various forms for thirty years, are, of course, so unacceptable to antichristian Writers, as to have called forth the utmost ingenuity of several of them in attempting a refutation. And their attempts have been such complete and palpable failures, that it cannot be accounted presumptuous to pronounce that a refutation is impossible.1

To be more and more confirmed in the belief of some conclusion, the more numerous, and the more able are the zealous opponents of it, when they fail to produce any disproof, is so far from indicating an arrogant disdain of them, that it indicates the very contrary. For the greater their number, and their ingenuity, the stronger is the presumption, that some of them would have detected any flaw, had there been any, in the arguments for the conclusion they reject.

And the establishing of this is the most complete discomfiture of the adversaries of our religion, because it cuts away the ground from under their feet. For you will hardly meet with any one who admits that there has been some distinct Revelation, properly so called, given to Man, and yet denies that that revelation is to be found in our Bible. On the contrary, all who deny the divine authority of the Bible, almost always set out with assuming, or attempting to prove, the abstract impossibility of any revelation whatever, or any miracle in the ordinary sense of these words; and then it is that they proceed to muster their objections against Christianity in particular. But we have seen that we may advance and meet them at once in the open field, and overthrow them at the first step, before they approach our citadel; by proving that what they set out with denying is what must have taken place, and that they are, in their own persons, a portion of the monument of its occurrence. And the establishing of this, as it takes away the very ground first occupied by the opponents of our Faith, so it is an important preliminary step for our proceeding, in the next place, to the particular evidence for that faith. Once fully convinced that God must at some time or other have made some direct communication to Man, and that even those who dislike this conclusion strive in vain to

1 See Lectures on Political Economy, and Lecture On the Origin of Civilization, for a fuller development of the argument.

escape it, we are thus the better prepared for duly estimating the proofs that the Gospel is in truth a divine message.

'It is said that when we advance accounts of miracles, we assign effects without causes.,

The expression now most commonly in use among such reasoners as Paley is here alluding to, is, that so and so is a 'physical impossibility;' by which they mean, it seems, that it is not of such a character as would never be reckoned miraculous by any one; and that therefore it is to be at once pronounced incredible, by whatever proofs attested; which is just saying, in a slightly circuitous way, that 'no miracle is credible, because no miracle is credible!' For, much of what, in the present day, is called 'Science' and 'Philosophy,' consists in merely begging the question.

But, in ordinary usage, the expression of 'physically impossible' is applied to what is beyond the human powers, and to any thing at variance with the present course of nature. And many persons-including some who are far from being either ignorant or silly-do commonly use this language, while yet they believe that 'physical impossibilities' (in the above sense) have, under certain circumstances, taken place, and may again. They believe that there exists a Being of more than human power, to whom things are possible, which are impossible to Man. And they hold it not incredible that what is inconsistent with that portion of the course of Nature which is now going on among us, may have occurred formerly, and may occur hereafter. For instance, while they regard it as physically impossible for men (and so, with other animals) to come into existence without parents, they yet believe that there was a time when men did not exist; and that consequently the first of the race must have so come into existence.

They may perhaps believe also that though it is not in accordance with the present course of Nature for Man to receive communications direct from Heaven, or through some superhuman Being, this must have taken place formerly; since, else, all mankind would have been savages at this day.

And though accounting exemption from death, or restoration of the dead to life, a physical impossibility, they believe in an Agent capable of conferring immortality.

By the way, when it is said, (as it has been,) that for Man to be exempt from death, appears, on reflection, a physical impossibility, there seems no good ground for speaking of this as a thing apparent 'on reflection;' that expression usually relating to what is learnt, not from direct observation and experience, or from direct testimony, but from reasoning on collateral circumstances. Now it is not from any à priori reasoning, but from observation and testimony that we infer Man's mortality. If we could imagine an intelligent Being, of a different nature from ours, to come from some other planet, and visit our globe, and not only to see human Beings, but to acquire some knowledge of the physiology of the human frame, he would see no reason for at once inferring the necessary mortality of Man. He would see provision made for a continual decay indeed, but also, for a continual renovation. Every part of the body, including the most solid bones, is undergoing a constant process both of absorption, and also, of repair; the material for which is supplied by our food. There is no à priori reason why these two processes should not exactly balance each other forever. That the decay does always at length outstrip the renovating process, so as ultimately to produce dissolution, is what he might learn from observation; not however without much aid from testimony. For no one person's observation would be sufficient alone, to afford reasonable proof of Man's mortality as a universal law of Nature. That it is a law of Nature, we learn, not from 'reflection,' but from our own and others' experience.

