trines, and in asserting the validity of the argument which is founded upon that reasonableness. It would save a vast deal of controversy, if it could be proved that all this is superfluous and uncalled for; that upon the authority of the proofs already insisted on, the New Testament must be received as a revelation from heaven; and that, instead of sitting in judgment over it, nothing remains on our part but an act of unreserved submission to all the doctrine and information which it offers to us. It is conceived, that in this way the general argument might be made to assume a more powerful and impressive aspect; and the defence of Christianity be more accommodated to the spirit and philosophy of the

times.

certain sacrifices must be made, and some of the most urgent propensities of the mind put under severe restraint and regulation. The human mind feels restless and dissatisfied under the anxieties of ignorance. It longs for the repose of conviction; and to gain this repose, it will often rather precipitate its conclusions, than wait for the tardy lights of observation and experiment. There is such a thing, too, as the love of simplicity and system-a prejudice of the understanding, which disposes it to include all the phenomena of nature under a few sweeping generalities-an indolence, which loves to repose on the beauties of a theory, rather than encounter the fatiguing detail of its evidences-a painful reluctance to the admission of facts, which, however true, Since the spirit of Lord Bacon's philoso-break in upon the majestic simplicity that phy began to be rightly understood, the we would fain ascribe to the laws and operascience of external nature has advanced tions of the universe. with a rapidity unexampled in the history of all former ages. The great axiom of his philosophy is so simple in its nature, and so undeniable in its evidence, that it is astonishing how philosophers were so late in acknowledging it, or in being directed by its authority. It is more than two thousand years since the phenomena of external nature were objects of liberal curiosity to speculative and intelligent men. Yet two centuries have scarcely elapsed since the true path of investigation has been rightly pursued, and steadily persevered in; since the evidence of experience has been received as paramount to every other evidence, or, in other words, since philosophers have agreed that the only way to learn the magnitude of an object is to measure it, the only way to learn its tangible properties is to touch it, and the only way to learn its visible properties is to look at it.

Nothing can be more safe or more infallible than the procedure of the inductive philosophy as applied to the phenomena of external nature. It is the eye, or the earwitness of every thing which it records. It is at liberty to classify appearances, but then in the work of classifying, it must be directed only by observation. It may group phenomena according to their resemblances. It may express these resemblances in words, and announce them to the world in the form of general laws. Yet such is the hardihood of the inductive philosophy, that though a single well-attested fact should overturn a whole system, that fact must be admitted. A single experiment is often made to cut short the finest process of generalization, however painful and humiliating the sacrifice; and though a theory, the most simple and magnificent that ever charmed the eye of an enthusiast, was on the eve of emerging from it.

In submitting, then, to the rules of the inductive philosophy, we do not deny that G

Now, it is the glory of Lord Bacon's philosophy, to have achieved a victory over all these delusions; to have disciplined the minds of its votaries into an entire submission to evidence; to have trained them up in a kind of steady coldness to all the splendour and magnificence of theory, and taught them to follow, with unfaultering step, wherever the sure though humble path of experiment may lead them.

To justify the cautious procedure of the inductive philosophy, nothing more is necessary than to take a view of the actual powers and circumstances of humanity; of the entire ignorance of man when he comes into the world, and of the steps by which that ignorance is enlightened; of the numerous errors into which he is misled the moment he ceases to observe, and begins to presume or to excogitate; of the actual history of science; its miserable progress, so long as categories and principles retained their ascendency in the schools; and the splendour and rapidity of its triumphs, so soon as man understood that he was nothing more than the disciple of Nature, and must take his lesson as Nature offers it to him.

What is true of the science of external nature, holds equally true of the science and phenomena of mind. On this subject, too, the presumptuous ambition of man carried him far from the sober path of experimental inquiry. He conceived that his business was not to observe, but to speculate; to construct systems rather than consult his own experience and the experience of others; to collect the materials of his theory, not from the history of observed facts, but from a set of assumed and excogitated principles. Now the same observations apply to this department of inquiry. We must admit to be true, not what we presume, but what we find to be so. We must restrain the enterprises of fancy. A law of the human mind must be only a

50

success and felicity with which Lord Ba-
Let us therefore endeavour to evince the
con's principles may be applied to the in-
vestigation before us.

