nomena which can be collected from the narratives of antiquity. We seize with avidity every record of the manifestations of Providence, every fact which can enlighten the ways of God to man; and we would esteem it a deviation from the right spirit and temper of philosophical investigation, were we to suffer the crude or fanciful speculations of our own limited experience to take a precedency over the authentic informations of history.

beyond us, as the plans of the Infinite Mind, | which extend to all time, and embrace all worlds. There is no subject to which the cautious and humble spirit of Lord Bacon's philosophy is more applicable; nor can we conceive a more glaring rebellion against the authority of his maxims, than for the beings of a day to sit in judgment upon the Eternal, and apply their paltry experience to the counsels of his high and unfathomable wisdom. We do not speak of it as impious; we speak of it as unphilosophical. But this is not all. Our experience is not We are not bringing the decrees of the or- only limited in point of time; it is also thodox to bear against it; we are bringing limited in point of extent. To assign the the principles of our modern and enlight- character of the divine administration from ened schools. We are applying the very the little that offers itself to the notice of same principles to a system of theism, that our own personal experience, would be far we would do to a system of geology. Both more absurd than to infer the history and may regale the fancy with the grandeur character of the kingdom from the history of their contemplations; both may re- and character of our own family. Vain is ceive embellishment from the genius and the attempt to convey in language what the imagination of their inventors; both may most powerful imagination sinks under; carry us along with the powers of a capti- how small the globe, and "all which it invating eloquence. But all this is not enough herits," is in the immensity of creation! to satisfy the severe and scrupulous spirit How humble a corner in the immeasurable of the modern philosophy. Give us facts. fields of nature and of providence! If the Give us appearances. Show us how, from whole visible creation were to be swept the experience of a life or a century, you away, we think of the dark and awful solican draw a legitimate conclusion so bound-tude which it would leave behind it in the less in its extent, and by which you propose unpeopled regions of space. But to a mind to fix down both the processes of a remote that could take in the whole, and throw a antiquity, and the endless progressions either of nature or of providence in future ages. Are there any historical documents? Any memorials of the experience of past times? On a question of such magnitude, we would esteem the recorded observations of some remote age to be peculiarly valuable, and worth all the ingenuity and eloquence which a philosopher could bestow on the limited experience of one or two generations. A process of geology may take millions of years before it reaches its accomplishment. It is impossible that we can collect the law or the character of this process from the experience of a single century, which does not furnish us one single step in this vast and immeasurable progression. We look as far as we can into a distant antiquity, and take hold with It is impossible not to mingle the moral avidity of any authentic document, by impressions of piety with such a contemplawhich we can ascertain a single fact to tion. But suppose these impressions to be guide and to enlighten us in this interesting excluded, that the whole may be reduced speculation. The same caution is necessary to a matter of abstract and unfeeling intelliin the subject before us. The administra- gence. The question under consideration tion of the Supreme Being is coeval with is, How far the experience of man can lead the first purposes of his uncreated mind, and him to any certain conclusions, as to the it points to eternity. The life of man is but character of the divine administration; if it a point in that progress, to which we see does lead him to some certain conclusions, no end, and can assign no beginning. We then in the spirit of the Baconian philosoare not able to collect the law or the cha-phy, he will apply these conclusions to the racter of this administration from an expe- information derived from other sources; rience so momentary. We therefore cast and they will of course affect, or destroy, an eye on the history of past times. We or confirm the credibility of that informaexamine every document which comes be- tion. If, on the other hand, it appears fore us. We compare all the moral phe-that experience gives no light, no direc

wide survey over the innumerable worlds which roll beyond the ken of the human eye, there would be no blank, and the universe of God would appear a scene as goodly and majestic as ever. Now it is the administration of this God that we sit in judgment upon; the counsels of Him, whose wisdom and energy are of a kind so inexplicable; whom no magnitude can overpower, whom no littleness can escape, whom no variety can bewilder; who gives vegetation to every blade of grass, and moves every particle of blood which circulates through the veins of the minutest animal; and all this by the same omnipotent arm that is abroad upon the universe, and presides in high authority over the destiny of all worlds.

