evidence of our reason on one point, we in fact give up the principle of making them our guides to truth: that is, we give up the principle and ground of all experimental knowledge; of all independent search into the works of the Creator; and by consequence, of all rational proof of his existence, and thus ultimately of his revelations too.

To the connexion of physical causes and the order of the material creation we appeal for the evidences of the Divine existence and perfections. Until we have proof of a Deity, we can have none of a revelation. Upon the proofs of natural religion those of revelation essentially depend. To give the latter, then, any share whatever in determining the former, is to make the premises depend on the conclusion. The evidences of natural religion are derived from physical knowledge. To assume, then, the authority of Scripture as in the slightest degree applicable to prove the order of physical causes and the laws of the material creation, is to make revelation the basis of natural theology, or, in other words, to beg the question, to vitiate the whole argument, and to destroy all rational evidence. Yet it would really seem that there are some who do not see the contradiction of such a course;-of believing in revelation without first believing in God; of receiving a doctrine as declared from Him before we prove that He is. For such is precisely the proceeding of those who look to the Bible, as such, for instruction in the science of nature. They do not seem to perceive

that the arguments of natural theology must, from the nature of the case, be independent of the truth of revelation; and that, consequently, the evidences of physical truth, on which the former wholly depend, must be, in like manner, sought for independently of the authority of Scripture. To allow the opposite course is to entangle the chain of reasoning in hopeless confusion, and to make the whole evidence of religion an argument in a circle.

This essential independence of Scripture and physical science is the more necessary to be attended to, because though it has not been overlooked by some writers, yet it has not been generally maintained upon its right basis. And it appears, in reference to some floating opinions of the present time, peculiarly needful to insist upon this distinction, so essential to the stability of the evidences of natural theology, and, by consequence, to those of revelation also, yet so strangely misconceived, and practically denied, by some parties at the present day.

The observations which I have thus far made have referred to any, the most general, notion which can be entertained of a revelation of Divine truth, in whatever we may imagine it to consist, or by whatever means conveyed. They will, however, apply with equal force when we proceed to consider the nature and mode of such communications of Divine truth in a more precise sense; when we advance to the examination of that particular view of revelation

which consists in the adoption of the volume of the Bible, as its sole authentic record and depository.

And this view of the subject naturally and immediately brings us to the examination of a point of considerable importance bearing upon the connexion of natural and revealed truth, and which arises out of the more particular notion of revelation to which we are now referring;-the question of certain real or alleged contradictions between the results of physical investigation and the language of the Bible, and the attempts which have been made to reconcile them.

Among those who admit the general truth of the foregoing remarks,-who allow, when it is distinctly put to them, that the laws of nature, in order to become evidences of a Deity, must be established on independent grounds, there are yet those who feel difficulties with regard to certain Scriptural expressions. Many who fully acknowledge, when it is pressed upon them, the fallacy of making the truth. of Scripture the basis of its own evidence, yet still feel considerably perplexed by alleged discrepancies between science and revelation. They still seem to think the cause of religion in danger, unless the language of all parts of the Bible can be brought into exact accordance with the facts and laws discovered in the natural world, and would thus hazard its entire credit upon the chance of contradiction which may arise at every fresh disclosure of physical discovery.

In any point of view, this is certainly to evince a most disparaging estimate of the evidences of revelation, if not to cast a direct reflection on them, and betrays a singular misconception of its spirit and object. Those who most fully and rationally appreciate the evidences and nature of Christianity, will be the first to perceive and to allow that its stability can be in no way injured by the pursuit of physical truth, or the existence of those contradictions so much referred to, between the letter of the Scriptural representations of the order of creation and the visible existing monuments of the changes which the earth's surface has undergone, before the date of the human race*.

We might, indeed, infer this even upon the general truth of the foregoing remarks. For we have thus seen that to suppose revelation a guide to physical truth would involve us in a petitio principii. It cannot possess any authority on such points without vitiating the whole train of evidence of religion, both natural and also revealed.

Hence, then, it follows by direct inference, that if any representation in Scripture be at variance with the truths elicited in the natural world, such discrepancy cannot be really injurious to the maintenance of the proper spiritual authority of revelation; nor can it in the least vitiate its claims as a disclosure of moral and religious truth.

Sce Note O.

Indeed, the existence of such contradictions may serve to warn the inquirer against arguing in a circle, as reminding him that revelation ought not to be appealed to for physical truth, since he thus perceives that in these instances it cannot.

Attempts to combine Philosophy and Scripture.

THE slightest consideration of the subject in accordance with the principles already laid down, might suffice to any unprejudiced and reasonable inquirer.

Still, however, there are some who cannot feel satisfied; and under a confused impression which they entertain of the relation between physical and revealed truth, are impatient of even any apparent contradiction between them, and anxiously catch at any means of reconciling them. It will, therefore, be desirable to make a few further remarks on these discrepancies, and attempted reconciliations.

The history of past ages supplies us with familiar examples of the spirit in which such questions were viewed. We well know how the letter of religious authority was appealed to in opposition to the discoveries of astronomy. But though these are not the very same points which occupy attention at the present day, yet the principle involved is identically the same. Whether we are to adhere to the letter of Scriptural representation in opposition to the testimony of inductive research, or whether it is safe, rational, or consistent with an enlightened and well