strictly and
literally accurate. If this course were not adopted, two
things would follow: One, that in order to strict accuracy, the highest scientific truths on these subjects
should be revealed if there was any occasion to allude
to the subject, which, as we have seen, would be contrary
to the intention of revelation; the other, that such language to the mass of men would be, at the time of the
revelation, and perhaps ever onward, wholly unin



IN THE WORD OF GOD.              23
telligible; for are there any of the languages which
have sprung from Babel that could be more unintelligible to the mass of mankind than would be an attempt
to express all thoughts that occur to men on these subjects in language adjusted to the exactness of science?
Who, in common life, could use the language which
would express exactly the truths of the Copernican
system of astronomy? Who could understand a man
that should undertake to describe the rising or the
setting of the sun, in language adjusted accurately to
that system?,A revelation couched in such terms
would demand a new revelation to make itself intelligible to the mass of mankind.
(c) A revelation will not contradict historical truth.
This proposition is, also, so clear that no one can
call it in question. The past is fixed. Historical
truths are the record of facts which cannot now be
made otherwise than they are, for the past cannot be
changed. The only caution that is necessary on this
point, considered as a rule in judging of a revelation,
is, that the facts should be ascertained. It should not
be assumed that all the truths of history are ascertained;
nor that all historical records are certainly true; nor
that a mere statement by an historian, ancient or modern,
however correct in general he may be, is certainly correct. Nor should it be assumed that a statement in a
profane history is necessarily true, and a statement in a
sacred history is necessarily false; nor that when the one
may happen to come into conflict with the other, the
testimony of the profane historian settles the matter
against the testimony of the "sacred" historian. It
may be observed, also, that nothing is more difficult
than to ascertain the exact truth about an ancient his



24          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
torical fact. If we have any doubt about a statement
pertaining to geometry, we apply the rules of a rigid
demonstration, for the point relates to a truth which
never varies, and where the evidence is always the same,
and always at hand. If we doubt the correctness of a
statement in regard to chemistry, we go into the laboratory, and appeal to the crucible and the blowpipe;
if an astronomical statement is called in question, we
make our appeal at once to the telescope. But nothing
of this kind occurs in regard to an ancient historical
fact. It is, of course, incapable otf mathematical
d(emonstration, unless it pertain to some movement of
the heavenly bodies. The original witnesses are all
dead, and cannot now be examined; and, in fact, they
were never examined. The observations were made,
perhaps, originally with little care, and but few of the
circumstances on which the accuracy of a narrative so
much depends, were stated. The historian may have
made no exact statement of time; he may have misinterpreted motives; he may have been prejudiced; he
may, from his point of observation, have made a report which would have been materially modified if he
had had some other point of observation, and his statement may conflict materially with that of some one
who had. In the long course of ages, also, the statement
may have passed through many hands before it came
to be permanently recorded, and when it was recorded
it may have been under influences which tended much
to increase the probability that there would be error in
the statement. The historian may have also introduced
into his narrative circumstances which he regarded as
necessary to fill out the account, and to make it consistent, or he may have omitted circumstances which




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             25
were really essential to a proper understanding of the
case, but which seemed to him to be needless and cumbersome. It is, therefore, by no means improbable that
if we had an actually inspired record in respect to what
are now regarded as established facts in history, the
existing record would be materially changed; and it
is quite conceivable that an inspired and correct statement would contain many things which would be quite
irreconcilable with what are now received as undoubted
historical truths.
(d) A revelation will not contradict any moral truth.
This point is also clear, if it be admitted that there
is any such thing as moral truth; or, in other words,
if there is that in the nature of things which can be
regarded as moral truth. If, for example, it be a correct statement in morals that a man should not utter
falsehood; that he should not defraud his neighbor; that
he should npt steal; that he should not commit murder
-if there is anything in man, or in the nature of things,
which make these a matter of obligation, then it is
plain that nothing in a real revelation would be in conflict with these, and with kindred principles. We
cannot suppose that there is such discord in the universe; that there is such a conflict between nature and
the God who presides over nature; that in the administration which God proposes to set up as the moral
governor of the universe, there is such a discrepancy
between the rules of duty revealed, and the rules of
duty engraven on the hearts of men, and founded in
the fitness of things, that the one would be at variance with the other. Men, therefore, do expect, and
it would seem that they have a right to expect, that a
revelation from God would be conformed to these well



26          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
known and settled principles, and that in a book of
revealed truth, we shall find nothing that will be contradictory to truth that may be made known to us in
any other mode.
~ 7. A pretended revelation which should contradict established truth could not be received by mankind.
This is too plain to admit of demonstration. Two
opposite statements could not both be received as true.
No conceivable evidence in favor of a revelation could
be stronger than the conviction of the mind that two
and two make four, or that all the angles of a triangle
are equal to two right angles; in other words, it is
impossible for the mind to conceive that the evidence
in favor of a revelation could be so strong as to set
these truths aside. The mind must believe them.
That mind is not in a sound state which did not believe
them.
How far it is to be admitted that truths in science,
in morals, in history, are so certain as to come within
this rule, is quite a distinct question; but the rule itself
is perfectly clear.
The rule here referred to, embraces essentially two
things:(a) If faith in a professed revelation is demanded,
it is right to require that its statements shall be fairly
consistent with all the ascertained facts of science. It
could not be required that the book should reveal the
truths of science, or, indeed, that it should make any
statements on the subject at all —for the design of a
book of revelation would not properly be to teach the
truths of science; but it would be right to demand
that, ~f any statements on the subjects of science occur




IN THE WORD OF GOD.              27
as essentially connected with the doctrines of the book,
or if any statements are volunteered, though not essential to the main doctrines of the book, they should be,
by a fair interpretation, in strict accordance with the
truths of science.
(b) It is equally proper to demand, on the other
hand, if there is any alleged conflict between the statements of the book and the truths of science, that the
facts of science shall be clearly established. It is right
for the friends of such a revelation to insist, for example, that the facts in history, which are alleged to be
irreconcilable with the statements of the alleged revelation, shall be clearly established as facts; and, in like
manner, if it is alleged that the disclosures of geology
are inconsistent with the statements of the book professing to be a revelation, that the facts of geology
shall be clearly ascertained. The friends of such a
revelation have a right to go into the fullest examination of these points, and to demand such evidence of
the truth of the alleged facts as shall be sufficient to
neutralize all that is urged in behalf of the proposed
revelation, or such as shall demonstrate that the alleged
facts cannot possibly be otherwise than they are affirmed
to be. The science must be demonstrated; the facts
must be ascertained; the contradiction must be palpable; the discrepancy must be so great that the statements cannot, by any fair rules of interpretation, be
reconciled, or such that it cannot be supposed that a
larger acquaintance with the subject would make it
possible that the two statements should be brought into
harmony. That two and two are four, and that two
and two are seven, are statements which cannot, by any
possibility, be reconciled; and if one of them occurred




28. THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
as the result of human investigation, and the other as
the statement of a pretended revelation, they could not
be reconciled; no additional light could be thrown on
the subject by time; no application of any fair rules
of interpretation could bring them into harmony. But
the statements, for example, in the first chapter of Genesis are not so palpably inconsistent with the revelations of geology; the facts of geology are not yet so
fully ascertained as to demonstrate that the two statements cannot be reconciled; the true interpretation of
the chapter, on fair principles of exegesis, is not so
clearly settled that it can yet be assumed that the facts
in the one case may not be in entire harmony with the
statements in the other.
~ 8. A revelation on the same line of subjects will, so
far as coincident, carry forward the truth already known
-not contradict it.
The meaning of this rule is this: that a revelation
mnay make disclosures in regard to truth in advance of
what is already partially known from other sources,
or what will be seen to be true when the discoveries of
science come up to it; that is, they may be such statements as would at once be seen to be consistent and
proper, if, at the time when the revelation was made,
all the truths which science would ever reveal were
then known; in other words, that the disclosures of
revelation will be in advance of, not contradictory to,
the truths otherwise ascertained. The truth may be
partially and imperfectly discoverable by reason; the
revelation will not contradict the truth thus known,
but will carry forward the idea, and augment the
information. Between the two, there will be no more




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             29
discrepancy than between the actual though imperfect
knowledge of a child, and the more matured and perfect knowledge of the same child when he becomes a
man; than between the lowest truths in geometry and
the highest disclosures in astronomy of Newton or La
Place.
An illustration of this point may be derived from
the disclosures of the telescope. Vast as are the revelations made by that instrument; far as it penetrates
into distant worlds; and much as it has enlarged the
boundaries of human knowledge, all its disclosures are
in entire harmony with those of the naked eye, and
only carry forward, on the same line, what was seen
by the unaided powers of vision. The telescope never
penetrates into the empire of another God. It never
comes into regions where other physical laws prevail
than those which prevail in the worlds and systems
seen by the naked eye. It never reveals any laws
which are contradictory to what was before known.
The properties and the laws of light, as disclosed by
the telescope, in the most distant worlds, are the same
with those of light on earth; and could the eye itself,
now so comparatively limited in its range of observation, and to which so much of that which the telescope
reveals is unknown, be so enlarged in its powers as to
take in all that the telescope reveals, it would see things
just as it does now by its aid.
It is to be presumed that the same principle will be
found to prevail in a revelation from God. So far as
the statements of such a revelation are on the same
line of subjects which are made known to us from
other sources, it will only carry forward the idea. As
far as the disclosures of reason and of revelation relate




30          TIIE FOUNDATION OF FAITII
to the same subject, they will be entirely the same;
where revelation leaves reason in the rear, and goes
forward to doctrines undiscoverable by mere reason,
as the telescope leaves our unassisted faculties, and goes
forward to worlds undiscoverable by the naked eye,
the new truths will be entirely coincident and harmonious with those otherwise made known. Could the
faculty of reason be at once so enlarged as to embrace
all that is to be known in this wide field of knowledge,
the same truths would be perceived, and no other,
which are made known by revelation. And as, if the
disclosures made by a telescope appear to be contradictory to those made by the naked eye; if it should be
affirmed that the laws of light in other worlds, as
made known by the telescope, are different from those
in our own, we should infer that there must be some
imperfection in the instrument, and should at once
reject such disclosures, so man must reason in regard
to a pretended revelation. He must be assured, if he
would receive such a revelation, that all its disclosures
are in accordance with the clear deductions of reason,
so far as they are in the same line, and so far as those
deductions go; if it should be otherwise, he must
reject it.
~ 9. A revelation will not, in its teachings, violate the
constitutional principles of our nature.
The word'constitutional' is used here of design, and
as clearly defining what is meant to be affirmed. It
refers to man as he came from God; to the nature witlh
which he was originally endowed. It is designed to
distinguish this from another sense in which the word




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             31'nature' is sometimes employed now, as referring to
man, not as he was, but as he is.
Using the term'nature' in the largest sense, man
has two'natures;' that in which he was made by his
Creator, and that which refers to what he has become
by his own act; that which belonged to him as a holy
being, and that which belongs to him as a sinner.
(a) There is the original'nature,' or constitution,
with which man was endowed. This is the most
proper signification of the word'nature,' as applied
to man; for it is that which distinguished him from
all the other orders and ranks of being, as he came
from the hands of his Maker. It was that which properly constituted the'image' of God. It is difficult,
indeed, now, to determine exactly what this was; for
no one in human form, save one, has ever shown, since
the first man was upon the earth, what this was. We
can infer what it was only from a few slight hints in
the account of the creation of man in the Bible, and
by endeavoring to detach from the idea of man all that
is the result of corruption and sin, as we ascertain an
ancient inscription, or an ancient figure on a shield,
by removing the earth and rust which may have accumulated around it and over it.
(b) There is the'nature' of man as he now is.
Using the word inl this sense, we apply it to man as
we find him, with all his passions and propensities, as
a fallen being. We speak not of his original constitution, but of that constitution as it has been corrupted
by the Fall, and by indulgence in sin.
It is as such a fallen being that we are compelled now
to look at man; and it is as such a being that those
who write about him, and who describe him, commonly




32         TIIE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
regard him. It is from this point of view that most
of the books on mental philosophy have been framed;
for in these man is described as he is, not as he was
when he came from God. It is such a being, not a
pure and spotless being, with a holy nature, as he came
from God, that we see acting on the great theatre of
human affairs. It is for such a being that laws are
made; it is such a being that is described in the poetry
and romance of the world; it is such a being that
appears personated in the drama, and described in
history. In no description of man in the works of
mental philosophy, in history, in poetry, in romance,
or in the drama, does he appear as he was when he
came from the hand of God; and where a description is given of man, it is of man as he is, not as he
qwas —a description of his fallen, and not of his original
nature. The workings of his mind are not the pure
workings of mind as God made it, but the workings of a mind under the influence of numberless
perversities and passions, as it has been blighted and
ruined by the Fall. It is unfortunate that the books
on mental philosophy admit, in their descriptions of
the human faculties, as part of the constilution of man,
much that is thus the result of a lapsed state-the
pervertions and accretions that have been the result of
the apostasy. It is not man pure and holy, as he was
when he was made, that we now see, but man ambitious, proud, sensual, covetous, envious, irritable, vain;
man not with a clear intellect, but man with an intellect
clouded by sin; man not believing and confiding, but
man skeptical and doubting; man not hopeful and
cheerful, but man desponding and gloomy; man not
upright and pure, but man degraded and impure.




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             33
Hence no system of mental philosophy, considered as
a description of the original constitution or'nature'
of man, has been in all respects a correct system; for
none has told what man was, or what he would be,
without sin. Yet, it is evident that, judging of man
as he is now, we must form a very imperfect and erroneous idea of his'nature,' in the highest and best
sense of the term; and that just in proportion as we
mistake this for the original constitution of man, and
allow this idea to intermingle with our conceptions of
his nature, we are certain to err.
(c) It is to be observed, however, that, underlying all
that is depraved and impure, there are indications of
the original constitution of man, and of what may
properly be regarded as his'nature' as he came from
the hand of his Maker. Even amidst all the ruins of
the Fall, and all the disorders which sin has made, it
is still possible to discover what the original constitultion of man was; what man would be if he were wholly
restored.  There are accurate deductions of reason;
there are just convictions of conscience; there is a moral
sense which approves of what is right, and which disapproves of what is wrong. There is a perception of
what is right in the relations of life; in the duties
which men owe to their fellow-men; in the duties
which they owe their Maker. There are things which
all men see to be right, and there are things which all
men see to be %wrong. There is something in man which
is the basis of appeals on the subject of morals; and
there is something which-when the decisions of the
mind are not prompt and clear on the subject of
morals; when men are sunk in debasement and igno.
rance; when they seem almost to be unable to deter



34          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
mine between right and wrong-is the foundation of a
belief that they may be so elevated as to take their proper
position, and discern correctly between right and wrong.
We assume of the most degraded of the race that they
may be raised, by redemption, to the highest attainments in determining between right and wrong; we
assume that man is endowed with the faculties of
reason, conscience, and moral sense; we assume that
all which is necessary, in respect to these faculties, to
place him in the position in which he was originally
made, is regeneration and sanctification, or the restoration of the image of God to the heart.
The remark which is here made is, that a revelation
will not do violence to the nature of man as thus explained. It will be in accordance with the original
constitution of our minds; it will be such as will commend itself to the just principles of nature; it will be
such as the conscience, under the highest teachings,
and in the most perfect state, will approve; it will be
such as will commend itself to the moral sense of mankind, when that moral sense is developed in the best
and most perfect forms; it will contain nothing which
will be contradictory to either of these things; and if
a pretended revelation did contain that which was a
contradiction of these things, it could not be embraced
by mankind.
It may be admitted, indeed, and must be, that the
proper limitations on this subject are not yet entirely
settled, and that there is great danger, in the present
fallen condition of the human soul, that they will be
mistaken; that in forming such a judgment, what is
the fruit of prejudice or passion, what results from
pride, from selfishness, and from enmity to the truth




IN THE WORD OF GOD.           35
itself, will be mistaken for the proper judgment of the
mind, and be allowed to influence men in forming
their opinion whether a professed revelation is from
God. The remark now made is, that the judgment in
the case must be founded on the clear principles of our
nature or constitution as we came from God, or must
be a repetition of the revelation of his will in the
original constitution of man.
Thus, if in a book professing to be a revelation from
God, a command were found to treat our children with
neglect, such a command would be a clear demonstration that the book containing it could not be from God,
and the race could not be bound to receive it. For
there is a law of our nature as universal as any law
can be-a law that reigns and rules in all lands, and
that is engraved in the hearts of all men-which requires us to love our children, and to provide for them
in their helplessness and dependence. No one can
doubt that this is the law of Him who made man. No
one violates that law without feeling that he has done
wrong. No custom of society that interferes with this
could obtain universal currency among men; no opinions of philosophy which denied its obligation, could
be embraced by mankind. And however much savage
tribes may for a time depart from that law, and whatever customs may spring up in the world that impinge
on this principle, the original law will ultimately claim
to be heard; that law will assert its dominion, and
society will oscillate back to its true position-as, in
the movements of the heavenly bodies, if there seems
to be, even for the longest series of'years, a departure
from some great law which threatens ultimate universal
ruin, the heavenly bodies will swing back again to




36            THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
their former position, and the universe will right itself
again.* So in society. A violation of the law here
referred to would tend to universal ruin. Societythe race-could not exist unless it were a great law that
parents should love their children, and provide for
their wants. The very necessities of our nature demand this, and men cannot proceed far in their disregard of the law without impinging on a great original
principle of nature which reasserts its power, and restores the balance again, and brings the movements of
society into harmony with the will of God.
* See a profound and beautiful illustration of this fact, as securing the " Stability of the Planetary System," in Prof. O. M. Mitchell's
Lectures on " The Planetary and Stellar Worlds," pp. 163-191. Ed.
1849.




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            37
CHAPTER II.
APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLES IN
JUDGING OF A REVELATION.
~ 1. Reason as an element in judging of a revelation.
(a) Reason, or our rational nature, must be one element in judging of a revelation.
This, in the nature of the case, could not be otherwise. Our rational nature, that by which, more than
by anything else, we are distinguished from the brute
creation, was given to us, in part at least, for a guide;
and there is no subject on which we more need a guide
than religion. It is impossible to conceive that a revealed system of religion should have no reference to
our rational nature, or should make no appeal to it;
that is, that in this respect a revelation should come to
us as it would to an ox or a horse. God endowed us
with reason, and this high endowment must have had
reference to himself, to a suitable recognition of him,
to his service, to the claims of his law, to the duties
which we owe to him. A revelation which should
profess to ignore reason, or which should claim to set
aside its fair teachings, would not be received by mankind, for nothing can be more certain than that we
have this endowment, and that it is given to be, in
some way, a guide in everything that pertains to us.
(b) The great question, then, is, what is the proper
4




38          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
province of reason in relation to a revelation, or how
far it is to be regarded.
On this point, the following seem to be clear and indisputable principles:1. The teachings of reason are absolute and final, in
all those cases which come within its province, and
where its teachings are clear. Thus, that two and two
make four, and that all the angles of a triangle are
equal to two right angles, are truths which are never
to be set aside by any higher teaching, for they are so
certain and absolute that no higher teaching could make
them otherwise. God could not teach otherwise than
this. He could neither affirm that this is not so, nor
could he make it not to be so by any teaching. How
far the teaching of reason goes, what is its province,
into what fields it enters, and what fields lie beyond it,
are points, indeed, that are fair subjects of inquiry;
but within the proper province of the faculty, the
teachings of reason are so absolute that they cannot be
set aside. The whole science of mathematics evidently
comes under this rule; no small part of the natural
sciences; not a little of mental philosophy, and many
of the truths of moral philosophy. But the proper
province of reason, in respect to the point now under
consideration, has never been settled, and most of the
errors of theology have arisen from the fact that reason
is allowed to be an umpire in matters which lie wholly
beyond its proper range.
2. Reason is to be a guide in determining the evidences of a revelation. No revelation can be received
which does not commend itself to the reason as true,
or which does not furnish to the reason satisfactory
evidence that it is from God. There may be other




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             39
things to which the appeal may also be made, but the
evidence must be satisfactory to this tribunal. However
much a religion may commend itself to the feelings or
the imagination, however much it may do to promote
the happiness of man, whatever hopes it may'cherish
and inspire, or however it may have been sanctioned
by a venerable antiquity, it must have such evidence of
its divine origin as to secure the assent of the highest
forms of reason of which man is capable, or so that the
human intellect, in its advances, can never reach a
point where the evidence of its truth from reason would
fail.
Of the evidences of a divine revelation reason must
be the absolute judge. Whatever inay be the nature
of the evidence, it is competent to the reason to pronounce upon it. Whether it be miracles, or prophecy,
or the doctrines that are taught, or the influence and
tendency of the religion, the ultimate appeal must be
made to the reason of mankind.
3. It is the proper province of reason to receive the
truths of revelation when the fact of a revelation is
established. Reason receives the results of evidence.
It makes them its own. It embraces them as firmly as
it does the self-evident truth with which a mathematical
demonstration commences. The highest truths of mathematics are embraced by the mind that is conducted to
them by a fair process of reasoning, with as much firmness and certainty as the axiom that at the beginning is
assumed to be true, and faith in the one can no more
be shaken than faith in the other. So in revelation.
When reason has demonstrated the truth of a revelation,
then the teachings of that revelation become just as
certain to the mind as the deductions and conclusions




40          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
of its own reason, and it would as much violate the
proper province of reason to reject those truths as it
would to reject the plainest demonstrations of geometry.
Whatever these truths may be, reason is then as much
in its own proper province in admitting them and in
allowing them to influence the mind in all its actions,
as it is in submitting itself to the guidance of its own
conclusions.
4. In points where the teachings of revelation are
beyond the deductions of reason, then the proper province of reason is, clearly, to regard itself as subordinate
to those higher teachings. It can demand only that
those teachings shall not be contradictory to any of the
teachings of reason; it cannot require that they shall
not be above and beyond. The eye could demand of the
telescope only that its teachings should not be contradictory to any of the teachings of natural vision; it
could not require that its teachings should not be above
and beyond. Far as it may extend the range of vision;
numberless, and strange, and vast, and incomprehensible as may be the worlds and systems whose existence
and laws it discloses, it can only demand that nowhere
in the depths of the blue ether, in the new worlds
brought to view, in the movements of satellites and
comets, in nebule fixed or moving in infinite space,
there shall be nothing that is contradictory to the laws
of vision belonging to the naked eye; that the telescope
shall be properly an extension of the range of observatien, not an instrument to contradict all, or anything
that man knows from other sources. With this limitation the eye greets with joy all that the telescope discloses respecting distant worlds. Without this, the
telescope would be regarded as a deceptive instrument,




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             41
and its pretended disclosures could not be received as
true.
(c) A material question here occurs: How far will
a revelation from heaven modify the deductions of
reason?
The general reply to this question, of course, is, that
it would not in any way modify the deductions of pure
and correct reason. The truths discovered by reason
are truths, and no truth can by revelation be made different from what it is. No revelation could modify
the propositions so frequently referred to already, that
two and two make four, and that all the angles of a
triangle are equal to two right angles. In reference
to these, and to all similar truths, all that a revelation
could do would be what is done in the higher disclosures of mathematical truths, to show the place which
these truths occupy in the system, and their bearing
on other truths that may be made known.
But while this is certain, it is also certain that a revelation might have an important bearing on what are
supposed to be truths made known by reason, in the
following respects:1. In respect to those truths in which the disclosures
of reason are imperfect, or where they come short of the
whole truth. Up to a certain point all may be clear
and correct; beyond that, all may be obscure and dark.
On that region of darkness revelation may shed a clear
alght, disclosing truths that man could never discover
by the aid of mere reason, and where the truths already
made known by reason would furnish no help, and yet
all would be in accordance with the truths before discovered.
2. Revelation might set aside many things that seem




42          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
to result from the discoveries of pure reason; many
things that have been derived even from correct premises. The doctrines which reason may be supposed
to have discovered, may seem to be fair conclusions
from the premises; and yet it may be true that the
conclusions reached are all false. The ignorance of
the true doctrine may be so real, and the region so
dark, and so impenetrable by any powers of the mind,
that the mind may be unable to see the errors, or to
detect the fallacy, and yet there may be an error and a
fallacy which it might be the proper province of a revelation to expose and remove. The mind itself might,
indeed, never have detected the fallacy; it might never
of itself have seen that the supposed true doctrine did
not result from the premises; and yet the revelation
of a true doctrine on the subject might show the error,
and at the same time be seen to be more entirely consistent with the conclusions of reason than what had
been supposed to be the true doctrine was.
3. All those doctrines which are the result of conclusions from wrong princtiples would be set aside, of
course, by a revelation. In such cases, the conclusion
might be fairly derived from the premises assumed,
and yet as these premises were false, the effect of a revelation would be to set the whole aside. By a statement of just principles, the whole superstructure would
fall. Thus, for example, certain forms of doctrine,
extending very far, follow from the views which are
taken of human nature, and the whole system, perhaps
an entire system of theology, would depend on the
doctrine assumed to be true on that subject. If it
should be assumed that man is not fallen, that he is
pure, that he has no more propensityto evil than to good,




