ingenuity to attain to their gratification. There is an obvious and palpable connexion of cause and effect between the pursuit of the thing sought for, the acquisition of it, and the enjoyment resulting from its possession. And what is thus true of our corporeal pleasures, taken in their lowest stage, is still no less true of them in their highest, however plausibly they may be disguised by the refinements of civilization, and even elevated by their association with philosophy and science. Immediate fruition in some shape or other, is equally the aim of all. To persons in this disposition of mind, religion, with its long catalogue of abstruse propositions, of thin abstractions, of immediate privations, and deferred retributions, necessarily comes as an unwelcome intruder. It never can be the case that they should turn willingly from pursuits at once so apparently natural and so attractive, to the impalpable and obscure speculations of theology, more especially when, in addition to the more vivid impression made upon the imagination by temporal objects, and the indolence which shuns all presumed unnecessary inquiry, the heavy price is to be paid of a selfdenial, not only in the case of confessedly degrading pleasures, but in that also of those which the generality of mankind deem perfectly inoffensive. This observation, it is true, seems to apply rather to the study of religion in general than to that of the Christian revelation exclusively. But it should be remembered, that if we once give up the theory of a direct revelation, and leave each person to the peculiar creed suggested by his own moral sense, every man's religious speculations become, from that moment, rather a matter of amusement than of painful coercion. The ingenuity of self-love will invariably, in such circumstances, adapt its speculations to its own tastes and predilections, and will as assuredly contrive to suggest some excuse for the indulgence of the passions as the pure code of Christianity is inflexible in

restraining them. The real feeling of repugnance begins then, and then only, when, instead of pursuing our own visionary caprices, and misnaming them religion, we are peremptorily required to adopt a system of belief external to ourselves in its origin, uncompromising in its injunctions, and unearthly in its remunerations. There is a point of repulsion at the very outset, in this latter case, which discourages any mutual attempt at approximation in notions and feelings thus little in unison. It matters not by what weight of external or internal evidence such a creed may chance to be supported, or how perfectly accordant its data may be with the ultimate conclusions of sound philosophy. In a case of this description the average of worldly men make their election, not from deep and painful calculation, but from the impulse of the moment; and, having once taken their station with this or that party, seek to tranquillize their consciences and lull their fears, by occupying a kind of neutral ground between vague admissions and practical unbelief; while those of more courage, or more acute talents, take the bolder step of becoming at once the assailants, and attacking the credibility of the doctrines, the obligations of which they would evade.

Nothing can be more obvious than that any religion, however true, and even in a certain sense demonstrably such, would have little chance of making very numerous converts, if examined only in the perfunctory and prejudiced manner now described. Few truths are so attractive at their first aspect as they appear eventually upon further discussion; and of all truths, those of theology are the least so. From first to last it involves a tissue of seeming paradoxes, into the admission of which we are eventually driven, not so much from the light by which they are themselves surrounded, as by the anomalies, the contradictions, the impossibilities, the total degradation of our best and noblest feelings, which would be the

necessary consequence of their rejection. We cannot, therefore, be surprised that truths of this kind, if injudiciously stated, or indolently discussed, must often fail of carrying conviction! Nothing can be easier than to make out a plausible case against isolated portions of an intricate and mysterious theory with auditors who, even if they possess natural talent sufficient for the purpose, have, at all events, never taken the trouble to examine its consistency as a whole, and in the minds of a greater part of whom a bias in the opposite direction may, without any breach of charity, be presumed to exist: nor need we accordingly be surprised, however we may be grieved, to see a laugh raised against the supposed weakness and superstition of speculative men by persons who have never been taught to acknowledge any higher standard of morals than that of social expediency, or any wish beyond that of the gratification of the selfish passions of pleasure, avarice, or ambition.

Such, however, is infidelity under its most common aspect. In this deplorable stage of it, the first attempt at cure must be made by the application of moral rather than of intellectual medicines. The very simplest effort of the attention is wanting, and that is to be roused by alarming the fears and appealing to the consciences of the respective parties before we can have any chance of success from argumentative discussion. It is, therefore, to unbelief of a higher and more intellectual order that any more elaborate exposition of the Christian evidences, as establishing the reasonableness and consistency of revelation, must be addressed. Now common candour obliges us to admit, that acute reasoners, and humanly speaking, amiable men, have undoubtedly existed from time to time, who, having as they thought impartially examined the arguments for and against Christianity, have decided upon unbelief as the least difficulty of the two; and who, without entertaining any violent hostility against it as a system of opinions,

have still asserted the incurable ignorance of the human mind upon those mysterious topics, and justified, accordingly, their unwillingness to inquire further by the assumption that all inquiry is manifestly useless. In order, therefore, to meet opponents of this description, it may be desirable to examine how far their peculiar class of objections weigh against the doctrines of Christianity exclusively, considering them, as in fact they are, a superaddition to the fundamental principles of natural religion; or, on the other hand, how far they may be equally valid against every modification of religion whatever. Should the latter appear to be the case, it would follow, either that their argument involves a fallacy, as attributing exclusively to the revelation of Jesus Christ an objection which applies equally elsewhere, or it would prove more than themselves intend, by showing that religion of every description, that of pure unmixed theism not excepted, is a sentiment alien to our nature. Few professed infidels, who have not discarded all the restraints of conscience, would, perhaps, be hardy enough to venture this latter assertion. Yet scarcely any of them have had the candour and good sense to remark, that by far the greater number of attacks, which they profess to direct solely against Christianity, strike directly, if any where, at the basis of all religion whatever. This confusion of ideas it is necessary to point out and correct, if we would discuss the peculiar evidences and merits of the Gospel accurately and fairly.

CHAPTER III.

Of the difficulties which attach in common to Natural, no less than Revealed Religion; and of those which belong exclusively to Christianity.

CHRISTIANITY, then, may be contemplated in two distinct points of view, both of them in their respective sense equally correct. It may be considered as a whole and entire system of theology, having natural theology for its basis, and revelation for its crown and capital; or it may be viewed in the light of a corrective of the apparent anomalies, and as explanatory of the many difficulties, which perplex every, the most rational theory of belief, in the absence of a distinct revelation. According to the former mode of seeing it, natural religion will seem to be concurrent with it, and to constitute an integral portion of it; whilst, according to the latter, it will in some measure be opposed to it. This distinction, we repeat, has not been sufficiently remarked by those persons who have assailed the doctrines of the Gospel. Professing themselves to be sincere Theists, they have still directed their assault so vaguely and indiscriminately as to cut away from under their own feet the very support upon which they have taken their stand. That religion, including under that term the essential doctrine of an all-wise and all-benevolent Ruler of the universe, and of the soul's immortality, is natural to cultivated and civilized man, they assert no less confidently than ourselves. But though it is easy to make this admission, and to fancy that we cordially assent to it, it is by no means easy to anticipate all the remote and perplexing inferences, which, if traced systematically, step by step, necessarily result from it. Those two main principles once granted, almost every difficulty, which has been invidiously alleged