The knowledge of man is of necessity relative; that of Deity is absolute. The one is conversant only with the modes in which objects affect us, the other with the objects as they essentially exist. It is thus manifest that human knowledge can by no possible augmentation make any approximation to Divine knowledge. Thus also, time though multiplied forever, acquires no similarity to eternity. And thus, though the intellect of man should expand forever, still would there remain the same unchangeable disparity between the conceptions of the creature and the conceptions of the Creator. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor my ways your ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my thoughts higher than your thoughts, and my ways higher than your ways.'

6

Again, man is formed with a definite moral nature. He is capable of discerning the qualities in actions termed right and wrong, and the attributes of character termed holiness and sin. He instinctively venerates the one and disapproves of the other. And although he might not be able, unassisted, to form a suitable con

ception of the holiness of Deity, still he feels that all which is glorious in moral purity, belongs by necessity to the Divine nature. He has, moreover, a conviction of his own sinfulness, of his desert of punishment, and of his need of reformation, pardon, and acceptance with his Creator. Now, when the matter of revelation is unfolded, it is found to be in perfect harmony with the moral nature of man; to furnish a remedy precisely adapted to the removal of the moral maladies under which he is suffering; and to exhibit a way of reconciliation with God on which the soul of the penitent sinner rests with a confidence which death itself only renders more stedfast and more triumphant.

In this exquisite adaptation of the truths of revelation to the moral nature of man, we find the element of another argument in support of their divine origin. We think it evident that no being, but Him who created the moral nature of man, could have devised a system of truths so in harmony with it; that no being, but Him who perfectly understood the relations between God and man, the obligations resulting from these relations having

been violated, could have suggested a way of reconciliation which should at the same time secure both the honour of the one party, and the safety of the other. And, let it be remembered here, that the principle on which this argument rests, is one of daily application in the ordinary affairs of life. When two

complicated parts of the same system are found perfectly to correspond with each other, who ever doubted that they proceeded from the same intelligence? In the adaptation of the laws of light to the eye, who does not perceive the proof that light and the eye were made by the same Creator? In the exquisite harmony between the laws of the universe and the intellectual nature of man, who can escape the conviction that they both acknowledge the same Original? We only apply this acknowledged principle to theology, when, from the adaptation of the system of moral truth contained in the Bible to the moral nature of man, we infer that the Bible is the word of God.

2. Of the relation which the truths of the Bible sustain to the world without us.

It is, I presume, universally admitted, that

man is constituted with a power of discerning, in the actions of human beings, a moral quality by which such actions are denominated either right or wrong. Now experience, entirely irrespective of revelation, has demonstrated that a regular order of sequence has been established in respect to this moral quality of actions. By this, I mean, that peculiar consequences are universally found to follow actions denominated right, and other peculiar consequences to follow those actions denominated wrong. And further, since these orders of sequence are established, they are properly termed laws, and since they respect morals, they are termed moral laws. And, yet more, as these consequences are of such a nature that happiness is the result of doing right, and misery the result of doing wrong; as this order must have been established by our Creator, and, as he has made us sensitive beings, we discover in every such sequence a distinct intimation of his will. Since He is infinitely benevolent, we know that where, under the constitution which he has formed, the established tendency of an action is to the happiness

of man, He wills us to do it, and that where the established tendency of an action is to misery, He wills us to leave it undone. From the observation of these moral sequences, therefore, we learn the will of our Creator.

But every one, in the least acquainted with the history of philosophy, must be aware, that much time and many experiments are necessary, in order to verify any established law. The succession must be observed in various situations, by different individuals, and at different periods, before we can distinguish an established from an accidental succession. And again, antecedent and consequent succeed each other, in different cases, at very dissimilar intervals. And the longer the interval between the occurrence of the one and the occurrence of the other, the greater will be the length of time necessary for verifying the law.

It is, however, the fact, that the interval elapsing between cause and effect in morals, is, in comparison with that in physics, exceedingly wide. Thus, the consequences of youthful vice may not be experienced until decrepit old age. Parental wickedness may not be pun