series of well-authenticated facts, reduced to investigation, theology is the only subject [CHAP. one general description, or grouped together that is suffered to remain the victim of preunder some general points of resemblance. judice, and of a contempt the most unjust, The business of the moral as well as of the and the most unphilosophical. natural philosopher is not to assert what he! We do not speak of this feeling as an excogitates, but to record what he observes; impiety; we speak of it as an offence against not to amuse himself with the speculations the principles of just speculation. We do of fancy, but to describe phenomena as he not speak of it as it allures the heart from sees or as he feels them. This is the busi- the influence of religion; we speak of it as ness of the moral as well as of the natural it allures the understanding from the influinquirer. We must extend the application ence of evidence and truth. In a word, we of Lord Bacon's principles to moral and are not preaching against it; we reason metaphysical subjects. It was long before against it. We contend that it is a transthis application was recognized, or acted gression against the rules of the inductive upon by philosophers. Many of the conti- philosophy. All that we want is, the apnental speculations are still infected with plication of Lord Bacon's principles to the the presumptuous a priori spirit of the old investigation before us; and as the influschools; though the writings of Reid and ence of prejudice and disgust is banished Stewart have contributed much to chase from every other department of inquiry, away this spirit from the metaphysics of we conceive it fair that it should be banishour own country, and to bring the science ed from theology also, and that our subof mind, as well as matter, under the entire ject should have the common advantage of dominion of the inductive philosophy. These general observations we conceive or fancy is admitted, and no other influa hearing,-where no partiality of the heart to be a most direct and applicable introduc-ence acknowledged than the influence of tion to that part of the subject which is evidence over the convictions of the underbefore us. In discussing the evidence of standing. Christianity, all that we ask of our reader is to bring along with him the same sober and inductive spirit, that is now deemed so necessary in the prosecution of the other sciences; to abandon every system of theology, that is not supported by evidence, every thing antecedent to observation; and According to Bacon, man is ignorant of however much it may gratify his taste, or there is not a single department of inquiry, regale his imagination, and to admit any in which he does not err the moment that he system of theology, that is supported by abandons it. It is true that the greater evidence, however repugnant to his feelings part of every individual's knowledge is deor his prejudices; to make conviction, in rived immediately from testimony; but it fact, paramount to inclination, or to fancy; is only from testimony that brings home and to maintain, through the whole process to his conviction the observation of others. of the investigation, that strength and in- Still it is observation which lies at the trepidity of character, which will follow bottom of his knowledge. Still it is man wherever the light of argument may con- taking his lesson from the actual condition duct him, though it should land him in con- of the thing which he contemplates; a conclusions the most nauseous and unpalatable. dition that is altogether independent of his We have no time to enter into causes; will, and which no speculation of his can but the fact is undeniable. Many philoso- modify or destroy. There is an obstinacy phers of the present day are disposed to in the processes of nature, which he cannauseate every thing connected with the- not controul. He must follow it. ology. They associate something low and construction of a system should not be a ignoble with the prosecution of it. They creative, but an imitative process, which The regard it, as not a fit subject for liberal in- admits nothing but what evidence assures quiry. They turn away from it with dis- us to be true, and is founded only on the gust, as one of the humblest departments lessons of experience. It is not by the exof literary exertion. We do not say that ercise of a sublime and speculative ingethey reject its evidences, but they evade the nuity that man arrives at truth. investigation of them. They feel no con- letting himself down to the drudgery of viction; not because they have established observation. It is by descending to the It is by the fallacy of a single argument, but be- sober work of seeing, and feeling, and excause they entertain a general dislike at the perimenting. Wherever, in short, he has subject, and will not attend to it. They not had the benefit of his own observation, love to expatiate in the more kindred fields or the observation of others brought home of science or elegant literature; and while to his conviction by credible testimony, the most respectful caution, and humility, there he is ignorant. and steadiness, are seen to preside over

every department of moral and physical sciences where the objects of inquiry are This is found to hold true, even in those

the most familiar and the most accessible. | fluence of every authority, but the authority Before the right method of philosophising of experience. We see that the beauty of was acted upon, how grossly did philoso- the old system had no power to charm him phers misinterpret the phenomena of ex- from that process of investigation by which ternal nature, when a steady perseverance he destroyed it. We see him sitting upon in the path of observation could have led its merits with the severity of a judge, unthem to infallible certainty! How misled moved by all those graces of simplicity and in their conception of every thing around magnificence which the sublime genius of them, when, instead of making use of their its inventor had thrown around it. senses, they delivered themselves up to the exercises of a solitary abstraction, and thought to explain every thing by the fantastic play of unmeaning terms, and imaginary principles! And, when at last set on the right path of discovery, how totally different were the results of actual observation, from those systems which antiquity had rendered venerable, and the authority of great names had recommended to the acquiescence of many centuries! This proves that even in the most familiar subjects, man knows every thing by observation, and is ignorant of every thing without it; and that he cannot advance a single footstep in the acquirement of truth, till he bid adieu to the delusions of theory, and sternly refuse indulgence to its fondest anticipations.