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             43
then there would follow from that an entire system of
theological views of a very peculiar character. If it
should be assumed that man is fallen, that he is wholly
depraved, that there is a propensity to sin which always
develops itself except as restrained and checked by the
grace of God, then an opposite system follows from that
assumption, extending into an entirely different view
of the whole work of saving men. In both cases, the
reasoning by which the systems are supported, might
be perfectly correct if the premises were admitted; in
either case, the system would fall if a revelation should
settle the disputed point about the nature, character, and
tendency of man.
4. All those cases in which reason had been warped
or perverted by prejudice, by passion, or by selfishness, would be modified by a true revelation. This
might not occur in purely scientific subjects; but there
is a large class of subjects pertaining to morals where
the whole form of the doctrines embraced would be
shaped by the colored medium through which the subject was viewed. In fact, no small part of the moral and
religious systems in the world have had their origin in
the heart rather than in the head; and all such would
be affected by a correct system of revealed truth.
The friends of revelation, it would seem, must concede the principles laid down in this section, and the
enemies of revelation have a right to hold them to these
principles. The world will hold the advocates of
revealed truth to these principles. It will be impossible to convince mankind of the truth of a pretended
revelation in which these principles are not recognized,
and no system in which they are not, in fact, admitted,
can secure a permanent hold on the world. Circum



44          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
stances might give a temporary triumph and prevalence
to a pretended revelation which should violate these
principles; but the nature with which man is endowed
will, sooner or later, react,  and reason will assert its
proper place. It acknowledges ultimate subordination
only to a true revelation from God. For its own
department, it is supreme; it yields permanently only
when a higher teaching, pertaining to regions beyond
its proper domain, enlarges its own just conclusions, and
sets aside those which are false.
~ 2. The moral sense as an element in judging of a reve7atiorn.
(a) It is an element in judging of a revelation. The
moral sense-the conscience, the power of deciding on
good and evil-is one of the original principles of
our nature, found among all men, and, therefore, a part
of the constitution with which man was endowed. It
is impossible to conceive of man except as endowed
with this faculty: for, in all our descriptions of man,
this idea is as essential as the idea of reason. It is one
of the things which separate him from the inferior creation, and which is never approached by any of the
inferior creation; one of the things which assimilates
man to the orders of creatures above him, however
exalted, and however unlike him they may be in other
respects; one of the things which give man a resemblance to God himself. As a revelation must pertain
to duty as well as to truth, it is clear that there must
be, so far as duty is concerned, a recognition of this
faculty, as there must be a recognition of the faculty
of reason, so far as truth is concerned.
(b) A pretended revelation could not be received by




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             45
mankind which paid no respect to this faculty, or which
contradicted its plain teachings and decisions. Man is
so made, for example, that he must obey his conscience.
A pretended revelation which should teach that he
was never to obey his conscience, or that he was to
make it a rule of life to go against his conscience,
could not possibly be from the same Being who has
made man as he is, and who has taught him, by his
very constitution, that his conscience is to be obeyed,
and that to act against its decisions is sin. Two systems
so unlike as these would be could not possibly be from
the same source; and as man is so made that he can
have no doubt as to his obligation to obey the dictates
of his conscience, a system which should teach and
enforce the contrary must be rejected by mankind. It
may be laid down, therefore, as an undoubted truth,
that, if a revelation could not be made to "commend
itself" to the consciences of men, it would not be from
God.
(c) A very material question, therefore, arises: how
far this rule is to be. allowed to control us in judging
of a revelation, or what, if any, are the proper limitations of the rule?
1. There are things so universally agreed on by
mankind as to show that they are laws of our nature,
and they must be respected and confirmed, if a revelation is to be received by the world. What is the exact
range of these subjects, how many things are included,
may be, indeed, a question, for on this point, as on
most others, there are three classes of subjects: (a)
There are those which are perfectly plain, and which
are at once seen to be right; (b) There are those which
are with equal clearness at once seen to be wrong; and




46          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
(c) There is a middle class, a large margin, where it may
be doubtful whether an action is right or wrong; or,
in other words, there is a region of perfect light, a
region of perfect darkness, and an extended twilight,
which is neither.
An illustration of this point may be derived from
taste. There is such a thing as correct taste in poetry, in
eloquence, in statuary, in painting. It may not be easy
to determine, in the abstract, what this is, and there
may be a variety of subjects on which the tastes of
nations or individuals would differ. Yet there is a
correct standard of taste: a standard in accordance
with which the best specimens of poetry and the arts
are preserved and sent down to the admiration of future
times. Now, if we were to conceive of a revelation on
the subject of taste, we should be certain that it would
accord with the general judgment of mankind. A
revelation which should declare that the works of
Homer were not, in the main, in accordance with the
decisions of correct taste, or that the Apollo Belvidere,
or the Venus de Medici, or that the Cartoons of Raphael,
or the Aurora of Guido, were in bad taste, would be
practically rejected by mankind. These works of art
would continue to be admired in spite of the decisions
of such a revelation; nor is it probable that such a
revelation would make the least perceptible change in
the general judgment of mankind in regard to them.
In spite of the decisions of such a revelation, the poems
of Homer would continue to be printed and read, Florence would be crowded with the lovers of the arts,
and Rome, which has preserved so many specimens of
taste, would be the resort of as many pilgrims as now.
So it would be in a pretended revelation in regard to




IN' THE WORD OF GOD.            47
morals or religion. There is a large class of subjects
on which men everywhere would act as they do now;
and if such a revelation did not recognize the justness
of these principles, it would be rejected by mankind.
Men would recognize the obligation to be honest, to be
humane, to respect their parents, to declare the truth,
whatever might be the command of such a revelation,
and however practically they may now disregard these
principles in their conduct, it could never be possible
to commend to mankind as a code from heaven-from
the true God-a system of teaching which should
declare that the common rules of morality are not
obligatory.
2. A revelation will accord with the highest development of moral truth in the progress of society. It
will not only meet the comparatively limited, though
just views of morality in the primitive stages of society, and in the uncultivated portions of the world,
but it will accord with the highest attainments in
moral truth which the world has reached, or will
reach; for a revelation must be made for all ages,
and all lands. And as a revelation for the race must
be designed for all times and all lands, a time never
can come, and a state of society never can exist,
which will be on the subjects on which a revelation
is made in advance of it. It is not enough, therefore,
to be able to show that the revelation is, in these respects, lup to the age in which it was made, or that it
did not contradict any of the truths then known; it
must be up to every age, and must contradict none of
the truths that will ever be discovered. It must be as
really adapted to the highest stage of civilization, intelligence, and refinement, as to the lowest; it must as




48          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
really be in advance of the highest point to which
society ever will come, as it was of the lowest and
humblest condition or state of the world when it was
given. If not so, then it could easily be demonstrated,
that a revelation was not necessary for man-since in the
regular development of knowledge, without such a
revelation, society would ultimately come up to the
point where a revelation would place the race; or, if
it contained principles which were contradictory to
those which would be established in a future age by
the unaided efforts of the human intellect, that fact
would prove that it was false; for truths, whether discovered by human wisdom, or revealed directly by
God, cannot be contradictory to each other. Such a
revelation as should fall behind the highest attainments
of society might indeed be useful in the lower stages
of society, until the powers of man should come up to
its disclosures; but a professed revelation that should
be contradictory to any of the discoveries which the human intellect could make in its highest exercise, could
not possibly be from God.
3. If a revelation does not meet these conditions, it
will be rejected, sooner or later, by the world.  It
cannot hold on its way; it cannot secure an ascendancy permanently over the human intellect, unless it
is found to be in accordance with these conditions.
However it may for a time secure a hold on the
faith of mankind; however it may seem to promote
human happiness; however it may appear to impart
comfort and hope in the world, yet if it do not meet
these conditions, it will sooner or later be rejected
by mankind. One of the indisputable conditions on
which the world is to be kept from infidelity is, that




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             49
the revelation proposed to mankind shall accord with
the highest disclosures of truth as learned from any
other source, and that it shall be in advance of all other
disclosures in its own peculiar department. And what
is true in general in this respect, is true also in detail.
If the revelation teaches any doctrine which can be
demonstrated to be contradictory to the disclosures of
truth from other quarters, or if, in its own proper department, it does not contain disclosures that are in
advance of what men might gain from other sources,
that particular doctrine will be rejected, and a rejection
of a doctrine from such a cause will drag down with
it the entire book which claims to be a revelation from
God. Just in proportion as a professed revelation
should be found to contain sentiments, or authorize
acts, or lend its countenance to institutions, customs,
or laws that violate the moral sense of mankind,
that are contrary to the spirit of humanity, that
impede the progress of society, that cramp and fetter the human powers, that are contrary to the best
arrangements in the famuily relation, or that tend to
debase and degrade mankind, just in that proportion
will infidels be made in regard to such a pretended
revelation; for mankind will not receive a system as
from heaven that violates the established principles of
our nature. And hence it follows that all the defenders
of a revelation, in proportion as they endeavor to show
that it sanctions and sustains such institutions and
customs, become the promoters of infidelity in the
world, and are, to the extent of their influence, and the
success of their arguments, responsible for the infidelity that may prevail. A pretended revelation that,
by its fair teaching, sustained oppression and wrong;




50          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
that was the advocate of ignorance and barbarity;
that fostered a spirit of revenge; that encouraged licentiousness, or any of the institutions that contribute to
the indulgence of licentiousness; that advocated irresponsible power, or that placed slavery on the same
basis as the relation of parent and child, husband and
wife, guardian and ward, would so impinge on the great
principles of our nature, and be so at war with the best
interests of society, that the world could not ultimately
receive it, and all who should endeavor to show that
such a revelation did sustain and countenance such
doctrines, would of necessity become the practical diffusers of infidelity in the world.
(d) It is a material inquiry, however, how far a
revelation would modify the opinions of men as to what
is right and wrong, or whether it should be allowed to
effect any change in the sentiments that are ultimately
to be employed in judging of its own claims. Is it to
be demanded that it shall conform in its decisions to
what is actually received among men on the subject of
morals, or must it be allowed to set up a standard of
its own, supposing that, however the prevailing opinions of men may differ from that, it will so commend
its new precepts to what is in men that they will perceive it to be right. Will it presume on the existing
moral sense among mankind, or will it create a higher
and purer moral sense which will itself become the
standard of appeal in the truths which it proposes for
belief.
Both these things are, to some extent, true:1. There is a class of moral truths which are received
by all men, and which are never to be varied. How
wide the field is, and what it may embrace, it may be




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             51
difficult to define, for there is a large margin that is
indeterminate and doubtful.  But there are moral
truths which are well settled in the estimation of mankind, and which are to remain so: truths which commend themselves to man as entirely and as universally
as the canons of a correct taste do, or as the elementary
principles of geometry, and which could never be set
aside by the teachings of revelation. These truths are
the basis of morals. They are found essentially in the
writings of Confucius and Seneca, as well as in the
Moral Philosophy of Paley. They are essential to the
well-working of society, and would soon be wrought
out again, and in substantially the same forms, if all
existing books on morals were destroyed, and if society
were to begin anew. All that revelation could do, in
regard to these truths, would be to confirm them by its
own authority, to separate them from errors to which
they might be attached, and to enlarge their sphere.
2. But there is a much larger number of points on
which revelation would be absolute. Intermingled
with those truths of morals above referred to, there are
many errors which it would set aside. There are local
opinions and practices which have no foundation in
any law of nature, and which it would set aside. There
are laws of human enacting which it would supersede.
There are rules regulating oppressive and unjust systems, and which are essential to the existence of those
systems, which it would abolish. There are opinions
and customs which are the result of ignorance, or passion, or false systems of religion, or pride of life, over
which its control would be entire. All these it would
abolish, and it would establish a purer morality in their
place.




52          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
Yet even in regard to these, it is to be observed that
it would not merely abolish them by its own absolute
authority, but it would, at the same time, create such
a moral sense by its influence that men would see and
approve of the principles of the religion which did
abolish them, or which, even if there were no positive
precept in the case, would lead men of themselves to
abolish those rules. Thus, in the laws, for instance,
which Christianity has originated in regard to polygamy,
to infanticide, to human sacrifices, to revenge, to the
appeal to God by duel, it has, at the same time, created
such a conscience or moral sense that the minds of men
approve the change; such a moral sense that, in most
of these instances, even if there had been no direct
rule of Christianity on the subject, the change would
have been produced by men themselves, by the silent
influence of the religion in new moulding the moral
sense of mankind. Perhaps it is not too much to affirm
that there is no existing evil in the moral world which
Christianity, by such a silent influence, if fairly applied,
could not remove, even without an absolute precept;
certain it is that there are none of its peculiar laws
which do not commend themselves to the moral sense
of men-either the original moral sense, as Christianity
finds men, or the newly formed moral sense of mankind, where its influence is properly felt. Many of the
evils of the world silently melt away under that influence, even where there is no positive precept; and
when that religion shall pervade the earth, and shall
transform the moral opinions of men and the customs
of society into conformity to its own standard, it will
sustain itself by its own power —by its commending
itself, in all respects, either to the original moral sense




IN THE WORD OF GOD.              53
of mankind —the deep, fundamental principles of our
nature in regard to moral truth-or to that high and
pure moral sense which Christianity will have created
in anticipation of its ultimate triumphs, and as the
basis on which its eternal reign is to rest.
~ 3. Science as an element in judging of a revelat0ion.
The following are manifestly correct principles on
this subject:(1) Science is, and must be, an element in judging
of the claims of a revelation from God. Science is,
properly, a mere statement of truths or facts, arranged
into a system, and those truths or facts constitute, properly, the science. Whatever theory may be proposed
in explanation of the facts, or whatever hypothesis may
be adopted, the facts constitute the science, and are all
for which the science is responsible. The theory —the
hypothesis-may or may not be correct; the classification may or may not be perfect and complete; but the
facts or truths, as far as facts and truths are known on
the subject, are to be regarded as constituting the science. Thus, there are certain facts in regard to the
"changes of composition that occur among the integrant and constituent parts of different bodies" (Henry),
or to "those operations by which the intimate nature
of bodies is changed, or by which they acquire new
properties" (Davy), constituting the science of chemistry; there are certain facts in regard to the structure
and functions of the human frame, to the motions of
the heavenly bodies, to the structure and laws of plants,
constituting the sciences of anatomy, astronomy, and
botany. These are what they are, and cannot be
affected by any revelation. They remain the same
5




54          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
whatever system of religion or morals may prevail on
the earth. They could not be made different from
what they are by a revelation. Better and more perfect theories, in explanation of these sciences, might,
perhaps, be proposed, than those which now prevail;
new facts might be brought to light, if the revelation
extended to such disclosures; things which had been
regarded as facts might be set aside; but the facts
themselves could not be changed.
It is true that a revelation might be made which
would in no manner come into contact with the disclosures of science on these subjects. It might be so
framed as to make disclosures only on moral and religious subjects, and be so entirely independent of all
the subjects of science that there could be no conflict,
or no points of contact. But this could scarcely be
expected. The world is God's own world-made, fashioned, and governed by Him; and the facts in relation
to its creation, its history, its design in manifesting the
evidence and goodness of God, are so obvious and so
material, that it is not to be presumed that there would
be no allusion in a revelation from God that would
bear in any manner on the subjects of science.
(2) If any statements are made in a revelation bearing on the subject of science, those statements must
be consistent with the disclosures of science.
This remark is to be taken in the most absolute sense.
A pretended revelation could not be a revelation from
God, if it contradicted any of the facts or truths of
science. These facts or truths, as already remarked,
are fixed, and are not subject to change; and a statement from God himself, who has made all things, and




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             55
who knows all things, must be in accordance with those
facts.
But it must be true science. The facts must be
clearly ascertained. We cannot assume that all which
has been regarded as science, or all which has been
connected with the sciences as theories, or hypotheses,
is true science. The friends of revelation have a right
to demand that the alleged facts of science shall be
beyond question, or such as are fully established; and
they have a right to institute the most thorough examination of the alleged facts of science before they
are called upon to meet the question whether they are
or are not in conflict with revelation. In respect to
this, there is occasion for more modesty and diffidence
than have always been manifested by scientific men
on the points where science has seemed to come into
conflict with revelation. They who are best informed
as to the history of science, will be among the most
cautious in coming to hasty conclusions on this subject. They will remember how many theories have
prevailed on each of the sciences, which have ultimately
been abandoned; how imperfect science has been in past
times, and how far from perfection it is now; how few
of all the facts which enter properly into science have
been observed, and how imperfectly nature has been
analyzed: they will not be slow to perceive how wide
is the range of scientific truths as contemplated by the
Creator in comparison with the range which passes
under the observation of the most gifted of mankind
— how little, in fact, is known of the wonders of a
universe which required in its constitution all the wisdom and power of an infinite God, and they will not
hastily come to the conclusion that the facts are so fully




56          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
and certainly known in any one of the sciences as to
make it sure that longer observation, or more profound analysis, might not bring it into conformity
to a statement in a professed revelation that might
seem to come in conflict with the science as at present
understood.
Further: a revelation from God will be consistent
with the discoveries of science in its highest developments, or in its ultimate attainments. In other words,
there can never arrive a period when a true revelation
would not retain as firm a hold on the human mind as
in the rudest stages of society; that is, the discoveries
of science can never outrun the disclosures of revelation. As God is the author of a true revelation, and
as he is the author of the world, and, therefore, the
source of all knowledge, alike in science and revelation,
the two must ultimately harmonize. It cannot be conceived, therefore, that the disclosures in geology, for
example, will be ultimately found to be inconsistent
with the fair interpretation of the book of Genesis
about the creation of the world, if it be admitted that
the book of Genesis is a part of a revelation from God.
The unbeliever has a right to demand that at any and
every stage of the investigation no one fact shall be
inconsistent with a proper interpretation of the book
of Genesis, and he has an equal right to demand that
all the statements of the book of Genesis, bearing in
any way on the subject, shall, by a fair interpretation,
be consistent with the ultimate disclosures of the
science.
But while this general proposition must be conceded
by the friends of revelation, and the friends of science




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             57
respectively to be correct, there are two remarks which
it is proper to make respecting the principle:
(a) One is, that the investigations of science and the
interpretation of the Bible should be pursued in accordance with their own proper laws, and each one irrespective of the results which may be reached in the
investigations of the other. The pursuit of truth in
every department should be on fair and independent
principles, whatever may be the ultimate result. Facts,
in the one case, should not be forcibly made to bend,
nor language, in the other, in order that the one may
be accommodated to the other. The friend of science
should be allowed to pursue his investigations, so far
as the result to be reached is concerned, with as entire
independence as though there were no book in the
world pretending to be a revelation-that is, for the
time, ignoring, so far as his science is concerned, the
existence of the Bible; and the friend of revelation
should be held to a rigid and fair interpretation of the
words of his book as though the disclosures of science
were wholly unknown —that is, for the time, so far as
his department is concerned, ignoring all the facts of
science. In other words, in the laboratory, in the observatory, in the examination of fossil remains, a text
of Scripture should be allowed in no manner to mingle
with the revelations of the crucible, the telescope, and
the blowpipe; or with the'testimony of the rocks,' either
in regard to the age of the earth, the records of former
times, or the movements of the heavenly bodies. In
these investigations, the question is not even to be
asked whether the disclosures of science and of revelation will ultimately coincide, or whether they will be
found to be contradictory and irreconcilable. That is




58          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
a point to be determined after the investigations are
all made, and all the facts are ascertained. The moment
that a man of science allows a question respecting the
harmony of his conclusions in science with a book
pretending to be a revelation, to influence him in his
inquiries, that moment the true spirit of scientific investigation has departed, for he has left the proper
province of science, and abandoned an essential principle in all scientific investigations; and the moment a
friend of revelation allows a consideration of this kind
to influence his mind, and to induce him to pervert a
word from its proper meaning with a view to accommodate it to some statement of science that is in conflict with the fair statement of the book before him,
that moment he has abandoned his proper province as
an interpreter of revelation.
(b) The other remark is, that while this is a just
principle, and one to which the friend of revelation
should be willing to be held, it is also to be remembered
that a current and prevailing interpretation of a revelation may be a false interpretation, and that it may
occur that while there seems to be a discrepancy, or a
contradiction between the statements of such a book
and the disclosures of science, a true and fair interpretation may be entirely consistent with all the facts disclosed by science. Nothing has been more common in
the church than to affix a false interpretation to the
Scriptures, and then to hold this as an essential part of
the true faith; nothing more common than to persecute
those who held some doctrine of science in conflict with
that false interpretation, and to regard them as heretics.
No small part of the persecutions which have occurred
in the church have arisen, not from any denial of a




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             59
true doctrine of the Bible, but from a denial of some
opinion which was held to be a doctrine of the Bible,
and which was sanctioned by the church, but which a
more correct interpretation has shown to be no part of
the teachings of revelation. Thus Galileo was persecuted, not for any real denial of a doctrine of revelation, but for maintaining an opinion in regard to the
material universe which was contrary to the established
doctrine of the church, as it was supposed to have been
derived from the Bible, but which has been subsequently universally admitted to be in entire accordance
with all the teachings of revelation. No man now
holds that the Bible teaches the Ptolemaic system of
the universe; no infidel now insists that the believer
in revelation shall be held to maintain that that system
is taught in the Bible. The writings of all infidels
might be searched in vain for an objection to the Bible
drawn from that source; and no objector to the Bible
would risk his own reputation in urging such an
objection.
It is impossible for any objector to the Bible to
demonstrate that all the arguments now derived from
the recent and as yet imperfect science of geology
against the statements of the Bible, may not yet take
their place with the objections which could have been
urged as derived from the new doctrine of astronomy
in the time of Galileo; or that the real difficulty in regard to the doctrines of geology as coming into alleged
conflict with the Bible, may not be a difficulty, not in
the science itself, or in the Bible when fairly interpreted, but in the interpretationzs heretofore affixed to
the Bible, and received as the undisputed doctrines of
the church. The process of adjustment, in such a case,




60          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITHt
will consist essentially of two things: first, in ascertaining exactly what the science is; and secondly, in ascertaining precisely what the Bible teaches.  If these
points are clearly ascertained, then, and not till then,
will the time have come for the inquiry whether the
statements of the two are harmonious. No friend of
the Bible can assume that the alleged disclosures of
geology in regard to the duration of the world, and the
history of extinct races of animals, are false; and no
geologist can assume that the interpretation affixed to
the Bible hitherto in the church is the true one, and
that he has overthrown the authority of the Bible when
he has shown that the disclosures of geology are contradictory to that current interpretation. Such assumptions, in regard to astronomy, would have determined
nothing in the time of Galileo; such assumptions in
regard to geology would determine nothing now. It
is still quite competent for the friend of the Bible to
reopen the question as to its meaning; and he should
be allowed, in respect to the disclosures of geology, and
to all other sciences, as in the case of the revelations
of the telescope, the most ample opportunity for instituting the inquiry as to the fair interpretation of the
book which he regards as a revelation from God.
(3) If it be asked, then, how far the teachings of a
revelation from God would modify the teachings of
science, the following remarks will furnish a correct
answer to the inquiry: —
(a) Such a revelation will in no way modify thefacts
of science. These are what they are: thev are what
are disclosed as such by the fair application of the
principles of scientific investigation.  They are not to
be set aside —they cannot be set aside, by any revela



IN THE WORD OF GOD.             61
tion from heaven. The friend of revelation is not to
require that they shall be set aside or rejected. He is
not in any way to ask that they shall be modified, or
that their disclosures shall be made to bend to the
teachings of the book which he regards as a revelation.
He is to admit them to be true, whatever may be their
bearing on the book which he regards as a communication of the divine will. He is to allow every fair
statement in regard to such disclosures, and every fair
inference from them. He is to suffer them to strike
where they will, and whatever may be the effect on the
system which he holds.
(b) On the other hand, he may insist on two
things:He mav demand that the facts of science which are
alleged to come into conflict with the teachings of revelation shall be fully ascertained. They must not be
fancy, theory, conjecture, nor must a conclusion, unfavorable to revelation, be drawn from them where they
are imperfectly developed. He may urge this point to
the utmost; he may demand the most rigid demonstration of the truth of the facts that are alleged to be in
conflict with revelation, and may insist on a suspension
of the judgment until the science shall be settled and
clearly understood.
He may, also, insist on the privilege of re-examining
the interpretation of the book of revelation, and institute the inquiry whether the interpretation which has
been affixed to the book is the true interpretation, and
whether, in the fair use of language, the teachings of
the bock may not be consistent with the teachings of
science. That was the point where the church should
have paused in the case of Galileo, and that may be




62         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
demanded now. The friend of science should concede
that as a true principle; the friend of revelation should
admit that if, after the fullest and fairest inquiry, the
two cannot be made to harmonize, the book which he
has regarded as a revelation cannot be from God.




