felt the cause weak, could they imagine that those above them, (who must have known it also,) would thank them for forcing it into notice-or that they should serve their own interests more effectually by turning aside from those paths of science and general literature for which nature appeared to have intended them, and in which they were fully conscious of their own power? Again, have you a right to assume such a want of upright principle in so numerous a body as the defenders of Christianity have now become? Can you for a moment imagine, that such an uncertain hope would prevail against reason and principle; that men of talents, of learning, and of acknowledged integrity, in other points, would suffer their minds to be so biassed by an uncertain hope of this kind; that they would run the risk of exposure, nay even court it, when the other means of rising into distinction were before them? Common sense tells us that such men would not so act; that no wise or able man would risk his character unnecessarily for that which he barely believed. We must therefore conclude, that the labours of such men would not have been undertaken without a full and overpowering conviction of the truth of Christianity, and did not arise from a belief so feeble as to require the aid of church emoluments to strengthen it. This subject has occupied a considerable portion of our time; but as I wish you to examine the ori ginal works, rather than to rely on the arguments I may select from them, it is of great importance that you do not suffer the conviction which I am confident those works will produce, to be weakened by unfounded assertions, as to interest and prejudice in the authors; assertions easily made, but forming a miserable reply to the works in question. EDWARD. Is it not, however, to be regretted, that, in controversies on this subject, the defenders of Christianity had one very material advantage over their opponents, in that it was their principal study? MR. B. But is this advantage unfair? Can it, or ought it, to be objected to? With whom does the fault rest, if the parties are unequally matched in point of intellectual strength and acquirements? Whence are the defenders of Christianity to arise, if not from those who give up their lives to its service? What would be the result if the professors of arts and sciences, in general, were suspected in their statements, merely because they were professors? Am I to reject the experiments of Newton, and refuse to look at his Principia, because he was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge? Am I to question the accuracy of Porson, because he was Greek Professor? I cannot pretend to make the experiments in the one case, or to consult the manuscripts in the other; and I might be told, that each of these great men was interested and prejudiced; yet who would not laugh at me, were I therefore to resolve I would pay no regard to either? We cannot believe that the love of emolument, prejudice, or vanity, could so bias such men as to induce them to make false assertions of facts, in which they were liable to detection by all who envied their talents, coveted their situations, or disliked their peculiar views. Why then should I doubt the accuracy of the critics of the New Testament, or turn a deaf ear to the argumentation of Butler or Paley? EDWARD. But had the enemies of Christianity been as well versed in these subjects as its clerical advocates, the result might have been very different. MR. B. This is mere assumption; and I have equal right to assume, in reply, what appears to me a much fairer conclusion; that had the enemies of Christianity read and thought more, they would have written less. In some cases, we know that increased knowledge of the subject has produced a very different result; it has not only silenced, it has converted the enemies into the friends of Christianity. EDWARD. Do you then think the works of its advocates are to be received in the same manner as if they had been the productions of persons to whom the result were a matter of indifference? MR. B. I think considerable allowance is always to be made for prejudice, as arising from the circumstances of birth, education, disposition, and habits of life; in the case of the clergy, also from attachment to their profession; and, in some cases, for a predilection to certain courses of study in preference to others, and to peculiar lines of argument, which they have themselves invented or greatly improved. But I think they ought to be fully acquitted from the sweeping charge of acting from those interested motives which their enemies delight to impute to them; and am fully persuaded that nothing but strong conviction would have produced the greater part of the many very able treatises which have been written in defence of Christianity. To their works, therefore, I would give all the attention which the character of the authors as well as the importance of the subject demands; remembering, however, that, as men, they were liable to be mistaken -as the abettors of a system, still more so. Their statements of facts, in cases where I was unable to verify them by an appeal to the original sources of information, I should be disposed to admit; their reasonings on those statements I should wish to examine as strictly as possible; and mere declamation I should reject altogether. BEATRICE. With this I shall be quite satisfied. EDWARD. And I also. MR. B. Perhaps you may; but I am not for we have hitherto considered prejudice and interest as directed only in favour of Christianity; but some of its most distinguished opponents have been, most unquestionably, both interested and prejudiced against it. What was the moral character of the French philosophists who attacked it? What sort of men have the English Deists in general been? If you would take a just view of the subject, you must bear this in mind also; and consider how far its opponents have had knowledge of the religion in question; from what sources they derived it; how they were situated; what had been their habits of life; how far they were competent judges-considerations which will make no sceptic eager for an inquiry into the degree in which interest and prejudice have affected the question. The language of this religion is, "If any man will do the will of God, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or of man"-a position as reasonable as it is pious; but, among all the sceptics, where have we seen that reverent anxiety to ascertain the will of God, and to do it? You have also particularly directed your arguments against the clergy of the Church of England, as interested and preju diced advocates: you must however remember, that it is not they alone who are the defenders of Christianity: those of every other church do the same, |