584 



THEOLOGY. 



in which the consciences of men have most generally 

 acquiesced. Our natural knowledge of these things 

 has by many been supposed to originate in some 

 innate idea or ideas, such as that of the existence 

 of God ; some notion or notions common to all 

 mankind : and even the bible has been appealed to 

 as asserting this. (Acts xiv. 15, 16, 17, and xvii. 

 23; Rom. i. 19. and ii. 14.) Little as we might 

 have expected it, considering the theological systems 

 of the different parties, this view was long held by 

 the doctors of the Reformed churches, in opposition 

 to the Socinians, and the greater number of the 

 Arminians. (Alting. Theol. Elenct. Loc. i.; Tur- 

 rett. Theol. Loc. i. 9, 3 ; Socini Prselect. c. ii ; 

 Ostorod. Instit. c. iii ; Vorst. Exeg. Apolog.) 

 Among philosophers, too, it has had many defenders. 

 But while the scriptures referred to are altogether 

 guiltless of deciding either one way or another on 

 this point, it is certain that there are now few or no 

 believers in the existence of innate ideas of any 

 kind, and that if not nations, yet individuals, have 

 been found in a savage state, who had no notion 

 either of the existence of Deity, or the excellence 

 or obligation of a single religious duty. 



When we look at the natural theologian employed 

 in his vocation, we see him deducing arguments 

 from the works of God, and by these establishing 

 the doctrines of his system ; but it has been much 

 disputed, whether these doctrines are inferences 

 to which he would have been led by his unassisted 

 reason thus employed, or whether they are truths 

 which he must first know, before he would ever 

 think of demonstrating them in this way. Reason, 

 it is said, can prove, but never could have discovered 

 them ; and certainly it is unspeakably easier to find 

 out proofs of a truth already suggested to us, than 

 by a slow induction of particulars to discover it 

 while it is unknown. The suggestion, it is insisted, 

 came from revelation, though the demonstration 

 from what we are, and from what is and happens 

 around us, is to be ascribed to reason, except in so 

 far as revelation has fitted us by its illumination for 

 conducting our arguments with greater success. 

 On the other hand, it is maintained that reason can 

 both make the discovery and produce the demon- 

 stration; and a third party hold that it can do 

 neither the one nor the other, and that natural 

 theology, if not an entire delusion, is yet altogether 

 unsatisfactory. This last sentiment is held not 

 only by the enemies of all religion, but also by some 

 who thus seek to exalt the honour of the word of 

 God. To attempt here a discussion of the whole 

 question would be out of place. Reason, we may 

 remark, signifies, in relation to this subject, the 

 intellect of man, under the guidance and influence 

 of his moral faculties, exercised, without any super- 

 natural assistance, in the investigation of religion. 

 Still further, reason thus defined may be understood 

 in two senses, and what is true of it in the one, 

 may be false in the other. First, it may signify 

 the intellectual ability with which man was endowed 

 at his creation, and which we may conceive to have 

 been as sufficient to direct him in his original state, 

 as instinct is to direct the lower animals, both being 

 perfect in their kind. Secondly, reason may signify 

 the intellectual powers of man in his present state, 

 when he feels the effects of the fall in all his 

 faculties, and both his mind and conscience are de- 

 filed. It is evidently with reason in this latter 

 sense of the term, that we have at present to do : 

 it is therefore vain to argue from what reason, ab- 

 stractly considered, may be presumed to be able to 



accomplish ; it is vain to tell us, that reason being 

 the gift of God must be perfectly sufficient to direct 

 men in all the parts of their duty, and that we can- 

 not be responsible, if God does not give the HUMUS 

 of acquiring the knowledge of it ; and it is equally 

 vain to suppose that revelation, as a supplementary 

 means, is a reflection upon the wisdom of God, as 

 if he had not adapted man to his situation, and had 

 to devise a new expedient for correcting the error. 

 The question is not what reason might or may 

 have been, and what, in given circumstances, it might 

 be able to accomplish ; but what it is able to do, 

 as it is enfeebled, enslaved by man's sinfulness. 

 Such a question, sound philosophy tells us, is not 

 to be settled by general reasonings, but by matter 

 of fact: in one word, what reason can do in theo- 

 logical discovery, can be satisfactorily determined 

 only by inquiring what it has actually done ; its 

 power must be judged of by its effects, and its ex- 

 cellence tested by experience. A large induction 

 of particulars has been made to prove the insuffi- 

 ciency of reason to discover the principles of 

 natural theology, and may be found in the trea- 

 tises which have been composed on this subject. 

 Nor should it be overlooked, that the solitary 

 strength of reason has never been tried : men, we 

 may assert, have never been without revelation, for 

 though it was in a great measure lost among the 

 nations of the world, some fragments of it still re- 

 mained, and tradition has always been supplemen- 

 tary to reason. Besides, when we trace natural 

 religion to the early periods of its history, we find 

 it wholly traditional. It " was not disputative till 

 it came into Greece: the ancient professors had no 

 controversies about it; they received what was 

 handed down to them, and out of the treasure of 

 their traditions imparted to others ; and the prin- 

 ciples they went upon to teach or to learn by, were 

 not to search into the nature of things, or to con- 

 sider what they could find by philosophical exami- 

 nations, but Ask and it shall be told you; search the 

 records of antiquity, and you shall find what you 

 inquire after: these were the maxims and directions 

 of their studies." (Shuckford, vol. i, Preface 47, 

 48.^ It is also undeniable, that the more that 

 philosophers had the means of intercourse with those 

 countries on which the light of revelation had onte 

 shone, and the more it can be shown to have been pos- 

 sible that any of them may have derived knowledge 

 from that people to whom were committed the 

 written oracles of God; the more purely, exten- 

 sively, and powerfully are they found to exhibit the 

 truths of religion and morality. Not only do we 

 seem to be indebted to revelation for our knowledge 

 of the doctrines of natural theology, but also for 

 much of our ability to establish them by argument. 

 Notwithstanding all that Gentile philosophers may 

 have accomplished, the most triumphant demonstra- 

 tions are to be found only in the writings of those 

 who have had direct access to the word of God. Igno- 

 rance and error obstructed the path of the former, 

 along its whole course. The existence of God 

 could be but inconsistently demonstrated by those 

 who believed in the eternity of matter; the immor- 

 tality of the soul, by those who never dreamed but 

 that it was material. 



Natural theology is altogether inadequate for 

 those purposes for which such knowledge is needed 

 by man. To oppose this statement, some have 

 ranked among its tenets that God will forgive those 

 who repent. But whence can reason infer this, 

 and how can it demonstrate it? Do we see tho 