tion on the subject, then, in the very same upon the weight, or the nature of human spirit, he will submit his mind as a blank testimony, that they venture to pronounce surface to all the positive information on the credibility of the Christian revelawhich comes to it from any other quar- tion. It is on the character of that revelater. We take our lesson as it comes to tion itself. It is on what they conceive to us, provided we are satisfied beforehand, be the absurdity of its doctrines. It is bethat it comes from a source which is au- cause they see something in the nature or thentic. We set up no presumptions of our dispensation of Christianity, which they own against the authority of the unques- think disparaging to the attributes of God, tionable evidence that we have met with, and not agreeable to that line of proceeding and reject all the suggestions which our de- which the Almighty should observe in the fective experience can furnish, as the follies government of his creatures. Rousseau exof a rash and fanciful speculation. presses his astonishment at the strength of Now, let it be observed, that the great the historical testimony; so strong, that the strength of the Christian argument lies in inventor of the narrative appeared to him the historical evidence for the truth of the to be more miraculous than the hero. But Gospel narrative. In discussing the light the absurdities of this said revelation are of this evidence, we walk by the light of ex-sufficient in his mind to bear down the perience. We assign the degree of weight whole weight of its direct and external evithat is due to the testimony of the first dences. There was something in the docChristians upon the observed principles of trines of the New Testament repulsive to human nature. We do not step beyond the taste and the imagination, and perhaps the cautious procedure of Lord Bacon's even to the convictions of this interesting philosophy. We keep within the safe and enthusiast. He could not reconcile them certain limits of experimental truth. We with his pre-established conceptions of the believe the testimony of the apostles, be- divine character and mode of operation. cause, from what we know of the human To submit to these doctrines, he behoved to character, it is impossible that men in their surrender that theism, which the powers of circumstances could have persevered as his ardent mind had wrought up into a they did in the assertion of a falsehood; it most beautiful and delicious speculation. is impossible that they could have imposed Such a sacrifice was not to be made. It this falsehood upon such a multitude of fol- was too painful. It would have taken away lowers; it is impossible that they could from him, what every mind of genius and have escaped detection, surrounded as they sensibility esteems to be the highest of all were by a host of enemies, so eager and so luxuries. It would destroy a system, which determined in their resentments. On this had all that is fair and magnificent to rekind of argument we are quite at home. commend it, and mar the gracefulness of There is no theory, no assumption. We that fine intellectual picture, on which this feel every inch of the ground we are tread- wonderful man had bestowed all the eming upon. The degree of credit that should bellishments of feeling, and fancy, and elobe annexed to the testimony of the apostles, quence. is altogether a question of experience. Every principle which we apply towards the decision of this question is founded upon materials which lie before us, and are every day within the reach of observation. Our belief in the testimony of the apostles, is founded upon our experience of human nature and human affairs. In the whole process of the inquiry, we never wander from that sure, though humble path, which has been pointed out to us by the great master of philosophising. We never cast off the authority of those maxims which have been found in every other department of knowledge to be sound and infallible. We never suffer assumption to take the precedency of observation, or abandon that safe and certain mode of investigation, which is the only one suited to the real mediocrity of

our powers.

It

appears to us, that the disciples of the infidel philosophy have reversed this process. They take a loftier flight. You seldor find them upon the ground of the historical evidence. It is not in general,

In as far, then, as we can judge of the conduct of man in given circumstances, we would pass a favourable sentence upon the testimony of the apostles. But, says the Deist, I judge of the conduct of God; and what the apostles tell me of him is so opposite to that judgment, that I discredit their testimony. The question at issue between us is, shall we admit the testimony of the apostles, upon the application of principles founded on observation, and as certain as is our experience of human affairs? Or, shall we reject that testimony upon the application of principles that are altogether beyond the range of observation, and as doubtful and imperfect in their nature, as is our experience of the counsels of heaven? In the first argument there is no assumption. We are competent to judge of the behaviour of man in given circumstances. This is a subject completely accessible to observation. The second argument is founded upon assumption entirely. We are not competent to judge of the conduct of the Almighty in given circumstances. Here we are pre

