Revelation, and altogether INADMISSIBLE; next, that they are full of inconsistencies, and put intemperately and insidiously, and are in fact CONTRADICTORY; in the third place, that they are, in themselves, the obvious dictates of ignorance and pride of heart, and therefore FRIVOLOUS; and that, lastly, they are merely trials of man's sincerity and submission of heart to God, and CONFIRM rather than weaken the Christian evidences.

In a word, the reasonings of unbelievers are INADMISSIBLE, CONTRADICTORY, FRIVOLOUS, and CONFIRMATORY of the religion which they were advanced to undermine.

I. The objections against the Christian religion

are INADMISSIBLE.

Common sense tells us that direct and positive proofs, resting upon facts, and confirmed by experience, must be rebutted by direct and positive proofs, resting upon clearer facts, confirmed by a wider experience, and directed against the evidences supporting the case which is in question. Now, we shall find, that the objections of infidelity are speculative opinions merely, and thus wrong in kind; and aimed against the matter of Revelation, and not the evidences, and thus wrong in object; and on both accounts are utterly = inadmissible in all fair reasoning.

They are WRONG IN KIND. What can mere conjecture and hypothesis avail against a mass of positive facts, sustained by all history, profane and ecclesiastical, and constituting a body of proof such as the world never before saw ?

Even in scientific questions, it is easy to frame objections. A disputant may invent hypotheses, and some of them sufficiently plausible, against any section, for instance, of the Principia of Newton. By omitting some link in the chain of reasoning, taking up insulated parts of a subject, and showing them to

be contradictory to some principle, he may make out a case, which to an unfurnished mind appears strong, and yet to a sound reasoner has no force whatever, though it may be difficult for him at first to detect where the fallacy lies. But who regards such sophisins when once exposed?

Much less do men regard such hypotheses in directly practical matters. What weight do they attribute to speculative difficulties in matters of agriculture, commerce, jurisprudence, legislation? What would the sceptic himself say, if his method as to Christianity were applied to his own temporal concerns? If he were sick, and a well-attested medicine were presented to him, what regard would he pay to theoretic objections? If the deeds of an inheritance were made over to him with all the formalities of law-what weight would he give to adverse speculations? No. In human affairs men act, not only against theoretic notions, but expecting them and despising them as a matter of course, they know well enough, that facts, not cavils, are the way to truth; they know that a slight preponderance amidst conflicting facts and testimonies, perpetually determines human conduct-but that where the matters of fact are all on one side, and nothing is on the other but vain reasonings, men overrule such reasonings at once, and follow the sure guide of experience.

And shall we not much more act thus in a concern of such infinite moment as Christianity? What! have we gone through our external and internal proofs, in order to give all up at last to the mere abstract opinions of prejudiced and perverse men? What! have we forgotten the temper of mind in which we stated that the whole subject must be studied, and are we ready to surrender all our hopes to a speculative and ingenious opponent? What! are there not positive and solid facts enough in the arguments, both historical and internal, which we have reviewed, to

very

dissipate the airy phantoms of men's imaginations? Have we not the series of testimonies from the days of the apostles; have we not the involuntary attestations of Heathen and Jewish adversaries; have we not the additional confirmations which the discovery of manuscripts, and medals, and inscriptions has been pouring in upon us in every age? Have not also the actual inward effects, the glory and efficacy, the suitableness and excellency of every part of the Christian doctrine, solidity enough to resist the attack of theoretic difficulties, which, perhaps, after all, may turn out to be no difficulties ?

Yes: the sublime doctrines of Christianity, its pure and holy precepts, the inimitable character of its founder, its beneficial tendency, the actual experiment and proof of its efficacy in our own souls-these positive benefits, when sustained by the historical proofs of authenticity, credibility, and divine authority, form a solid mass of facts, against which no mere speculations can for a moment be allowed to weigh.

The attempt is monstrous. An unbeliever tells me of petty critical difficulties in the reading of manuscripts or the exactness of a chronological date; he talks of the difficulties to his mind of the Christian mysteries; he complains of the conduct and spirit of many professed Christians.

Now, supposing these or a thousand similar statements were ever so plausible, yet they are chiefly speculative, the fabric of the human brain, unsupported by facts-and therefore what weight have they against the mass of evidences of every kind which sustain the Christian Revelation? A single principle in the Revelation itself-as for instance, the ignorance of man-may overturn them all. But this I am not now concerned with; I merely assert that opinion, and conjecture, and cavil, are worse than nothing, compared with the substantial grounds on which we re

ceive the divine record. All such objections are wrong in kind.

But this is not all. They are WRONG ALSO IN THE OBJECT against which they are directed; for when we come to look at the topics which are urged by unbelievers, we find that they are not only of a speculative nature, and therefore of no weight against positive fact and experience; but they are objections not against the evidences, but against the Revelation. They are not arguments about the authenticity, the divine authority, the propagation of Christianity; but against the matter and contents of Christianity itself.

Now we shut out at once all such reasonings. They are directed to a wrong purpose, they aim at an inadmissible position. We bring you a Revelation from the great, the eternal, the sovereign Lord of heaven and earth. We detail the proofs of its divine origin. We bid you examine them with the utmost care. We say they are stronger evidences by far, than men are continually acting upon in all like cases. You meet the statements with objections, not to the credentials, not to the testimonies, but to something which appears to you incongruous in the contents of the Revelation. Now against this we enter our decided protest. Speculative reasonings are, after all, of little value against positive facts; but speculative reasonings, not directed against the facts and evidences of Revelation, but against Revelation itself, are too absurd and too evidently of a wrong class, to be attended to for a moment.

I bring you the history of Livy or Tacitus. I prove the work to be the genuine production of the author. I give the contemporary testimonies. I show you the large quotations from it in every subsequent age. You pass by all my facts-and direct your speculative reasonings against something you dislike in the matter of the history!

I lay before you an act of the British legislature.

I detail the evidences of its authenticity. I show you the incontrovertible records of the Parliament in which it was enacted. I refer you to the printed copy in I the archives of the nation. You neglect all these positive matters of fact—and begin to cavil against the contents of the statute !

An ambassador from the Prince and Lord of heaven

and earth arrives amongst men. He opens his embassy. He exhibits his credentials. He has the sign manual of his master. You turn from all this testimony-and plunge into metaphysical arguments on what you term the unreasonableness of the message which he delivers!

All this is so manifestly contrary to every principle of fairness and sincerity, that it would never be tolerated on any subject whatever in human affairs; and therefore, least of all should it be tolerated in a matter so momentous as religion.

The only legitimate ground of argument against Christianity, is against its evidences, not its matter. If it be from God, the matter is divine: this is a question then beyond and above man. At all events, it is not the primary question—the sole primary inquiry is, are the evidences such as may satisfy a candid person that the Revelation is of divine authority. Till this is settled, every thing else is trifling.

If men have any thing to say against the authenticity of the books of the New Testament, let them advance it. If the series of testimonies of all kinds to the simple fact, that the Scriptures were published at the time when they claimed to be, and were received by the contemporary friends and foes of the religion as the genuine productions of the professed authors— if this can be overthrown, let it be done. The question is open to investigation.

If men have any thing to advance against the credibility of the gospel history, supported as its facts are by all kinds of testimony, Heathen, Jewish, Chris