IN THE WORD OF GOD.           63
CHAPTER III.
THE STATEMENTS OF THE BIBLE IN VIEW OF THESE
PRINCIPLES.
THE principles which have been laid down in the
preceding chapters are such as, it must be presumed,
will commend themselves to all men; and they are
undoubtedly such as the world will act on in determining the claims of a pretended revelation from God. If
a book should now for the first time be published to
the world, asserting a claim to be a revelation from
God, it would, beyond all doubt, be subjected to these
tests; and if the book now received by the Christian
~world as a revelation from God is to retain the hold
which it now has on the human mind, and is ultimately
to obtain a universal belief among mankind that it is
from God, it must be shown that it meets the demands
implied in the principles which have been stated.
One of the most important inquiries, therefore, before
the world, is whether the Bible does, in fact, meet these
demands. This inquiry is practically suggested in all
cases in which the Bible is proposed to man as a guide
to heaven; it comes before the minds of men in all
scientific investigations; it is publicly asked by avowed
sceptics, and it is secretly before the minds of multitudes of men who have no desire to be known as sceptics; it is always asked when new discoveries in science




64         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
are submitted to the world, and it enters into all the
inquiries about what the Bible sanctions or disapproves
in morals. Whenever and wherever it is alleged by
the friends of the Bible that it declares that to be truth
which the scientific world declares to be false; whenever and wherever it is alleged that it authorizes a
course of conduct which the world has pronounced to
be wrong, just so much is done to create and sustain
infidelity: to throw off, on the one hand, one class of
men, and on the other, another, and to render it impossible to convince either that the book can be from God.
Perhaps a more essential service, therefore, could not
be rendered to the cause of truth, than by the inquiry
whether the Bible, according to the principles laid
down in the previous chapters, does commend itself to
the world as being in accordance with the ascertained
facts of science, with the fundamental laws of our nature,
and with the convictions in regard to right and wrong
which God has enstamped on the human soul.
This might open a very large field of inquiry, for it.
mright lead to an examination of all the historical statements, all the statements on the subject of morals, and
all the statements that have any bearing on the subjects
of science, to be found in the Bible. Few men would be
competent to such an examination; and yet, if a man
were competent to it, it may be doubted whether he
could perform a more important service for the world
than by such an examination. There are few more
inviting fields, now unoccupied, for a man who would
wish to render a valuable service to the world, than
this. The world has not yet furnished the man that is
qualified for this: the man who should combine in
himself the highest amount of Biblical knowledge




IN THE WORD OF GOD.              65
with the highest attainments in mental and moral science, and in the great departments of the physical
sciences which distinguish this age.
A few thoughts may, however, be suggested as showing, at least, how far the Bible recognizes the propriety
of appealing to these principles, and as showing that,
thus far, these principles have not come in conflict with
the claims of the Bible as a book of revealed truth.
~ 1. The Bible appeals to the reason of mankind.
The meaning of this statement is, that the Bible
recognizes the doctrine that man is capable of judging
of truth, or that there are principles of truth, lying
back of its own revelations, to which it appeals, and
on which it relies in presenting itself to be received by
mankind as a revelation from God; in other words,
there are eternal truths, not dependent on the mere will
of God, to which a true revelation will be conformed.
The Bible does not claim to set up its own decision of
right and wrong, by ignoring or setting aside all that
reason teaches, or by supposing that there is no foundation for judging of what is true or false, right or wrong,
in the human soul.
(a) This appeal the Bible makes, or presumes to be
made, in such passages as the following (Isa. i. 18):
"Come, now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord."
Here the appeal is made directly to the reason of mankind, presuming that there is that in the human mind
which will appreciate the force of the arguments which
are suggested (see verses 18, 19, 20), and that those
arguments will commend themselves to man as sound
arguments, and as worthy of their attention; that is,
it is not assumed in the case that no respect is to be




66          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
shown to reason; that it is a matter of indifference
whether a correct or false principle is stated; that all
the force of the appeal depends -on the fact that God
has made the statement; that it is perfectly arbitrary
with him to make a thing reasonable or unreasonable,
right or wrong, by a mere statement; or that there is
nothing lying back of such a statement which is a proper ground of appeal. Just the reverse of all this is
assumed in the appeal. In fact, God assumes this just
as really as we do when we undertake to reason with
a sinner, and to show him that he is wrong in his conduct. We assume that he is endowed with reason;
that he is capable of appreciating the force of an argument; that the fact that a thing is right or wrong in
no wise depends, in the case, on our stating it to be so,
but that there is something back of our statement, in
the mind itself, or in the nature of things, which makes
the distinction between right and wrong certain, and
which lays the foundation for our appeal.
Thus, also, Paul'reasoned' with Felix (Acts, xxiv.
25). He did not merely appeal to authority, not even
the authority of God. He felt that he was addressing
one endowed with reason, and capable of appreciating
an argument addressed to reason. He presumed that
the commands of God could be so commended to him
that he would see their propriety, and be led to yield
to their influence and claims. So, in Isaiah, xli. 21,
God appeals, by the prophet, to the Hebrew people:
" Produce your cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your
strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob." This would
be unnecessary and improper, unless it were assumed
that there is something in man by which he can judge
of the reasonableness and propriety of the divine deal



IN THE WORD OF GOD.             67
ings; some ground of judgment in regard even to the
acts of God as conformable, or not conformable, to justice and propriety.
And, in general, it may be observed that the Bible
is remarkable for its appeals to mankind on the ground
of the reasonableness of its commands and its doctrines.
Perhaps no book can be found where this kind of
appeal is more common, or regarded as more certain.
God appeals to man to determine whether idols have
the same claim to homage which he has; whether his
claims are just; whether his laws are reasonable, easy,
proper, equal.
Now, all this supposes that there is something lying
back of mere command, which is the ground of the
appeal; or that man is so made that he can see what is
just, and right, and good. If this were not so, then
all such appeals would be out of place, and would be
improper. All the appeal which could be made, if this
were not so, would be, that the fact that God wills a
thing is all the evidence needed, in any case, that it is
right, no matter how repugnant it may be to the reason of mankind.
The same thing is implied in all the statements in
the Bible-and they are almost numberless —that God
is holy; that he is just; that he is good; that he is
true. What can be the meaning of these statements,
unless it be assumed that there is holiness, justice,
goodness, truth, in the nature of things, or apart from
the mere will of God?  If all the holiness, justice,
goodness, and truth which there is in the universe, is
founded on the mere will of God, arbitrarily making a
thing holy, just, good, and true, then such an appeal
could have no force. It is, in fact, no more than




68          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITIt
saying that God is, and what he chooses to make holy
is holy; what he wills to make just is just; what he
wills to make good is good; what he wills to make true
is true. On that supposition, there is no standard of appeal in the case, and such an appeal would be, in fact,
mere illusion.  I affirm that my conduct is right.
According to this supposition, all that I mean by the
affirmation is that my conduct is what I please, and
that I choose to make my conduct the standard of
right. I affirm of another that his conduct is just;
when asked to explain myself, I answer that all that I
mean is that his conduct is what he pleases it should
be, and that, by his own will, he makes any actions which
he performs, right or wrong, and that his conduct, in
this particular case, is right, because he has chosen to
affix the word just to one part of his conduct, and good
to another, and holy to another. There is no standard
back of this. There is no general judgment of mankind to which an appeal lies. There is nothing in the
nature of things which makes one act more true, or
holy, or just, or good than another, or which makes it
proper to affix these terms to it: for all depends on the
mere will of him who performs the act. All that could
be meant by such an appeal, in regard to God, would
be, that he has done what he has chosen to do, and that
the fact that he has done it is a sufficient reason why
it is right. He has not done it because it is right, but
it is right because he has done it; that is, all that there
is in man which pronounces anything right or wrong;
all that he has been made, by the laws of his nature, to
regard as right or wrong; and all the appeals to him
based on this, in respect to the character of God, is to
go for naught: for it is all based on the false assump



IN THE WORD OF GOD.            69
tion that there is such a thing as right and wrong in
the nature of things. Such was not the faith of Abraham. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth DO RIGHT?"
was his language, when he stood before God, and plead
for guilty Sodom. Gen. xviii. 25. He felt, evidently,
that there is such a thing as "right," in itself considered.
He felt assured that the Judge of all the earth would
do right —that which is right in itself considered, and
apart from mere will. He felt that what God might
be about to do (destroying the righteous with the
wicked) would expose him to the charge of doing that
which men would regard as wrong, and he made this
the basis of his argument with his Maker, not that he
would do a thing, and make it right by his doing it, or
make that the only ground of vindicating his character,
but that he would do that which was right and proper
in itself-which would commend itself to the mind of
Abraham, and to the minds of men at large, as right.
An expression which will illustrate this thought
occurs, also, in Jeremiah xiv. 21: "Do not abhor us,
for thy name's sake; do not disgrace the throne of thy
glory; remember, break not thy covenant with us."
In this language it is implied that there is a course
which would be becoming for God, or which would be
appropriate to his character; and that there is a course
which would be unbecoming, dishonorable, and disgraceful to his character. In other words, there must be
something in man which makes him capable of judging
what it would be proper for God to do, or something
lying back of mere will, and different from the mere
fact that God does it, which would make it right. If
the mere fact that God does or wills a thing always
makes it right, then there would be no ground for such
6




70         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
a judgment, and no reason for such a plea as that made
by Jeremiah, since, in that case, the mere fact that
God does it would preserve his character and doings
from " disgrace."
Perhaps no book has ever been written which
so often and so constantly appeals to the reason of
mankind as the Bible. It all along assumes that there
is such a thing as right and wrong in themselves considered, and that the laws and requirements of God
are such as are in themselves right; not that they are
made right by sovereign will.
(b) Men argue in the same way about the Bible.
The friends of the Bible assume that this is a correct
mode of reasoning, and they probably make many more
appeals of this kind than any other class of men.
1. All the evidences of the truth of divine revelation are based on this idea. The appeal from miracles,
from prophecy, and from the doctrines of the Bible,
are appeals to the reason of men, who, in such arguments, are presumed to be capable of judging in the
case whether the Bible is such a revelation as it becomes
God to make, or is reasonable in its claims on mankind.
If there was no such power of judging, then such
appeals would have no force; and if the arguments
addressed to men in favor of the Bible cannot be made
to commend themselves to reason, even the advocates
and defenders of the Bible assume that it cannot be
received by the world. There are none of those defenders who would attempt to urge men to receive a
book whose principles and commands were admitted by
themselves to be unreasonable, nor could they hope or
expect to be able to convince men that such a book ought
to be received by mankind. They may attempt to show,




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             71
and they may do it successfully, that many of the statements in revelation are above the reason of mankind, and
that the statements of a revelation from God may be expected to bear this character, and that this fact should
be no barrier to the reception of the book as a revelation; but no one would maintain that the statements
of a revelation from God are to be expected to be
contradictory to reason, and should not on that account
be rejected. It is always assumed in all the arguments
in favor of a revelation, that if the statements in the
book are contradictory to reason, or are not consistent
with the best exercise of reason, the book cannot be
received; for it is assumed that God is the author of
reason, and that all the statements which He makes
must be consistent with the proper exercise of the
faculties with which He has endowed mankind.
2. Men preach in this way. They expect to commend the doctrines which they preach to the reason of
their hearers, or, at least, to show that they are not
contradictory to the proper laws of reason; and if they
cannot do this, they have no hope of being successful.
It is their hope and their belief that they may be able
so to present the doctrines which they preach, that they
shall appear to their hearers to be reasonable doctrines,
or, at least, if the positive reasonableness of the doctrines
cannot be made apparent, that they shall not be unreasonable, or contrary to reason; and in proportion as
they can do this, they entertain the hope that their
doctrines will be received by mankind. They would
entertain no hope if the doctrines which they preach
were palpably contrary to reason, or if the arguments
by which they were sustained were at variance with
all the rules of logic; and though for the authority of




72         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
those doctrines, and for their binding obligation, they
depend on the will of God; and though they promulgate
doctrines which are above reason, or which reason
could never have discovered, yet they could have no
hope of success if their doctrines were a violation of
the plain dictates of reason, nor could they entertain
such a hope if they were unable to show that it is reasonable that man should obey the will of God. All
this supposes that there is something besides mere will
-even the will of God-in the case; that there is
something back of that will which makes that will
right and proper. If it were not so, then all reasoning
on the doctrines of religion would be vain and useless;
then it would be of no consequence to be able to show
that it is reasonable to obey the will of God; then it
would be a matter of indifference what doctrines were
inculcated for human belief, provided it were shown us
that they were the exponents of the will of God; then
it would be diffitult to see why man was endowed with
reason, or why he was so made that there would be
danger that he would regard this as of importance in
religion. Then, too, it would be difficult to account
for the fact that God so made the mind of man that he
naturally employs the aid of reason in judging of the
subject of religion-since, if it were true that reason
has nothing to do with religion, or if it were improper
to make any appeal to it, it would seem that God had
so made the mind as to lead necessarily to a perpetual
mistake on the subject, by having so endowed man
that he naturally supposes that this is a competent tribunal before which to bring the doctrines of religion.
Then, also, it would follow that they who should show
the least deference to reason in their preaching, or




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             73
whose doctrines were most difficult to be reconciled to
reason —that is, most absurd —would be likely to be
most successful in their preaching; a maxim which,
however it may seem to be acted on by many in their
preaching, would not be likely to be one that would be
openly avowed. Then, also, it would follow that the
labor of Butler in the "Analogy," was a useless, if not
a pernicious labor, for the great object of that immortal
work is to show that revealed religion is reasonable,
since it conforms in its great principles to the constitution and course of nature; and then, too, it would
seem that nothing was gained by so endowing President
Edwards with the power of ratiocination that in this
respect he should, by common consent, be placed at
the head of the race, and by inclining him to exert
those great powers in showing that the doctrines of revealed religion are conformable to the highest deductions of reason, since the whole work which he performed
proceeded on the supposition that reason is, in some
way, a proper tribunal before which to bring the doctrines of revealed religion. All the reasoning in Butler
and Edwards proceeds on the supposition that there
is a standard of judging distinct from mere will, and
that the doctrines of revelation commend themselves to
men because the will of God is conformable to such a
standard, and may be judged of by reason.
3. The same thing follows from all the attempts
which are made to vindicate the character of God. If
his will is not only the ultimate, but the only standard,
or, in other words, if it is his will only which makes
anything right or wrong, then it would seem to be impossible, in any proper sense, to vindicate his character,
and as needless as it is impossible, since all that would




74          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
be necessary or proper in the case would be simply to
show what he is, what he wills, and what he does. For,
what is it to vindicate a character? It is: " to defend, to
justify, to support or maintain as true or correct, against
denial, censure, or objection."- Webster. That is, it is to
show that what is thus vindicated or defended is worthy
of confidence as judged by some standard of integrity.
When we vindicate the character of a lawgiver, it is
with reference to the constitution under which he acts,
and the proprieties of his station; when we vindicate
the character of a magistrate, it is with reference to the
law by which he is appointed, and the integrity demanded in his office; when we vindicate the character
of a neighbor, it is with reference to some rule of
morality or propriety in the intercourse of man with
man. We affirm, in such cases, of a man, that he is
upright, moral, pure, just, chaste, benevolent, impartial;
that is, we have an idea of what it is to be upright,
moral, pure, just, chaste, benevolent, impartial, and we
judge of him with reference to the conformity of his
conduct to that standard.  What is meant when it
is said that God is holy? Do men intend to say that
God, by his mere will, determines a thing to be holy,
and then simply that his conduct is conformable to his
own will? Can this truism be all that is meant when
men maintain respecting God, or when God affirms of
himself, that he is holy? What is meant where it is
affirmed that he is righteous, or that his conduct is just?
Do men mean that he, by a mere determination of will,
makes a thing to be righteous or just, and then that his
own conduct is conformable to what he has been pleased
to make righteous or just? Was this all that Abraham




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             75
meant when he said: " Shall not the Judge of all the
earth do right?"
And in vindicating the higher doctrines of Christianity-the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation,
the atonement, and the Scripture statement in regard to
future retribution-do not the friends and advocates of
those doctrines endeavor to prove that such truths do
not violate any of the principles of sound reason?
While they cheerfully admit that they are above reason, in the sense that reason could not have discovered them, and that the reason of man is not competent now, if it will ever be, fully to comprehend
them, is it ever conceded that they are contrary to
sound reason?  Do not the advocates of those doctrines steadfastly maintain that if the understanding
of man was sufficiently comprehensive to embrace
them in the fulness of their meaning, that they would
be said to be in entire accordance with the principles of sound reason?  Could they hope or expect
that they would secure the assent of mankind, if,
while they are stated to be above reason, they should
also be admitted to be contrary to reason? And, in
particular, in regard to the doctrine of future punishment-the eternal sufferings of any portion of the
creatures of God —the most difficult and incomprehensible of all the doctrines of the Bible, do not
the advocates of that doctrine always maintain that
there are reasons for the eternal punishment of the
wicked which will be satisfactory to the universe when
they are understood; that if those reasons could be
seen now the mind would acquiesce in them; and
that it will be seen hereafter that, fearful as that doctrine is, the character of God, even in inflicting the




76          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
punishment, is worthy of universal confidence and
love?  We have, in fact, the following statement in
the Bible itself, in regard to the effect on holy beings
of the inflictions of God's just judgment on the wicked:
"I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia! salvation, and glory, and honor, and
power unto the Lord our God; for true and righteous
are his judgments. And again they said, Alleluia.
And her smoke rose up forever and ever." —Rev. xix.
1-3. And in all these attempts to vindicate these
doctrines; to vindicate the character of God in view
of these doctrines; to show that these doctrines are conformable to reason, and that the character of God is
holy, just, and righteous, is it not implied that there is
something back of mere will that is an element in judging; that there is some standard of what is reasonable
and right, by which God admits that even his own
character is to be judged?   as he not made us so
that it is necessary that the doctrines Which he reveals,
as well as his own conduct and character, shall be seen
to be conformable to that standard before we can perceive that he is worthy of confidence and love? Has
he not so made us that we could not honor him if it
was seen by us that his character and dealings were in
violation of those principles which he has made to be
the standard by which our own minds determine what
is right? When God appeals to us, and when men
attempt to vindicate his character, is the ground of
the appeal and of the vindication, the mere fact that
God has done what he has done, and that, therefore, it
is right, or that all that is right in his act is in his
will; or is it that there is such a thing as right in
itself, and that we have been so made, after his own




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            77
image, that we can see and appreciate what is right
when it is fairly submitted to our understanding? If
this is not so, what do men mean when they attempt
to vindicate the character of God? Certain it is that
the statements in the Bible are founded on the supposition that the laws of God, and the dealings of God,
can be so presented to the minds of men that they will
be seen to be right; that they will be seen to be not
mere expressions of will, but the expressions of eternal
justice, goodness, and truth. And certain it is that
whatever men may maintain in regard to the question
whether there is such a thing as right and wrong in
the nature of things with which the divine dealings
will be found to accord, and by which he judges of
his own conduct, and expects to be judged by others,
they always proceed on this supposition in all their
attempts to vindicate God.
4. It is worthy of serious inquiry what the character
of God is if this is not so. Let it be assumed that there
is no such thing as right and wrong in themselves, or
in the nature of things; that all this is determined by
mere will; that that is right which God has made
right, and that wrong which he has made wrong, and
that the one is right and the other wrong only because
he has made them so, and then what, on this supposition, is the character of God, and what is the claim
which he has to the homage, the confidence, and the
love of the universe which he has made?
The following consequences would seem to follow
inevitably from such an assumption:(a) That of such a character we know not whether
it is good or evil; or rather it is, in fact, neither, since
all that is to determine whether it is good or evil is in




78          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
his own will. We cannot apply the terms good or
evil to such a character, for the terms, in such a case,
convey no idea. We can predicate power of such a
being; we can predicate of him sagacity, wisdom,
skill; we can also predicate benevolence, for the tendency of.his acts may be to promote happiness; but
how can we predicate right or wrong of such a being;
or how can we say that his benevolence is a virtue,
unless it be assumed that there is such a thing as
right, and that benevolence is a virtue because it is
right?
(b) A malignant being might be all that would be
implied in the idea under consideration. If clothed
with absolute authority and power, he might determine, by an act of will, that his own deeds were right;
that his will was the standard, and that the good or
evil of all acts was to be determined by that will. If,
for example, the laws of such a being were just the
reverse of what the laws of God are, it is impossible to
see, on the supposition now under consideration, how
they could be disapproved of by mankind, or how
they could be regarded as wrong, since, by the supposition, all that there is of moral character in such
acts and laws is determined solely by the will of the
being himself..
(c) In such a case, also, there would be a jar or discrepancy between our nature as God has made us, and
the conclusion which we should be compelled to come
to respecting himself. There can be no doubt that we
have been so made that we are under a necessity of
believing that there is such a thing as right and wrong,
or that the human mind, when it acts freely, comes to
this conclusion; and there can be as little doubt that




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            79
we have been so made as to apply this mode of judging
to the acts of our Maker as well as our own; in other
words, to judge him and his doings by this as a standard. The considerations which have been suggested
above seem to be conclusive on this point. If this be
true, then it would follow that he has so formed us that
there is a jar or discrepancy which he has himself
made between what is true and what, by the laws of
our nature, we are so constituted as to regard as true;
that is, he has so made us that we apply this rule of
judging to all things, even to his own character and
acts, while, in fact, there is no such thing in existence.
There is no right and wrong such as we assume in our
judgments, and the supposition that there is is a mere
fallacy. Why God should have made us so, would
then be a grave matter of consideration. Why he has
so constituted us that we should pass through this world
at least under a constant illusion —a practical falsehood
-would be a problem that would perplex us more
than any of the existing facts in the other supposition.
What confidence we should have in such a being, or
why we should exercise any confidence in him, would
be questions which, indeed, it might be easy to solve,
but the solution would cast a darker shadow over the
universe than has been thrown over it by what we are
now constrained to regard as sin, as evil in itself and
evil in its tendency. If there is anything on which the
human mind is perfectly settled and firm in its conclusions, it is that the interpretations which it is designed
by our constitution that we shall put on the acts of
our Maker, are such as are in accordance with truth,
or that they give a fair exposition of his character.
What he meant should be regarded as true is not




80         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
falsehood; what he has made us to regard as right
cannot be wrong.
(d) Further; on the supposition now under consideration, we should not know what we worshipped. We
approach God now, taught by all the constitutional
laws of our being, as a God of holiness, justice, truth,
goodness, mercy, meaning by those terms all that they
naturally and properly convey. We suppose that they
do mean something; that they mean all that can be
understood to be implied in them. In the most absolute and unconditional sense, we feel that God is holy,
just, true, good, and merciful. Our feelings in our
worship are not distracted and divided by such questions as these: whether these terms mean anything;
whether all that there is in the case is not the mere
result of will; whether we have not mistaken the
proper interpretation to be put on the acts of our
Maker; and whether all that we have heretofore
regarded as reality is not, in fact, mere illusion; that
all this is the appointment of mere will-a will which
might have made just the reverse of these things to be
proper and right if God had chosen that it should be
SO.
Who could honor such a God? How true in such
a case, in reference to all those who now desire to
worship the true God, would be the declaration of the
Saviour in regard to the Samaritans: "Ye worship ye
know not what."-John iv. 22.
But the God of the Bible is not such a God. He is
a God who is holy, and just, and true, and good, and
merciful; a God, the Judge of all the earth, who does
" right" (Gen. viii. 25); "a God of truth and without
iniquity, JUST AND RIGHT IS HE."-Deut. xxxii. 4.