cluded, by the nature of the subject, from | transmitted to us from a distant country. the benefit of observation. There is no an- And in a science, the processes of which tecedent experience to guide or to enlighten are so lengthened in point of time, our prinus. It is not right, for man to assume what is right, or proper, or natural for the Almighty to do. It is not in the mere spirit of piety that we say so; it is in the spirit of the soundest experimental philosophy. The argument of the Christian is precisely what the maxims of Lord Bacon would dispose us to acquiesce in. The argument of the infidel is precisely that argument which the same maxims would dispose us to reject; and when put by the side of the Christian argument, it appears as crude and as unphilosophical as do the ingenious speculations of the schoolmen, when set in opposition to the rigour, and evidence, and pre-gy, which is held to be so sound and so lecision, which reign in every department of modern science.

ciples should also in part be founded on the observations of others, transmitted to us from a remote antiquity. Any observations of our own are so limited, both in point of space and of time, that we never think of opposing their authority to the evidence which is laid before us. Our whole attention is directed to the validity of the record; and the moment that this validity is established, we hold it incumbent upon us to submit our minds to the entire and unmodified impression of the testimony contained in it. Now, all that we ask is, that the same process of investigation be observed in theolo

gitimate in other sciences. In a science of such extent, as to embrace the wide domain of The application of Lord Bacon's philoso- moral and intelligent nature, we feel the litphy to the study of external nature was a tleness of that range to which our own perhappy epoch in the history of physical sci-sonal observations are confined. We shall ence. It is not long since this application be glad, not merely of the information has been extended to the study of moral transmitted to us from a distant country, and intellectual phenomena. All that we but of the authentic information transmitcontend for is, that our subject should have ted to us by any other order of beings, in the benefit of the same application; and we some distant and unknown part of the creacount it hard while, in every other depart-tion. In a science, too, which has for its ment of inquiry, a respect for truth is found sufficient to repress the appetite for system-building, that theology, the loftiest and most inaccessible of all the sciences, should still remain infected with a spirit so exploded, and so unphilosophical; and that the fancy, and theory, and unsupported speculation, so current among the Deists and demi-infidels of the day, should be held paramount to the authority of facts, which have come down to us with a weight of On a subject so much above us and beevidence and testimony, that is quite unex-yond us, we would never think of opposing ampled in the history of ancient times.

What is science, but a record of observed phenomena, grouped together according to certain points of resemblance, which have been suggested by an actual attention to the phenomena themselves? We never think of questioning the existence of the phenomena, after we have demonstrated the genuineness and authenticity of the record. After this is demonstrated, the singular or unexpected nature of the phenomena is not suffered to weaken their credibility,-a credibility which can only be destroyed by the authority of our own personal observation, or some other record possessed of equal or superior pretensions. But in none of the inductive sciences is it in the power of a student to verify every thing by his own personal observation. He must put up with the observations of others, brought home to the convictions of his own mind by creditable testimony. In the science of geology, this is eminently the case. In a science of such extent, our principles must be in part founded upon the observations of others,

object the lengthened processes of the divine administration, we should like, if any record of past times could enable us to extend our observations beyond the limits of our own ephemeral experience; and if there are any events of a former age possessed of such a peculiar and decisive character, as would help us to some satisfactory conclusion in this greatest and most interesting of the sciences.

