It was not until twenty-five years later that I saw clearly the full implications of my present views on natural causation.  As applied to this particular case these views show that to a theist, at all events (i.e. to any one who on independent grounds has accepted the theory of Theism), it ought not to make much difference to the evidential value of the Divine Plan of Revelation as exhibited in the Old and New Testaments, even if it be granted that the whole has been due to so-called natural causes only.  I say, ‘not much difference,’ for that it ought to make some difference I do not deny.  Take a precisely analogous case.  The theory of evolution by natural causes is often said to make no logical difference in the evidence of plan or design manifested in organic nature—­it being only a question of modus operandi whether all pieces of organic machinery were produced suddenly or by degrees; the evidence of design is equally there in either case.  Now I have shown elsewhere that this is wrong[73].  It may not make much difference to a man who is already a theist, for then it is but a question of modus, but it makes a great difference to the evidence of Theism.

So it is in evidence of plan in proof of a revelation.  If there had been no alleged revelation up to the present time, and if Christ were now to appear suddenly in His first advent in all the power and glory which Christians expect for His second, the proof of His revelation would be demonstrative.  So that, as a mere matter of evidence, a sudden revelation might be much more convincing than a gradual one.  But it would be quite out of analogy with causation in nature[74].  Besides, even a gradual revelation might be given easily, which would be of demonstrative value—­as by making prophecies of historical events, scientific discoveries, &c., so clear as to be unmistakeable.  But, as before shown, a demonstrative revelation has not been made, and there may well be good reasons why it should not.  Now, if there are such reasons (e.g. our state of probation), we can well see that the gradual unfolding of a plan of revelation, from earliest dawn of history to the end of the world (’I speak as a fool’) is much preferable to a sudden manifestation sufficiently late in the world’s history to be historically attested for all subsequent time.  For

     1st.  Gradual evolution is in analogy with God’s other work.

     2nd.  It does not leave Him without witness at any time during the
     historical period.

     3rd.  It gives ample scope for persevering research at all
     times—­i.e. a moral test, and not merely an intellectual assent to
     some one (ex hypothesi) unequivocally attested event in history.

The appearance of plan in revelation is, in fact, certainly remarkable enough to arrest serious attention.