ey appear to be
such as might answer for the purpose of authentication. The Lord talked
with Abraham. He appeared in a burning bush to Moses, spake to him and
the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, and conversed with him afterwards
on the top of that mountain, during a period of forty days. He spake in
the night to Samuel. He appeared in a vision to Isaiah and others. To
some He made Himself known in dreams. Christ spake to His disciples.
All these are evidently ways in which God might communicate with man; and
there is no difficulty in supposing that the attendant circumstances,
such for instance as some of those recorded in the Bible, might be of
such a kind as to authenticate the communication. It would be idle to
argue that, because God does not make Himself known in any of these ways
now, He has never done so; for, to omit other considerations, we may
observe that, in accordance with the economy which prevails in the works
of God, we have no reason to suppose that He would make special
revelations to more persons than might be necessary for the purpose He
had in view. If He revealed Himself to them, the promulgation of the
revelation would be naturally and safely left to more ordinary
instrumentality. At the present time, so far as Christians are
concerned, they do not expect a special revelation to themselves,
because, as they believe, God has already communicated all that He
desires them to know.

But supposing a revelation to be sufficiently authenticated,--What may be
reasonably expected as to the _extent_ of it? It is, we think, clear in
the first place that _no perfect knowledge of God and His relation to us
could be communicated_. Even if a direct presentation of the Infinite
were given, the capacity of man could not grasp it, and therefore the
result would be a finite conception; and, if the revelation were made by
words or other signs, it is plain that these can only express the finite
ideas of which they are the symbols.

Nor is there anything in this which need excite our surprise; for the
limited nature of our knowledge with regard to God would be analogous to
that which we have about other things. There is nothing with regard to
which our knowledge is not limited. Some may be ready to affirm that we
do not know things in themselves at all, but only the effects produced
upon us, or their relation to us. We are not about to maintain this
proposition; but it is at any rate plain that the mo