IN THE WORD OF GOD.              81
~ 2. The Bible appeals to the conscience or moral sense
of mankind.
The meaning of this proposition is, that the Bible
presumes that there is a conscience in man, or that he
is endowed with a capability of judging of right and
wrong. It is further meant that this power of judging,
so far, at least, as to be a proper ground of appeal, lies
back of the direct teachings of revelation, and that
whatever a revelation may do in enlarging or correcting the power of judging, it presumes that it, in fact,
exists in the mind of man. And still further, the
meaning of the proposition is, that the Bible presumes
that its own distinct and peculiar revelations on the subjects of right and wrong will so commend themselves
to mankind, that they will see that its commands are
right; so that they may be made to feel the consciousness of guilt for not obeying those commands, and so
that they will approve of them as founded on eternal
principles of justice.
In illustration and proof of this proposition, I submit the following remarks:(1) The Bible expressly makes this appeal, and
relies on it as one of the foundations of its hopes of
success in diffusing its truths. Thus the Apostle Paul
says (2 Cor. iv. 1, 2): " Therefore, seeing we have this
ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not:
but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty,
not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God
deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the
sight of God."  Here it is assumed that there are
such things as dishonesty and deceit —things that are
"dark" in their nature or "hidden"-things that will




82          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
not bear the light of day, and it was with the apostle
a fixed purpose to renounce all such methods of influencing men-never assuming that it is the province of revelation to make that appear right which
men, in these respects, regard as wrong, or to assume that men have no correct judgment of what is
right and wrong. It is assumed further that men have
a "conscience," even when they have no revelation, and
that that conscience is competent to pronounce a judgment on the doctrines of revelation. It is assumed
further that the true way of meeting the demands of
such a conscience is to be found in "the manifestation
of the truth."  And it is further assumed that " truth"the revealed truth of God-even the highest and
the holiest of the truths which He has revealed —can
be so presented to the minds of men as to secure the
approbation of conscience; that is, so that there shall
be an entire correspondence between the truths so
presented and the decisions of conscience as to what
is right. It is obvious that no such appeal could be
made on the supposition that there is no such thing as
right and wrong in themselves considered, or if men
have no power of any kind of judging of what is
right or wrong. If right and wrong are determined
by an arbitrary decree, then it is clear that it would
be utterly in vain, and wholly improper, to make such
an appeal as that referred to by the apostle in the passage before us; and it is also clear that, on that supposition, the style and drift of his preaching would
have been quite different from that implied in this
passage. The substance of his preaching, in such a
case, must have been that God may determine, without
any reference to the nature of things, or the nature of




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             83
men, what is right, and that he may require that that
shall be received as right, however it may appear to
man. In such a case the last thing that would be
done would be to make an appeal to the moral sense
of mankind.
A similar passage occurs in 2 Cor. vi. 4. "In all
things approving [marg. commending] ourselves as the ministers of God:" that is, by showing to mankind that we
pursue such a course of life as they must see to be in
accordance with what the ministers of religion should be
-to wit, " by pureness, by knowledge, by long suffering,
by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, by
the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armor
of righteousness:" vs. 6, 7. Here it is assumed that
there is a course of life which men must perceive to be
proper for the ministers of religion; a course of life in
reference to which they form a judgment from the
promptings of their nature; a course which is fit in
itself, and which it is reasonable for men to expect and
demand in those who claim to be ministers of a revealed religion.
A passage of similar import occurs in Romans v. 8:
"God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while
we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." That is, he
appeals to us in proof that that was a proper expression
of love; that it was such an act as love would suggest,
and such as ought to meet the approval of mankind.
It is assumed here that men are endowed with the
faculty of judging what is proper and right as an expression of love, and that all that is demanded in such
an expression was found in the act of God in giving His
Son to die for men when they were yet sinners. There
was that which, in the nature of things, was demanded




84          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
as the proper expression of love, and all this was found
in the work of redemption.
A statement similar to those just made, and confirming
the inferences drawn from them, occurs in Romans ii.
14, 15: "When the Gentiles, which have not the law,
do by nature the things contained in the law, these
having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which
show the work of the law written in their hearts, their
conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts
the meanwhile accusing, or else excusing one another."
In this passage, all that has been affirmed in the
previous pages on the point now under consideration,
is implied. It is supposed that men have a conscience,
or that they are endowed with a power of judging of
right and wrong; it is assumed that there is such a thing
as right and wrong independently of the revealed will of
God; it is assumed that their conviction of what is
right has to them with propriety the force of law; it
is assumed that these things accord with the revealed
law of God; and, of course, it is assumed that the
revealed law or will of God will commend itself to
their consciences, or will be such as they will approve.
It is supposed, moreover, that this law is so uniform in
its operations among the Gentiles, even amidst all the
errors which prevail, as to show that it has its foundation in the nature of man, and is not dependent on
local laws and local legislation. In other words, there
is something in man everywhere which responds to the
notions of right and wrong, and which, as it approves
of right as far as it is known, it is to be presumed will
approve of right when its higher claims are disclosed
by revelation. The sadness of the condition in the
heathen world was not that they did not understand




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             85
the distinction between right and wrong, or that they
did not know what was right, but it was that they did
that which they knew to be wrong, or which their
own consciences condemned.
A similar passage also occurs in Phil. iv. 8. "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest,
whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure,
whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of
good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be
any praise, think on these things." Here it is assumed
that there are things which in their own nature are
true, honest, just, pure, lovely, and of good report;
that there is such a thing as virtue, and that there are
things which are deserving of praise or commendation,
and these are presented as objects of pursuit by all
true Christians.  There is a standard of right and
wrong. It is not a mere arbitrary standard made by
revelation. There are things which men universally
approve as true, and just, and pure, and lovely; and
these, whatever other virtues Christians may have,
should be found in their own character, as commend.
ing their religion to their fellow men.
(2) The point here stated is assumed by all who
attempt to defend the Bible. They endeavor to show
that the precepts of the Bible are such as are adapted
to meet the approbation of conscience, and that they
ought to meet that approbation. They endeavor to
prove that, while, in very many respects, the precepts
of the Bible are in advance of the disclosures of duty
made by conscience, up to the point where disclosures are. made, conscience and the Bible harmonize,
and that the higher disclosures are but carrying out
the same principles. They endeavor to demonstrate
7




86         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
that the precepts of the Bible meet the demands of
conscience, and that they are such as, being obeyed,
would produce in the highest degree the happiness of
men.
This argument will be found in all the works which
are designed to enforce the laws of the Bible, and in
all the books on morality which are founded on the
authority of that book. A man would not seriously
set himself to write a book in defence of the Bible if,
in order to his undertaking, it was necessary to admit
that the precepts of the Bible are a violation of the
convictions of men in regard to natural justice, truth,
probity, chastity, honor, and honesty, and if, in order
to his argument, it was necessary to show that the
views usually entertained on those subjects are false,
and are to be set aside in the purest system of morals.
The Bible makes its way among men, and sustains
its hold on society as it advances in intelligence and
morality, because its precepts commend themselves to
the moral sense of mankind. It is not so much by
abstract argument; it is not so much because men
always have before their minds distinctly the recollection of the argument from miracles and prophecy; it
is because men see the truth and beauty of the moral
precepts of the book itself, and because those precepts
commend themselves to them as true, and useful, and
good.
(3) As a matter of fact, the precepts of the Bible do
thus commend themselves to mankind. The grounds
of objection to the Bible have never, to any extent,
been drawn from its moral precepts. In fact, those
precepts have gone into the legislation, and the business arrangements of the world, and are admitted by




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            87
the great mass of mankind to be the true foundation
of morals. The laws in the Decalogue; the command
to love God and our neighbor; the injunctions requiring us to be meek, gentle, pure, benevolent, chaste, forgiving; the rules laid down in the Bible relating to parents and children, husbands and wives, masters andservants; the precepts respecting the proper treatment of the
poor and needy, the down-trodden and the oppressed,
the widow and the fatherless, the stranger and the prisoner, are such as all men must and do approve. They
commend themselves to them as in entire accordance
with those great principles of morality which have
been engraven on their nature, and as being adapted
to promote the highest interests of society. Every
man must see and admit that if those directions were
obeyed by all men, the world would at once put on a
new aspect, and that peace and happiness would be
diffused over the globe.
It is true that not a few of these rules when they
were given were in advance of the prevailing opinions
and customs of the world. It is true, for example,
that the commands in the New Testament forbidding
revenge, and enjoining the forgiveness of injuries, were
at first in conflict with many opinions which then prevailed, and many of the arrangements in society, for
many of the customs of the world had been formed
on the supposition that revenge should be taken, and
that an enemy should not be forgiven; but it is true
also that society, in its progress, has come up to these
precepts, and that the customs of the world are more
and more shaping themselves to the doctrines of the
New Testament on these points. Society will yet adjust itself into entire conformity with those rules.




88          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
It is, however, to be admitted that some of the commands of the Old Testament have been made a ground
of objection to the Bible, as being irreconcilable with
the injunctions of the New Testament, or with just
principles of morality. The most prominent instances
of this nature would probably be the command to
Abraham to offer his son in sacrifice; and the command
to the invading Hebrews to exterminate the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. It may be proper to consider how far these should be regarded as constituting
an objection to the Bible.
Mr. Newman, in his work on the "Soul," affirms that
in many cases the Bible sanctions, and even enjoins,
things which shock his moral sense as flagrantly immoral, and that he must, therefore, reject the Bible. He,
in different places of his work, gives three instances:
the assassination of Sisera, by the wife of HEeber; the
command to Abraham to sacrifice his son; and the
extermination of the Canaanites. The first of these
certainly may be laid out of the account, as there is
no evidence that God authorized the assassination, and
there is as little evidence that he has expressed any
approbation of it as there is that he did of the murder
of Uriah by David. The second and third instances
deserve a more formal notice, as it is presumed, from the
fact that these cases are selected, that they are the most
difficult, and as the principles of explanation to be
applied to them would eventually meet all the instances
in the Bible.
In reference to the latter of these two-the command
to exterminate the inhabitants of Canaan —it may be
remarked (a) that the command is expressly placed on
the ground of the amazing depravity of those nations,




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             89
as if the cup of their iniquity was full; (b) that what
actually occurred was attended with no more horror
or suffering than what actually occurs on the earth as
a consequence of storms, earthquakes, plagues, and
famines; (c) that it is no real ground of objection to
the character of God that he gives command to storms,
and plagues, and famines, to sweep away, amidst scenes
of vast suffering, men, women, and children by thousands and tens of thousands; (d) that it is difficult to
see why a command might not with the same propriety
be given to men to execute such a work of justice; (e)
that it is no reflection on the character of an executive
of a government that he issues a warrant to a sheriff
for the execution of a man convicted of crime, or for
the sheriff to carry the command into execution; (f)
that the commands in question were in no sense a departure from what was understood at the time to be
proper in war; and (g) that those commands were not
given as a general rule in the treatment of other nations, but as a special rule in reference to those who
had become incorrigibly wicked, and whom God had
resolved to remove from the earth. It is difficult to
see how that command can be objected to, unless the
objection shall be made to lie also against God's right
to dispose of wicked nations, and against what he
actually does in sweeping off by other than human
agents vast multitudes of people-people of either sex,
the aged, the helpless, and the young, in the horrors
of conflagration, shipwreck, pestilence, and famine. If
a man will make the trial, he will see that it may be
as easy to vindicate the character of God in respect to
the one as in respect to the other: and admitting that
that was a special case, and not designed for the gene



90          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
ral direction of mankind, it will be easy to see that
the precepts of the Bible in regard to peace, and
the forgiveness of enemies, and the treatment of the
aged, the feeble, and the helpless, are such as commend
themselves to all men as in accordance with every sentiment of humanity and justice.
In one word, the case must be considered just as it is
represented in the Bible. It is not a general command
to make war; it is not an injunction to inflict cruelty
on enemies in general; it is not a rule which can be
alleged by one who is disposed to invade an unoffending people; it is a command to inflict punishment on a
specified people of eminent wickedness, and ON ACCOUNT
of their wickedness, and FOR NO OTHER CAUSE: a command as specific as a death-warrant, addressed to a
sheriff, in respect to a man convicted of murder, or as
specific as we may suppose his command is to earthquakes, to storms, to the pestilence, to sweep off the
aged, and the helpless, and the harmless, in horrors
more deep, more dreadful, and more prolonged than
those of war. For anything that appears to the contrary, a sheriff might, with just as much propriety, urge
the fact that a death-warrant has been directed to him
against a convicted murderer, as authority for inflicting
indiscriminate vengeance on all classes of men, as any
one now could urge the command to exterminate the
Canaanites as justifying offensive war; or an objector
might argue, with just as much propriety, that the laws
of the United States, or of England, are such as to
"shock the moral sense of mankind," because they direct such a death-warrant to an executioner, as to draw
a similar inference in regard to the character of God
from the command to exterminate the Canaanites.




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             91
In reference to this command, the following remarks
by the author of the Eclipse of Faith (pp. 149, 150, 151,
152, 153), seem to me to be so forcible that I copy
them. They show that the objection should have a
higher range than it has when levelled against the
Bible; that it is, in fact, an objection against the actual
government of the world, and, therefore, is not one
with which the defender of the Bible has any peculiar
concern.
" Now, whether the Bible represents God, or not, in
all these cases, as sanctioning the things in question, I
shall not be at the pains to inquire, because I am willing to take it for granted that Mr. Newman's representation is perfectly correct. I only think that he
ought, in consistency, to have gone a little further.
Let him defend, as in perfect harmony with his'intuitions' of right and wrong, the undeniably similar
instances which occur in the administration of the
universe; or, if it be found impossible to solve those
difficulties, let him acknowledge either that our supposed essential'intuitions' of moral rectitude are not
to be trusted, as applicable to the Supreme Being, and
that, therefore, the argument from them against the
Bible is inconclusive; or, that no such being exists; or,
lastly, that He has conferred upon man an intuitive
conception of moral equity and rectitude-of the just
and the unjust-in most edifying contradiction to his
own character and proceedings!
"Here Fellowes broke in:"'If, indeed, there be any such instances; but I think
Mr. Newman would reply that they will be sought for
in vain in the'world,' however plentiful, as I admit.
they are, in the Bible.'




92          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
"'I know not whether he would deny them or not,'
said Harrington;'but they are found in great abundance in the world, notwithstanding, and this is my
difficulty. If Mr. Newman were the creator of the
universe, no question, none of these contradictions
between'intuitions' within and stubborn'facts' without, would be found. He has created a God after his
own mind; if he could but have created a universe
also after his own mind, we should, doubtless, have
been relieved from all our perplexities. But, unhappily, we find in it, as I imagine, the very things which
so startle Mr. Newman in the Scriptural representations
of the divine character and proceedings. Is he not,
like all other infidels, peculiarly scandalized that God
should have enjoined the extermination of the Canaanites? and yet does not God do still more startling things
every day of our lives, and which appear less startling
only because we are familiar with them-at least, if
we believe that the elements, pestilence, famine, in a
word, destruction in all its forms, really fulfil his bidding? Is there any difference in the world between
the cases, except that the terrible phenomena which we
find it impossible to account for are on an infinitely
larger scale, and in duration as ancient as the world —
that they have, in fact, been going on for thousands of
weary years, and, for aught you or I can tell, and as
Mr. Newman seems to think probable, for millions of
years? Does not a pestilence or a famine send thousands of the guilty and the innocent alike-nay, thousands of those who know not their right hand from
their left-to one common destruction? Does not God
(if you suppose it his doing) swallow up whole cities
by earthquake, or overwhelm  them  with volcanic




IN THE WORD OF GOD.              93
fires? I say is there any difference between the cases,
except that the victims are very rarely so wicked as
the Canaanites are said to have been, and that God in
the one case himself does the very things which he
commissions men to do in the other? Now, if the
thing be wrong, I, for one, shall never think it less
wrong to do it one's self than to do it by proxy.'
"'But,' said Fellowes, rather warmly, for he felt
rather restive at this part of Harrington's discourse,'it is absurd to compare such sovereign acts of inexplicable will on the part of God with his command to a
being so constituted as man to perform them.'
"'Absurd be it,' said Harrington,'only be so kind
as to show it to be so, instead of saying so. I maintain
that the one class of facts are just as'inexplicable,' as
you call it, as the other, and only appear otherwise
because, in the one case, we daily see them, have
become accustomed to them, and what is more than all,
cannot deny them, which last we can so promptly do in
the other case, for Moses is not here to contradict us.
But I rather think that a being constituted morally
and intellectually like us, who had never known any
but a world of happiness, would just as promptly deny
that God could ever perform such feats as are daily
performed in this worldI I repeat that, if, for some
reasons (' inexplicable,' I grant you), God does not mind
doing such things, he is not likely to hesitate to enjoin
them, for reasons perhaps equally inexplicable. I say
perhaps, for, as I compare such an event as the earthquake in Lisbon, or the plague in London, with the
extermination of the Canaanites, I solemnly assure you
that I find a greater difficulty, as far as my' intuitions'
go, in supposing the former event to have been effected




94,         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
by a divine agency than the latter. If we take the
Scripture history, we must at least allow that the race
thus doomed had long tried the patience of Heaven by
their flagrant impiety and unnatural vices; that they
had become a centre and a source (as we sometimes
see collections of men to be) of moral pestilence, in the
vicinage of which it was unsafe for men to dwell; that,
as the Scriptures say (whether truly or falsely I do not
inquire), they had' filled up the measure of their iniquities.' Let this be supposed as fictitious as you please,
still the whole proceeding is represented as a solemn
judicial one; and, supposing the events to have occurred just as they are narrated, it positively seems to
me much less difficult to suppose them to harmonize
with the character of a just and even beneficent being,
than those wholesale butcheries which have desolated
the world, in every hour of its long history, without
any discrimination whatever of innocence or guilt;
which, if they have inflicted unspeakable miseries on
the immediate victims, have produced probably as
much, or more, in the agony of the myriad myriads of
hearts which have bled or broken in unavailing sorrow
over the sufferings they could not relieve. Such things
(I speak now only of what man has not, in any sense,
inflicted) are, in your view, as undeniably the work of
God as is the extermination of the Canaanites, according to the Bible. Why, if God does not mind doing
such things, are we to suppose that he minds, on some
occasions, ordering them to be done, unless we suppose
that man (delicate creature) has more refined intuitions of right and wrong, and knows better what they
are, than God himself? Now, Mr. Newman and you
affirm that, to suppose God should have enjoined the




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             95
destruction of the Canaanites, is a contradiction of our
moral intuitions, and that, for this and similar reasons,
you cannot believe the Bible to be the word of God. I
answer that the things I have mentioned are in still
more glaring contradiction to such'intuitions,' than
which none appears to me more clear than this: that
the morally innocent ought not to suffer; and I therefore doubt whether the above phenomena are the work
of God. I must refuse, on the very same principle on
which Mr. Newman disallows the Bible to be a true
revelation of such a Being, to allow this universe to
be so. In equally glaring inconsistency is the entire
administration of this lower world with what appears
to me a first principle of moral rectitude, namely, that
he who suffers a wrong to be inflicted on another, when
he can prevent it, is responsible for the wrong itself.
The whole world is full of such instances.' "
The command addressed to Abraham to offer his son
as a sacrifice, is a difficulty of a similar character, but
of a higher kind. It would be said that the command
is a violation of all the instinctive feelings of our nature;
that it enjoins the perpetration of what has everywhere
been regarded as a crime of the highest character, and
one most rarely committed even by depraved men-the
murder of a son; that we are even shocked at what
has been regarded as the rigid Roman virtue of Brutus
who presided on the trial of his son, and condemned
him to death; that there could be no sufficient evidence
furnished to Abraham that a command to do this came
from God; that so strong is the instinctive feeling of
love to a child implanted in our very nature, and so
universal is that feeling, that Abraham should have at
once rejected any supposed command to imbrue his own




96          THE FOUNDATION OF. FAITH
hand in the blood of his son as illusory; and that men
ought not to receive a book as a revelation from God,
in which there occurs a command so shocking to the
purest feelings, the holiest instincts, and the best "intentions" of mankind.
As this case is undoubtedly the strongest of the kind
that could be referred to, and as it involves all the difficulty that can be found in any case, it may be proper
to notice it a little more particularly.
1. The first remark to be made is, that it is important
to ascertain exactly what the case was, and the objections
should be considered in view of the exact case, for an
objector has no right to go beyond that, or to include
in his objection anything which does not properly belong to the case. The facts, then, are these:First. The command given to Abraham was a special,
not a general command. It was addressed to him, and
to no other. It related to that time, and to that son,
and to no other time and to no other son. It was not
a general rule in regard to his authority over his children; it would not have justified him in a similar
treatment of another son; nor would it justify another
parent in the same treatment of a child. It was not in
itself so general, nor did it involve any principle so
general, that it could be a guide in any other case, and
it does not, therefore, stand on the same level as the
general command inwrought into our nature, and confirmed by revelation, to love our children, to protect
them, to provide for them.
Second. The command related to his offering him as
a sacrifice to God, on the principle of devoting to him
that which was most valued and most valuable. "Take
now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest,




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             97
and get thee into the land of Moriah, and offer him
there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains
which I will tell thee of."-Gen. xxii. 3. Whatever
objection, therefore, may lie against the narrative, it
can be only in this point of view: not whether a command authorizing a parent to take the life of a son for
any object would be proper, but whether it would be
proper for God to command a man to offer his son, in
a specified case, as a burnt-offering. Great as may be
the difficulties in regard to this, yet this is the difficulty,
and the only difficulty, and the subject should not be
encumbered with any additional embarrassment. This
is at least a simple and a tangible question, whether it
would be right for God to command a father to devote
his own son as a sacrifice.
Third. It is plain that Abraham supposed that Isaac
would be raised to life again. This might be inferred
from the very narrative in Genesis; for there was an
express promise made before this that Isaac should be
the ancestor of a numerous posterity, and that through
him all the nations of the earth should be blessed.
Thus, in Gen. xxi. 12, God is represented as saying to
Abraham, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called." Comp.
Gen. xvii. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. As this promise was positive,
Abraham must have believed that no command from
God could conflict with it, and he must have inferred,
therefore, that even if Isaac should be offered in sacrifice, God would raise him up again from the dead.
But this, which would seem to be so plain as a matter
of inference, is expressly stated by an apostle to have
been the fact. "By faith Abraham, when he was
tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the
promises offered up his only-begotten son, of whom




98         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
it was said, that in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even
from the dead."-Heb. xi. 17-19.
Fourth. It is manifest that it was never intended
that Abraham should be allowed to proceed so far in
the transaction as actually to imbrue his hands in the
blood of his son. This is apparent not only from the
result, or from the fact that he was checked when
about to slay him, but from the statement which
accompanies the account of the transaction: "Lay not
thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything
unto him, for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing
that thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son,
from me."-Gen. xxii. 12. If there is any difficulty in
the supposition that God gave a command merely to
try him, and then revoked the command, that difficulty
belongs to another subject, and should not be brought
in here to embarrass the point now under consideration.
The plain statement is-and that is all that we have
now to do with-that it was never intended that he
should be allowed to take the life of his son; but it
was meant that there should be the strongest possible
trial of faith, and that, when the strength of his faith
was tested, showing that he was willing to sacrifice
anything that he had to God, and to obey any command, however difficult and extraordinary, the command should then be revoked. Accordingly, an arrangement was made, showing conclusively that this
was the purpose; the arrangement by which a ram,
caught in the thicket, was substituted for a sacrifice in
the place of that which Abraham had expected to
offer.
These are the sole facts in the narrative, and the




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            99
Scripture account is to be held responsible only for
these.
2. The second point relates to the inquiry whether
there are any principles which would show that it is
conceivable that God could give such a command, or
whether it does not so violate our "instincts," and all
our convictions of what is right, that it would be impossible for a good man to receive such a command
and to purpose to obey it. In other words, can a
revelation be received as from God which contains one
such command-one direction, issued in a solitary case,
to offer up a son in sacrifice? This, it must be
admitted, is a grave and difficult question.
In reply to this inquiry, it may be remarked,
(a) That a book pretending to be a revelation from
God would not be received as such by mankind at large,
if it contained as one of the principles of religion a
general rule or law that a son-the first born, for example-was always to be offered in sacrifice. Men are
undoubtedly so made that they could not believe that
a command which would so violate all the instinctive
feelings of their nature could be from the God who is
the author of that nature. It could not be supposed
that the same Being had implanted these instincts, and
made them so tender and universal, and then that, in
a revelation to mankind, he would make it the duty of
all men habitually to disregard them. Men must believe that the laws of God are in harmony; and that
what he has implanted in our very nature will not be
contradicted in a real revelation of his will. Of two
systems so diametrically opposed, there could not be
the same author; one commanding men to love and
cherish their offering, and the other commanding them




100           THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
to imbrue their hands in their blood. It must be admitted, therefore, that if such a command had been
found in a book purporting to be a revelation from
God, making it a general rule or requirement that the
first born was to be offered in sacrifice by the hands of
a father, it would not have been possible to receive it as
a revelation from God, any more than it would be possible to receive a book as a revelation which should
command men to commit murder or adultery, or which
should require children not to honor their father or mother, or which should make falsehood and theft a duty.
If for example, the doctrine of Mr. Hume, that adultery
should be practised if men would obtain all the good
that can be secured in this life, or that it is no more
evil to turn a few ounces of blood from its accustomed
channel than any other liquid, and that therefore
suicide is innocent, were found in such a book, it
would be impossible for the race to receive it as a
revelation from God.*
* Thus Mr. Hume says, in an essay which he said was, "of all
his writings, historical, philosophical, or literary, incomparably the
best:" " The long and helpless infancy of man requires the combination of parents for the salvation of their young; and that combination requires the virtue of CHASTITY or fidelity to the marriage bed.
Without such a utility, it will readily be owned that such a virtue would
never have been thought of." (Philosophical Essays, vol. ii. p. 233.
Ed. 1817.) Chastity, therefore, according to Mr. Hume, is a matter
of convenience, not a matter of moral obligation.
In another place he says: "It is needless to dissemble. The
consequence of a very free commerce between the sexes, and their
living much together, will often terminate in intrigue and gallantry.
We must sacrifice somewhat of the useful, if we be very anxious to
obtain all the agreeable qualities; and cannot pretend to reap alike
every advantage. Instances of license daily multiplying will weaken
the scandal with the one sex, and teach the other by degrees to




IN THE WORD OF GOD.                  101
In reference to the matter now un~der consideration,
it may be remarked that the principle is undoubtedly
laid down in the Bible that all things belong to God,
and that the most choice and valuable of a man's posadopt the famous maxim of La Fontaine, with regard to female infidelity, that if one knows it, it is but a small matter; if one knows it
not, it is nothing." (Quoted by Dr. Magee, in the work on Atonement
and Sacrifice, p. 427. Ed. 1813.)
Thus, also, he teaches, in his Essay on Suicide, that " the life of a
man is of no greater importance than that of an oyster; and, as it is
admitted that there is no crime in diverting the Nile or the Danube
from their courses, so he contends that there can be none in turning a few ounces of blood from their natural channel." (Magee on
Atonement and Sacrifice, p. 429.)
Mr. Hume's doctrines on the subject of morals are thus summed
up by Dr. Beattie: "That justice is not a natural, but an artificial
virtue, dependent wholly on the arbitrary institutions of men, and
previous to the establishment of civil society not at all incumbent;
that moral, intellectual, and corporeal virtues are all of the same
kind; in other words, that to want honesty, to want understanding,
and to want a leg, are equally the obj ects of moral disapprobation, and
that it is no more a man's duty to be grateful or pious than to have
Uthe genius of Homer, and the strength and beauty of Achilles; that
every human action is necessary, and could not have been different
from what it is; that when we speak of power as an attribute of
any being, God himself not excepted, we use words without meaning; that we can form no idea of power, nor of any being endowed with power, much less of one endowed with infinite power;
and that we can never have any reason to believe that any object
or quality of an object exists of which we cannot form an idea; that
it is unreasonable to believe God to be infinitely wise and good,
while there is any evil or disorder in the universe, and that we
have no good reason to think that the universe proceeds from a
cause; that the external material world -does not exist, and that if
the external world be once called in doubt as to its existence, we shall
be at a loss to find arguments by which to prove the being of a God,
or any of his attributes; that those who believe anything certainly
are fools; that adultery must be practised, if men would obtain all
8




102           THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
sessions should be devoted to God either as a thankoffering or as a burnt-offering.  Under this principle,
the first-born of animals, if without blemish, was to be
offered in sacrifice.  Ex. xiii. 2, 12; xxii. 29; xxxiv.
19; Num. iii. 13; Deut. xv. 19. This principle, if
literally carried out, and if there had been no express
exception, might have led to the inference that the firstborn of children, if males, should be offered in sacrifice as well as the first-born of animals, for the principle
that the first-born as such belonged to God, and should
be devoted to him, was a principle that lay at the
foundation of the Hebrew economy. In order, therefore, to avoid this conclusion, and to prevent the possibility of a construction which would be so much at
war with every instinct of our nature, it was expressly
required that the first-born son should be'redeemed' by
a substitute offered in his place.  "And the first-born
of thy sons shalt thou redeem."-Ex. xxxiv. 20. " Every
firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and
if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck:
the advantages of life; that if generally practised, it would soon
cease to be scandalous, and that if practised secretly and frequently,
it would by degrees come to be thought no crime at all; that the
question concerning the substance of the soul is unintelligible; that
matter and motion may often be regarded as the cause of thought;
that the soul of man becomes every moment a different being, so
that the actions I performed last year, or yesterday, or this morning, whether virtuous or vicious, are no more imputable to me than
the virtues of Aristides are imputable to Nero, or the crimes of
Nero to the man of Ross." (Essay on the Nature and Immutability of
Truth, by Dr. Beattie, pp. 111-113.) COULD a book containing such
doctrines be received as a divine revelation? Is there nothing in
man which would be competent to judge on the question whether
such a book could be from a pure and holy God?




