47 
reveal ? Does it not involve the whole question, Is a moral 
revelation possible ? I answer, first, that the concession of 
the existence of such a philosophy by no means involves the 
concession that it either has discovered or can discover all 
that it is necessary for man to know, or that it is capable of 
enforcing its discoveries by such an amount of evidence as to 
impart a sufficient moral force to the active principles of 
the mind. Secondly, that after a revelation has been com- 
municated it may become the subject of a sound philosophy, 
although its disclosures may have transcended the powers 
of philosophy to discover prior to its communication. 
Thirdly, assuming Christianity to be a divine revelation, its 
action on the mind of man has become a fact in the history 
of our race, and consequently its modus operandi as an his- 
toric fact has become a legitimate subject of philosophy. Let 
it be observed that there is no necessity that such a philo- 
sophy should be able to give a full account of its modus ojperandi 
to render its testimony important. Precisely as in other philo- 
sophies, it may run up into points which transcend the powers 
of the mind fully to analyze. The other objections, such as 
those of Mr. F. Newman, that the concession of the. existence 
of an original intuitive power in man, whereby he is capable 
of perceiving moral truth, and of erecting a philosophy upon 
it, renders the idea of a moral revelation an absurdity ■ 
are so intrinsically irrational, that it is useless to. waste your 
time on any prolonged investigation of the subject. It is 
evident that Mr. Newman thinks he has a moral revelation of 
some kind to make to mankind on points on which he considers 
himself more enlightened than they are, otherwise he would 
not have taken the trouble to write his books. He . believes 
that the philosophy of which I have spoken is a possible one, 
and that he can impart an additional light on the subject to 
others. In the words of his opponent, Mr. Rogers, he can 
only vindicate his position by the assumption of the monstrous 
proposition, that the things which are possible to man are 
impossible to God. 
10. I now proceed to the direct subjects of inquiry 1st. 
Are the teachings of philosophy, as far as they have extended, 
in agreement with the moral and spiritual revelation made 
by Christianity? 2ndly. Are the objections which have been 
urged by certain philosophical systems capable of sub- 
stantiation ? 
11. As there is an ambiguity in the expression, “ the moral 
law,” it will be necessary, before proceeding further, to define 
the sense in which I intend to use it. Moral law may mean 
either the great principles of moral obligation, obedience to 