It is worth remarking, however, that there is no ground for the supposition entertained by some, that Scripture represents Man to have been originally of an immortal nature. Some, proceeding on that supposition, and assuming that this could not have been literally true, have thence inferred that this portion of Scripture, and an indefinite number of other portions likewise, must be mythical legends, meaning any thing at all, or nothing at all.

But the contrary of the notion I am alluding to, is plainly implied by what is said of the Tree of Life,' as that on which depended Man's preservation from death. And there is nothing antecedently impossible, or improbable, in the supposition that this fruit was endued with the virtue of fortifying the constitu

tion, by being applied from time to time,-against the decays of age; in the same manner as ordinary food from day to day supports us against death and from famine; or as, in some persons, the habitual use of certain medicines is found to keep off some particular disease. It is not at all incredible, that the Creator may have bestowed on some fruit such a virtue; which is not, in itself, at all more wonderful than that opium, for instance, should produce sleep, or strong liquors a temporary madness.

Supposing then this to have been the true state of the case, our first Parents, though they had eaten of the Tree of Life, would, of course, when afterwards debarred from the use of it, not live forever. But it is worth remarking, that if we were to hazard a conjecture on the subject, we should expect to find that persons whose constitution had for a time been thus fortified, though they would at length die, yet would live much longer than Man's natural term of years; and that they would even be likely to transmit such a constitution to their descendants as should confer on these also a great degree of longevity; which would only wear out gradually, in many successive gene

rations.

We know indeed that no such medicine does now exist; but we know this, only from experience. And to maintain that therefore none such ever did, or could exist, is a mere assumption, and a very rash and groundiess one.

'Once believe that there is a God, and miracles are not incredible.'

A remarkable change has taken place in the antichristian world since Paley's time. In his day, and long before, the far greater part of those who denied the Gospel, were what are called Deists. They professed belief in a God in the ordinary acceptance of the word—namely, a personal intelligent agent, the Maker and Ruler of the universe. And many of them professed to believe also in a future state. Those again, who denied all this, plainly professed themselves Atheists.

Now, however, and for the last half-century, it is rare to meet with a Deist in the above sense. The opponents of Christianity generally reject the belief of a personal Deity; and yet they do not usually call themselves Atheists; but

apply the term 'God' to the system of the Universe itself. And the greater part of them assume the title of Christians. They believe in Christianity, all but the history and the doctrines. The history they consider as partly true, but partly a Myth, and partly an exaggerated and falsified report; and the doctrines as a mixture of truth with errors and pious frauds. Yet though in reality much further removed from Christianity than a Jew or a Mahometan, they are quite ready to take that oath, 'on the true faith of a Christian,' which many have regarded as the great bulwark of the christian character of our Legislature! And we should observe that, with hypocrisy (against which, it has been most truly remarked, no legal enactments can afford security) these persons are not at all chargeable. They are to be censured indeed for an unwarrantable use of the terms they employ; for inventing a new language of their own, and calling it English. But since they tell us what it is they do mean by Christianity, they cannot fairly be accused of deceit.

I am told that the school or sect to which most of these Writers belong is called 'Positivity,' and that its doctrine is the worship of Human Nature. If the reader has no clear notion concerning this system, he is probably, so far, on a level with its authors.

Here is a specimen (to which many more might have been added) of the transcendental style in which some of these philosophers seek to enlighten mankind.

....

'It [Religion] is a mountain air; it is the embalmer of the world. It is myrrh, and storax, and chlorine, and rosemary. It makes the sky and the hills sublime; and the silent song of the stars is it. . . . . Always the seer is the sayer. Somehow his dream is told, somehow he publishes it with solemn joy, sometimes with pencil on canvas, sometimes with chisel on stone; sometimes in towers and aisles of granite, his soul's worship is builded. . . . . Man is the Wonder Maker. He is seen amid miracles. The stationariness of religion, the assumption that the age of inspiration is past, that the Bible is closed; the fear of degrading the character of Jesus by representing Him as a Man, indicate with sufficient clearness, the falsehood of our theology. It is the office of a true teacher to show us that God is, not was-that He speaketh, not spoke. The true Christianity-a faith like Christ's in the infinitude of