any preconceptions to the evidence of history. We would maintain the humility of the inductive spirit. We would cast about for facts, and events and appearances. We would offer our minds as a blank surface to every thing that came to them, supported by unexceptionable evidence. It is not upon the nature of the facts themselves, that we would pronounce upon their credibility, but upon the nature of that testimony by which they were supported. Our whole attention would be directed to the authority of the record. After this was established, we would surrender our whole understanding to its contents. We would school down every antipathy within us, and disown it as a childish affection, unworthy of a philosopher who professes to follow truth through all the disgusts and discouragements which surround it. There are men of splendid reputation in our enlightened circles, who never attended to this speculation, and who annex to the Gospel of Christ nothing else than ideas of superstition and vulgarity. In braving

their contempt, we would feel ourselves | ment is often expended in bringing about in the best element for the display and ex- this accommodation. It is, of course, a work ercise of the philosophical temper. We of greater difficulty, to convince this descripwould rejoice in the omnipotence of truth, tion of people, though in point of fact, this and anticipate, in triumph, the victory which difficulty has been overcome, in a way the it must accomplish over the pride of science, most masterly and decisive, by one of the and the fastidiousness of literature. It would soundest and most philosophical of our not be the enthusiasm of a visionary which theologians. would support us, but the inward working of the very same principle which sustained Galileo, when he adhered to the result of his experiments, and Newton, when he opposed his measurements and observations to the tide of prejudice he had to encounter from the prevailing taste and philosophy of the times.

We conceive that inattention to the above principles has led many of the most popular and respected writers in the Deistical controversy to introduce a great deal of discussion that is foreign to the merits of the question altogether; and in this way the attention is often turned away from the point in which the main strength of the argument lies. An infidel, for example, objects against one of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. To repel the objection, the Christian conceives it necessary to vindicate the reasonableness of that doctrine, and to show how consistent it is with all those antecedent conceptions which we derived from the light of natural religion. All this we count superfluous. It is imposing an unnecessary task upon ourselves. Enough for us to have established the authority of the Christian revelation upon the ground of its historical evidence. All that remains is to submit our minds to the fair interpretation of Scripture. Yes; but how do you dispose of the objection drawn from the light of natural religion? In precisely the same way that we would dispose of an objection drawn from some speculative system, against the truth of any physical fact that has been well established by observation or testimony. We would disown the system, and oppose the obstinacy of the fact to all the elegance and ingenuity of the speculation.

To another description of Christians, this attempt to reconcile the doctrines of Christianity with the light of natural religion is superfluous. Give them historical evidence for the truth of Christianity, and all that natural religion may have taught them will fly like so many visionary phantoms before the light of its overbearing authority. With them the argument is reduced to a narrower compass. Is the testimony of the apostles and first Christians sufficient to establish the credibility of the facts which are recorded in the New Testament? The question is made to rest exclusively on the character of this testimony, and the circumstances attending it; and no antecedent theology of their own is suffered to mingle with the investigation. If the historical evidence of Christianity is found to be conclusive, they conceive the investigation to be at an end; and that nothing remains on their part, but an act of unconditional submission to all its doctrines.

Though it might be proper, in the present state of opinion, to accommodate to both these cases, yet we profess ourselves to belong to the latter description of Christians. We hold by the total insufficiency of natural religion to pronounce upon the intrinsic merits of any revelation, and think that the authority of every revelation rests exclusively upon its external evidences, and upon such marks of honesty in the composition itself as would apply to any human performance. We rest this opinion, not upon any fanatical impression of the ignorance of man, or how sinful it is for a weak and guilty mortal to pronounce upon the counsels of heaven, and the laws of the divine administration. We disown this presumption, not merely because it is sinful, but because we conceive it to be unphilosophical, and precisely analogous to that theorising a priori spirit, which the wisdom of Bacon has banished from all the schools of philosophy.

We are sensible that this is not enough to satisfy a numerous class of very sincere and well disposed Christians. There are many of this description, who, antecedent to the study of the Christian revelation altoFor the satisfaction of the first class, we gether, repose a very strong confidence in refer them to that argument which has been the light of natural religion, and think that prosecuted with so much ability and sucupon the mere strength of its evidence, they cess by Bishop Butler, in his Analogy of can often pronounce with a considerable Natural and Revealed Religion. It is not degree of assurance on the character of the so much the object of this author to found divine administration. To such as these, any positive argument on the accordancy something more is necessary than the ex- which subsists between the process of the ternal evidences on which Christianity divine administration in nature, and the rests. You must reconcile the doctrines processes ascribed to God by revelation, as to of Christianity with those previous concep- repel the argument founded upon their suptions which the light of nature has given posed discordancy. To one of the second them; and a great deal of elaborate argu-class, the argument of Bishop Butler is not

