of fact that the difficulty, which we have supposed, is sometimes felt by learned and able, as well as sincere, believers; by those, in short, who would naturally be the best qualified to elicit from Scripture the scheme of Christian doctrines. They, indeed, who can best appreciate the whole difficulty of such a task are, perhaps, the most likely to feel the perplexing thought-why should the Divine Spirit have chosen by such means to convey to the whole Christian world the doctrines most important for the whole world to know and believe.

But the propriety may be questioned of proposing a difficulty for consideration little likely to be ever answered completely, but the very mention of which may raise a new doubt in the mind of the pious Christian, or suggest a new cavil to the unbeliever. There is surely little cause, however, to refrain from any argument calculated to benefit the believer, when the cavils, to which it may give occasion, cannot possibly amount to an objection to Revelation itself without the grossest presumption or most culpable ignorance on the part of the objector. For the difficulty in question is no objection; it has long since been unanswerably shown that no objection can lie against Revelation on account of any alleged obscurity, or partial discovery of its truths, which does not equally lie against the tenets of pure deism; that, admitting the facts of the common course of nature, there is in truth nothing in revealed Religion which may not be equally well believed to have proceeded from the same author. It would be no less unreasonable to object to the truth of Christianity itself on account of the difficulty here

acknowledged, than it would be to deny the reality, or the high importance of that knowledge of agriculture which civilized nations possess, because there are various savage tribes to whom the art itself is unknown. We may dismiss the case of the unbeliever therefore with this serious but charitable warning, that, if he imagines he can raise an objection to Christianity on these grounds, when they have absolutely, as grounds of objection, been refuted (especially by Bishop Butler),* either his negligence will be sinful, should he not have considered the answer if he could; or should his want of opportunity or ability have prevented his knowing the demonstrative force of the argument against him, then will his presumption be sinful, if under such ignorance he attempts to carp at revealed Religion. But with respect to the believer it might be wrong indeed to hazard presenting a new difficulty to his mind, were there not some reason from experience to believe that those, who have not felt the difficulty before, are not likely to feel it long whilst of course the enquiry would not have been proposed, did it not seem calculated to lead to results satisfactory perhaps at once to some who have laboured under the difficulty assumed, and in their consequences also not uninteresting to all believers in Christianity.

At the same time it may be right to state, that neither is the whole difficulty expected to be solved, nor to the same extent with all minds; and for this reason amongst others, that it seems to

*See the Analogy of Religion, &c., part ii. ch. 6. Paley's Evidences, part iii. ch. 6.

have been the very intention of Providence that doubts and perplexities on the subject of Religion, (different also to different minds,) should remain as parts of our probation. This however does not forbid us to attempt the solution of any difficulty, whether to relieve our own doubts, or to have somewhat to offer for the satisfaction of a brother Christian. To return therefore to the consideration of that perplexity which many believers probably experience in the very indirect method observed in the New Testament for teaching the Christian doctrines.

Partially then, and, as it should seem, only in part, this difficulty is answered to believers by its utility, and by its analogy with the mode of delivering the moral precepts also of the Gospel.

The true believer without question, under whatsoever difficulty, never doubts but that the methods of nature or of grace are really the best adapted to their ends by the all-wise Father of heaven and earth; "whose way is in the sea, and His paths in "the great waters, and His footsteps are not known;" (Ps. lxxvii. 19.) though "clouds and darkness are "round about Him, righteousness and judgment are "the habitation of His throne;" (Ps. xcvii. 2.) but it is pleasing also to detect even the most obscure traces of the steps by which His mercy and wisdom have gone and in the present instance the want of system in the delivery of the Christian doctrines in Scripture-besides its extreme use, (before insisted upon,) in placing the proofs of those doctrines above the suspicion of corruption-may no doubt be useful as a mode of trying our humility and our faith; and evidently also answers a great purpose

in promoting research, and raising the curiosity, of learned men especially, who might have slighted a study less intricate and arduous; whilst the very disputes and errors consequent upon obscurity have kept alive the spirit of Christianity upon the whole; and, however hurtful frequently to the individuals conversant with them, (through their own fault,) have been eminently instrumental in spreading wider, or rooting more deeply, the great truths of Revelation in other minds.

It is pleasing also to observe the analogy between the delivery of Christian doctrines and moral precepts as those are to be gathered chiefly from incidental notices of them, from facts, and from arguments upon occasional topics, so the moral precepts also are taught in Scripture with far less of system than in the least exact works upon moral subjects; they are rather to be gleaned than readily gathered from history, from examples, from detached remarks, reproofs, and exhortations.*

But not to mention that there is in fact somewhat more of direct and systematic teaching in the practical, than in the doctrinal, instructions of Holy Writ-it may be very fairly objected that we have an advantage in the one case not perceived in the other, and which goes far to set aside the whole analogy between them. For have we not the aid of the moral sense and of reason, which, although far from unerring guides, but requiring continual reference to Scripture to correct their deviations, and supply their deficiencies-still of themselves

*See Paley's Moral Philos., I., iv., upon the moral instructions of Scripture.

may lead us into the principles of moral truth, and enable us further to comprehend, and turn to the best advantage, the more enlarged morality of Holy Writ? But we seem to look in vain for a corresponding guide to the higher principles of faith, confessedly opposed as these are to very many natural feelings, although perceived, when known, to be admirably adapted to the wants of human nature; and of whose very essence it is, although never contrary to our reason, yet to be undiscoverable by human capacity, and often to be above our reason. It would appear to be in the want of such a guide that the very difficulty complained of consists; so that if a corresponding assistance could be pointed out, we could have scarcely any cause to feel, and confess, the alleged want of clearness in the revelation of the Christian doctrines.

Now exactly such an aid and guide may surely be found in tradition, the traditions conveyed from age to age by the Church in general. They are allowed by the most orthodox divines* to be “a good help" to the study of the Scriptures, why may they not have been intended to assist us? Common experience and common practice seem to declare that some assistance of the kind is needful and reasonable, why may not this assistance have been designed for us from the first-as from the first in fact almost every Christian has been by such aid introduced to Christianity? In a word, why may it not have been the general design of Heaven

* See, for instance, Abp. Synge's Gentleman's Religion, p. 54; Burnet on the Articles, p. 95, Oxon., 1805; Nelson's Life of Bp. Bull, p. 190. Oxon., 1816.