thought it true? I should rather conceive, that this would afford, at least, a presumptive evidence in its favour; especially, if we lived in an age, when every means of obtaining the inost authentic information of its truth or falsehood, was in our power. Unanimous vote is nothing more than the expression of unanimous opinion; and, on books, of which you admit the previous existence, I am at a loss to know, how collective judgment could be taken in any other way.

You say, in the same page, Revelation can" not be applied to any thing done upon earth, of " which man is either the actor or the witness; con

sequently, all the historical and anecdotal parts of “ the Bible, which are almost the whole of it, are “ not within the compass of the word Revelation ; “ and, therefore, are not the word of God.” Had you submitted this to the vote, I am inclined to think, that it would never have been published to the world ; because it is a decision, which is not only without proof, but is refuted by the united testimony of facts, and is contradicted by your own assertion, where

you

tell us, that “ Revelation is a communi“cation of any thing, to any person, of what he did e not know before."

It has been the fate of many, to be deluded by the appearance of popular reasonings, without once

suspecting the error which lay at the foundation of the seductive art; and without considering the inconsistencies they indiscreetly admitted. I grant, that nothing can be a revelation to that person, who is the actor of the thing said to be revealed; but though it cannot be a revelation to that identical person, yet it may be a revelation to all the world besides. Whatever was said by Jesus Christ, to those who wrote the account, was a revelation to them; because, on your own principles, Revelation is a communication of any thing, to any person, of what he did not know before;” and, consequently, as many new principles of moral action, as well as new doctrines, of which they were previously ignorant, were imparted by him, these, to them, were revelation.

66

a

Revelation may be visual as well as mental. A real miracle, performed in the sight of spectators, would be, to them, a revelation; because it would be the communication of something which they knew not before; but, being transmitted through the organs of vision, it would be a visual revelation.

Does not the material universe display the wisdom and power of God? Yet the planetary worlds, couveying to our senses and understandings, what we knew not before, fall within your definition of a revelation. Although man is the witness of these stupendous realities, does this, or any such evidence, destroy the identity of any revelation ? Certainly not; because it is the very medium through which we are assured of its certainty. But a direct communication of any thing to the understanding, which we knew not before, is an intellectual reveJation; and, consequently, whatever the Bible has thus conveyed, must of necessity be, to us, a revelationand, were I to conclude like yourself, I might add,--and, consequently, is the word of God; but I will only say,-and, therefore, your premises ure false.

Let us suppose the case of a man who was born blind. He can have nothing but oral testimony of such things as are visible to others. Does it therefore follow, that, to him, the luminaries of heaven do not exist, and, consequently, demonstrate nothing of the power and wisdom of God? No: the demonstration still exists, by an intellectual communication from others; and this, to him, is a revelation. What is bistory, but a revelation of facts, though man is the recorder, the witness, the auditor, and oftentimes the cause ? View your premises however I may, they are demonstrably false; and, consequently, what you draw from them must fall to the ground.

You finish your observations, in page 13, by saying, “ We ought to feel shame at calling such paltry

s stories the word of God.” You affect to speak this out of veneration to the Almighty, who governs. the immense whole; but I presume you are more of a philosopher, than to conceive, that any thing becomes either“ paltry" or contemptible, when applied to him. Height, depth, breadth, length, greatness, meanness, grandeur, and poverty, with a variety of such relative terms and ideas, are all local, and confined to created things; and, consequently, they are not applicable to God. Now, if these terms and ideas are thus rendered totally inapplicable, the paltriness or meanness, of any story, can never furnish an objection against its divine origin.

What would you, as a philosopher, say, were you to hear a man making such assertions as the following :—" When we contemplate the extent of s creation, and the infinite power and wisdom of « Him, who conducts the amazing whole, we ought “ to feel shame, at calling such paltry actions, as the

creation of spiders, toads, and serpents, the work “ of God”? Would you not despise such objections, and treat them with the contempt they deserved ? These observations will apply to your own case. Is meanness or paltriness applicable to God? Why not riches or poverty, strength or weakness, age or youth ? Whatever is infinite can admit of no degree of comparison; but paltriness is a degree of comparison, and is, therefore, inapplicable to God: consequently, all you infer, from hence, falls with the foundation.

You further tell us, that “the whole account is

traditionary.” The truth of this assertion, will depend, in no small degree, upon the definition of the term. But, if what you assert, were granted, I cannot perceive, how this would falsify the account. I! the supposed facts, contained in the Bible, be traditionary, and are, therefore, false, there is no historical account in existence, that will not be implicated in the common charge; and, if this be admitted, all moral and historical certainty, must, at one stroke, be banished from the world.

In the same page you say,

" Whenever we read “the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the “ cruel and torturous executions, with which more " than half the Bible is filled, it would be more

consistent, that we called it the word of a dæmon, “ than the word of God: it is a history of wicked

ness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize “ mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it,

I detest every thing that is cruel.” give no example, of the above description, I may justly doubt the truth of your allegation; however, I will venture to assert, that every story of obscenity and wickedness, recorded in the Bible, is exhibited there, not to induce imitation, but abhorrence.

as

As you