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            103
and all the first-born of man among thy children shalt
thou redeem."-Ex. xiii. 13. This principle was ultimately incorporated into the general arrangement that
the entire tribe of Levi should be substituted in the
place of the first-born of the whole people, as a tribe
peculiarly set apart to the service of God. Num. iii. 13.
Every precaution was, therefore, taken to avoid the possible conclusion in the application of a general principle,
that the first-born son should be offered in sacrifice.
But does the fact that one such command is found in
a book professing to be a revelation from God —found
in the circumstances in which it is found in the Bible;
so guarded that it is impossible to regard it as a general
rule for mankind; so defined that it never has been
pleaded as an argument for human sacrifice, justify the
conclusion that the book cannot be from God, or that
Abraham could hot have received them as a command
of God?
Let the following facts, then, be borne in mind: (1)
God is the author of life. (2) He has a right to take
it away. (3) He actually takes life away; often, too,
under forms far more fearful than would have been the
manner in which Isaac would have died. (4) He issues
his commands to his agents to take life away: to the
pestilence; to earthquakes; to storms; to diseases, most
painful, loathsome, and protracted. He actually asserts
the right to do this in any way that seems good to Him,
and informs which we should have said would never have
occurred under the government of a holy God. (5) If these
agents were conscious and intelligent, instead of being
blind and senseless; if storms and diseases were men,
instead of being storms and diseases, the command to
close life in the manner in which they are required




104        THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
to do it, would be infinitely more shocking to all the
sensibilities of our nature than was the command to
Abraham. Suppose that God should issue a command
to men to inflict on parts of the race all the sufferings
actually brought upon mankind by the cholera, the
plague, or the smallpox; suppose that this command
should appear to come forth in a manner that could not
be doubted, men might well stand aghast, and ask whether it was possible that such a command could be issued
by a benevolent God, and whether anything could be
sufficient to convince them that such a command came
from Him, and would justify them in going forth to do
this "strange work."  And, if we should conceive that
the diseases thus commanded to perform this work, and
the elements of our nature employed in carrying the
command into execution, were made conscious, might
we not suppose that they would stand appalled, and
ask whether it was possible that they should be commanded to execute a work that seemed so much to
violate all the principles on which we naturally judge
of the Maker of the worlds? The command to Abrahaml, in what seems to be severe, harsh, unnatural,
bears no comparison with the command which actually
goes forth from the Throne of God each day to cut
down the aged and the young-the beautiful and the
hopeful-the most tender and beloved of all the forms
of earth-infants, daughters, wives-in the most varied
and horrid forms of suffering. (6) Another remark
may be made here. It will not, of course, commend
itself to one class of men, and it is not of such a nature
that it could be used in an argument with a scepticfor it would be impossible to demonstrate that it is true,
and yet it may be true, and in the apprehension of




IN THE WORD OF GOD.           105
one who could look at things as they adtually are, and
who could take in the whole case, it might remove
the entire difficulty. The remark is, that the whole
transaction may have been connected with the work of
redemption; that it may have been, in the estimation
of Abraham, and in fact, a designed emblematic representation of the great sacrifice afterwards to be made
for the sins of the world. The most solemn, mysterious, and momentous truth connected with the history of
our world is embodied in the fact-a fact here referred
to as assumed-that God gave his only Son to be a
real sacrifice for the sins of the world; that he himself
selected him as the victim to make expiation for
human guilt; that he surrendered him to death; that
he laid on him the iniquities of mankind; and that,
under the appointment, and in part by the infliction of
the hand of God his Father, the Redeemer bore such
an amount of suffering as would be properly expressive of the value of law, and the evil of violating law.
This great fact was symbolized by all the bloody sacrifices of the Hebrews, and it mav have been-at least
the contrary cannot be demonstrated-that it was designed, in the case of the Father of the Hebrew people,
that that fact should be symbolized to his own mind in
a more impressive manner than it could be by the
offering of bullocks or of lambs; that an event should
occur in his own history best fitted to impress his
mind, and the minds of all the Hebrew people for
ages, with the great truth that God, in the work of
redemption, would give his own only-begotten Son as a
sacrifice for the sins of the world; that that would, in
fact, occur in the work of redemption which Abraham
was commanded to represent by a symbol. A sceptic




106         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
cannot assume, much less demonstrate, that the whole
explanation of the transaction may not be found in
this fact-and until this is demonstrated, it may be assumed that there may be an explanation, corresponding
entirely with the fact, which would remove the whole
difficulty. If it was a truth —a truth so exalted and
mysterious as to tax the faith of the world to the
utmost-that God would give his Son to be a sacrifice
for sin-to suffer, to bleed, to die on a cross —it may
surely be admitted as a possible thing, that such an
amazing transaction, and one of so much interest to
mankind, might be symbolized ages before it occurred
by one event that would stand as much apart from
the ordinary occurrences of life, as the atonement
would in fact from the ordinary events of Providence
in administering the affairs of the world. As the
atonement made by the death of the Son of God stands
alone in the history of the universe, it is not incredible
that there should have been one event in the history
of mankind so wonderful, so strange, so inexplicable,
that it should be the fit representative of that which
was forever thus to stand alone.
One other remark should be made in reference to
the question whether the Bible commends itself to
the conscience or moral sense of mankind. It is, that
society, in its progress, never gets beyond the injunctions of the Bible in regard to morals. In fact, it
never comes up to it. It never reaches a point where
the injunctions of the Bible on the subject of honesty,
liberty, benevolence, humanity, courtesy, become obsolete, or fall behind the demands of the age. It is
still in advance of all the points which men have
reached; and its injunctions are just as fresh, and




IN THE WORD OF GOD.           107
as much adapted to the wants of man, as they were
when the book was formed. The Bible was composed
in a comparatively rude age of the world, and among
a people comparatively unlearned. A part of it was
penned not far from the age of Confucius; all of it
before the time of Seneca. No small part of it was
contemporary with the writings of Grecian sages and
philosophers. Yet none of those writings, not those
of Confucius, Plato, Seneca, come up to the present
condition of the world. They could not be made the
basis of the moral system now demanded in the position which society has assumed. To adopt them, to
place society so as to be in harmony with them, would
be to cause the world at once to retrograde some thousands of years, and to lose at once no small part of
what it has gained in that long lapse of time. There
is no plan of benevolence, however exalted in its
nature, or wide in its aim, in reference to which
counsel may not be found in the Bible; there is no
scheme projected for the promotion of human happiness, for the extension of liberty, for meliorating the
condition of the down-trodden and oppressed, to which
the principles of the Bible are not applicable; and
there are no laws framed for the protection of human
rights, for avenging wrong, for advancing the welfare
of society, the germs or principles of which may not be
found in the Bible, or which, in reference to purity,
benevolence, or justice, are in advance of the principles
laid down in the Word of God. Books of science, like
almanacs, become obsolete and useless; those which
are adapted to one age are not fitted to the.progress
made in subsequent times. In medicine, of what use,
except as historical records, and as marking the pro



108        THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
gress of the human mind, are the works of Galen and
Hippocrates; in geography, of what use, except for
the same purpose, are the works of Strabo, and Mela;
in astronomy, the works of Ptolemy; in chemistry,
the works of Roger Bacon, or of the alchemists of the
middle ages? Who consults the Timseus of Plato
for an account of the true origin of the universe?
Who refers to Aristotle or Pliny for a just and full
account of Natural History? As records of truth; as
statements of science; as treatises explaining nature,
these have long since ceased to be referred to, and
they can never, in these respects, have the value once
affixed to them. Society has gone beyond them, and
will never return to the state in which they did really
mark progress in the race, and contribute to the welfare
of mankind. So in all the departments of morals, of
law, and of learning. Our large libraries are filled
with books which, like the extinct animals of the geological periods of the world, have accomplished their
purpose, and are now become the'fossils' of literature
and science, rarely referred to except by some one curious in the history of man, and desirous of knowing what
the world once was; as the races of the Ichthyosaurians
and Megastheriums are of value only to those who would
mark the progressive history of the globe. But society
has not as yet gone beyond the teachings of the Bible.
It has never reached a point where the Bible has not
suggestions to make for the good of man in advance of
all that has been done or devised. In the highest stages
of human development thus far reached, it is as fresh
in its counsels, as original in its instructions, as suggestive of what will be for the good of mankind, as
it ever was; and in all human discoveries, in all that




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            109
marks the progress of mankind, it goes before the race
as the Shekinah did before the Hebrew people-a
pillar of cloud by day, and of fire by night.
~ 3. The Bible in relation to the discoveries of science.
The subject which is here referred to is too extended
to admit of being considered in the limits proposed in
this Essay, even if there were no other considerations
that would suggest prudence in attempting to discuss it.
A few remarks, of a general character, as illustrating
the present aspect of science in its relation to revealed
religion, are all which it is proper for me to attempt
to make, and all which my design really demands.
The question, on this point, now before the world, is,
whether the statements of the Bible are contradictory
to the disclosures of science?
(1) Not a few, if not all the sciences, have been
arrayed against the Bible, and it has been maintained,
by those who have rejected the Bible, that its statements are not reconcilable with the disclosures made
by those sciences. Yet most of the objections from that
source have been abandoned by infidels themselves.
Of the objections drawn from the modern astronomy,
it is enough to say that they were demolished by
Chalmers. Since the delivery of his celebrated "Astronomical Discourses" we have heard no more of the
objection, and it will not probably be referred to by an
intelligent infidel again.  At one time, indeed, infidelity claimed that such stupendous plans as the Bible
refers to, would not have been formed for a world so
insignificant as is this. Now, it is admitted that no
argument can be derived from that against revelation,




110         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
but that the simple and sole inquiry is, what in fact God
has done.
At another time it was held that the account of the
origin of languages in the Bible was improbable and
absurd; that the hundreds of languages and dialects
on the earth could never have had a common origin,
and that men could have never used the same forms
of speech. There were some hundreds of languages,
having, as it appeared, no affinity, no resemblance, no
appearance of a common source. The account of the
dispersion on the plains of Shinar was held to be
ridiculous and improbable: and the book which contained such an account was held to be incredible.
Without any reference to the divine origin of Christianity, this vast field of research was entered. Soon
it was found, to the surprise of those who had entered
on the investigation, that languages grouped themselves into families, and that the number became insensibly smaller. New affinities were discovered, and
new classifications formed. The probability became
stronger and stronger that there might have been a
common origin. Sir William Jones supposed that he
could trace all the languages of the world back to three,
and subsequently it was found that science furnished
strong presumption that originally there was but one.
I can only refer, in a word, to the testimony of two
distinguished scholars, neither of whom entered on
the investigation with any intention to confirm the
authority of the Bible. The first is that of Klaproth.
IHe makes no secret of his disbelief of the Mosaic history of the dispersion, and tells us that, like many
other writings of Western Asia, he regards it as a
mere fable. Yet he says that, in his view, "the uni



IN THE WORD OF GOD.             111
versal affinity of languages is placed in so strong a
light, that it must be considered by all as completely
demonstrated. This," says he, "does not appear explicable on any other hypothesis than that of admitting
fr'agments of a primary language yet to exist through all
the languages of the old and new worlds."  The other
witness is Herder, who also says that he regards the
history of Babel as a "poetical fragment in the Oriental style." Yet he says, as the result of his investigations, that "there is great probability that the
human race, and language therewith, go back to one
common stock, to a first man, and not to several dispersed in different parts of the world." His conclusions do not stop here. He confidently asserts that,
from the examination of languages, the separation
among mankind is shown to have been violent; not,
indeed, that they voluntarily changed their language,
but that they were rudely and suddenly divided from
one another.*
At another time, the Christian world was alarmed at
the boasted antiquity of the Indies. Astronomical
tables were discovered that were believed to have been
formed at least 3500 years before Christ, and it was
claimed by Bailly that these must be fragments of an
earlier and far more perfect science. The Christian
world was alarmed, and infidelity began to sound a
note of triumph. The result of this may be stated in
the language of Laplace-himself supposed to have
no special respect for Christianity —but whose name is
sufficient to settle a question of this kind. "The origin
of astronomy," says he, "in Persia and India, is lost,
* Wiseman's Lectures, pp. 69, 73.




112         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
as among all other nations, in the darkness of their
ancient history. The Indian tables suppose a very
advanced state of astronomy; but there is every reasorn
to believe that they can claim no very high antiquity." He
then proceeds to a detailed examination of the point
whether the observations supposed by the Indian tables
were ever actually made, and concludes that those
tables were not grounded on any true observation, because the conjunction which they suppose could not have
taken place.*  The objection of infidelity from those
astronomical tables has been silenced, and will not be
heard again.
Simultaneously with this supposed difficulty, arose
one from the historical records of China and of India.
The names of long lines of kings were displayed; accounts of dynasties were furnished extending back
millions of ages; and it was supposed here that an
objection was started to the Mosaic narrative which
would be fatal. Again infidelity triumphed, and the
friends of Christianity became alarmed. Yet the result
here has been the same. That result is before the
world; and the world-infidel and Christian —now
acquiesces in the conclusion drawn by the laborious
investigations of Sir William Jones, that on the most
liberal construction, the existence of an established
government in the East can be traced back no further
than 2000 years before the Christian era, the age of
Abraham, when there was already an established
dynasty in Egypt, and commerce and literature were
flourishing in Phoenicia. The Oriental nations have,
therefore, taken their appropriate place in the history
* Wiseman's Lectures, p. 237.




IN THE WORD OF GOD.           113
of the world; and the objection has died away, to be
heard no more.
Once more the Christian world was to be alarmed,
and once more the note of triumph was to be heard
for a while from infidelity. The materials for the new
argument which infidelity constructed were found in
Egypt. "Volney had no hesitation in placing the
formation of the sacerdotal colleges in Egypt, 13,300
years before Christ, and calling that the second period
of their history."* For the antiquity of Egypt, infidelity appealed to the huge and half-buried colossal
images; to the subterranean temples; to the astronomical
remains; and to the hieroglyphic legends of that wonderful country. In particular, an appeal was made to
the zodiacs found at Dendera and Esneh, which were
supposed to represent the state of the heavens at the
time in which the temples where they were found were
erected, and which indicated a very remote antiquity.
At this period God raised up Champollion. He taught
the world to read the hieroglyphics on the obelisks,
the tombs, the temples of Egypt. That language, long
unknown, and whose meaning it was supposed was
forgotten forever, now disclosed the fact that the celebrated zodiacs extended no further back than the time
of Nero or Tiberius. On one of the zodiacs he read
the name of Tiberius, and on the other the name which
NIero takes on his Egyptian medals. The objections
from the zodiacs, the pyramids, the tombs, and the
inscriptions of Egypt, lost their power forever when
Champollion told the world how to read the inscription on the Rosetta stone. The objections from the
* Recherches, vol. ii. p. 440.




114         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
antiquity of India and China, and from  the diversity
of languages, have thus died away. Science started
these objections; science solved them. The scientific
world pursued these inquiries as mere matters of investigation; infidelity seized upon the results to give
alarm; and again science, of its own accord, removed
the difficulty.
(2) The fact that the disclosures of science on any
subject cannot be reconciled with the common interpretation of the Bible should not be regarded as proof that
they are inconsistent with the true doctrine of the Bible
on the subject. The Bible is not responsible for the
interpretations that have been affixed to it, though they
may have seemed to be a fair interpretation, and though
they may have been regarded as a part of the true faith,
and as such have received the sanction of synods and
councils, and have been incorporated with the creeds of
the Church. It is still, and it always will be, a fair and
open question whether the Bible has been fairly interpreted, and whether a more accurate knowledge of
language and customs, and a more correct view of the
real design of revelation, would not show that the
statements of the Bible are wholly consistent with all
the disclosures made by the telescope and by the
microscope; by all the researches of the geologist,
and by all the revelations of the laboratory. It can
never be assumed, on the discovery of a new truth in
science, that it is against the fair interpretation of the
Bible, or that it is not possible, by a fair interpretation,
to make its statements consistent with the disclosures
of science. The first effect, on the discovery of a truth
in science that seems to be in conflict with the Bible,
should be to open the subject of interpretation afresh,




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            115
and to suggest the inquiry whether the Bible has been
properly understood. This, of course, may lead to
angry feeling, and to a charge of heresy, as it did to
persecution in the time of Galileo. It may unavoidably
give occasion for a temporary triumph of infidelity by its
assuming that the current interpretation of the Bible is
the correct one, and by showing, as it may easily be done,
that the Bible, as thus currently interpreted, is contradictory to the facts made known by science. It may
require time to adjust the statements of the two so that
they shall harmonize; and in the mean time it may give
occasion for another charge against the Bible that it is
"a nose of wax," or "a fiddle on which any tune can
be played," or that it has no doctrines of its own. But
this is an effect which is inevitable. In due time the
Bible and the facts will adjust themselves, as has been
the case on the subject of astronomy. This is what must
be expected to occur in a book written in a distant age;
a book not designed primarily to make disclosures on
this subject; a book in which the statements on this
subject are incidental, and are necessarily made in the
common language of men, and not in the strict technical language of science. To suppose that this could
be otherwise, or to demand that it should be otherwise,
would be to require that a book of revelation should,
contrary to its main design, adjust all its statements on
subjects in any way connected with science not to the
language used in the age in which it is given, but to the
technical accuracy which will be reached in the highest
disclosures of science yet to be made to the world; and
this would be to demand that it should anticipate in
science all the discoveries which man could be ever
expected to make, and this would be, in fact, to make




116         THE FOUNDATION OF FA1T1t
the book as unmeaning as the language of the'schoolmen' of the middle ages is now to the mass
of mankind. It would be also perhaps to make it
unintelligible to the present objectors to revelation,
for it is conceivable that the language of science
may yet, by a fuller and more accurate nomenclature,
be so modified as effectually to abolish that which
is now used even by the scientific world. All this
would be just as reasonable as it would be to require
philosophers to use the language of science in their
common modes of discourse, and never again to speak
of the rising or the setting of the sun, the moon, or
the stars.
~ (3) It is clear that if the Bible is a revelation from
God, the deductions of science and the statements of
the Bible cannot be contradictory. They must ultimately harmonize. God would not make a statement
in his word which would be contradicted by his works,
nor cause a fact to occur in his works, the fair interpretation of which would be contrary to the statements
of his word. The unbeliever undoubtedly has a right
to demand that the statements in the Bible should be
shown, by fair interpretation, to be in accordance with
all the disclosures of science; and if that cannot be
done, that the claims of the Bible should be abandoned.
But, on the other hand, the believer has a right to
demand that what is alleged as science shall be true
science; that the exact facts shall be ascertained; and
that it shall be understood that there is no antecedent
presumption that the two are contradictory. He has
a right to demand also that the unbeliever shall not
assume that the interpretations affixed to the Bible,
though they may have been the current and prevailing




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            117
interpretation for ages; though they may have received
the sanction of the'Fathers,' of synods, and of councils; though they may have been incorporated into
the creeds of the Church, are the correct interpretation. It is still an open question which no one has a
right to assume to be settled, what is the teaching of
the Bible on points that are supposed to come in collision with the revelations of science. As there is no
tribunal to ascertain what are the teachings of science,
but as it is an open question for every man to settle
for himself if he chooses, so there is no authoritative
tribunal in the Church to determine what is the meaning of the Bible, but it is an open question for every
man to determine as he does in regard to the meaning
of any other book.
(4) In reference to by far the largest part of the
sciences, it is not, and cannot be pretended that there
is any contradiction between them and the Bible; in
reference to most of those in which it was supposed or
alleged that there was a contradiction, the point has
been yielded by even the rejectors of the Bible that
there is no such conflict. We have seen, in the remarks
made above, that the objections drawn from astronomy,
from the origin of languages, from the astronomical
tables of the Hindoos, from the alleged historical records
of India and China, and from the zodiacs of Egypt,
have been abandoned. It is also true that in reference
to the larger portion of the sciences, properly so called,
it cannot be, and has never been alleged that they are
contradictory to the Bible, for the Bible makes no
statements in regard to them which can be supposed to
come in conflict with them. This is true of the sciences
9




118         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
of anatomy, physiology, botany, natural history, chemistry, mental philosophy, magnetism, electricity,
geometry, algebra, fluxions, metallurgy, and kindred
subjects. It is also certain that in the schools and colleges of Christian countries it is rare, in the regular
course of studies, that there occurs a point on which
there seems to be a collision'between the statements
involved in the regular instruction, and the statements
in the Bible, or in which it becomes necessary for a
teacher who is a friend of revelation, to interpose even
a single remark to guard against a perceived tendency
in the science to scepticism. While this is true, it is
also true that no ancient book of science on any one of
these subjects, except geometry, could be used without
coming into direct conflict with the statements of modern
science. What would be said of the Timaeus of Plato,
in our colleges, in this respect?  It is also true that,
while no other books received by any portion of the
world as a divine revelation, unless it be the Koran,
could be so used without coming in direct conflict with
the disclosures of science, the Bible can be used, and
is used, in those schools of learning; its statements are
familiarly referred to; its study is enjoined or made a
matter of earnest exhortation, and with no apprehension
that its statements will be found to come in collision
with the regular course of instruction on these subjects,
and with a conviction on the part of the friends of the
Bible that the profoundest investigation of those sciences
has no tendency whatever to send out into the world
a generation of educated sceptics. Indeed, it is one of
the sternest principles of Protestantism that the Bible
should be in the schools of learning; it is a point on
which the friends of the Bible are most readily aroused




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             119
when an attempt is made to exclude it from schools
and colleges; it is a point in which they feel entire
confidence that the more directly and constantly they
can keep that book in contact with the minds of educated and scientific men, the more certain will be its
reception as a revelation from God.
(5) In respect to science, there remain some points
which, it must be admitted, remain unsettled, and where
it is a fair and open question still, whether the future
disclosures in these sciences will accord with the revelations of the Bible. While it must be conceded by all,
from the history of the past, that there is no presumption that these will not be found to accord with the
statements in the Bible, it must also be conceded by
the friends of revelation that it is perfectly fair for the
friend of science to push his inquiries as far as he can,
and with no desire to shape his facts with reference to
any desired or any desirable result in their bearing on
revelation. The friend of the Bible should not fear
the result; the friend of science should pursue his
researches as if there were no such book, and with no
desire either to find it true or false. The hammer of
the geologist, the blowpipe of the chemist, the glass of
the astronomer, are not to be controlled or modified
by any moral considerations.
The main points referred to here as being as yet
unsettled, relate to GEOLOGY, and to THE UNITY OF
THE RACE.
A. GEOLOGY.-This is a recent science. It is but a
brief period since even science started the idea that the
world is more than about six thousand years old; or,
if that idea had occurred, that it has been attempted to
determine it by any known facts. Fable, fancy, pre



