We see, in this conduct of the Apostle Philip, a natural picture of those inquirers into the truth of our religion; who, because they have not the highest possible evidence given them of it, (at least, not that evidence, which they account the highest) are tempted, if not absolutely to reject the faith, yet to entertain it with a great mixture of doubt and suspicion. "If Christianity, say they, were what "it pretends to be, the arguments for it would "be so decisive, that nothing could be opposed to them; if it were, indeed, of God,

"the proofs of its claim had been such and so

many, that no scepticism could have taken

place, no infidelity, at least, could have kept "its ground, against the force of them."

When this wild fancy comes to take possession of men's minds, the whole tenour of God's dispensations is quarrelled with, and disputed every circumstance in our Lord's history looks suspicious: and every fact, applied to the confirmation of our holy faith, rises into a presumption against it.

The word of Prophecy has not been so clear and manifest, as it might have been: therefore, the proofs taken from it are of no validity. The miracles of Christ were not so public or so

illustrious as might be conceived: therefore," they are no evidence of his divine mission. The scene of his birth and actions might have been more conspicuous: therefore, the light of the world could not proceed from that quarter. The Gospel itself was not delivered in that manner, nor by those instruments, which they esteem most fit; its success in the world has not been so great, nor its effects on the lives of men, so salutary, as might have been expected: therefore, it could not be of divine original.

But there is no end of enumerating the instances of this folly. Let me observe, in one word, that the greater part of the objections, which weak or libertine men have opposed to the authority of revealed Religion, are of the same sort with the demand in the text. The authors of them first imagine to themselves, what evidence would be the most convincing; and then refuse their assent to any other. Their constant language is that of the Apostle Philip-shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

Now, to see how little force there is in this sort of argumentation, let it be considered, that such high demands of evidence for the

truth of the Christian revelation, are IMPERTI NENT, at the best; that they are, most probably, on the part of the revealer, IMPROPER to be complied with; that they must be, on the part of man, PRESUMPTUOUS, and unwarrantable.

I. All demands of this sort are clearly im pertinent, and beside the purpose of a fair inquirer into the authority of a divine Religion, For the question is, whether such religion be not accompanied with that evidence, which is sufficient to determine the assent of a reason+ able man; not, whether it be the highest in its kind, or in its degree, which might be imagined. There is an infinite variety, and, as we may say, gradation in the scale of moral evidence, from the highest forms of demonstration down to the lowest inducements of probability. The impatient mind of man, which loves to rest in assurance, may demand the former of these in every case; but the just and sober inquirer, whatever he may wish for, will submit to the latter. He takes the argument, as presented to him; he weighs the moment of it; and if, on the whole, it preponderates, though but by some scruples of probability, against the inductions on the other side, he is determined by this evidence, with as good reason, though not with as much assurance, as

by demonstration itself. His business, he knows, is to examine whether the conclusion be justly drawn, not whether it be irresistibly forced upon him. It is enough, if the proof be such as merits his assent, though it should not compel it.

Apply, now, this universal rule of just reasoning to the case of the Gospel. Consider it on the footing of that evidence, which it pretends to offer. If this evidence be weak and inconclusive in itself, let it be rejected. But, if it be sufficient to the purpose for which it is given, why look out for any higher? The pretensions of Christianity are, indeed, very great. It claims to be received by us, as the work and word of God. The proofs of its, being such should, no doubt, be adapted to the nature of these pretensions. If, in fact, they be so adapted, all further attestations of its truth, all stronger demonstrations of its divinity (supposing there might be stronger) are, at least, unnecessary: our demands of them are without ground, and without reason: that is, they are clearly not to the purpose of this inquiry. But

II. The impertinence of these demands, is not all. There is good reason to believe, that

they are, in themselves, absolutely unfit and IMPROPER to be complied with.

In saying this, I do not only mean that the evidence, such men call for, is so far mistaken. as to be really of an inferior sort, and less convincing to a well-informed mind, than that which they reject. This, no doubt, is very frequently the case. It has been shewn in many instances, and even to the conviction of the objector himself, that such circumstances as have been thought most suspicious, such proofs as have appeared the weakest, have upon inquiry turned out, of all others, the strongest and most satisfactory. For example, they who object to the mean instruments, by which the Christian Religion was propagated, are confuted by the Apostle Paul himself; who has shewn very circumstance to be the clearest proof of its divinity; this method of publishing the Gospel having been purposely chosen, that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. And the same answer will equally serve to many other pretences of the like nature.

that

But, as I said, my intention is not, at present, to expose the common mistake of pre

z 1 Cor. ii. 5.