not be annihilated, fo in this cafe, notwithstanding the impoffibility of attaining to a precife coincidence of opinion, arguments may ftill avail to to reduce thofe differences of opinion which must always fubfift within a narrower compass; and thus we may in morals, as well as mathematics, imagine the poflibility of a perpetual approach, whilft we acknowledge the impoffibility of an actual contact. And, ift, I affert, without fear of contradiction, that Reason is the fole judge of the evidences of a divine revelation: A revelation destitute of evidence cannot be fuppofed; and to appeal to authority as a fufficient ground of evidence is a palpable abfurdity. The authority of the Church, if the claim was admitted, muft reft upon the authority of revelation; and the authority of revelation itfelf muft reft upon the authority of its evidence; and to make the authority of the evidence reft upon the authority of the Church, is evidently to argue in a circle, and in fo finall and confined a circle that the fophifm must be inftantly detected. Accordingly, the Papifts themfelves appeal to Reafon as a competent judge of this matter; and very celebrated treatifes have been written by the divines of the Romish communion,' in which the evidences of Christianity have been ably and learnedly ftated, Reafon then is the acknowledged judge of this queftion; but the danger is, least we should require a degree of evidence which Reafon has no right to exact. If the evi Now dence rifes to probability, we fhould act most irrationally in rejecting it because it falls fhort of moral certainty!-as juftly might we reject moral certainty because it falls fhort of mathematical demonftration. Whoever attends to the evidences of the Christian religion with impartiality and candour, must be compelled to allow the probability at least of its divine origin: In this cafe how will Reafon direct a man to act? to remain in a state of perpetual fcepticism is equally irkfome and difficult; the balance will ultimately incline either to the one fide or the other. to reject a probability is to embrace an im probability: Let thofe then who incline to infide lity in confequence of the objections to which Christianity is liable, and the difficulty they find in answering those objections fatisfactorily,-let fuch men reflect upon the infuperable difficulties with which that infidelity is itself attended:-Let them take the trouble to frame not only a nega. tive but a positive creed, and they will foon fee how much weaker and more expofed to objection every particular and diftinct scheme of infidelity is than Christianity-how much lefs the pofitive evidence in its favour-how much greater the inconfiftencies and improbabilities connected with it. But, zdly, Reafon is competent to judge not only of the evidences but the doctrines of revelation: this it must be owned is a propofition to which an unqualified affent ought not to be given; it stands in need of much explanation, and and no explanation can be expected to produce univerfal fatisfaction. Reafon and Revelation must doubtless be in their natures perfectly reconcileable; but they may apparently differ, and in that case must revelation be explained in conformity to Reason, or muft Reafon fubmit to be filenced by the voice of revelation? In order to affift our determinations upon this point, it must be remembered, that there is a most important diftinction between Reason abstractedly confidered, i. e. eternal truth and rectitude, and human Reafon; or thofe principles which we adopt upon the prefumption of their conformity to the dictates of abstract truth; and it is very fuppofable that the doctrines of revelation may differ very widely from our ideas of Reason, though they unquestionably correfpond to Reason as it fubfifts in the divine mind, i. e. to perfect truth, rectitude and wisdom. Nevertheless, there are fome things fo clearly dif cernible by the light of human Reafon, that it is impoffible for us, without difcarding it as entirely ufelefs, to doubt of their agreement with right Reafon or abstract truth; and if it could be proved that revelation really contradicted any of those principles which Reafon indubitably inculcated, we should indeed be reduced to a state of the most diftreffing perplexity. perplexity. If Christianity, accompanied as I think it is with convincing evidence of a divine original, fhould in exprefs terms affert, that the fubftance which I fee in the form of bread and wine is really and truly the body and blood of Chrift, and that the fame identical body fubfifts whole and undivided at the fame instant of time in a thoufand different places, or if I could believe that this religion really af cribes all the attributes of Deity to three diftin&t perfons, and yet maintains in the most unequi vocal language the abfolute unity of the Divine Nature, I would without hesitation acknowledge, that Reafon and Understanding were given us in vain! The fimple dictates of Reason, which in cafes of this nature have a clearness and certainty which no fpecies of evidence can fuperfede, must destroy the authority of revelation; and the evidence by which this revelation is accompanied muft, on the other hand, confound every principle of Reason, and "amaze indeed the very faculty "of eyes and ears:" Happily we are not reduced to this alarming ftate. Nothing contained in the Chriftian revelation can with the leaft degree of justice be faid to contradict those principles of Reafon which have any pretence to be styled felf-evident. But fome will not fcruple to affirm, that articles of the Christian faith may nemany vertheless be deemed irrational, as not coinciding with thofe conclufions which Reafon enables us to deduce from felf-evident principles; they think that evident marks of imperfection are difcernible in the general fcheme; and they fancy, as a certain Spanish Monarch is reported to have boafted with refpect to the fyftem of of the Univerfe, that if they had been confulted a much better conftitution of things might have been adopted. This mode of arguing and of judging appears to me to proceed from the most dangerous prefumption. Nothing can be more unwarrantable, nothing can exhibit a stronger inftance of the fatal effects of pride, combined with folly, than the rejection of a revelation authenticated by fufficient evidence, because it may con tain fome things which may not approve themfelves to the understanding of the objector. Let us confider how great was the previous improbability that a human mind fhould be capable of comprehending the divine counfels, and how abfurd it is to expect that a scheme fo far above our comprehenfion fhould in all its parts approve itself to our understandings. Say of this plan the bearings and the ties, The general tendency of the plan indeed we may reasonably expect should appear to be worthy of its divine author. If it could be fairly proved to be inimical to the interefts of truth, virtue and happiness, it would be an internal argument against the divine origin of it, as powerful as any external arguments which could poffibly be produced in its favour; but it is a very weak pretence indeed for with-holding our affent, to alledge that those interests are not promoted in that particular manner |