120         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
tended records, had indeed referred to a long existence
of nations on the earth prior to the Mosaic account of
the creation of man, but no facts of science had been
discovered to confirm those records, or to impart truth
to those fables.
It is not proposed to enter here into any protracted
inquiry on this subject. The only point necessary to
be noticed is, that up to this time no contradiction between
the disclosures of geology and the statements of the Bible
has been DEMONSTRATED, and that there is nothing as yet in
the science which makes it certain that there will be found
to be such a contradiction.
In illustration of this, the following remarks may be
made:(1) The science of geology must be admitted to be
as yet so incomplete that it cannot be assumed to be
certain in respect to those points which seem to be in
collision with the Bible that future disclosures may
not materially modify the conclusions which are to be
drawn from  the science. There are, indeed, facts in
regard to the science as clearly determined as any
facts in any of the other established sciences. There
are facts entirely at variance with the views held formerly in regard to the past duration of the world,
and with the notions heretofore entertained by the
Christian world in regard to the statements of the
Bible on that subject. It has been demonstrated that
the world has stood many thousands, perhaps many
millions of years, and the friend of revelation cannot
deny this. It has been demonstrated that there were
numerous orders of now extinct animals upon the
earth long before the Scripture account of the creation of man-animals that have, for the most part,




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            121
long since passed away; animals adapted to a different
state of things from that which now exists on the
earth; animals which could not exist now. It has
been demonstrated that death reigned among those
animals long before man was created, and consequently that the views which have been entertained
by theologians about the death of animals as connected
with the transgression of man, and as the fruit of that
transgression, must be abandoned. But it is yet to be
proved that these points come into collision with any
explicit statements of the Bible. And in reference to
any supposed collision of the facts of geology with the
actual statements of the Bible, it is further to be
observed that the science of geology is as yet so incomplete that it is not time yet to affirm or to presume
that the conclusions from that science, when fully
settled, will be in conflict with the Bible. In a science
so recent, and where the principles are as yet so imperfectly determined, and the facts so imperfectly
ascertained, it does not seem too much for the friend
of revelation, in cases where there may seem to be a
conflict between the statements of the science and the
statements of the Bible, to ask that the judgment
should be suspended until two points are clearly
settled: (a), until the facts in geology shall be certainly
ascertained; and (b), until it shall be determined
whether the fair interpretation of the Bible, not the
current traditions of theology, may not be in harmony
with the disclosures of the science.
(2) It is a very material fact as bearing on this subject, that, amidst all the fossil remains of the geologist,
and all the records of past times, there is no proof that
man has lived longer than the period assigned to him in




122         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
the Mosaic history. In all that the geologist relies on
to demonstrate the existence of the inferior orders of
animals on the earth prior to the Mosaic account of the
creation of man, he has not presented us with one
human bone, or with one indication of the existence of
man. Other fossil remains, other bones, he has disinterred in abundance; but not one that has yet been
proved to have belonged to the human species. So in
respect to all coins, medals, historical records, monuments. There are no historical records of the existence
of man on the earth that go back to such ancient times.
There are no remains of unknown cities, no tombs, no
mausoleums, that would prove that man then existed,
now found amidst the fossil remains of extinct orders of
animals. We wander among decaying ruins; we are
among broken arches, pillars, tombs; we look upon the
magnificent Coliseum, the mighty pyramid, the falling
tower, the ivy-bound column, the ruined temple, the
ancient castle; we brush the dust from ancient inscriptions, and decipher their solemn records, and make the
past generations speak out amidst these monuments;
but there is not a solitary voice that disputes the record
of the Jewish historian about the recent origin of man,
or that points to a time when he lived anterior to the
bliss of Eden.
In this connection it may be proper to quote a
memorable passage written by Bishop Berkley a century ago, and quoted with approbation by Sir Charles
Lyell, in which he inferred, on grounds which may be
termed strictly geological, the recent date of the creation of man. "To any one," says he, " who considers
that, on digging into the earth, such quantities of
shells, and, in some places, bones and horns of animnals,




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             123
are found sound and entire, after having laid there, in
all probability, some thousands of years; it should
seem probable that guns, medals, and implements in
metal or stone, might have lasted entire, buried under
ground forty or fifty thousand years, if the world had
been so old. How comes it then to pass that no
remains are found, no antiquities of these numerous
ages preceding the Scripture accounts of time; that
no fragments of buildings, no public monuments, no
intaglios, cameos, statues, basso-relievos, medals, inscriptions, utensils, or artificial work of any kind, are
ever discovered which may bear testimony to the
existence of those mighty empires, those successions
of monarchs, heroes, and demi-gods, for so many
thousand years? Let us look forward and suppose ten
or twenty thousand years to come, during which time
we will suppose that plagues, famines, wars, and earthquakes shall have made great havoc in the world, is it
not highly probable that, at the end of such a perid,
pillars, walls, and statues now in being, of granite,
or porphyry, or jasper (stones of such hardness as we
know them to have lasted two thousand years above
ground without any considerable alteration), would
bear record of these and past ages? Or that some of
our current coins might then be dug up, or old walls
and the foundations of buildings show themselves, as
well as the shells and stones of the primceval world,
which are preserved down to our time?"*
On this passage, Sir Charles Lyell remarks, "that
many signs of the agency of man would have lasted at
least as long as the' shells of the primrneval world,' had
* Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher, vol. ii. pp. 84, 85, ed. 1732.




124,        THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
our race been so ancient, we may feel as fully persuaded as Berkley; and we may anticipate with confidence that many edifices and implements of human
workmanship, and the skeletons of men and casts of
the human form, will continue to exist when a great
part of the present mountains, continents, and seas,
have disappeared. Assuming the future duration of
the planet to be indefinitely protracted, we can foresee
no limit to the perpetuation of some of the memorials
of man, which are continually imbedded in the bowels
of the earth, or in the bed of the ocean, unless we
carry forward our views to a period sufficient to allow
the various causes of change, both igneous and aqueous, to remodel more than once the outer crust of the
earth. One complete revolution will be inadequate to
efface every monument of our existence; for many
works of art might enter again and again into the formation of successive eras and escape obliteration, even
though the very rocks in which they had been for ages
imbedded were destroyed; just as pebbles included in
the conglomerates of our epoch often contain the
organized remains of beings which flourished during a
prior era."*
If these things are so, how can it be believed that
man has lived upon the earth during the ancient
geologic periods of the world?  What evidence is
there that he existed prior to the Mosaic period of the
creation? If he did exist then, how is it to be accounted for that all the monuments of his being have
perished, while the memorials of other, and inferior
races, remain?
* Principles of Geology, vol. ii. p. 157, ed. 1837.




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            125
(3) It is capable of clear demonstration that man
could not have lived in the vast geologic periods
of the early history of the earth; and could not, therefore, have been created but in the order of events
which are described in the Mosaic narrative. The
disclosures of geology all go to show that man was
the ultimate object contemplated in creation; that all
the'types' of being previous to his appearance in the
world had reference to him; that the condition of the
world in those long geologic periods was such that he
could not have lived then; and that when, by this
long previous process, the earth was prepared for his
residence, he then appeared, not as a development, but
as a new creature. The process of this is so clear that
it cannot now be doubted. Man did not appear in the
early geological periods. He could not have found
sustenance adapted to his nature. If he had been
created then, he would have soon died. It is only at
the latest stage of the development of the earth's history, as made known by geology, that the earth was
fitted for the residence of man, or that he could have
lived upon it. In the British Museum, almost as if by
accident, and yet as the result of the researches of
geological science, among the records of other ages in
fossil remains, MAN is assigned exactly the place-the
last in the series of creations-to which he is arranged
in the Mosaic record of creation.*
All the researches of geologists have gone to confirm
this fact, and to place man in the order of created
things, in the exact place where Moses placed him, as
the last in the series. They have gone also to show
* See the Testimony of the Rocks, by Hugh Miller, pp. 163-171.




126          THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
that all the previous creations had reference to such a
being as man, and that the progressive development
in the series of created things contemplated some such
being as man as the ultimate point to be reached, or
had their proper termination in him. Of that fact the
testimony of men whose opinions will not be called
in question furnishes the fullest proof. Two such
authorities, sufficient in the case, may be referred to.
The one is that of Professor Owen, "supreme in his
own special walk as a comparative anatomist."  "The
recognition of an ideal exemplar for the vertebrated
animals proves," he says, " that the knowledge of such
a being as man must have existed before man appeared.
For the Divine Mind that planned the archetype also
foreknew all its modifications. The archetypal idea
was manifested in the flesh under divers modifications
upon this planet, long prior to the existences of those
animal species that actually exemplify it."*  Not less
remarkable is the testimony of Agassiz, as the result
of an examination of the geologic existences, more
extended and minute, in at least the department pertaining to fishes, than that of any other man.  "It is
evident," he says, in the conclusion of his recent work
on the Prirnciples of Zoology,+t "that there is a manifest
progress in the succession of beings on the surface of
the earth. This progress consists in an increasing
similarity to the living fauna, and among the verte* Quoted by Hugh Miller, "Testimony of the Rocks," p. 228.
t Principles of Zoology, touching the Structure, Development,
Distribution, and Natural Arrangement of the Races of Animals,
Living and Extinct. For the use of Schools and Colleges. Part I.
Comparative Physiology. By Louis Agassiz, and Augustus A.
Gould. Boston, Gould and Lincoln.




IN THE WORD OF GOD.           127
brates, especially in their increasing resemblance to
man. But this connection is not the consequence of a
direct lineage between the faunas of different ages.
There is nothing like parental descent connecting
them. The fishes of the Palheozoic age are in no respect the ancestors of the reptiles of the Secondary
age, nor does man descend from the mammals which
preceded him in the Tertiary age. The link by which
they are connected is of a higher and immaterial
nature, and this connection is to be sought in the view
of the Creator himself, whose aim in forming the earth,
in allowing it to undergo the successive changes which
geology has pointed out, and in creating successively
all the different types of animals which have passed
away, was to introduce man upon the globe. MAN IS THE
END TOWARDS WHICH ALL THE ANIMAL CREATION HAS
TENDED FROM THE FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE FIRST
PALAEOZOIC FISHES." No one can fail to remark how
entirely this accords with the account of the creation
of man in the first chapter of the book of Genesis,
and with the statement of the place and importance of
man everywhere found in the Bible.
(4) It is certain that this fact, thus stated as the result
of the investigations of geology-the fact that man is
the last in the series of created beings; that he had no
place upon the earth in the earlier periods of its history;
that he was not found among the animals first made;
that he could not have existed in those periods; and
that all the previous creations had a reference to him,
and terminated on him as the highest type of being on
earth, could have been known to Moses, if they are
fairly implied in his statement, only as the result of revelation. It cannot be pretended that he was acquainted




128        THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
with the revelations of that science which has been, as
yet, last in the order of human investigation-geology;
and it cannot be believed that his statement was the
result of a happyconjecture. Such a conjecture is found
nowhere else in the writings of men; it is one which
sceptics now are unwilling to believe to be true, and the
correctness of which they are constantly endeavoring
to set aside. It is a statement, therefore, which, when
found in a book professing to be a revelation, could
have been only the result of a knowledge superior to
any that man possessed from any other source. It is,
however, such a statement as, on the supposition that the
Bible is of divine origin, and that God, the Author of
the Book, knew, as he must certainly have known, that
these discoveries in geology would be made in a far
distant age of the world, might have been reasonably
expected to be found there, for it must have been foreseen that a comparison would be made between the
revelations of geology and the statements of the Bible
in regard to the origin of man, which would have an
important bearing on the question whether the Bible is
from God.
(5) There is one other consideration which should
be allowed to exert an important influence in determining the question whether the disclosures of geology
are consistent with the statements of the Bible. This
consideration may be thus stated and illustrated: In
the courts of justice, the testimony of medical men is
often called in, not to determine in regard to the
question whether life has been taken where one has
been accused of murder, but to determine the question
whether what may have been administered to themurdered man was poison, and was sufficient in quan



IN THE WORD OF GOD.           129
tity to take his life; or whether the blow which may
have been struck, was of sufficient force, or so affected
a vital part, as to destroy life. In such a case, the
medical man may know nothing of the facts as to the
question who administered the poison, or who inflicted
the blow, and consequently may have no evidence to
give as to the question whether the man accused is
the one really guilty of the crime, but he gives his
testimony on a point in which he is qualified to judge,
and where the court and jury may not be qualified to
judge. That is, the court calls in the aid of his medical knowledge and experience in a case where the witness would be impartial, and where his knowledge
may be of the utmost value in forming an opinion.
Those who usually occupy the position of judges
would not be supposed to be qualified to determine
these points for themhselves; those who are commonly
called to act on a jury are wholly incompetent. To
this mode of appeal there can certainly be no objection; and no one supposes that injustice is likely to be
done, even if the decision of the case should turn
finally in fact on this testimony.
Something like this must occur in regard to the
questions respecting the relation of geology to the
Bible. While no man would say that the geologist, as
such, is to determine the question whether the Bible is
a revelation from God; while no one would maintain
that it is to be received by mankind because one geologist sees no discrepancy between the two, or rejected
because another geologist thinks he does; while the
great principle is to be held firm that every man is to
judge for himself whether he can receive the Bible as
a revelation, it is still true that the great mass of men




130         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
are wholly unable to determine the questions respecting geology, as they are those which pertain to other
sciences. They are not acquainted with the facts of
the science. They have not the ability or the opportunity to investigate those facts, and they never can,
for themselves, institute an intelligent comparison
between those doctrines and the statements of the
Scriptures. They are as ignorant of those facts as
they are of the higher revelations of astronomy; as
ignorant as the jury in the cases supposed is on the
question whether what was administered was poison of
such a nature, and in such a quantity, as to take life,
or whether the wound inflicted was the real cause
of the man's death. In the questions suggested by
geology, therefore, in regard to revelation, it does not
seem improper to ask what is the impression made on
the minds of geologists themselvbs, and whether the
most profound and extended acquaintance with the
science has in fact had a tendency to make those who
are most learned in this science, and best qualified
to judge, infidels. The fair question is not whether
there may be found geologists who are unbelievers,
foyr there are undoubtedly such men, as there are
astronomers, anatomists and historians, who are sceptics
in religion. And the question, furthermore, is not
whether such geologists have been made infidels, or
have been confirmed in their infidelity by the study
of geology, for this may have been the case, as it is
undoubtedly true that an infidel astronomer, anatomist,
or historian might endeavor to confirm himself in scepticism by facts drawn from his favorite science, and
that he may have pursued the science itself in such a
manner as to have led him into scepticism. But the




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             131
proper question in all such cases is, whether the study
of these sciences has in fact had a tendency to ~make men
infidels; whether those most eminent in these departments of knowledge have been led to reject the authority
of revelation from the disclosures of their own sciences;
and whether the fact that a part of their number are
sceptics cannot be fairly traced to some other cause
than to the necessary conclusions drawn from their own
favorite sciences. It seems to be plain that the fact
that such men as Galileo, Kepler, and Newton did not
see any discrepancy between the teachings of astronomy
and the Bible; that so large a portion of astronomers
are believers in the Bible; and that the highest disclosures of astronomy are made a part of the regular
instruction in all Christian colleges, without any apprehension of the result as bearing on revealed religion,
should be regarded as furnishing some evidence on
which minds not competent to make the investigation
themselves might rely, that there is no discrepancy between the Bible and the revelations of astronomy.
Now, there are undou~btedly geologists who are infidels, as there are anatomists, astronomers, chemists,
historians, who are. But while this is true, it is also
true that the great body of geologists are not infidels;
that the men whose names have been most distinguished
in prosecuting that science are not rejecters of the
Bible; and that the Christian world, by admitting the
study of geology into its colleges and schools, is not
treating the subject as if it were felt that there is anything to be dreaded from the cultivation of that science.
It is sufficient here, in order to show the nature of this
argument, to refer to the names John Pye Smith, Prof.
Buckland, Prof. Silliman, Prof. Richard Owen, Pres.




132         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
Hitchcock, and Hugh Miller. That such men do not
see any such discrepancy between the statements of
the Bible and the disclosures of geology as to shake
their faith in revelation, may be allowed to furnish
evidence to minds not competent to make the investigation themselves, that there is little danger that any
conclusions yet to be reached from the science will be
likely to militate against the statements of the word of
God.
It is a consideration also which should be allowed
to have no little weight on a question of this nature,
and in the point of view now under consideration, that
without an exception at present, all the colleges, and a
very large part of the academies and schools for both
sexes in this land, have been either founded directly
for the promotion of Christianity in connection with
sound learning, or are under Christian influence; that
a large portion of the presidents, professors, and teachers in those schools are ministers of the Gospel or
private members of the church; and that geology is
taught as a part of the system of regular instruction
as freely as any other branch of learning. No apprehension is felt that the fair conclusions from that
science will be found to be in conflict with the revela.
tions of the Bible. No such contradiction has been
established between the two as to excite alarm among
the friends of religion. The presumption from such
facts as these is that there is no such contradiction
between the two.
B. THE UNITY OF THE RACE.-The questions which
have arisen out of this subject are, like those of geology, of recent origin. Until within quite a recent
period, it has not been seriously maintained to any




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             133
considerable extent that the different classes of men
upon the earth have had a different origin; or that
there was any discrepancy between the facts on that
subject, as ascertained by science, and the teachings of
the Bible. It has obeen supposed that all the diversities in complexion, in the hair, in the facial angle, in
the anatonmical structure, could be accounted for on
some other theory than that the races have had each
a separate ancestry, or consistently with the doctrine
that all the families of men have been derived from
one pair.
This point has assumed an importance in this age
which it has never had before, and it cannot but have
an important bearing on the question respecting the
truth of the Bible, as well as on the subject of freedom
and slavery-for there seem to be but two considerations which could make any class of men desire to find
that there has been a diversity of origin in regard to
the races of mankind: One, that the Bible may be
found to be false in its statements; the other, that.
there may be some plausible pretext to justify one part
of mankind in enslaving another. If, in the one case,
it could be demonstrated that the races of men have
had a diversity of origin, that fact would destroy the
authority of the Bible, for, as we shall see, the statements in the Bible on that subject are explicit; if, in
the other case, the fact of such a diversity of origin
could be established, it would be one of the readiest
ways of justifying the enslaving of the inferior order
of human beings by the superior, or, at least, it would
destroygna —.ntho. ~s    ubleaome arguments which
has been urged'agains~ thi "systenm of slaveholding,
that which is derived from the fact that "God has made
10




134         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
of one blood all the nations of men," or that the slave
and his master are brethren.
In reference to the question about the unity of the
trace, there are two things to be stated which must be
admnilt-ed to be true aliki by the friends and the enemies
of the Bible.
One is, that the question in regard to the origin of
t]ie races, is, as a scientific question, as yet unsettled. It is
not so determined as to command the universal, or
even the general assent of scientific men, that the races
of men have had a different origin, or that all the
diversities of complexion and of anatomical structure
cannot be accounted for on the supposition that all
are descended from one pair. The great mnass of scie"tai-c4In are;, tin fact, convinced of this, nor has
the doctrine that the. race has had a diversity of
origin yet passed into the admitted facts of science. It
cannot be assumed, therefore, that t"e acts in the case
are contrary to the statements in the Bible.
The other point that must be admitted is, that it is
a perfectly fair and open scientific question whether
there is evidence that the races have had a diversity of
origin, or whether all existing facts can be explained
on the supposition that the race has descended from
one pair. As in the case of geology, astronomy,
anatomy, and all the other sciences, the inquiry on
this subject may be pursued, and must be pursued, in
a manner quite independent of the testimony of the
Bible, and with no fear, on the one hand, of impinging
on its doctrines, and with nd desire, on the other, as a
purely scientific pursuit, to find the testimony of the
Bible true. The scientific man should not desire to
reach any favorite conclusions unfavorable to a belief




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             135
in the divine origin of the Bible, nor should the friend
of the Bible dread to have the inquiry pursued on the
most independent scientific principles.
With these views, it may not be improper to state
exactly how the matter on this point now stands, and
what is the probability thus far, that any results will
be reached which will be in conflict with the statements
in the Bible about the origin of man.
What seems necessary to be stated on this subject,
so far as it relates to the question about the unity of
the race in its bearing on the truth of the Bible, may
be conveniently arranged under four heads:I. It is an unquestionable doctrine of the Bible that
the whole race of mankind is descended from one
original pair-Adam and Eve; or that there has not
been a separate ancestry for each of the subordinate
races of men-the Mongolian, the Caucasian, the Ethiopian, and the American. I believe that the Bible asserts that. I believe that he who receives the Bible is
bound to hold that doctrine. I believe that the rejecter
of the Bible has a right to hold him who professes to
believe the Bible to that doctrine. I believe that the
statements of the Scriptures on that point are so clear,
and that the doctrine of the unity of the race as descended from one pair is so implied in all the statements of the Bible about man-so identified with all
the doctrines of the Bible in regard to the Fall and
the Redemption of man-that if it could be demonstrated
that the human family is NOT descended from one pair,
and is NOT, in the proper sense of the term, one race, it'
would be impossible to receive the Bible as a revelation
from God. I can conceive of no fair method of inter



136         THE FOUNDATION OF' FAITH
pretation which would make the teachings of the Bible
consistent with such a fact.
In support of this opinion that the Bible teaches
that the race is one, as descended from one pair, I refer
to the following considerations:(1) The account in the Book of Genesis supposes this.
In that statement (ch. i.) there is a general account of the
preparation of the earth to be the abode of the different
races of animated beings. There is a statement of the
creation of fowls, and fishes, and mammalia, without
specifying any distinct location, or any distinct specific
parentage, with general statements only. "Let the earth
bring forth grass." "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and the fowl
that may fly above the earth." "Let the earth bring forth
the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping
thing, and beast of the earth after his kind." In these
statements ample room is left for the supposition that
they may have been brought into existence in the seas,
the rivers, the forests, the deserts, the air, or the waters
where they may now be found. But in the account of
the creation of man, there is a specific statement of the
formation of one pair of human beings; located in a
particular spot; placed under a particular form of administration; and sustaining a particular relation to
the inhabitants of the newly made world. This is the
whole account of the crdation of man in the Bible. It
teaches that one pair was formed by the act of the
Creator, and as the last act of creation. The account
implies that no other human beings were made; the
account is _inconsistent with ththe supposition that there
were any other such creations.




