CHAPTER IX.

REASONABLENESS OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES.

It may be thought, that what is gained on the one hand, by proving the originality of the doctrines taught in the Gospel, according to the argument of the preceding chapters, is lost, on the other hand, by showing their improbability. If the Gospel proposed a probable or a reasonable system of belief, it would have been likely to occur to those who, from whatever motives, undertook to invent or introduce a new religion. If it were unlikely to occur, this will show it to be improbable and unreasonable; and so diminish, or even destroy, its credibility.

This objection is avowedly one ground of unbelief. The direct proofs of the truth of Christianity are so full, so various, and so irrefragable, that men cannot remain unbelievers through defect of evidence. They doubt or deny in spite of evidence, because of the unexpected and unpalatable nature of that which the evidence attests.

The Scriptures themselves lead us to anticipate this. They tell us, that the doctrines are such as the heart naturally revolts from: receives slowly and

unwillingly such as are contrary to the suggestions of human philosophy, and will not be cordially embraced until the heart is brought into a docile and submissive posture, and is disposed to bow humbly before the oracles of God.

Experience has confirmed this anticipation. The leading doctrine of the Christian revelation is, "that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself; not imputing their trespasses unto them." "Christ once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." Then we are asked, "How can this be, consistently with the truth and holiness of God? Can He see us otherwise than we really are?" "In the doctrine of the sacrifice or satisfaction of Christ for the sins of men," "theological criticism seems to detect something which is irreconcileable with the truth and holiness of God."2 The effect of arguments of this kind is to set the Bible in antagonism to the reason or conscience of man; and it is assumed that our reason or conscience must be right, although it contradicts the Bible. As has been elsewhere stated, "the principle of private judgment puts conscience between us and the Bible, making conscience the supreme interpreter, whom it may be a duty to enlighten, but it cannot be a duty to disobey.' 993

Now it will not be denied, that in proportion as

1Pet. iii. 18.

2 Professor Jowett on Rom. 468-474. 3 Essays and Reviews. Essay 1. p. 45.

the doctrines revealed are extraordinary, mysterious, presenting difficulties to the mind, in such proportion is it needful that the proofs of their divine original should be clear and incontrovertible. And this evidence it is the province of reason to examine. The faculty of reason is given us for the purpose of discerning between truth and falsehood: and we are instructed to "prove all things, and hold fast that which is good." Jesus himself appealed to this criterion; saying to the people, "If ye believe not me, believe the works: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me." And again, "If I had not done among them the works that none other man did, they had not had sin:" if proofs of my divinity had not been set before them, they would not have been required to believe it :-" but now they have no cloak for their sin."1

It does not, however, follow, that the subjectmatter of the revelationis among the things to be appealed to, as proving it to be a divine revelation. We cannot argue, that because the Bible delivers as truths many things which it would not have entered into the heart of man to conceive, therefore they are not truths: especially if they concern the nature of God, and the condition of man; the relation in which man stands towards God, and his ultimate destination. Setting aside the Bible, it is impos

1 John xv. 22; ix. 37.

sible not to be astonished at the little which mankind have ever discovered upon these momentous points: how vaguely they have conjectured, what wild opinions they have adopted. Their errors confound us, whether we are able to correct them or no. Therefore it was to be expected, that an actual revelation concerning these things should declare what was both original and surprising. And we ought to judge of the probable truth of a revelation, as far as we judge from the subject matter of it, rather by its suitableness to human nature as shown and proved by our experience, than by its agreement with any previous notions or expectations; which would be different in every age, every country, and every state of civilization.

The two points most connected with the preceding argument, at which reason is disposed to cavil, are, first, the punishment to which the Scriptures declare that men are liable from the judgments of God1; and, next, the means offered them to escape from that punishment, through the vicarious sufferings of Jesus as the Redeemer.2 With respect to both of these subjects I shall propose a few observations; not attempting to exhaust the subject, which

1 "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men."-Rom. i. 18. See also ch. ii. 5, &c. &c.

2 "This is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life.”— John vi. 40.

would require a distinct volume; but to suggest such obvious reflections as may indicate the extent and difficulty of the whole question, and so dispose the mind to a more ready acquiescence in the divine authority of the scriptural declarations.

I. The Gospel certainly represents mankind as having departed from their allegiance to God, and on that account lying under his condemnation.1

1. Now, in regard to the first of these statements, how far does it agree with experience? Can we leny, that in all quarters of the world, and in every age, the general conduct of men has been utterly inconsistent with such laws as we can believe agreeable to a holy and perfect Being? We hear it laid down as the dictate of reason or conscience, that the God who is in heaven must delight in virtue. But where was the virtue to be found which he should delight in, beyond the boundaries of that small nation which the Lord had "formed for himself, that they might show forth his praise"? The first duty of a creature towards his Creator is surely adoration. But no such duty had been actually paid. It had been paid to the works of his hands, or to the works of men's own hands; but the Creator himself had been universally neglected. Men had not liked to "retain him in their knowledge." So, again,

1 See, in particular, the first two chapters to the Romans. In the fifth, this is traced back to its cause, the influence of the evil spirit upon our first parents, persuading them to disobey the express command of God.

K