Thus, there is both a humility and a hardihood in the philosophical temper. They are the same in principle, though different in display. The first is founded on a sense of ignorance, and disposes the mind of the philosopher to pay the most respectful attention to every thing that is offered in the shape of evidence. The second consists in a determined purpose to reject and to sacrifice every thing that offers to oppose the influence of evidence, or to set itself up against its legitimate and well-established conclusions. In the ethereal whirlpools of Des Cartes, we see a transgression against the humility of the philosophical character. It is the presumption of knowledge on a subject, where the total want of observation should have confined him to the modesty of ignorance. In the Newtonian system of the world, we see both humility and hardihood. Sir Isaac commences his investigation with all the modesty of a respectful inquirer. His is the docility of a scholar, who is sensible that he has all to learn. He takes his lesson as experience offers it to him, and yields a passive obedience to the authority of this great schoolmaster. It is in his obstinate adherence to the truth which his master has given him, that the hardihood of the philosophical character begins to appear. We see him announce, with entire confidence, both the fact and its legitimate consequences. We see him not deterred by the singularity of his conclusions, and quite unmindful of that host of antipathies which the reigning taste and philosophy of the times mustered up to oppose him. We see him resisting the in

We look upon these two constituents of the philosophical temper, as forming the best preparation for finally terminating in the decided Christian. In appreciating the pretensions of Christianity, there is a call both upon the humility and the hardihood of every inquirer; the humility which feels its own ignorance, and submits without reserve to whatever comes before it in the shape of authentic and well-established evidence; and the hardihood, which sacrifices every taste and every prejudice at the shrine of conviction, which defies the scorn of a pretended philosophy, which is not ashamed of a profession that some conceive to be degraded by the homage of the superstitious vulgar, which can bring down its mind to the homeliness of the Gospel, and renounce, without a sigh, all that is elegant, and splendid, and fascinating, in the speculations of moralists. In attending to the complexion of the Christian argument, we are widely mistaken, if it is not precisely that kind of argument which will be most readily admitted by those whose minds have been trained to the soundest habits of philosophical investigation; and if that spirit of cautious and sober-minded inquiry to which modern science stands indebted for all her triumphs, is not the very identical spirit which leads us to "cast down all our lofty imaginations, and to bring every thought into the captivity of the obedience of Christ."

On entering into any department of inquiry, the best preparation is that docility of mind which is founded on a sense of our total ignorance of the subject: and nothing is looked upon as more unphilosophical than the temerity of that a priori spirit, which disposes many to presume before they investigate. But if we admit the total ignorance of man antecedent to observation, even in those sciences where the objects of inquiry are the nearest and the most familiar, we will be more ready to admit his total ignorance of those subjects which are more remote and more inaccessible. If caution and modesty be esteemed so philosophical, even when employed in that little field of investigation which comes within the range of our senses; why should they not be esteemed philosophical when employed on a subject so vast, so awful, so remote from direct and personal observation, as the government of God? There can be nothing so completely above us, and

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.

But this is not all. Our experience is not only limited in point of time; it is also limited in point of extent. To assign the

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. We are not bringing the decrees of the orthodox to bear against it; we are bringing 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 which comes to it from any other quarter. We take our lesson as it comes to us, provided we are satisfied beforehand, that it comes from a source which is authentic. We set up no presumptions of our own against the authority of the unquestionable evidence that we have met with, and reject all the suggestions which our defective experience can furnish, as the follies of a rash and fanciful speculation.

Now, let it be observed, that the great strength of the Christian argument lies in the historical evidence for the truth of the Gospel narrative. In discussing the light of this evidence, we walk by the light of experience. We assign the degree of weight that is due to the testimony of the first Christians upon the observed principles of human nature. We do not step beyond the cautious procedure of Lord Bacon's philosophy. We keep within the safe and certain limits of experimental truth. We believe the testimony of the apostles, because, from what we know of the human character, it is impossible that men in their circumstances could have persevered as they did in the assertion of a falsehood; it is impossible that they could have imposed this falsehood upon such a multitude of followers; it is impossible that they could have escaped detection, surrounded as they were by a host of enemies, so eager and so determined in their resentments. On this kind of argument we are quite at home. There is no theory, no assumption. We feel every inch of the ground we are treading upon. The degree of credit that should be annexed to the testimony of the apostles, 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 seldom find them upon the ground of the historical evidence. It is not in general,

on the credibility of the Christian revelation. It is on the character of that revelation itself. It is on what they conceive to be the absurdity of its doctrines. It is because they see something in the nature or dispensation of Christianity, which they think disparaging to the attributes of God, and not agreeable to that line of proceeding which the Almighty should observe in the government of his creatures. Rousseau expresses his astonishment at the strength of the historical testimony; so strong, that the inventor of the narrative appeared to him to be more miraculous than the hero. But the absurdities of this said revelation are sufficient in his mind to bear down the whole weight of its direct and external evidences. There was something in the doctrines of the New Testament repulsive to the taste and the imagination, and perhaps even to the convictions of this interesting enthusiast. He could not reconcile them with his pre-established conceptions of the divine character and mode of operation. To submit to these doctrines, he behoved to surrender that theism, which the powers of his ardent mind had wrought up into a most beautiful and delicious speculation. Such a sacrifice was not to be made. It was too painful. It would have taken away from him, what every mind of genius and sensibility esteems to be the highest of all luxuries. It would destroy a system, which had all that is fair and magnificent to recommend it, and mar the gracefulness of that fine intellectual picture, on which this wonderful man had bestowed all the embellishments of feeling, and fancy, and eloquence.

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