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            137
(2) The Bible teaches that the flood swept off the
race-all human beings save one family. On this point,
the teaching of the Scriptures is perfectly unambiguous. Whether the flood swept over the whole earth or
not, it swept off all the races of men. No one can
doubt that Moses meant to declare that all human
beings, except the one family of Noah, were cut off by
the deluge. This is perfectly clear, not only from the
general account in the narrative, but by the declaration that is made after that family had left the ark:
" These are the three sons of Noah, and of them was
the whole earth overspread."-Gen. ix. 19. No man can
possibly receive the account in Genesis as true, and yet
suppose that there were, in any part of the earth, during the flood, surviving races or families of human
beings-races of another origin, that were not cut off
in the deluge. If, therefore, there had been originally
different founders of the races, or different races of men
at the creation, they were, according to the Scripture
account, swept off at the deluge; if the present inhabitants of the earth are of different races, there has been,
somewhere upon the earth, a process of creation since
the days of Noah, if the account of the flood be true.
(3) The account in the Bible is that the earth was
peopled from the familyfhat survived the flood. There
is no record of any new creation of men; there is no
room left to suppose that such an act of creation
occurred. One of the most remarkable portions of
history to be found anywhere, is the tenth chapter of
the Book of QGgense~j. It seems, to a casual reader, to
be among the most dry and unimportant documents
that have come down to us from ancient times, being
almost wholly made up of names, and apparently bar



138         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
ren of incident and interest; and yet, barren as it is,
it contains more information about the origin of nationsand the peopling of the world, and does more to explain the state of affairs where history properly begins,
than all the Chinese, the Chaldean, the Greek, and the
Roman historians put together. That one chapter
makes clear in history what would otherwise be unintelligible, and explains what would otherwise be involved in impenetrable mystery. That chapter supposes that the world was peopled by the descendants
of one family; and it is a remarkable fact that the origin of all the nations whose source cau be ascertained
at all, can be traced up to some of the branches of that
one family. If history has had'any other records of
the origin of any of the present dwellers upon the
earth, that history is not now accessible, and it.may be
presumed to be irrecoverably lost. There is  &'o~;ha
account of the origin of man than that which is found
in Genesis; an  iceounsupposeS that there is but
one race of men upon the earth.
(4) The account of the origin of sin and death in the
Bible supposes the same thing. The reason why all
men sin is distinctly traced to the sin of one man;
and death is everywhere declared to be the effect of
sin. Whatever force men may attribute to the statement, whether they are disposed to receive it as credible
or not, the statement in the Bible is unambiguous, that
sin and death in man are to be traced to the fact that
Adam, as the head of the race, violated the law of God,
and incurred its penalty. The Scripture doctrine is,
that "in Adam all die" (I Cor._y- 2, that "by one
man sin entered into the world, and death by sin" (Rom.
v. 12); that "by one man's disobedience many were




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            139
made sinners" (Rom. v. 19); and that "by man came
death" (1 Cor. xv. 21). It will be seen, at once, that
though men universally sin and die, this would not be
a correct or satisfactory explanation of those facts, if
there are different races of men that have been created
at different times. If any portion of human beings
belong to another race than that of Adam, it is no
explanation of the fact that they sin and die to say that
he violated the law of God. Whatever force that reasoa may have, it bears only on those who belong properly to his own posterity. It should be added here,
also, that whatever may be thought of this explanation
of the fact that sin and death have come upon the race,
no other explanation has been furnished.
(5) The work of redemption is founded on the supposition that there is one race. Christ assumed human
nature, and died for men. He is expressly spoken of
as the " second man" (1 Cor. xv. 47); "the last Adam"
(1 Cor. xv. 45), in contradistinction from "the first
man," and "the first Adam."  He comes to repair the
ruins of the fall; to meet the consequences of the sin
of the parent of mankind; to lay a foundation for the
offer of pardon and salvation to all who were ruined
by the apostasy in Eden. Thus it is said, "As in Adam
all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1
Cor. xv. 22); "by man came death, by man came also
the resurrection of the dead" (1 Cor. xv. 21); "as is
the earthy, such are they that are earthy, and as is the
heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly" (1 Cor.
xv. 48); "as we have borne the image of the earthy,
we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (1 Cor. xv.
49); "as by one man's disobedience many were made
sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made




140         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
righteous" (Rom. v. 19), and "where sin abounded,
grace did much more abound" (Rom. v. 20). Thus,
also, the command is given to go and preach the gospel
to every creature, on the ground that Christ died for all,
or tasted death for every man. Nor can it be denied
that all this-the creation, the fall, the atonement;
sin, woe, death, redemption-proceeds on the supposition that the race is one; that Christ took upon him
human nature as such, and died for man as such, with
reference to no particular race, or family of man. The
offer of the gospel to any one supposes that he is a descendant of the apostate Adam, and therefore involved
in sin and misery; to no one would it be proper to
offer that gospel except on that supposition; from no
one have we a right to withhold it if that supposition
is true.
(6) It is expressly affirmed in the Bible that there is
one race: "And hath made of one blood all nations of
men for to dwell on all the face of the earth."-Acts
xvii. 26. The fair and natural meaning of this is that
the nations of the earth belong to one race, or are descended from one parentage. If this is not true, Paul
could not with any propriety have made the assertion
as he did. His design in thus addressing the people of
Athens cannot be mistaken. It was to prepare the way
for what he intended to say about the gospel, that it
was needed by all, and was adapted to all. If there
are different races of men, Athens would have been the
very place to announce that fact. It had twenty thousand freemen, and four hundred thousand slaves. It
would have been an eminently popular doctrine to have
announced to Stoics and Epicureans that they were of
nobler blood, and had a different origin, from the slaves




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            141
beneath them. But Paul hinted at nothing of this; he
evidently believed nothing of this; he taught a doctrine
which cannot be reconciled with this.
The sum of what has been said in this argument is
that the Bible proceeds on the supposition that there
was one pair whiwas   as the head of all human beings;
that there is an impassable distinction between the.human race and all other dwellers upon the earth; that
all human beings in all lands and ages are affected by
the conduct of the first man as if all were descended'
from him; that one Saviour, descended in his human
nature from him, is provided for all; that the same
gospel, and on the same grounds, is offered to all; that
the same "blood" flows in all human veins.
Ii. The same fact in regard to the unity of the race
is confirmed by the testimony of history, so far as historical records bear on the subject.
The authentic records of history trace up the affairs
of no one of the great divisions of the race to any other
ancestors than the Adam and Eve of the Scriptures.
They may not, indeed they do not, all trace up the
affairs of the race to this ancestry; but they disclose
no other. If they do not go up to this, they are lost
in fables, myths, and shadows. This argument lies
essentially in these three points:First, iu the fact that all authentic records of the
human race lie within the period assigned by SMoses as
that when man was created. Indeed, no well authenticated history goes back over three-quarters of that
period, and when we have gathered all that can be
gathered of history from profane records and monuments, there is a long period after the creation of man
in which the Bible is the sole guide. No one can




142         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
penetrate that dark region farther than the Jewish historian leads him; no one, therefore, can appeal to any
records which will disprove the truth of that in the
Bible.
Second. We have in the Bible a designed historical
account of the creation of man-of man as man. This
account occurs at the close of the account of the creation of other beings, the last work of creation on the
earth. It is designed to be a record of the creation of
man as distinct from the account of the creation of the
inhabitants of the sea, the dry land, and the atmosphere.
It is a remarkably clear and distinct account; and accords, in all the circumstances, so far as we can judge,
with what must be true. It gives an account of the
formation of the body out of what is called' the dust of
the ground,' that is, the same material, or as we should
say, the same chemical substances of which other things
are composed,;i nicc or dance with what we now
know to be the fact; and of the imparting of the breath
of life, the immortal nature, from a higher source, the
divine Spirit itself, in accordance with what we find all
men to be endowed with. It gives an account of the
formation of a single pair, sustaining a relation to each
other in their origin which accords with the laws of our
nature respecting the marriage relation, and which
gives the highest sanction and importance to that relation. In the account of the origin of this one pair, it has
stated a fact which will explain the peopling of the
world, for no one will doubt that the world, so far as
numbers are concerned, may have been peopled as it
has been from that one original pair. This history is
clear distinct, unambiguous, and it goes up to tI'Y&e
beginning of things.
0             D




IN THE WORD OF GOD.
Third. This is the only account which we have of
the creation of a human being. As already intimated,
no other history pretends to give any account that would
be satisfactory to a philosophical mind that can contra4
vene this. In all authentic history-history that is in
the least degree entitled to credence-as that of Egypt,
Babylonia, Greece, Rome, India, and China, we find, at
the earliest periods to which they go back, human beings
already in existence playing their part in human affairs
-building cities, cultivating fields, founding empires,
waging war; we find no account of the creation of a
new race there to perform an allotted work in that particular land. Travellers furnish no account of the
creation of men now in any new portion of the world;
and in all the records of ancient and modern times that
have any claim to credibility, there is no account of
the creation of more than one pair; there is no other
head of the races of men than the Adam and Eve of
Moses; there is no starting up of a new order of beings
upon the earth.
III. The moral argument for the unity of the human
race goes to confirm these views. This argument is
based on what we find in man, as man, showing that
there is one family, and that man is wholly distinct
from all other orders and species of beings upon the
earth; that is, showing that there is such a uniformity
and unity as to mark a common origin. I refer here
to the following points:First, to the fact that all men have reason-as all
would have if descended from the one original pairas no dwellers on the earth do have who do not belong
to this family. It is true that God might create any
number of rational beings quite isolated from each




144         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
other and independent of each other; but the point
now urged is, that the race of man has this peculiar
endowment as if all were descended from a first pair.
All men are so far alike in this that they seem to belong
to one family; they are so unlike all other creatures on
the earth in this respect, that they seem to have had a
separate and distinct origin from them. This attribute
of reason is the same in all men-the same in kind, if
not in degree. It places a vast and impassable barrier
between man and all other creatures. Not one of them
ever approximates it as it is in man; not any class of
human beings ever, in this respect, sink so low as to
be incapable of distinction from the orders of the brute
creation. If one in human form is born bereft of this
-an idiot-we feel at once assured that he has not
come up to the dignity of his race; that though he has
the form, he has not that which most properly belongs
to man: and in seeing one thus possessed of the form
of man, but destitute of that which properly characterizes man, we have a deeper impression of the difference between man and all other creatures on earth than
we ever do in comparing any of the brute creation with
man. Humble as the lot of the idiot is, we never confound him with the ourang outang, or with any of the
monkey tribe. He belongs to a race that was made to
be endowed with reason, and our compassion towards
him is excited not by the fact that he is destitute of
reason —for so is the horse and the ox-but by the fact
that, being designed for a more exalted purpose, he has,
in this respect, sunk to the level of the brute. There
is always a marked distinction between the feelings
which we have towards him and towards any of the
brute creation.




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            145
It may be that these cases of idiocy are permitted to
occur partly in order that rational man may see how
far God has elevated him in the scale of being, and
what a difference there is, and must be, between his
proper rank and that of all the inferior races.
Second. All human beings have conscience, and no
others have. It is admitted here, also, that God might
create any number of isolated and independent beings,
endowed with this faculty; but the remark now made
is, that where we find a certain class endowed thus,
and separated from all others by an impassable chasm,
it is most philosophical to refer them to a common
origin, and to suppose that they belong to one race.
Now no one will doubt that man, as such, is endowed
with conscience, and that as such he is separated by an
interval that is never crossed, from all other creatures
on the earth. It is doubtful whether in any other
creature on earth there is even the slightest glimmering
of this faculty, or anything which would ever suggest
it as even a possible thing. The domestic dog is the
only animal that ever seems to make any approximation
to a consciousness of having done wrong; and if in
that animal it ever exists, it is in the slightest possible
degree, and wholly incapable of cultivation in the
species. In man, however, it is universally found in
the Caucasian, the Mongolian, the Ethiopian, the American. It may be much darkened, obscured and perverted, but it is there, and it is capable, by cultivation,
of becoming all that is needful to control, restrain, and
govern human conduct. It lives and lingers amidst
the deepest debasement, and a human being can never
be so degraded that it shall be wholly expelled from
the bosom.  We are as certain of finding it, in some




146         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
form, in the most debased savage as in him who has
reached the highest type of civilization; in the most
oppressed slave, as in the most exalted freeman. Mre
are sure that it is there; we are sure that it can be
aroused so as to become a most powerful agent in restraining from sin, and prompting to virtue. Now it
is the most natural and philosophical interpretation of
this fact, to infer that where this exists, there is one
race. It is such a fact as would exist if the race were
one; it cannot well be supposed that God would engage
in separate and independent works of creation, when
this is found so prominent, so powerful, and so distinctive a faculty.
Third. As connected with this, and as consequent on
this, man is a being, as such, capable of being governed
by moral law. Here it is to be admitted, also, that God
might have made any number of beings isolated and
independent, who would be capable of being governed
by moral law; but the point now suggested is, that
where this is found as constituting a distinct class of
beings, it is most natural and philosophical to suppose
that they had a common origin and a common ancestry.
It cannot be denied that there is a class of undoubted
facts on which this argument is predicated. Man is
the only being on earth capable of being governed by
moral law, or in relation to whose conduct this can be
relied on. Man is so governed. The laws of God; the
laws of conscience; the laws of morals; the sense of right
and wrong, of justice and injustice-these and kindred
things are the main grounds of reliance all over the
world in the government of man. In the worst forms
of despotism; under the most vigilant and rigid police;
in an army —the most arbitrary and absolute of all




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            147
governments; in all forms of slavery, there is a reliance
for securing virtue, order, and industry, derived from
the sense of moral obligation, tenfold more constant
and more powerful than there is from force or fear.
Under free institutions it is almost the only reliance, and
if we take any instance that may occur under the most
absolute form of despotism, we should be surprised,
perhaps, to find in how many respects comparatively
the conduct of the subject is secured by the operations
of conscience, and by a sense of what is right; in how
few, though these may be more marked and prominent,
by the dread of punishment. Whatever there is of
fidelity in the domestic relations; of kindness to others;
of honesty and truthfulness; of temperance, chastity,
and charity-nay, of obedience to laws though unjust,
and of respect to the despot himself, is to be traced
much more to this sense of right and wrong than to
mere arbitrary power. But for this no government
could be instituted over man; no subordination could
be secured.  And this pertains to man alone. We
expect to find it everywhere; we make it an element
in all our calculations about a human being. We
cannot make it an element in our calculations about
any other creature on earth. Now this looks as?f the
race were one; as if there was something that divided
this one race absolutely and forever from all inferior
beings. It is just such an arrangement as would exist
on the supposition that all men are descended from
one ancestry; it is a fact which cannot be easily explained on any other supposition.
Fourth. The endowments of man in reference to the
future all show the same thing. I mean that there is
a class of endowments in this respect to be found in




148         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
man, and in man alone, which are what they would be
on the supposition that the race is descended from a
single pair, and which are such as they would not be
on any other supposition. I refer to the fact that
human beings have hopesr desires, and aspirations,
which other creatures have not, and that they are of
such a character as to indicate a common origin. These
endowments may be, indeed, very feeble in many cases.
They may be overlaid by ignorance; by corrupt passions; by brutality. They may be almost trodden out
by the heel of oppression. But they exist. They can
be revived. They may become powerful in any human
being. We have only to cultivate them, to place men
in such circumstances that they may be developed, to
make these endowments most elevated and most transforming elements in controlling men. And these things
exist in man alone. In no other creature, by any process of cultivation, or by any length of years, can the
glimmerings of these feelings be excited; nor can the
most elevated of the brutal creation be placed, in these
respects, on a level with the very lowest of the human
species. Is not the most natural explanation of this
fact the supposition that all the race has descended
from one pair?
Fifth. It is also an indisputable fact, indicating unityin the race, that the distinction between man and the
lower animals in the points now referred to, is never
confounded. The line which divides them is never
crossed. The brute never becomes a man. The faculties of the brute are never so enlarged or developed
that he is exalted to the condition of a human being,
that he reasons, acts from conscience, cherishes hopes,
builds houses, writes books, makes speeches, constructs




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            149
railroads, bridges, or telegraphs. He makes no attainment which he transmits to coming ages; he does
nothing which makes the instinct of the next generation of his own species different from what it was in
the first one of the race. The beaver built his house
with as much skill, and the honey-bee its cell with as
much mathematical accuracy, in the first age of the
world, as the beaver and the bee of the present generation do. The lion and the elephant of the early
ages is a lion or an elephant still, and nothing has been
done to change either of them into a man.
It is true that this consideration would not of itself
demonstrate that all the race is descended from one
pair, any more than a similar consideration would
demonstrate that all the lions, or all the wolves, or all
the elephants were descended respectively from one
pair; but it is a consideration to show that thereis
unt in the race;; 4h. pitia        1,.t. e4 j yiisabp   e'barriers from  all the races of animals beneath; and
that the most natural solution of the facts in the case
is that they all had one origin.
Sixth. To this conclusion not a few of the most
eminent men in science have come as the result of
purely scientific investigation. It is not to be denied
that a different opinion is embraced by other men,
some of them also eminent in science; but the fact
now adverted to may be regarded as a proof that
the doctrine of a diversity of origin of the human
race is not an established fact in the purely scientific
world, and cannot be alleged as an argument to overthrow the authority of the Bible. I-e cannot be properly accused of credulity, or of disregarding the conclusions of science, who maintains with such men as
11




150         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
will now be referred to the doctrine of the unity of
the human race, and the belief of the Scripture account that all the varieties of men on the earth have
descended from one pair.
"The different races of mankind," says Humboldt
-employing the language of the distinguished German
naturalist Miller, to give expression to the view which
he himself adopts-" the different races of mankind
are not different species of a genus, but forms of one
sole species."  "The human species," says Cuvier,
"appears to be single."  "When we compare," says
Pritchard, "all the facts and observations which have
been heretofore fully established as to the specific instincts and separate physical endowments of all the
distinct tribes of sentient beings in the universe, we
are entitled to draw confidently the conclusion that all
human races are of one species and one family."*
IV. It has not yet been shown that the diversities
among men cannot be accounted for on the supposition
that all the varieties of the human race have been derived from one pair. It is not easy, indeed, to prove
a negative, and it is not ordinarily fair in logic to call
on an adversary to demonstrate a negative, yet, in this
case it is certainly fair to demand that he who denies
that all men are descended from one pair, and that
the Scripture account is the true one, should demonstrate that the varieties in the human race CANNOT be
accounted for, except on the supposition of a diversity
of origin. This is the essential point of his position.
There is certainly no historical fact on which he can
rely to demonstrate that the varieties of men on the
* Testimony of the Rocks, pp. 265, 266.




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            151
earth have had a different parentage; there are no
documentary records —no monuments —no, not even
any traditions-which go back to any distant parentage of the Caucasian, the Mongolian, the African, and
the American races; for there are no records which go
up to the origin of man, unless those records are found
in the Bible. With all the testimony, therefore, which
history actually furnishes that men are descended from
one pair; with all the presumptions in favor of that fact
derived from the considerations which have been suggested above; with the undoubted fact that very material
changes are made in men, and in the habits, the form,
the qualities of the lower animals, by climate, by training, by accident, it is not improper to demand of him
who denies that the races of men are descended from
one pair, that he should demonstrate that the diversities
existing among men CANNOT have been produced by
influences such as have been referred to; and particularly the three following possible solutions-to specify no more-must be set aside, or shown to be impossible, before it will be proper to draw the conclusion
that the Scripture account is false:(1) It must be shown that the varieties in the human
family, in complexion, stature, and anatomical structure,
cannot have been the result of climate, or of long-continued habits and customs. Very great changes, in these
respects, are produced by these causes; and it is necessary that it should be shown that the acknowledged
differences among men lie beyond the range of such
changes. It might be necessary, also, to show how far
such causes may go, and where exactly is the dividing
line between what may be produced, and what not, from
those causes. There are great varieties among the Mon



152        THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
golian people themselves, and yet it would hardly be
maintained that the Tartars, and the Htindoos, and the
Chinese races have each a separate ancestry. There
are great varieties in the American races of savages,
and yet it would not be maintained that each of the
tribes which constituted the Iroquois, the Mexicans,
the Peruvians, and the Patagonians, had a separate ancestry. There are very great varieties in the African
races between the inhabitants of Congo, the Bakwains,
and the Caffrarians, but it has not been held to be necessary to suppose that each of these varieties had a different ancestry. Even the advocates of a diversity of origin
in the human race, have supposed that all these subordinate varieties can be accounted for on a different supposition than.that they each had a separate ancestry.
It is not improbable that the hundred and fifty varieties of dogs on the earth could be traced to a single
pair; and can it be shown that the varieties in the
human species could not be accounted for on the supposition that the causes above referred to might have
produced it? This MUST be demonstrated-not asserted
-before it wiriifl3T6gicai to setFidec the testimony of
the Bijble ing the case.
(2) It must be demonstrated by him who denies the
doctrine that all the races of men have descended from
one pair, that the varieties which exist could not have
been the result of what is commonly called "accident:"
that is, a variety which, so far as human knowledge
can go, can be traced to no known cause-a variety
producing a new type or form, which may be propagated or transmitted to future generations. There can
be no doubt that there are laws in regard to such
methods of producing variety in plants and animals;




IN THE WORD OF GOD.             153
but man, as yet, has been unable, to any extent, to
arrange and classify those laws. Yet it is to this, more
than to anything else, perhaps. that we owe the varieties in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, on which
the happiness of man and the progress of the world so
much depend. Under this law, if it is a law, and not
the result of a direct divine interference, the species are
continued intact in the vegetable and animal kingdoms;
the proper lines between orders and species are never
crossed; the great divisions between the different
kingdoms are never confounded; but within these
limits, endless varieties are introduced upon the earth,
rendering it possible that there should be a constant
advance in human things. What seems to be an accident in the races of horses, sheep, cattle, by which one
or more of a superior order, or of a different color or
form, may be produced and propagated, becomes the
foundation for the different breeds of horses, sheep, and
cattle; and to this fact, undoubtedly, is to be traced the
origi'n of the different breeds of animals, and the fact
that those of one generation may be so much more
valuable than those of a former age. It is a well known
fact, also, that in planting the seeds of apples, strawberries, peaches, and other fruits, there is no certainty,
nor indeed the smallest probability, that any considerable number of seeds will produce the same fruit as the
parent. While there will be no crossing between the
species; while the apple will produce an apple, the
peach a peach, and the strawberry a strawberry, and
nothing else, it is still true that none of them may be
like the parent, and that no two of the same kind of
seeds will produce the same kind of fruit. It is to this,
as is well known, that we obtain from "seedlings" that




154         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
vast variety of fruit which we now possess; and from
this fact it occurs that there is a possibility of progress
in the cultivation of fruit and grain. A strawberry, a
peach, an apple, thus produced, may be far in advance
in size and flavor of the parent, and, by becoming the
parent of a new variety, may lay the foundation for
permanent progress in horticulture or agriculture. The
products of "seedlings," also, are capable of propagation. While it is true, as a general law, that the
"hybrids," the "cross-breeds," and the "half-breeds," are
less susceptible of propagation, and soon "run out;" and
while it is true that the offsprings of different races of
animals cannot propagate their kind, this is by no means
true of the accidental varieties in the same species. Now
it cannot be demonstrated that all the varieties in the
human race may not have been produced under some
such law; or, in other words, that they may not be the
result of an accidental variety, as difficult of explanation as the existence of a black sheep in a flock; or a
horse of peculiar color, beauty, or size; or of a Devon,
an Ayrshire, or a Durham variety among "ttle; or of
Hovey's Seedling, the Moyamensing Piihe, the McAvoy's Superior, the British Queen, /6r the Early
Scarlet, among strawberries; or of the/Early Harvest,
the Summer Pearmain, the Maiden's Blush, the Hlawthornden, the Rambo, the Fall Pippii, the Bell-flower,
the Greening, or the Spitzenberg, among apples; or of
the Carnation, the Elton, the Kentish, the Late Duke,
the May Duke, the Morello, or the White Heart, among
cherries; or of the Bloodgood, the Julienne, the Tyson,
the Moyamensing, the Washington, the Bartlett, the
Marie Louise, the Duchesse d'Angouleme, the Chaumontel, or the Seckel, among pears. All these, and




IN THE WORD OF GOD.           155
numerous other varieties, are to be traced to the same
cause: at first to "accident," and then to culture and
propagation. No man can demonstrate that the varieties
in the human species may not have been produced
under some such law, by an origin which can no more
be accounted for than the origin of the Catawba Grape,
the Moorpark Apricot, or the Rare-Ripe Peach. It is
not affirmed that this is the origin of the different
races of men; it is affirmed only that the man who
maintains that all the varieties of the human race have
not descended from one pair must demonstrate that a
law which prevails so extensively in regard to animals
and plants, and which is the foundation of the vast
variety existing in those kingdoms-a variety apparently
as great as those which are found in the human speciescould NOT have had an existence in the propagation of
man. The presumption from analogy would seem to
be that this was at least probable; the contrary can
never be demonstrated.
(3) It is necessary for those who assert that the
diversities of the human race cannot be accounted for
philosophically on either of the two suppositions which
have been referred to, to demonstrate that it cannot
have been caused by some direct divine interposition,
by which, for some cause not now known to us, such
a change may have been produced in the constitution
of certain portions of the race as to lay the foundation
for the diversities which now exist. That God has
had, and still has, the power to do this, no one can deny;
and whether he ever has thus interposed in relation to
man, or to any other creatures upon the earth, is a
question to be examined, and which is a fair subject of
inquiry. A rejecter of revelation has not the right to




156         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
assumne that this could not be; for changes have occurred
on the earth certainly not less remarkable, or less difficult of explanation, than this would be. A great change
of belief has already commenced, and will be likely to
extend much farther than it has yet done, in regard
to the divine interposition in the affairs of the earth.
Formerly the whole doctrine of miracles was denied,
and the denial was attempted to be maintained on the
ground of science. It was held to be unphilosophical
to suppose that God would interpose in any such way
as to change, or, as it was expressed,'to violate' the
laws of nature; and Mr. IHume endeavored to demonstrate that it was impossible to be proved by human
testimony that any such changes have occurred. One
of the great revolutions produced by the disclosures of
geology consists in the fact that God is again introduced into his own world, and in the demonstration
of the fact, that he has, from time to time, interposed
in the affairs of the earth by a succession of most remarkable miracles-that is, by producing changes which
cannot be traced to any secondary antecedent causes, or
to the operation of mere physical laws. It is now established by the disclosures of geology that there has
been on the earth a succession of races of animals, a
large part of which have passed away, and that these
successive races came upon the earth, not by development from some anterior and inferior race, but by a
beginning-a springing into existence anew-a creation
-and therefore a miracle. No conclusion of geology
is more clear and well defined than this, that those
races are distinct from each other; that one is not a
development from a preceding race; that they have
begun to be, and that having accomplished their pur



IN THE WORD OF GOD.            157
pose, they have passed away to give place to a new
race or order of higher character, and better adapted
to the new condition of the world, until at last man
appeared, not as a development from an inferior race,
but as a new form of being. Now, these new and
successive races of animals must either have been the
production of physical laws, or must have sprung up
by " spontaneous generation," or must have been developed from an inferior race, or must have been brought
upon the stage by direct creative power. The science
of geology, left to itself, has set aside each of the former of these suppositions, and has disclosed to the
world the fact that there have been successive CREATIONS upon the earth, occupying vast periods of duration, perhaps millions of years, until the whole was
crowned by the creation of man; and that, so far from
its being true that miracles are impossible, nothing has
been more common on the earth. God has been continually interposing by miraculous creative power.
Each new order of beings that has been introduced
into the world, has been brought upon the stage by a
miracle; each new act of creation has been a miracle;
and whatever may have been, in the estimation of
Mr. Hume, the insufficiency of "human testimony,"
in establishing a miracle, no one can doubt now the
"testimony" of geology, as found in the fossil remains of the extinct generations of beings scattered
over the earth, each followed by a new creation, that
there have been interventions of Divine power above
that of any existing "laws of nature," in producing
momentous changes in the affairs of our world; that is,
that.miracles "have been matters of quite common occurrence," for every act of creation must be a miracle.




