cannot myself see in the evidence of history any more than in that of prophecy the strong testimony which we need. It seems to me that no argument for Christianity so definite, intelligible, and precise, was ever framed from grounds of external matter of fact as the argument of Paley. There, if anywhere, we shall find in physical events a guarantee for the teaching of our religion. But, if I am right, we find it imperfectly. What, then, is to be our course? Many earnest men, feeling these difficulties, have fallen back on ground which has no foundation in argument; at least, none I believe that can bear criticism. They have simply accepted their religion upon church authority in some shape or other. Practically, these men surrendered their judgments in the most important affair of life, under the pressure of supposed difficulty and danger. They ceased to think, lest thinking should lead them to disbelieve what they could not bear or did not dare to disbelieve. I know that this course may be adopted by minds of a very high order, as in the case of Dr. Newman. But it seems to me adapted only to a state of the human mind different from what we see now a state with less of knowledge and maturity. With all its liability to abuse, it may be the best expedient when the education of the race is still backward, when men collectively are, so to speak, in mental infancy or boyhood. But it can be only temporary, provisional.

As knowledge grows, and thought matures, the solemn questions of religion and duty must be dealt with in a different way. In an age of active investigation and growing light, nothing will so promote absolute unbelief and indifference to all religion as bold demands on our credulity. If ever that reconciliation between science and religion so loudly called for at the present day is to take place, religious men must be content to put forth nothing to be believed by their fellow men for which they cannot give some reason, convincing so far as the nature of the case entitles us to expect. If this be a true saying, then the authority of no ecclesiastical body can be admitted as a guarantee for the truth of our religion. There remains, then, but one other foundation for religious belief; the sanction and attestation of our Moral Faculty. Here I believe that we must seek our refuge. Here we must take our stand. Serious admissions may be involved in that step. A new form may have to be given to some popular views. Upon that subject I would say a few words in another and succeeding essay.

See note on this essay at the end of the volume.

ESSAY III.

THE RELATION OF THE GOSPEL TO THE MORAL FACULTY IN MAN.

PART I.

THE net result of my inquiry in two former essays has been to leave religious truth mainly dependent upon the attestation of conscience. In my first essay, when I was seeking for evidence of the being and attributes of God, I came to the conclusion that unless we accepted as a witness our sense of right and wrong, we should not have adequate grounds for believing in the goodness of God. Again, in my second essay, after examining the miraculous evidence of Christianity, I concluded that we could not depend upon that evidence as the argumentative foundation for belief. There are, indeed, other evidences so called, as that from prophecy or from place in the Providential scheme of the world's history. But I did not think that these either would be found sufficiently strong for our main support. We are, indeed, again thrown back upon

the testimony of the moral faculty. If the Gospel is to establish itself permanently in the belief of men as a special communication from God, it must be in consequence of its precepts and doctrines being witnessed to by conscience. This is not the same thing, I would remark, as saying that we are to accept the teaching of the Bible only so far as it is borne out by conscience, or some other internal verifying faculty. For independently of other arguments Christ's teaching might convince us that there was in him an intuition of moral and religious truth that entitled him to our trust and obedience when he taught things beyond any other knowledge of ours; things, indeed, which our moral faculties, however quickened and cultivated, could not intuitively recognise as true. But certainly the negative counterpart to this proposition does hold true. may teach on Christ's authority what the conscience cannot verify, but we must not teach that which conscience distinctly disallows-the conscience, I mean, not of any particular man, but of enlightened men in general.' It becomes then a vital question

We

1 This position may be displeasing to some Christians, but I do not myself see that it goes much, if at all, beyond what a much admired and trusted English theologian, Bishop Butler, has laid down at the end of the first chapter in the second part of his 'Analogy.' 'Indeed, if in revelation there be found any passages the seeming meaning of which is contrary to natural religion, we may most certainly conclude such meaning not to be the real one. But it is not any degree of a presumption against an interpretation of Scripture that

to inquire how far the teaching of Christianity is conformed to the evidence of conscience.

Let us

briefly examine this conformation under two heads— first, as to precepts; second, as to doctrines.

PART II.

I will begin with some consideration of what the things to be compared really are,

first sight a vagueness about both.

for there is at

Where is the

testimony of conscience to be found? How are its authoritative judgments to be recognised? This point need not detain us long. I have spoken of it already. We must freely acknowledge that conscience has borne very different witness in different ages and countries. But I have endeavoured to show that this is not a reason for disregarding her testimony. With the advance of civilisation there has been a growing consensus of opinion. Of much we may well be sure. The fact that there are uncertainties is not peculiar to that part of our knowledge which concerns moral truth. It appears here, perhaps, less than it does for the most part

such interpretation contains a doctrine which the light of nature cannot discover or a precept which the law of nature does not oblige to.'