491 
points, and which is believed in by many of the acutest in- 
tellects, and most laborious investigators, is a delusion ? 
It seems to me most unwise and unphilosophical to stake 
our belief of the truth of Christianity on the assertion, that 
it falls to the ground unless we can maintain along with it 
that the age of the planet does not exceed from six to eight 
thousand years. Have we that certainty of our existing 
modes of interpretation, as to render it necessary that we 
should take up this position, especially in the face of the 
science of language, which is, as yet, imperfectly elaborated, 
but which is making daily progress in the same direction ; 
and tending, when elaborated, to throw additional light on the 
history of man? The necessity of doing so, arises from the 
belief in a chronology, which, to say the least of it, has been 
elaborated by human reason out of the Bible on data which 
are far from certain ; from the acceptance of a particular mode 
of interpretation as, beyond all possibility of question, the only 
true one ; and from a particular theory of inspiration. Butler on 
his principles would have pronounced such a position to be one 
fraught with danger, and would have recommended holding 
the mind in a state of suspended judgment. 
I wish to hold the scales of justice even between scientific 
men and theologians. It seems to me, that both are far too 
much in the habit of dogmatizing where they ought to investi- 
gate, and that they ought to assert their conclusions with a 
modesty becoming the imperfection of our instruments for 
the investigation of truth. One of the chief grounds of the 
alleged opposition between reason and revelation, is the 
assumption, both by theologians and philosophers, of a large 
number of a priori principles, which are neither self-evident 
in themselves, nor capable of being deduced with certitude 
from those which are ; nor are those used by theologians any- 
where expressly stated in the pages of Revelation. I must 
content myself with giving a sample of each ; and, first, on the 
side of the opponents of revelation. 
One of the most important of these is the oft-reiterated 
dogma, that a divine revelation is in its nature impossible prior 
to all necessity of inquiry into its evidence. When he assigns 
his reasons the objector has recourse to a number of ab- 
stract metaphysical propositions, which either belong to the - 
regions of transcendentalism, or involve a petitio principii of 
the whole controversy. One of the most noted of these is the 
denial of the possibility of miracles. Probably, everything 
has been said on this controversy which can be said. After a 
calm survey of it, it is clear that the attempted proofs of this 
position involve an assumption of the point at issue. To prove 
