CHRISTIANITY. 



387 



Chriniani- God would appear a scene as goodly and majestic as 

 'y- ever. Now it is t'ue administration of this God that we 

 ""~Y~ sit in judgment upon ; the counsels of Him, whose wisdom 

 and energy are of a kind so inexplicable ; whom no mag- 

 nitude 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 meanest ani- 

 mal ; and all das by the same omnipotent arm that is 

 abroad upon the universe, and presides in high authority 

 over the destiny of ail worlds. 



167. It is impossible not to mingle the moral im- 

 prefsions of piety with such a contemplation. But sup- 

 pose these impressions to be excluded, that the whole 

 may be reduced to a matter of abstract and unfeeling in- 

 telligence. The question under consideration is, How 

 far the experience of man can lead him to any certain 

 conclusions, as to the character of the divine adminis- 

 tration ? If it does lead him to some certain conclusions, 

 then, in the spirit of the Baconian philosophy, he will 

 apply these conclusions to the information derived from 

 other sources, and they will of course affect, or destroy, 

 or confirm the credibility of that information. If, on 

 the other hard, it appears that experience gives no light, 

 no direction on the subject, then, in the very same spi- 

 rit, he will submit his mind as a blank surface to all the 

 positive information which comes to it from any other 

 quart; r. 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 rabh and fanciful speculation. 



1G8. Now, let it be observed, that the great strength 

 of the Christian argument liei in the historical evidence 

 for the truth of the gospel narrative. In discussing the 

 light of this evidence, we walk by the light of experi- 

 ence. We assign the degree of weight that is due to 

 the testimony of the firs-t 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 experi- 

 mental 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 false- 

 hood ; it is impossible that they could have imposed this 

 falsehood upon such a multitude of followers ; it is im- 

 possible that they could have escaped detection, sur- 

 rounded as they were by a host of enemies, so eager and 

 so determined in their resentments. On this kind of ar- 

 gument 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 an- 

 nexed to the testimony of the apostles is altogether a 

 question of experience. Every principle which we ap- 

 ply towards the decision of this question, is founded up- 

 on materials which lie before us, and are every day with- 

 in the reach of observation. Our belief in the testimony 

 of the apostles is founded upon our experience of hu- 

 man 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 pre- 



cedency of observation, or abandon that safe and certain Christuni- 

 mode of investigation, which is the only one suited to lv ' 



1 1 " r *^^^^ "^^* 



the real mediocrity of our powers. 



169. 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, upon the 

 weight, or the nature of human testimony, that they ven- 

 ture to pronounce on the credibility of the Christian re- 

 velation. 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 na- 

 ture 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 histo- 

 rical testimony ; so strong, that the inventor of the narra- 

 tive appeared to him to be more miraculous than the he- 

 ro. But the absurdities of this said revelation are suffi- 

 cient 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 con- 

 victions of this interesting enthusiast. He could not 

 reconcile them with his pre-establit>hed 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. 



170. In as far, then, aswe 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 judg- 

 ment, that I discredit their testimony. The question at 

 issue betwixt 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 hu- 

 man 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 ac- 

 cessible to observation. The second argument is found- 

 ed upon assumption entirely. We are not competent to 

 judge of the conduct of the Almighty in given circum- 

 stances. Here we are precluded, by the nature of the 

 subject, from the benefit of observation. There is no 

 antecedent experience to guide or to enlighten us. It is 

 not for man to assume what is right, or proper, or na- 

 tural for the Almighty to do. It is not in the mere spi- 

 fit 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 Ba- 

 con 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 



