The Analogy of Religion to the Constitution and Course of Nature. Butler Joseph

      1. We are not able to judge how much new knowledge ought to be given by revelation.

      2. Nor how far, nor in what way, God should qualify men to transmit any revelation he might make.

      3. Nor whether the evidence should be certain, probable, or doubtful.

      4. Nor whether all should have the same benefit from it.

      5. Nor whether it should be in writing, or verbal. If it be said that if not in writing it would not have answered its purpose: I ask, what purpose? Who knows what purposes would best suit God’s general government?

      6. All which shows it to be absurd to object to particular things in revelation as unsuitable.

      1. No obscurities, &c. could overthrow the authority of a revelation.

      2. It can only be overthrown by nullifying the proofs.

      3. Though the proofs could be shown to be less strong than is affirmed, it still should control our conduct.

      1. We are competent judges of common books, but not of Scripture.

      2. Our only inquiry should be to find out the sense.

      3. In other books, internal improbabilities weaken external proof; but in regard to revelation, we scarcely know what are improbabilities.

      1.) Those who judge the Scripture by preconceived expectations, will imagine they find improbabilities.

      2.) And so they would by thus judging in natural things.

      – It would seem very improbable, prior to experience, that man should be better able to determine the magnitudes and motions of heavenly bodies, than he is to determine the causes and cures of disease, which much more nearly concerns him.

      – Or that we should sometimes hit upon a thing in an instant, even when thinking of something else, which we had been vainly trying to discover for years.

      – Or that language should be so liable to abuse, that every man may be a deceiver.

      – Or that brute instinct should ever be superior to reason.

      1. This does not prove the acts not miraculous.

      2. The person having any such gift, would have the same power over it which he would have over any other ability, and might pervert it.

      3. To say why was he not also endued with prudence, to restrain its use, is but saying why did not God give a higher degree of miraculous endowment? As to which we are not competent judges.

      4. God does not confer his natural gifts, (memory, eloquence, knowledge, &c.) only on those who are prudent and make the best use of them.

      5. Nor is worldly instruction, by educators, commonly given in the happiest manner.

      1. In both, common and necessary things, are plain; but to “go on to perfection” in either, requires exact and laborious study.

      2. The hinderances to both religious and physical knowledge, are the same in kind. A more perfect knowledge may be brought about,

      1.) By the progress of learning and liberty.

      2.) By students attending to intimations overlooked by the generality.

      3. It is not wonderful that our knowledge of Bible truth should be small; for the natural world has laid open to inspection, for thousands of years, and yet only lately are any great discoveries made.

      4. Perhaps these scientific discoveries, are to be the means of opening and ascertaining Bible truth.

      Objec. The cases are not parallel; for natural knowledge is of no consequence, compared to spiritual.

      Ans. 1. The cases are parallel; for natural knowledge is as important to our natural well-being, as spiritual knowledge is to our spiritual well-being.

      Ans. 2. If the cases were not parallel, there are plenty of other analogies, which show that God does not dispense his gifts according to our notions of their value.

      Objec. 2. If Christianity be intended for the recovery of men, why not sooner introduced, and more widely diffused?

      Ans. The objection is just as strong against the natural sciences. Nay, if the light of nature and of revelation are both from the same source, we might expect that revelation would have been introduced and diffused just as it is.

      1.) Remedies for disease are known but to a few, or not known at all, nor to any without care and study.

      2.) When proposed by discoverers, they have been treated with derision, and the use rejected by thousands whom they might have cured.

      3.) The best remedies have been used unskilfully, and so made to produce more disease.

      4.) Their benefit may come very slowly.

      5.) In some cases they may be wholly ineffectual.

      6.) They maybe so disagreeable that many will not submit to use them, even with the prospect of a cure.

      7.) Sometimes the remedy may be entirely out of reach if we were ready to take it.

      1. Reason may judge, as to whether revelation contains things contrary to justice, and wisdom, &c. as those attributes are taught by natural religion. But no such objections are advanced, except such as would equally condemn the constitution of nature.

      2. There are indeed particular precepts, to particular persons, which would be immoral, but for the precept. The precept changes the nature of the action.

      3. None are contrary to immutable morality. We are never commanded to cultivate the principles of ingratitude, treachery, &c.

      4. God may command the taking of life or property because these are his.

      5. The only real difficulty is, that such commands are liable to be perverted by the wicked to their own horrid purposes; and to mislead the weak. But such objections do not lie against revelation, as such, but against the very notion of religion as a trial.

      6. The sum of the whole is, objections against the scheme of Christianity do not affect its truth; since there are no objections against its morality. Hence objections against it, aside from its evidences, are frivolous. Objections against the evidence, will be considered in a subsequent chapter, [i. e. ch. vii.]