But there is another species of evidence adduced in favour of Christianity, which, as contra-distin gished from the evidence of testimony and facts, has been denominated internal, and is founded chiefly on the adaptation of the gospel to the wants and circumstances of men; on its excellence as a rule of practice, as a source of knowledge, and as a ground of hope and of consolation; and it is ar gued that a religion which has so many marked characteristics of benevolence and wisdom can have no other than a divine origin. We are disposed to consider the arguments connected with this view of the subject, as, of all others, the most conclusive. Indeed there is, properly speaking, no Christiani ty, till those convictions of its power and efficacy are produced in the mind; they constitute the sum and substance of practical Christianity, and there fore they are to be considered as results, rather than as evidences: as consummations of Christian faith, rather than as steps in the arguments which lead to it. A man's conviction is already complete by the time he feels that the gospel has enlightened his mind, reformed his practice, confirmed his hopes, and removed his fears. He has then, as it is expressed in Scripture, " the witness in him self," I John, v. 10, his conscience, feelings, and all his faculties yielding a ready assent to the value and importance of the Christian revelation.
But it. would be needless for a Christian to tell an unbeliever what he feels on these subjects. One man's feelings can be no argument to another: and the unbeliever will take his stand exactly on the same ground, and will say, that he rejects the gos pel, because it is revolting to his feelings, and be cause he is persuaded that the adoption of it would mar his happiness. Here then, we shall suppose, is the point with regard to which the two parties are at issue, the one maintaining that the gospel promotes human happiness, the other that it de stroys it. Are there no data, then, by which this controversy can be decided? Is there no standard to which we can refer on a point so deeply interest ing to human nature? To maintain that there is not, would be to confound reason with prejudice, to renounce as fallacious every intimation of con science, and to dismiss as insufficient every princi ple which enables us to judge of the consequences of actions.
Is the gospel, then, or is it not, friendly to hu man happiness? If a verdict shall be returned in its favour, it will be entitled to the support of all who hold that happiness is " our being's end and aim." At the first view, its aspect is not alluring: but it will be an argument in its favour, if it can be shown to be friendly in its intentions. Its doc
trines and its precepts stand as antagonists to all those propensities which are nourished by excess, and by inordinate love of the world: but this will not operate to its disadvantage, if it can be shown that nothing less than the self-denial which it en joins can prevent us from being suicides of our own happiness; and that unrestrained indulgence is the sure road to disgrace and misery. It is quite com mon to hear it said, how can a religion which pro fesses to come from heaven, be so opposite to the propensities of human nature? Can the same God give opposite intimations, and, at the same instant, impel to gratification and forbid it? This apparent anomaly does not originate in the gospel: it has its foundation in the nature of man, which supplies, at the same time, both a stimulus and a check to gratification. On the one hand, we feel a decided love of pleasure, whilst on the other, conscience in terferes to prevent the unlawful indulgence of it; and the ardour of gratification is checked by the failing powers of nature, and by the languor or dis ease which excess produces.
It is obvious, then, that there are very contradic tory principles in our nature; we ars... prone to ex cess, and reluctant of restraint, yet we are compell ed to attend to the voice of conscience which point's out the boundaries which we ought to respect, and warns us of the danger which attends transgres sion. It is farther obvious, even without the light of Christianity-, that man rises in the scale of moral excellence, of public usefulness and private happi ness, in proportion as he resists the undue indul gence of the mere animal propensities, and obeys the moral feelings of his nature: whilst the man who degrades himself by brute enjoyments, neces sarily forfeits rational happiness, the esteem of his fellow creatures, and the hopes of a better world. These are axioms recognised by all nations whose names have not sunk into oblivion, by neglecting the conduct which results from them. Is it not, then, highly in favour of Christianity, that it takes a decided part with these better principles of our nature, that it labours to strengthen conscience, to promote justice, to banish selfishness, to increase universal benevolence? And if it can be shown that the gospel promotes all these objects infinitely better than any other system, and supplies motives and inducements far beyond what any man, or set of men, ever devised, we shall have, in that case, a strong presumptive evidence of its divine origin; and this presumption must amount to certainty, when we consider the men by whom it was first an nounced, and the circumstances in which it was first propagated.