it is founded on faith, not on reason; that is, our faith is founded on our faith; in other words, it has no foundation, it is a mere chimera, the creature of a distempered brain. I say not on the contrary, that our most holy religion is founded on reason, because this expression, in my opinion, is both ambiguous and inaccurate; but I say, that we have sufficient reason for the belief of our religion: or to express myself in the words of an apostle, that the Christian, if it is not his own fault, may be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh him a REASON of his hope. So far therefore am I from being afraid of exposing Christianity, by submitting it to the test of reason; so far am I from judging this a trial, which it is by no means fitted to endure, that I think, on the contrary, the most violent attacks that have been made upon the faith of Jesus, have been of service to it. Yes: I do not hesitate to affirm, that our religion has been indebted to the attempts, though not to the intentions, of its bitterest enemies. They have tried its strength indeed, and, by trying, they have displayed its strength; and that in so clear a light, as we could never have hoped, without such a trial, to have viewed it in. Let them therefore write, let them argue, and when arguments fail, even let them cavil, against religion, as much as they please: I should be heartily sorry, that ever in this island, the asylum of liberty, where the spirit of Christianity is better understood (however defective the inhabitants are in the observance of its precepts) than in any other part of the Christian world; I should, I say, be sorry, that, in this island, so great a disservice were done to religion, as to check its adversaries, in any other way, than by returning a candid answer to their objections. I must at the same time acknowledge, that I am both ashamed and grieved, when I observe any friends of religion betray so great a diffidence in the goodness of their cause (for to this diffidence alone it can be imputed) as to show an inclination for recurring to more forcible methods. The assaults of infidels, I may venture to prophesy, will never overturn our religion. They will prove not more hurtful to the Christian system, if it be allowed to compare small things with the greatest, than the boisterous winds are said to prove to the sturdy oak. They shake it impetuously for a time, and loudly threaten its subversion; whilst, in effect, they only serve to make it strike its roots the deeper, and stand the firmer ever after. One word more with the essayist, and I have done. 6 Upon the whole,' says he, we may conclude, that the Christian religion, not only was ' at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person • without one. Mere reason is insufficient to con'vince us of its veracity; and whoever is moved 'faith to assent to it; that is, whoever by his belief is induced to believe it, is conscious of a con tinued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe, what is most contrary to custom and experience.' An author is never so sure of writing unanswerably, as when he writes altogether unintelligibly. It is impossible that you should fight your enemy before you find him; and if he hath screened himself in darkness, it is next to impossible that you should find him. Indeed, if any meaning can be gathered from that strange assemblage of words just now quoted, it seems to be one or other of these which follow: either, That there are not any in the world, who believe the gospel; or, That there is no want of miracles in our own time. How either of these remarks, if just, can contribute to the author's purpose, it will not, I suspect, be easy to discover. If the second remark be true, if there be no want of miracles at present, surely experience cannot be pleaded against the belief of miracles said to have been performed in time past. Again, if the first remark be true, if there be not any in the world who believe the gospel, because, as Mr Hume supposes, a miracle cannot be believed without a new miracle, why all this ado to refute opinions which nobody entertains? Certainly, to use his own words, The knights-errant, who wandered about to clear the 'world of dragons and giants, never entertained the least doubt concerning the existence of these monsters *." * See the first paragraph of Essay 12, Of the academical or sceptical philosophy. Might I presume faintly to copy but the manner of so inimitable an original, as the author has exhibited in his concluding words, I should also conclude upon the whole, That miracles are capable of proof from testimony, and that there is a full proof of this kind, for those said to have been wrought in support of Christianity; that whoever is moved, by Mr Hume's ingenious argument, to assert, that no testimony can give sufficient evidence of miracles, admits for reason, though perhaps unconscious, a mere subtilty, which subverts the evidence of testimony, of history, and even of experience itself, giving him a determination to deny, what the common sense of mankind, founded in the primary principles of the understanding, would lead him to believe. |