dictions between the language adopted in the Old Testament, and in the delivery of the Jewish law, and the existing evidences of the order of creation, without any impeachment of the religion he professes.

Systematic theologians, indeed, of several schools not acknowledging the spiritual simplicity of Christianity, have too commonly distorted and disfigured its heavenly features by an incongruous admixture partly of human conceits, partly of the peculiarities of the Judaical, or even, perhaps, earlier dispensations.

But a more simple and direct inquiry into the religion of the New Testament seems to me to lead with increasing clearness to the conviction that such views are but perversions of its real spirit. And from such perversion alone it is that Christianity can ever be exposed to danger, or its credit in the least affected by the circumstance that language at variance with what is now known for physical truth, was employed in the delivery of their law to the Jews, or in recounting to them the records of an earlier age, in passages on which nothing in the new and spiritual religion of the gospel is anywhere made to depend by its Divine founder or his apostles.

When, therefore, we consider these contradictions, they appear but to add clearness to an enlightened view of Christianity; and we may ask with increased confidence, what have we to do with these things? In what way does the question concern the Chris

tian faith? If God thought fit to manifest himself thus to the Jews, what is that to us? To Christians we know he has manifested himself in his Son, teaching an universal moral law, a worship in spirit and in truth.

Conclusion.

In this section we have considered the contradictions which exist between the dramatic representations and poetical imagery of the Bible, and the phenomena disclosed to geological research at far greater length than the real simplicity of the case would call for, if men were disposed to view it in its real simplicity. But when such a mass of prepossession opposes the admission of rational views of the matter, we are necessitated to enter more at large on the principles involved, in order to clear away the erroneous notions which have encumbered the whole subject.

We have been led into this discussion in direct relation to the main argument, which refers to the proper order and chain of evidence connecting the proofs of natural and revealed truth. We have traced the dependence of natural theology upon the conclusions of inductive science; and contended for the necessity of natural theology as the foundation of the evidences of revelation. Hence we have maintained the essential independence of physical and revealed truth; and have also observed

how science, at the very threshold, forces upon us a remarkable warning against mistaking the purport of revelation; thus inspiring those who are able to profit by it with due caution and enlightened discrimination in the use and application of its varied contents. The question respecting a particular discrepancy, at first sight perhaps, seeming of no great importance, is found to involve a very important consideration of principles; and to afford a sort of test for the due discernment of the distinct design and purport of the several portions of which the Scripture records are composed *.

* See Note T.

270

GENERAL CONCLUSION.

THROUGHOUT the whole of the foregoing discussion, in illustrating the mutual relation and reaction between physical science, natural theology, and revealed religion, we have referred much to the various misapprehensions which prevail respecting such connexion among the several branches of the inquiry. We have referred especially to the fears entertained for the safety of religion, and the expedients resorted to for obviating the supposed danger; -expedients as futile as the alarms are groundless. We have commented on the hostility felt against science, and the dread of free inquiry; the disparagement of natural theology, and of physical inquiry as its basis, which are dictated by the adherence to the narrowest and most unworthy views of the tenour of revelation. While the rejection of the physical evidences of creation on the one hand, and the attempts to accommodate the Hebrew Scriptures to them on the other, display an unhappy perplexity of ideas, whether as to the principles of interpretation, or to the character and objects of the different parts of the sacred writings.

We have adverted to the causes which have led to the adoption of these views: if we look to the conse

quences of encouraging such a spirit, it is evident that its inevitable results will be anything but serviceable to the true interests of Christianity. The followers of these systems may persuade themselves they are powerfully upholding religion, whilst, in reality, they are only thus exposing themselves and their cause to increased suspicion among its avowed enemies, and with many who are desirous to be its friends.

Such narrow views and flimsy speculations insisted on as necessary to the support of the Christian religion, can only tend to throw discredit on its evideuces, or be regarded as betraying a secret misgiving as to their soundness, in the minds of its professed disciples.

If such a spirit increase and gain ground among the friends of religion, and continue to be inculcated and urged by its advocates, it is manifest that in the temper of the present times, whether by one course or another, it must equally lead to the very object they are so anxious to strive against, the wider and deeper extension of irreligion.

Attempts to oppose rational inquiry and free discussion have always been as vain and futile in themselves, as pernicious to real Christianity. Whenever they have partially succeeded, it has only been, on the one hand, in producing general hypocrisy, ill concealing irreligious licentiousness; or, on the other, in setting faith and philosophy in open hostility: and thus science, from being in its proper way, the