EDWARD. But considerable allowances, I think, ought to be made for the partiality which it is natural a man should feel for any line of argument which he may have struck out. I can hardly imagine any one so entirely destitute of personal feeling as to examine a matter of deep interest, when his view of it appears nearly established, with the same equal mind with which he commenced his inquiries. MR. B. But others do not feel this predilection; many perhaps are opposed to it. There is a tendency, no doubt, in the minds of some to distort facts so as to further an hypothesis; but since this exists on the one side as well as the other, we are pretty certain that neither will allow the other to continue the publication of false statements, uncontradicted. EDWARD. But readers are prejudiced as well as writers. Those who wish to find Christianity true are not likely to examine statements in its favour with that degree of severity which the subject requires. MR. B. That some do not is certain; but knowing your liability to err in this respect, you can the more diligently guard against it. EDWARD. But if the generality of readers do not, one very material point is gained against Christianity, viz. the alleged general superiority of the Christian advocates over their antagonists is accounted for, and no argument can be drawn from the fact of the prevalence of the religion, and its successful resistance of all the attacks that have been made upon it. All argument founded upon the conduct also of the defenders of Christianity must depend upon the probability that they were neither deceivers nor deceived; but surely this probability is much diminished by the causes just mentioned; and how then can it be inferred that Christianity must be true, because it has been advocated by wise and good and learned men? MR. B. It cannot be inferred that it must be true; but that it probably may be true is not an unfair conclusion. The possibility that such men have been deceived must certainly be allowed; but from this we can only infer that their example alone is not a sufficient reason for embracing this religion, and that their reasons for so acting ought to be examined rather than implicitly received. EDWARD. But in addition to prejudice in favour of Christianity, the clergy (on whom the task of de fending it is naturally devolved) must have been interested as well as prejudiced advocates. MR. B. Are you sure that you can establish that point? EDWARD. Many of the most eminent obtained high preferment. MR. B. But was it in consequence of their labours in this cause? Was preferment a probable consequence? I mean so far as to induce the clerical advocates to defend it? EDWARD. I cannot say decidedly; but it appears to me no very improbable supposition. MR. B. A more correct knowledge of church history would have taught you to form a very different conclusion. But whom do you regard as the more eminent clerical defenders of Christianity? EDWARD. My knowledge of the subject is only very light; but the names which more immediately occur to me are those of Sherlock, Butler, Warburton, Watson, Porteus, Lesley, Leland, Bentley, Clarke, and Paley. MR. B. In general, what should you think of the intellectual powers of these men ? Very highly. EDWARD. MR. B. You would not then think them liable to be deceived, where they gave sufficient attention to the subject? EDWARD. Not unless their wishes to find some opinion correct biassed them. MR. B. And you will allow that to this subject they did give sufficient attention? : EDWARD. Certainly their superior advantages arising from their intimacy with it is one of the things which I think goes far to account for their superiority over their antagonists. What chance could such a man as Paine have with Watson, even supposing the former had been right? But the fact of their superior advantages does not exclude the probability of their being prejudiced and biassed by their wishing to prove Christianity true. MR. B. As to their wishes in early life, we know nothing; and it is too much to take it for granted, that they only inquired into the truth of Christianity after they had pledged themselves to support it. But, passing over that, do you think they were originally strongly biassed in favour of the established creed or not? EDWARD. Not perhaps strongly, but still in such a measure that they would be contented with less proof than would have satisfied men of their acuteness in other subjects. MR. B. What then is your idea of the nature of the evidences of Christianity? Is its proof so strong as to put the matter out of all doubt; or merely such as to persuade, in conjunction with prejudice and interest? I presume you would not assert, that these celebrated men were conscious they were defending a bad cause? EDWARD. Certainly not; but the second position appears to me so far probable, as to deserve serious consideration if the first were admitted, of course the whole ground of controversy would be given up. MR. B. Nevertheless, as the first affords the most natural, full, and sufficient reason for the conduct of those whom you allow to have been very superior |