123 
as unaccountable as any of the difficulties which natural 
philosophy has to contend with, in undertaking to unfold a 
system of truth which is to apply accurately to the most 
minute events, past, present, and future, connected with the 
destiny of this world. If this Revelation had been the mere 
invention of man, if its natural evidence were dead against 
the probability of its truth, how do we get over this difficulty, 
that it holds to this day higher grounds than any other 
evidence we can advance ; and in this position, what folly is 
it to suppose that it does so by putting forth a reasoning 
that is not even parallel with, but below, the reasoning of 
man r' And what makes the position of this reasoning so 
conflicting is, when we ask where was the necessity of God's 
revealing to man that which was already to be found in the 
evidences of the natural world? We oblige ourselves to 
believe, when we take up such a position, that He who offers 
himself as our Divine instructor, is capable of committing an 
act of supererogation, that at once places Him below His 
reasoning creatures. If there were nothing more to tell us 
than we might naturally discern with the aid of those facul- 
ties we already possess, for the investigation of the physical 
world around us, where was the need of a higher and super- 
natural method of conveying those truths to our minds, which 
Revelation alone undertook to make known to us ? 
This argument forces us to respect the authority of Revela- 
tion without cavd. But I said that it staked its veracity 
upon grounds which one falsehood would have been sufficient 
to overthrow. It had asserted that not one statement should 
fail of all that it had advanced. This was, indeed, a bold 
assertion, if it was not to come from a standard of truth 
lgher than natural philosophy. But the marvel still increases. 
It proceeded at once to break new ground, to ride over, as 
it were, the prejudices and assertions of all who pioneered 
m the path of truth. For it at once showed that geology 
had not the most distant conception of the cause of death , 
and without foundation had stated what was not the truth. 
If we are attentive to compare the statement of Revelation, 
as to the case of the six days' creation offered there for our 
belief, we shall at once be struck with the unique and 
wonderful explanation which is there given of it without reserve. 
And if we place this alongside of the statement offered by 
geologists' we must indeed be astonished at the inexplicable 
difficulty, the irreconcileable assertions which we here meet 
with. Thus, while the one makes no hesitation, no explana- 
tion, m affirming, what perhaps was the least likely thing 
ever to enter the mind, viz., that in six natural days of 
