loose sense in which it is in common language sometimes used, as synonymous with prudent -the solution alluded to, it may observed, is attended with consequences which render it incapable of being employed by any advocate of revelation.*) The question of 'right' even as it regards obedience, can only be determined by reference to our moral perceptions; and unless it can be shewn that man is under a moral obligation to obey the will of a being who, for aught we know, is possessed of no moral character-or who is arbitrary, unjust, and malignant,'-it never can be decided as Dr C. anticipates, without recognizing the immutability of moral distinctions perceived by

man.

It has now, it is hoped, been rendered sufficiently apparent, that in this passage our author has acknowledged, (not directly indeed, but by necessary consequence) the immutability of moral distinctions-a principle which forms an insuperable barrier against the admission of every revelation which attributes to the Deity, no moral character; or immoral

* The system which makes virtue a mere matter of prudence, leads to the conclusion, that a being independently and completely happy cannot have any moral perceptions or any moral attributes,'-STEWART's Outlines.

qualities and acts; or which represents him as prescribing services or enjoining actions of immoral nature. As Dr C. has deemed it proper to acknowledge this principle, by entering an appeal to it in proof of his own conclusions, every other conclusion legitimately deducible from it must be acknowledged also. And as consequences flowing from this principle have been assumed into the Evidence of Christianity by Dr C., and employed in producing conviction of its truth,-so other consequences following from it, must be allowed to affect that evidence. While therefore, on the one hand, the correspondence between such consequences, and the Christian system of doctrine and morals, must be held to form legitimate evidence of the truth of that system,-all objections to Christianity on the other, grounded on alleged discrepancy between its doctrines or morals, and this principle with its consequences, possess a just title to have their merits discussed on the grounds of reason, and cannot be summarily dismissed by reference to the external evidence. Now it happens that the greater part of those objections, which Dr C. is desirous of dismissing in this summary manner, are grounded upon this principle. His appeal to it, therefore, sub

jects him to the necessity of entering into all those controversies with Deists, respecting the moral character of the Christian system, which he represents as superfluous and uncalled for; the same appeal virtually recognises the legitimacy of the internal evidence, which he disclaims as fallacious; and exhibits his general scheme of Christian Evidence, as founded on principles, by the operation of which it is overthrown.

4. Dr C. represents the unity of mind and purpose ascribed to Jesus Christ, as a most 'striking evidence' of the truth of his religion.* We see no shifting of doctrine or sen'timent, with a view to accommodate to new ' and unexpected circumstances.' It follows from the adoption of this evidence, that he must consider all shifting of doctrine or sentiment, with a view to accommodate to circumstances,' as affording justifiable ground of opposition to Christianity; an admission which furnishes an additional limitation to his general position, that we have no right to sit

in judgment over the information given us 'by Heaven's ambassador.' It hence appears, that reason is entitled thus to sit in judgment, with a view to discover whether, among the inspired publishers of Christianity, any discre

* § 61.

pancy of sentiment' or variation of doctrine is discoverable, for which sinister motives are apparent. Every one knows the attempts which have been made by infidels, particularly by Bolingbroke, Chubb, and their followers, to set in opposition to one another the Gospel of our Saviour, and that of the Apostle Paul. Numerous have been the objections brought against Christianity, founded on alleged discordancy among its doctrines and its precepts. By employing this species of evidence, our Author opens for himself a field of controversy,' which his general principles appeared to have shut up. It is not indeed easy to assign limits to this field; or to preclude any of those deistical objections, which represent the doctrines of Christianity as at variance with the conclusions of natural theo. logy, from forcing their way into it. For as all those conclusions are found asserted in certain passages of Scripture, whatever other passages may be considered as expressive of doctrines contradictory to those of natural theology, may be represented as contradictory to doctrines contained in the gospel itself. It seems only necessary therefore to change the form of the objection, and to invent some plausible motive to account for the

alleged inconsistency, in order to enable it to bring forward the charge of a shifting of 'doctrine or sentiment, with a view to accom⚫modate to new or unexpected circumstances:' a shape, which would appear to entitle it to enter the lists of legitimate controversy.'

Thus, we cannot find much difficulty in calculating the gain which accrues to Christianity, from this attempt to simplify and render impressive the proofs, on which its claims to reception rest. It would seem that if we express it by the least possible denomination of quantity, we cannot be very wide of the mark.