that this principle was a motive and a restraint, regulating their course of life in a considerable proportion of men; it must be proved, not that there were a few solitary individuals who had correct notions of God, which they did not dare publicly to communicate (we are not now ready to believe that there were such individuals); not that correct notions of God anywhere generally prevailed (we do not ask for the proof of any thing so absurd as this); but that there was some considerable hope, some reasonable expectation, that such notions would generally prevail without the aid of revelation. When these things are proved, and when we are further convinced, that the effects of Christianity, considered as a revelation, have been much less than we now estimate them, and that there is no such vast difference as we believe between those nations where it now prevails with some approach to its proper influence, and the most civilized nations of antiquity; or that this difference is to be ascribed principally to some other cause than the reception of those doctrines, the teaching of which we regard as its essential purpose; when we consider all this as established, we may then doubt, not of the truth of Christianity, but of the inestimable value we now assign to it.

The end of all religion is to make men better. Now there is no motive which can be compared, in its influence upon the moral conduct of men, with the belief of a future state of rewards and punishments. Where this exists, it gives strength and efficacy to every other proper principle; and, where it is wanting, no great effects are to be expected from any other motive of a moral or religious nature. It is a motive, which is alike applicable to the minds of all men; but it can only be brought to act upon the minds of men, when it rests for support on express revelation. If, therefore, the disclosure of this future state had been its single purpose, we do not think that Christianity would have been at all unworthy of all that ceremony of preparation in the Jewish economy by which it was preceded, and of all that splendor of miracles by which its descent on earth was accompanied. We do not think that even this single purpose would have been unworthy of his mission, one of whose last and most solemn declarations concerning himself was, "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the Truth."

We proceed to notice another charge against liberal Christians similar to the one we have

been considering. It has been said, that there is no difference between them and a sober and rational infidel, who believes the being, the providence, and moral government of God, and a future state; such a one, for instance, as Lord Herbert of Cherbury. To this it may be replied, in the first place, that such instances are rare; and that the reception of what we regard as the doctrines of revelation is not often to be met with, unconnected with the reception of revelation itself. Lord Herbert was an extraordinary man, a man forced off and driven away from Christianity by what we consider as the corruptions by which in his time it was surrounded. If, however, there be any man, who has honestly sought after the truth without finding it, and who, relying upon natural religion alone, has devoted himself to the love and service of God, and trusts in his mercy, and looks forward to immortality, if there be any such man, we are not solicitous to point out distinctions between him and ourselves, for the purpose of showing that he has less reason than we have to hope for the mercy of our common Father. But we do not mean to dismiss the objection with this answer. That there is no difference between a liberal Christian and an unbeliever,

is one of those loose and undefined propositions, whose want of truth may not be perceived by him who urges it, on account of its indistinctness of meaning. If it be meant, that there is no difference in respect to moral goodness, and that the rejection of the peculiar doctrines of our opponents is as culpable as the rejection of Christianity, we may assent to this, when we are convinced, first, that these doctrines are true; next, that their evidence is as clear and satisfactory as that of revelation itself; and, lastly, that they are in the highest degree important, so as to make the obligation as binding, on all those who doubt, to examine their evidence, as to examine that of revelation. If it be meant, that an unbeliever may receive what we consider the great principles of religion with such an assent as to produce in him as strong dispositions to perform his duty to God and man as exist in any liberal Christian, we answer, that in the present state of light and knowledge we do not think it a probable case; but if it be a supposable one, it is likewise supposable, that such an unbeliever should in this respect be on an equality with an orthodox Christian; and that for ourselves, to take the example which may be brought against us, we do not think that Lord

Herbert was inferior in Christian charity to Calvin, or in truth and honesty to Beza, or in real piety and holiness to either. If it be meant, and this seems to be the only meaning which remains, that there are no essential differences of belief between a rational unbeliever and a liberal Christian; we answer, that there is at first sight a difference, which in the age of the Apostles was considered essential, that the one "confesses with his mouth the Lord Jesus, and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead," and that the other makes no such confession and has no such belief; we answer, that there is a most important difference between him who believes that Christianity is a revelation from heaven, together with all the consequences of this belief, and him who considers it as a system of fraud and folly, and admits all the consequences of this opinion; between him who believes Jesus Christ to have been a messenger from God, and to have given. by far the highest example of moral excellence ever exhibited to mankind, and him who has at best no definite notions respecting his character, and who can with reason and consistency regard him as nothing better than an impostor or enthusiast; between him who believes that God has never ceased to manifest his care for