called for; but as to one of the first class, no right to retain his theism, if he rejects we can conceive nothing more calculated to Christianity upon difficulties to which naquiet his difficulties. He believes a God, tural religion is equally liable. If Chrisand he must therefore believe the character tianity tells us, that the guilt of a father has and existence of God to be reconcileable brought sufferings and vice upon his postewith all that he observes in the events and rity, it is what we see exemplified in a thouphenomena around him. He questions the sand instances among the families around claims of the New Testament to be a reve- us. If it tells us, that the innocent have lation from heaven, because he conceives, suffered for the guilty, it is nothing more that it ascribes a plan and an economy to the than what all history and all observation Supreme Being, which are unworthy of have made perfectly familiar to us. If it his character. We offer no positive solu- tells us of one portion of the human race tion of this difficulty. We profess ourselves being distinguished by the sovereign will to be too little acquainted with the charac- of the Almighty for superior knowledge, ter of God; and that in this little corner of or superior privileges, it only adds one his works, we see not far enough to offer inequality more to the many inequalities any decision on the merits of a government, which we perceive every day in the which embraces worlds, and reaches eter-gifts of nature, of fortune, and of provinity. We think we do enough, if we give a sufficiency of external proof for the New Testament being a true and authentic message from heaven; and that therefore nothing remains for us, but to attend and to submit to it. But the argument of Bishop Butler enables us to do still more than this. It enables us to say, that the very thing objected against in Christianity exists in nature; and that therefore the same God who is the author of nature, may be the author of Christianity. We do not say that any positive evidence can be founded upon this analogy. But in as far as it goes to repel the objection, it is triumphant. A man has

dence. In short, without entering into all the details of that argument, which Butler has brought forward in a way so masterly and decisive, there is not a single impeachment which can be offered against the God of Christianity, that may not, if consistently proceeded upon, be offered against the God of Nature itself; if the one be unworthy of God, the other is equally so; and if in spite of these difficulties, you still retain the conviction, that there is a God of Nature, it is not fair or rational to suffer them to outweigh all that positive evidence and testimony, which have been adduced for proving that the same God is the God of Christianity also.

CHAPTER IX.

On the Way of Proposing the Argument to Atheistical Infidels.

IF Christianity be still resisted, it appears with pre-conceptions. It will not take what to us that the only consistent refuge is history offers to it. It puts itself into the Atheism. The very same peculiarities in same unphilosophical posture, in which the the dispensation of the Gospel, which lead mind of a prejudiced Cartesian opposed its the infidel to reject it as unworthy of God, theory of the heavens to the demonstration go to prove, that nature is unworthy of and measurment of Newton. The theory him, and land us in the melancholy confu- of the Deist upon a subject where truth is sion, that whatever theory can be afforded still more inaccessible, and speculation still as to the mysterious origin and existence more presumptuous, sets him to resist the of the things which be, they are not under only safe and competent evidence that can the dominion of a supreme and intelligent be appealed to. What was originally the mind. Nor do we look upon Atheism as a evidence of observation, and is now transmore hopeless species of infidelity than formed into the evidence of testimony, comes Deism, unless in so far as it proves a more down to us in a series of historical docustubborn disposition of the heart to resist ments, the closest and most consistent that every religious conviction. Viewed purely all antiquity can furnish. It is the unforas an intellectual subject, we look upon the tunate theory which forms the grand obmind of an Atheist, as in a better state of stacle to the admission of the Christian mipreparation for the proofs of Christianity racles, and which leads the Deist to an exthan the mind of the Deist. The one is a hibition of himself so unphilosophical, as blank surface, on which evidence may make that of trampling on the soundest laws of a fair impression, and where the finger of evidence, by bringing an historical fact history may inscribe its credible and well-under the tribunal of a theoretical princiattested information. The other is occupied ple. The Deistical speculation of Rousseau,