158        THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
It is not, therefore, an opinion which should be set
aside as unworthy of attention, that God may have interposed at some period, or periods, in the affairs of
men, in producing changes in the human condition
which would account for all the diversities now found
among the races of men upon the earth.
The remark which I have been now making is, that
we have a right to demand that he who denies the
truth of the Scripture statement that the race is made
of one blood, and is descended from one pair, should
be able to set aside each of these suppositions, before
he can philosophically reject the testimony of the Bible
on the subject. If either of these suppositions will account for the varieties in the human race, or, if either of
them may have occurred-that is, if it is impossible to
demonstrate that they could not have occurred, then
it is not unphilosophical to receive the testimony of the
Bible in the case as true.
The opinion of the writer of this Essay would be of
no value as to the question which of these three suppositions is most philosophical, and which will ultimately
be found to be true; but I may be permitted to submit
the inquiry whether the second of those suggested, and
which has not been commonly referred to in endeavoring to account for the diversities of the race, will not
be found to be most in accordance with the analogies
of nature. The believer in the Bible must suppose
that the solution is to be found in one of them, and he
may be held to the responsibility of showing that one
of them is probable and philosophical._ It is indispensable for the rejecter of revelation to show that
neither of them can possibly be true.




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            159
CHAPTER IV.
CONCLUSION. WHAT IS THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH IN
THE WORD OF GOD.
THE conclusions which have been reached in this
Essay, if the reasoning which has been pursued is
sound, are the following:
(1) That there is in the nature of things such a thing
as truth-as right and wrong; such a thing as justice,
benevolence, holiness, in themselves considered, and
without reference to any power ordaining them to be
such. God is holy, not simply because he is what he
is, and because he chooses to call this holiness, or
because he requires his creatures to believe that what
he chooses to be constitutes holiness, but because there
is such a thing as holiness in itself, and because that
holiness is found in him. The opposite of this would
not be holiness, even if found in God, and if he chose
to require that it should be regarded as holiness. So
God is true; God is just; God is good, not simply
because certain attributes exist in him and he choose
to call those attributes truth, justice, and goodness, but
because there is such a thing as truth, justice, goodness
in the nature of things, and because these things are
found in fact in the essential nature of God. The
opposite of these things would not be truth, justice,




160         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
goodness, even if found in God, and even if he should
solemnly 9require that they should be regarded as such.
God is thus worthy of adoration, confidence, love, not
because he has chosen to possess certain attributes and
to call them holiness, truth, justice, and goodness, but
because his nature is, in fact, and apart from any
arbitrary appointment, holy, true, just, and good. His
nature is perfect, not simply because it is what it is,
and he choose to call it perfection because it is his, but
because there is such a thing as a perfect character;
and that character is found in him. Any supposable
change of his nature; any act by which he would
become different from what he is, would not make that
new nature perfect or holy because it was his, and
because he chose that it should be regarded as perfect;
but if he became what we now regard as unjust,
untrue, and malevolent, it would be injustice, falsehood,
and malevolence still, though it were found in him.
We adore, love, and reverence God not because he has
made one thing true and another false, and required us
to regard it as such because he has so made them, but
because he is holy, just, good, and true, and is, in fact,
worthy of universal adoration and praise. The foundation of our faith in him is that he is a perfect Being;
not that he is an arbitrary Being, a Being of mere
power, that can " call evil good or good evil," and thus
require his creatures to adopt a shifting morality at
his pleasure.
(2) The nature of God is such that it, in fact, corresponds with that which is eternally true, good, just,
and right, or that it represents that and measures that.
His character, his laws, his plans, always correspond
with, and represent that which is eternally right.




IN THE WORD OF GOD.           161
Knowing what his character is, or what his will is, we
know what is right and what is wrong; for he expresses and represents that in his whole nature and in
all his laws. We need no other standard of right and
wrong, of truth and error, therefore, than his will, for
that will corresponds with what is eternally right and
just; we are sure that, when we understand his nature
and his will, we understand what is eternally just, true,
and good. Thus his character and his will become the
exponent or measure of what is just and true, not
because he makes one thing to be true and another
false, one thing good and another evil, by an act of
will, but because such is the perfection of his nature
that it cannot be otherwise than that it should represent and express what is best. Man is so made that,
when his mind acts freely and under right influences,
he regards his Maker as perfect. God designed, in
forming the human soul, that it should be so made as
to attribute perfection to its Creator, and to have confidence in him as a perfect Being. The soul of man
was so made by a clear purpose on the part of the
Creator, and the skill and wisdom of the Creator have
been eminently shown in making it thus.
In accordance with this view, we are led to believe
that the universe is MADE with the highest wisdom
and goodness. It is not merely formed in a certain
way, and pronounced to be good and wise because it is
the mere pleasure of God that it should be so regarded,
and because he chooses that what he has done should
be regarded as wise and good, but it is made as it
would be on the supposition that it was intended to
make a world that should develop what is wise and
good. The human frame is made in the best manner




162         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
for the ends contemplated, not because it is made in a
certain way and then pronounced to be made in the
best manner, or because God requires us to believe
that what he does is best simply because he chooses to
call it so, but because it is wisely and skilfully made.
It is made as one would make it who should undertake
to adapt it perfectly to the ends in view. So in the
vegetable kingdoms; so in the mineral kingdoms; so
in the air, the water, the land; so in the universe of
stars and suns. The whole framework of nature is
thus wisely fitted up; and the proper result of the
study of the works of God is not merely to learn what
he has done, and then to call that wisdom and goodness
because he has chosen to call it so, but to learn through
those works that God is wise, and great, and good,
and just. The universe is made just as it would be
made by a Being of infinite wisdom, goodness, and,
therefore, it is made in the best manner possible. God
is to be adored and loved, not because he made a universe without any regard to what was wise and best,
and then chose that we should regard what he had
done as wise and best; but he is to be adored and
loved because he has done all things in conformity
with the most perfect idea of what is wise and best,
and he is, THEREFORE, a Being who is worthy of universal confidence and love.
Hence men'study nature;' learning from  nature
not merely what God does, but what is best. They find
there not only the wisest arrangements, but the wisest
models for them to imitate. Most of the mechanical
contrivances among men are mere imitations of nature,
because God has done there what it is best and wisest to
be done. He understood the case perfectly, and he




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            163
adapted his arrangements to what is wisest and best.
In the mechanic arts; in the structure of ships, houses,
bridges, arches; in relation to the power of the lever,
the screw, the inclined plane-to lifting weights, and to
locomotion-men are learning more and more to abandon their own models and to study those of nature; and
in these explorations of nature, men are rapidly coming
to the conclusion that in reference to any object which
they may desire to accomplish, they may find somewhere in nature a more perfect model than they can
themselves devise, and that all that they can hope to
do is to approximate it in some humble degree, but
with no hope of being able to form one as perfect
themselves. The most perfect models for ships, for
example, are found in nature, and the perfection of
naval architecture is closely connected with an acquaintance with the form and structure of the fishes
and fowls whose home is the water, and which are
made to glide safely on the water or swiftly through it.
Geology, while it has seemed to endanger revelation,
has also contributed much to a correct knowledge of
God, and of his truth. Among other things, it has
shown how accurately the principle now referred to
was consulted even in the structure of those animals
that have now passed away, for even in what are now
regarded as the humblest forms of animal life —forms
of life of so little consequence in the great scale of
being that they have been suffered forever to pass
away-proofs of skill are found such as now enter into
the highest mechanical contrivances. God made things
good not by an arbitrary decree, or, in other words, they
were not good because he simply made them, but made
them as perfect as they could be, according to the best




164         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
idea of what was demanded in the circumstances. The
most ingenious contrivances of men have been in numerous cases anticipated, and are but a "repetition of
a previously executed design." "The partitions," for
example, "which separate into chambers all the whorls
of the ammonite except the outermost one, were exquisitely adapted to strengthen, by the tortuous windings of their outer edges, a shell which had to combine
great lightness with great powers of resistance. Itself
a continuous arch throughout, it was supported by a
series of arches inside, somewhat resembling in form
the groined ribs of the Gothic roof, but which, unlike
the ponderous stonework of the mediaeval architects,
were as light as they were strong. And to this combination of arches there was added, in the ribs and
grooves of the cell, yet another element of strength
-that which has of late been introduced into iron
roofs, which, by means of their corrugations-ribs and
grooves like those of the ammonite-are made to span
over wide spaces, without the support of beams or
rafters. Still more recently the same principle has
been introduced into metallic boats, which, when corrugated, like the old ammonites, are found to be sufficiently strong to resist almost any degree of pressure
without the wonted addition of an exterior framework.
The belemnite seems to have united the principle of
the float to that of the sinker, as we see both of them
united in some of our modern life-boats, which are
preserved on their keel by one principle, and preserved
from  foundering by another.  The trilobites were
covered over back and head with the most exquisitely
constructed plate armor; but as their abdomens seem
to have been soft and defenceless, they had the ability




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            165
of coiling themselves round on the approach of danger,
plate moving on plate with the nicest adjustment, till
the rim of the armed tail rested on that of the armed
head, and the creature presented the appearance of a
ball defended at every point. Nor were the ancient
crinoids less remarkable for the amount of nice contrivance which their structures exhibited, than the
ancient molluscs or crustaceans. In their calyx-like
bodies, consisting always of many parts, we find the
principle of the arch introduced in almost every possible form and modification, and the utmost flexibility
secured to their stony arms by the amazing number
of the pieces of which they were composed, and the
nice disposition of the joints. The bony scales which
covered fishes such as the Osteolepis and Diplopterus
of the Old Red Sandstone, were of considerable mass
and thickness. They could not, compatibly with much
nicety of finish, be laid over each other, like the thin
horny scales of the salmon or herring; and so we find
them curiously fitted together, not like slates on a
modern roof, but like hewn stones on an ancient one.
There ran on the upper surface of each, along the anterior side and higher end, a groove of a depth equal
to half the thickness of the scale; and along the posterior side and lower end, on the under surface, a sort
of bevelled chamber, which, fitting into the grooves of
the scales immediately behind and beneath it, brought
their surfaces to the same line, and rendered the shining coverings of these strongly armed ganoids as
smooth and even as those of the most delicately coated
fishes of the present day."-Testimony of the Rocks.
By Hugh Miller, pp. 241-247.
The world is full of contrivances of this sort, tend12




166         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
ing to illustrate the idea that the Great Creator is a
Being of infinite wisdom and goodness, and that things
are made in accordance with what is in itself wise and
good. There is nothing arbitrary in those works.
The arrangements are resorted to not as a matter of
mere will, but because it is best that they should be resorted to.
The idea here suggested, and which it has been the
object of this Essay to illustrate, is, that the nature of
God is such that his character is perfectly conformed
to what is right and best. In all things his will is
best, not simply because it is his will, but because it is
in itself best, and because such is his nature that what
He does is always conformed to that.
Thus, we have confidence in God: not as a Being of
mere power; not as one who does what he pleases and
then ordains that what he does is best, simply because
he wills it; not as one who might have willed or done
the opposite of what he has willed and done, and who
then, with equal ease, could have made that right by
an act of will; not as one who calls one thing evil and
another good because he chooses to do so, and who
might have reversed the arrangement if he had chosen
to do it; not as one who has made us simply to approve of what he has done, and who could have made
us to have approved the reverse if he had chosen to do
so; not as one who has shaped the conscience merely
to approve of what he does, irrespective of the question
whether it is right or wrong, and who might, if he had
chosen, have so made the conscience as to approve of
what it now condemns, and to feel pain at what now
gives it pleasure. Not for reasons such as these have we
confidence in God, and not for reasons such as these
are we required to have confidence in him, but his




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            167
nature is worthy of confidence, because he is good, and
true, and holy; because his will is always conformed
to what is just and right; because he has so made us
that we can be virtuous after his own image, that we
can approve of what is right in itself, that we can be
prompted by our conscience to what is in itself good,
that we can be deterred from what is evil because a
certain course is evil, that we can be led in a path
which is straight and right because it is straight and
right. In one word, God is not an arbitrary being,
sporting with right and wrong; giving arbitrary names
to things; exalting things indifferent into virtues, or
making things that are harmless, vices; making things
good or evil at his will; establishing by mere will a
temporary and flexible morality: he is a Being all
whose words, and laws, and commands, and acts are
conformed to what IS ETERNALLY AND UNCHANGEABLY
RIGHT. It is only in such a Being that we can have
confidence; only under the government of such a God
that the interests of the universe can be secure. Knowing, if we can in any way, what is true and right, we
know what God will do and ordain; knowing, in any
way, what he does, and what he ordains, we know that
that is right, for his nature is such that that result will
always be secured. The foundation of our confidence,
then, in God is that his nature is absolutely perfect;
that it is conformed to what is eternally true, and just,
and good, and holy, and best.
(3) The foundation of faith in his word, therefore, is,
that that word is the expression of what he sees to be
true and right, and that, therefore, it is worthy of our
confidence in the same way that he himself is. It is
based on evidence that it is indeed his word, and though
in all cases we may not be able to see its reasonableness




168         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
-as we cannot in all cases see the reason of his doingsyet we feel assured that his word has a foundation in
the truth itself, as his doings have a foundation in wisdom. In neither case do we contemplate a mere
utterance of will, but we contemplate what we are
made to regard as wisdom and truth. The faith which
we have in his word is faith in himself, and resolves
itself ultimately into that. It is a confident belief that
what he reveals is in accordance with what is eternally
true and right. If it be supposed that he would make
a revelation at all, he could communicate as truth nothing else than what he has communicated. He could
not, by an act of will, have made to be true the reverse
of those things which he has now revealed as true, nor
could he have made those things to be right which
would be the reverse of what he has now commanded.
As he could not have made two and two seven, or the
three angles of a triangle more than two right angles,
so he could not have made ingratitude, pride, selfishness, dishonesty, fraud, oppression, cruelty, slavery,
right. There are eternal principles of truth and justice. He has made us to approve of those principles,
and to disapprove of the opposite; and he has made
us to love and reverence him because all his acts and
laws are conformable to those principles. We could
not approve the conduct or love the character of a
God whose revealed word was not conformed to these
eternal principles.
(4) In those matters, which lie level to our comprehension, or within the limits of our present faculties,
his revealed truth commends itself to our understandings and our consciences, in such a way that we perceive
it to be true. We might not have been able to discover
it ourselves. The human mind might never have come




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            169
up to it in its onward progress. But when it is revealed, it commends itself as true, and we receive it as
such. We see that it accords with all our convictions
of truth; with all the principles of our nature; with all
the demands of our moral and intellectual being; with
all the circumstances of our condition; with all our
constitutional desires and aspirations. The doctrines
which he has revealed commend themselves to us in
such a sense that the opposite could not be made to
commend themselves to us, or so that we could not
find in our being that which would approve of the
opposite of these things as true. As no revelation
could so present the proposition that all the angles of
a triangle are greater than two right angles that we
could receive it as true, so there are propositions in
morals and religion which could not be so commended
to us by any pretended revelation that we could possibly receive them as true. They would be false to
our nature; false to our instincts; false to our hopes;
false to our experience; false to the whole course of
things on earth. We could not, by any authority of a
pretended revelation, be made to embrace the proposition that intemperance is a virtue, for the whole course
of things is against such a proposition. No virtue
could lead to such results as intemperance does. We
could not, by any pretended revelation, be made to believe that ingratitude, falsehood, treachery, dishonesty,
theft, oppression, are virtues; for all the instincts of
our nature, all the laws of our being, all the results of
conduct, demonstrate to us that such things cannot be
virtues. But we can believe, we do easily believe, that
the conduct recommended in the golden rule is virtuous; for, although.we might not have been able to
12*




170        THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
originate that rule ourselves, it so commends itself to
us when it is revealed that we see at once that it is
right and good. The same is true of the requirements
of honesty, fidelity, kindness, benevolence, charity, and
chastity. The same is true of the law which requires
us to pray, to love God, to keep his law, to lead a
serious life, to prepare for another world. Nothing
could convince the world at large that theft and piracy
are right; nothing can convince the world at large
that slavery is right; and if in a book of pretended
revelation these things were sanctioned as right, or
enjoined as just, the book would ultimately be rejected
by mankind. Man could not be convinced that such
a book came from God —for such doctrines are opposed
to the constitution of our nature, and they cannot be
embraced by the world as right.
It is the fact now adverted to which is the foundation of the strong attachment of Christians to the truths
of the Bible. They see the statements in the Bible to
be true. These statements accord with all the demands
of their nature; with all the wants of their condition;
with all their own experience; with all the circumstances of their being. Nothing can convince them
that the religion which reveals such truths is false.
They may not be able to demonstrate, so as to meet
the cavils of objectors, that the miracles alleged to
have been wrought, were wrought; they may not be
qualified to enter into the learned questions which arise
in regard to the criticism of the sacred books; they
may be unable to meet many of the sneers and cavils
of infidels; but they are assured that the truths in
the Bible accord with the wants of their nature, and
are such as it is proper that a revelation should communicate to mankind. They are so made that they




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            171
cannot believe those statements to be false. No terror
of the flames of martyrdom can convince them that
they are not true. Euclid could never have been convinced that two rectangles, which have the same altitude, are not to each other as their bases; Pythagoras
could never have been convinced that in a right-angled
triangle the square of the hypothenuse is not equal to
the sum of the squares of the two sides; and Galileo,
with all his submission to the authority of the church,
never was convinced that the Copernican system of
astronomy is not the true system. No fury of persecution; no terrors of the rack, the thumb-screw, the
fagot, ever could have convinced those men that they
did not hold the truth on those subjects. In like
manner, no terror of the rack or the stake can convince
a Christian that he has not by nature a sinful heart;
that he is not bound to love God; that the law of God
is not such as his conscience and reason approve; that
the plan of salvation is not adapted to his wants as a
sinner, as a dying man, and as a traveller to another
world. Nothing can convince him that the requirements of the Gospel are not adapted to promote his
own purity, peace, and happiness, or that that Gospel
would not put a period to the evils that now reign
upon the earth. The Gospel commends itself to his
nature; it meets his wants; it satisfies his soul; it fills
him with peace; it sustains him in trial; it aids him
in the hour of temptation; it inspires him with hope;
it elevates his character, and imparts to him a joy
which he has sought in vain in the pleasures and pursuits of the world. He may not be able to'argue' for
these truths, but he can'burn' for them; and hence
thousands and tens of thousands of Christians, many
of them'unlearned and ignorant' — many of them




172         THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
trained in the refinements of elevated life-many of
them tender and delicate females —have gone cheerfully to the stake in attestation of their faith in the
Redeemer.
(5) In matters which lie beyond the limits of our
reason, the precepts of a true revelation will be in the
range of truths already known, and will commend
themselves to us as such. We have the same confidence in the disclosures of the telescope which we
have in those which are made by the naked eye. We
as really believe in the existence of Uranus or Neptune; in the existence of stars in the various nebulae;
and in the existence of the asteroids between Mars
and Jupiter, as we do in the sun or the moon. The foundation of faith is the same; and a man will as certainly
and confidently act on the belief of the one as the
other. So in regard to the truths of revelation. Many
of those truths could never have been discovered by
the unaided reason of man. But they lie in the range
of truths already known, and none of them are contradictory to truths with which we are familiar, and
on which we act from day to day. The instrument
by which they are communicated to us makes no difference in regard to the foundation or the strength of
our faith, any more than the fact that one object is
made known to us by the naked eye and another by
the telescope makes a difference in the foundation of
our faith in natural things. The foundation of faith
in either case is simply that what is believed is TRUE.
It matters not how the truth in the case is communicated to the mind; the fact that it IS true is that on
which the mind relies. In the cases just supposed, we
rely in one instance on the testimony of the naked
eye, in another on the testimony of the telescope; in




IN THE WORD OF GOD.            173
either case, on our conviction that what is believed is
true. In matters pertaining to God; to the atonement;
to the resurrection of the dead; to the realities of another world, we rest on the conviction of our own reason
and conscience as far as they will carry us, and then on
the testimony of God in matters above our reason: in
either case on the belief that what is embraced by the
mind is true. Our faith then in those things which lie
beyond the limits of our own immediate observation is
of the same nature, and is as firm, as in respect to
those things which are within the range of our unaided
powers, as faith in the revelations of the telescope is
of the same nature as faith in the disclosures made by
the naked eye.
(6) From the nature of the case, and from the results of all the progress that man has made thus far
in science, the friend of the Bible may and should
believe that all the disclosures yet to be made in science will be in accordance with the teachings of that
book. As the teachings of the Bible commend themselves to our reason; to the instincts of our nature;
to all just conceptions of right and wrong; to the
eternal doctrines of truth; to all our wants and to all
our hopes-as they accord with what science has disclosed thus far, and as the results have shown that
there may be just confidence in the Bible so far as
the knowledge of man has gone, the friend of the
Bible is justified in supposing that it will always be
so. The Bible, in its moral teachings, has commended
itself to mankind as being in accordance with the
principles of eternal truth and justice; it has kept in
advance on the subject of morals of all that man could
discover from other sources, and is still in advance;
science has not yet disclosed anything that has been




174        THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH
demonstrated to be contradictory to the statements of
the Bible; the results of all the discoveries made
have been only to extend the conviction in the world
that the Bible is true, and as the Bible occupies this
position in an age of the world such as this is, it cannot be regarded as an unjustifiable anticipation that
it will always occupy a similar position. The believer
in the Bible has nothing to fear. The just foundation
of faith in the word of God has not thus far been
shaken. From this point, it seems to be proper that
the believer in the book should look onward without
apprehension of the future. The chemist will conduct
his inquiries in accordance with the laws of his own
science, and without reference to the questions of
exegesis about the meaning of the Bible, or of any
other book. Let him do it. Let him not be disturbed
in his communion with retorts, and blowpipes, and
crucibles, even though he should pursue his inquiries
with the feelings of Mephistopheles in Faust.-The
miner will dig in the rocks, will turn up again the old
foundations of the earth, and pursue his inquiries
amidst the monuments of by-gone ages —the relics and
memorials of extinct generations of animals-the
monuments that tell of modes of being that have long
since passed away, and that are now unknown-quite
irrespective of any inquiry about what. the Bible
teaches respecting the age of the world. Let him do
it. Let him not be disturbed as he wields his pickaxe, by any of the questions which interpreters of the
Bible have raised about the meaning of the first chapter of Genesis. Thus far the result has shown that
from such sources the friend of the Bible has nothing
to fear.-The astronomer will point his glass to the
heavens, and search for new stars, planets, comets,




IN THE WORD OF GOI).          175
asteroids; will endeavor to resolve the still unresolved
nebula, and to bring other nebulae into view, to be
resolved in turn by some future explorer, and he will
do all this with no reference as to what the Bible
teaches on the subject of creation. Let him do it.
Thus far the friend of the Bible has had nothing to
fear from these discoveries, and he has no ground to
apprehend the result of any disclosures which astronomy may have yet to make.-The antiquarian will
brush the dust from ancient monuments, and seek to
decipher the meaning of long-buried inscriptions on
temples and tombs; and he will do this with no reference to what the Bible teaches as to the antiquity of
the human race. Let him do it. Thus far the friend
of the Bible has seen no reason for apprehension as to
the result of such inquiries. Champollion and Lepsius
in Egypt, and Layard in Assyria, have done nothing
to shake the confidence of the Christian in the Bible;
and it is not an unfair anticipation that no future disclosures from ancient tombs and temples will shake the
foundation of faith in the word of God. And so the
race will make progress in morals; in political science;
in the refinements and courtesies of domestic and
public intercourse; in the promptings of humanity;
in the impulses of a generous benevolence; in its
views of what is proper in the dealings of man with
man; in the claims to liberty as a right to be enjoyed
by all men-but in none of these things will mankind
ever get in advance of the teachings of the word of
God. These teachings are in accordance with eternal
truth; and the nearer the approximation which men
make in any form of knowledge to the principles of
eternal truth, the more will they appreciate and love
the word of God. Thle farther they advance in that




176 FOUNDATION OF FAITH IN THE WORD OF GOD.
knowledge, also, the more will they venerate the character of God-for they will but perceive more clearly
that that character is not arbitrary-is not changeable —
is not founded on a mere purpose of will —but that it is
in accordance with what is eternally true, and right, and
wise, and good; that he is to be adored because his
nature is so perfect that all that he says and does will
be in accordance with what is best, and will in all things
be the exact measure of what is true and good.
The sum of all-the result of all our inquiries is
this: The foundation of faith in God and in his word
is, that GOD IS INFINITELY WISE, JUST, AND GOOD; not
that he is an arbitrary Being, making evil good and
good evil at his pleasure; not as having the right to
reverse these things if he should choose; not as having
the power of making that.right which is now wrong,
or that wrong which is now right-that true which is
now false, or that false which is now true-that crooked
which is now straight, or that straight which is now
crooked-that benevolent which is now malignant, and
that malignant which is now benevolent; but the
foundation of confidence in God and his word is in
the fact that there is an eternal distinction between
right and wrong-that there are things that are right
in themselves, and things that are wrong in themselves-and that the character of God IS SO PERFECT
THAT ALL THAT HE SAYS AND DOES IS, AND WILL EVER
BE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT IS ETERNALLY TRUE,
AND RIGHT, AND BEST.
THE END.