SERMON ON THE BANK OF KILLARNEY. 395 "am I, bound by the duties of my profession to inquire into the attributes of the Creator; bound still more strongly by an "intense desire to do so; possessing, like yourself, the same 66 powerful science to aid my inquiries; and yet, within this "last short half hour, you have opened to me views of the "Creator surpassing all of which I have hitherto had any conception !" 66 These views had evidently made a very deep impression on his mind. Amidst the beautiful scenery in the South of Ireland he frequently reverted to the subject; and, having accompanied me to Waterford, offered to cross the Channel with me if I could spend one single day at Milford Haven. Unfortunately, long previous arrangements prevented this delay. I parted from my friend, who, though thus recently acquired, seemed, from the coincidence of our thoughts and feelings, to have been the friend of my youth. I little thought, on parting, that one whom I so much admired, so highly esteemed, would in a few short months be separated for ever from the friends who loved him, and from the society he adorned. CHAPTER XXX. RELIGION. "Before thy holy altar, sacred Truth, And my last accents hail thine opening day." The à priori proof of the existence of a Deity-Proof from Revelation-Dr. Johnson's definition of Inspiration-Various Meanings assigned to the word Revelation'-Illustration of transmitted Testimony-The third source of proof of the existence of a Deity-By an examination of His Works-Effect of hearing the Athanasian Creed read for the first time. THERE are three sources from which it is stated that man can arrive at the knowledge of the existence of a Deity. 1. The à priori or metaphysical proof. Dr. Samuel Clarke. 2. From Revelation. Such is that of 3. From the examination of the works of the Creator. 1. The first of these, the à priori proof, is of such a nature that it can only be apprehended in a high state of civilization, and then only by the most intellectual. Even amongst that very limited class it does not, as an argument, command universal assent. 2. The argument deduced from revelation is advanced in many countries and for several different forms of faith. WILFUL ABUSE OF LANGUAGE. 397 When it is sincerely adopted it deserves the most respectful examination. It must, however, on the other hand, be submitted to the most scrutinizing inquiry. As long as the believer in any form of revelation maintains it by evidence or by argument, it is only by such means that it ought to be questioned. When, however, professed believers dare to throw doubt upon the motives of those whose arguments they are unable to refute, and still more, when, availing themselves of the imperfections of language, they apply to their opponents epithets which they can defend in one sense but know will be interpreted in another—when they speak of an adversary as a disbeliever, because, though he believes in the same general revelation, he doubts the accuracy of certain texts, or believes in a different interpretation of others-when they apply the term infidel, meaning thereby a disbelief in their own view of revelation, but knowing that it will be understood as disbelief in a Deity,-then it is at least allowable to remind them that they are richly paid for the support of their own doctrines, whilst those they revile have no such motives to influence or to mislead their judgment. Before, however, we enter upon that great question it is necessary to observe that belief is not a voluntary operation. Belief is the result of the influence of a greater or less preponderance of evidence acting upon the human mind. It ought also to be remarked that the word revelation assumes, as a fact, that a Being exists from whom it proceeds; whilst, on the other hand, the existence of a Deity is possible without any revelation. The first question that arises is the meaning of the word revelation. In its ordinary acceptation it is said to be a direct communication from the Deity to an individual human 398 being. 66 INSPIRATION. Inspiration is when an Dr. Johnson remarks:overpowering impression of any propositions is made upon "the mind by God himself, that gives a convincing and "indubitable evidence of the truth and divinity of it." Be it so; but then, as such, it is not revelation to any other human being. All others receive it from the statement of the person to whom the revelation was vouchsafed. To all others its truth depends entirely on human testimony. Now in a certain sense all our faculties being directly given to us by the Supreme Being might be said to be revelations. But this is clearly not the religious meaning of the word. In the latter sense it is a direct special communication of knowledge to one or more persons which is not given to the rest of the race. Before any person can admit the truth of a revelation asserted by another, he must have clearly established in his own mind what evidence he would require to believe in a special revelation to himself. But when he communicates this revelation to his fellowcreatures that which may truly be a revelation to him is not revelation to them. It is to them merely human testimony, which they are bound to examine more strictly from its abnormal nature. Let us now suppose that this believer in his own special revelation offers to work a miracle in proof of the truth of his doctrine, and even, further, that he does perform a miracle. Those who witness it have now before them far higher evidence of inspiration than that of the prophet's testimony. They have the evidence of their own senses that an act contrary to the ordinary laws of nature has been performed. But even here the amount of conviction will be influenced by the state of knowledge the spectator of the miracle him self possesses of the laws of nature which he believes he has thus seen violated.* Granting him, however, the most profound knowledge, the evidence influencing his own mind will be inferior to that which acts upon the mind of the inspired worker of the miracle. If there are more witnesses than one thus qualified, this will to a certain extent augment the evidence, although a large number might not give it a proportional addition of weight. It would be profane to compare evidence derived directly from the Almighty, which must necessarily be irresistible, with the testimony of man, which must always be carefully weighed by taking into account the state of his knowledge, his prejudices, his interests, and his truthfulness. On the other hand, it would lead to endless confusion, and be destructive to all reasoning on the subject, to apply the same word 'Revelation' to things so different in their nature as The immediate act of the Deity. The impression produced by that act on the mind of the person inspired. The description of it given by him in the language of the people he addressed. The record made of his description by those who heard it. The transmission of this through various languages and people to the present day. We have now arrived at the highest external evidence man can have the declaration of inspiration by the prophet, sup I have adopted in the text that view of the nature of miracles which prevailed many years ago. In 1838, I published, in the " Ninth Bridgewater Treatise," my own views on those important subjects-the nature of miracles and of prophecy. Those opinions have been received and adopted by many of the most profound thinkers of very different religious opinions. |