“No revelation is needed to inform us,—­of the invisible power and deity of God; that we are bound to worship Him; that we are capable of sinning against Him and liable to his just Judgment; nay, that we have sinned, and that we find in nature marks of his displeasure against sin; and yet, that He is merciful.  St. Paul and our Lord show us that these things are knowable by reason.  The ignorance of the heathens is judicial blindness, to punish their obstinate rejection of the true God.”

“But a revelation is needed to convey a SPECIAL message, such as this:  that God has provided an Atonement for our sins, has deputed his own Son to become Head of the redeemed human family, and intends to raise those who believe in Him to a future and eternal life of bliss.  These are external truths, (for ’who can believe, unless one be sent to preach them?’) and are not knowable by any reasonings drawn from nature.  They transcend natural analogies and moral or spiritual experience.  To reveal them, a specific communication must be accorded to us:  and on this the necessity for miracle turns.”

Thus, in my view, at that time, the materials of the Bible were in theory divisible into two portions:  concerning the one, (which I called Natural Religion,) it not only was not presumptuous, but it was absolutely essential, to form an independent judgment; for this was the real basis of all faith:  concerning the other, (which I called Revealed Religion,) our business was, not to criticize the message, but to examine the credentials[1] of the messenger; and,—­after the most unbiassed possible examination of these,—­then, if they proved sound, to receive his communication reverently and unquestioningly.

Such was the theory with which I came from Oxford to Ireland; but I was hindered from working out its legitimate results by the overpowering influence of the Irish clergyman; who, while pressing the authority of every letter of the Scripture with an unshrinking vehemence that I never saw surpassed, yet, with a common inconsistency, showed more than indifference towards learned historical and critical evidence on the side of Christianity; and indeed, unmercifully exposed erudition to scorn, both by caustic reasoning, and by irrefragable quotation of texts.  I constantly had occasion to admire the power with which be laid hold of the moral side of every controversy; whether he was reasoning against Romanism, against the High Church, against learned religion or philosophic scepticism:  and in this matter his practical axiom was, that the advocate of truth had to address himself to the conscience of the other party, and if possible, make him feel that there was a moral and spiritual superiority against him.  Such doctrine, when joined with an inculcation of man’s natural blindness and total depravity, was anything but clearing to my intellectual perceptions:  in fact, I believe that for some years I did not recover