It is clear, then, that we are compelled to judge of every doctrine by its general tendency, as much as by the authority with which it is enforced. A miracle shows the power of the legislator; but we judge of his wisdom or his goodness by the nature of his enactments: and the beauty and excellence of the Christian dispensation consist in this, that its most peculiar doctrines are such as our reason is compelled to approve, though it would never have been able to discover them. We have thus a double security for our faith; for on the one hand we see it enforced by a power which no man can with safety resist: whilst on the other it is recom mended by such distinct features of beneficence and wisdom as must secure both the love and approba tion of every reasonable mind. Were miracles wrought to enforce maxims hurtful to human hap piness, it would be a mere tyrannical display of power, at which the heart would revolt. But when we see that power is manifested to secure obedience to laws framed for our own good, we admire both the wisdom and condescension of the lawgiver, and we then love and revere a power which is exer cised only to secure our own happiness.
Some of the friends of Christianity seem to have conceived a prejudice against the internal evidence for its divine origin, chiefly, we believe, because this is the point which infidels have principally contested, and on which they profess to build their opposition. The evidence of miracles remained almost unquestioned till it was assailed by the flim sy sophism of Hume, which would long ere now have been forgotten, had it not been preserved from oblivion, by being embodied in the beautiful refutation of Campbell. The evidence of prophecy, too, has been in a great measure unmolested; the only relevant objection that unbelievers have urged being, that the prophecies were written after the events which they pretend to predict; an objection so shallow and untenable, that to mention it is a sufficient refutation. But unbelievers have adopted a mode of warfare which has often been successful ly practised by a skilful enemy; they have left the strong holds unmolested, and have directed all their efforts against the troops who keep the field, being well assured that when these are completely routed, and unable to appear, the strong places must quickly fall. In other words, they have at tacked the substantial doctrines and distinguishing precepts of Christianity, under the impression, which we believe to be well founded, that if they can get the better of these, the external evidence will soon go for nothing.
And shall we decline to meet them on this field? Shall we post ourselves behind our bulwarks, con tenting ourselves with bidding defiance to our ene mies, whilst they are allowed to ravage the country, and harass its population? Such conduct would be cowardly, and unworthy of the high cause which we profess to advocate. Whilst, then, we should
avoid the presumption of demanding that the mys teries of God should be brought down to the level of our understanding, a demand which reason it self must pronounce to be unreasonable, and impos sible to be complied with; yet we may confidently affirm, that no doctrine is revealed in Scripture in consistent with the dictates of enlightened reason: on the contrary, they are all recommended by their obvious congruity with some principles which rea son recognises as ultimate and incontrovertible.
Hitherto we have applied this mode of illustra tion only to the precepts and moral instructions of the gospel, and have endeavoured to show that even when they oppose our feelings, they promote our happiness, and are approved by our reason. These precepts are not so much distinguished by the no velty of the qualities which they enjoin, (for they are, in general, founded on the broad basis of hu man nature,) as by the novelty of the sanctions by which they are enforced, and by the strong unquali fied terms in which they are delivered.
This is a striking peculiarity in our Lord's man ner as a moral teacher. He does not attempt to win assent by slow and cautious advances on our prejudices; he assails them at once, and rouses their utmost opposition by the decided and unqua lified nature of his attack. When he wishes to discourage vindictive feelings, and prevent men from taking into their own hands the adjustment of their own wrongs, he does not proceed on the principles of political morality, to show that such practices would be injurious to the state; but he says in language alike calculated to astonish and offend, " Whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other also." Mat. v. 30. His object was to arouse the attention to a momen tous truth; and he clogs the precept with no de duction or qualification, knowing that men would soon be ingenious enough to discover these for themselves. To show the dangerous tendency of riches, he does not stop to point out the tempta tions to which they lead, or to warn mankind against their gradual influence in deteriorating the character, but he says in language, which no man, whether rich or poor, can ever forget, " It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Such a declaration, proceeding from an authorita tive teacher, must have roused the most languid attention: even his disciples, we are told, " were exceedingly amazed;" this was what was intended; it would excite discussion among those who heard it; and, on due examination, it would be found to be the converse of that salutary proposition, that none but the " poor in spirit," shall inherit the king dom of God; and that they who arc only rich as to this world, shall never taste the blessedness of hea ven.