suppose that the attribute announced is Deceit. Yet after the annunciation of deceit as the leading attribute, the faith of the consistent 'Atheist' remains, and according to Dr C's principles must remain, unshaken. Such is the ' understanding,' which is declared by this advocate of revelation, to be in a high state of preparation for taking in Christianity!'

CHAP. II.

THE DEISTICAL OBJECTIONS WHICH DR C. AIMS AT REMOVING BY A NEW AND SUMMARY METHOD, STILL REMAIN TO BE DISCUSSED AND REPELLED IN THE MANNER HE DEEMS SUPERFLUOUS.

Ir the consequences now traced from the principles held by Dr. C. are legitimate, it may seem of little importance to enquire whether that class of infidel objections, which it is his aim to repel without the 'superfluous' trouble of discussing their reasonableness,' are in reality removed or not by his system of Christian Evidence. Such an enquiry, may notwithstanding be useful, for confirming the Internal Evidence, with those ante'cedent' theological conclusions on which it is founded, as it may serve still further to ex

hibit the inconsistency of those reasonings which have for their object its subversion.

From the nature of the general principles advanced by Dr. C., it might seem that if these principles are sound, no ground is left on which to build objections directed against the character of a revelation which is supported by external evidence. This is very far, however, from being the case. When these principles are accurately examined, and the limitations to which our author subjects them are attended to, it will be found that almost all the objections which it is his aim to dismiss without examination, may fairly claim, even from him, a discussion of their 'reason' ableness.'

1. The sweeping aphorism, repeatedly expressed in such terms as these :-'We have 'no right to sit in judgment over the infor'mation given us by Heaven's ambassador,'*. is subjected to the following exception: it ' is very true that if the truths which he de. 'livered lay within the field of human obser

vation, he brings himself under the tribunal ' of our antecedent knowledge.-Were he to 'tell us, that the bodies of the planetary system moved in orbits which are purely cir'cular, we would oppose to him the observa

'tions and measurements of astronomy.'* Here Dr. C. asserts, that whatever may be the conclusiveness of the external evidences, or the 'credentials,' as he stiles them, of Heaven's 'ambassador;'-yet if the information he gives is contradicted by the results of human observations, that circumstance justifies opposition to his dictates. It is impossible to understand his words as conveying any other meaning. And the astronomical fact which he produces in illustration of his position, warrants the conclusion, that such opposition is in his opinion justifiable when grounded upon results, which are not very obviously or directly the dictates of mere observation.-In consequence of thus limiting his general principle, Dr. C. is precluded from summarily dismissing, by a reference to the strength of the external evidence, certain objections which have actually been brought against the divine authority of Revelation. Thus he is obliged to admit, that the objections of Bolingbroke and others, founded on the alleged falsehood of the information given by Revelation, respecting the motions of the planetary bodies, are sufficient if well founded to warrant opposition to its reception. All such objections

§192.

must, even upon his system, be met upon the ordinary ground of their truth and reasonbleness. Again he declares, that were he (the ambassador of Heaven,) to tell us, that " we were perfect men, because we were free from passion, and loved our neighbours as 'ourselves, we would oppose to him the his'tory of our lives, and the deeply seated con'sciousness of our own imperfections.'* Here it is admitted that memory and consciousness, no less than the powers of perception, are trust-worthy faculties: and that if their dictates are contradicted by information, contained in a religious system supported by external evidence, legitimate ground is furnished for opposition to that system. Hence all objections which allege that revealed religion gives false information regarding the moral constitution of mankind, and the extent of human corruption, must still be discussed in the accustomed manner by reference to facts and to consciousness. Supposing a revelation to inform us, that a conviction of its truth is highly favourable to the temporal happiness of man-such objections as allege that this revelation is in fact destructive of the peace of the individual, subversive of the order of so

* § 192.