CHAP. XIV.] A POSTSCEIPT. 427 



Now, inasmuch as revelation supposes the validity of and 

 addresses itself to human reason, it would of course p 



tMfculOufU 



be disproved did it contradict absolutely anything Hxheist 

 which human reason absolutely affirmed such *eiTSs 

 dicta acting as our only tests. systems. 



Let us then suppose a man who, by the exercise of his 

 reason, has arrived at that theistic belief and willing anticipa 

 tion of a revelation which is here maintained to be rational. 



Looking abroad upon the world as he finds it to-day, he can 

 hardly hesitate as to the revelation into the claims of which 

 he is morally bound to inquire with reverent candour. This 

 revelation is that which the Christian Church alone affirms 

 itself to possess infallibly and to put before unbelievers for 

 their acceptance. If such a- man finds that the doctrines of 

 the Church contradict what his reason positively affirms, he 

 must, of course, reject it ; but he is bound to accept it if he 

 finds its teaching harmonize with his reason and with his 

 conscience. As a fact, the Christian revelation Christianity 

 asserts &quot; Creation ;&quot; and Mr. Darwin and Professor tton. r &quot; 

 Huxley were right in thinking that to disprove &quot; Creation &quot; 

 was to disprove Christianity. 



Our supposed inquirer is manifestly bound to carry on 

 such inquiry not only with a candid spirit, but with a desire 

 to find such asserted revelation to be true. He is so bound, 

 since no one who has arrived at a philosophic contemplation 

 of the Infinite Majesty and absolute holiness and beauty of 

 the God whose existence is made known to us by Nature, can 

 rationally do other than most earnestly desire a revealed 

 knowledge of Him, if haply such may be found. 



It is thus that a moral element may plainly enter into the 

 acceptance or rejection of revelation. That it is congruous 

 it should do so is evident from what we see as to the natural 

 religion we gather from Nature. There, again, it has evi 

 dently not been the intention of the First Cause to make the 

 evidence of his existence so plain that its non-recognition 

 would be the mark of intellectual incapacity. 



Conviction as to Theism is, as we see, not forced upon men, 



