"Therefore, Moses believed his religion was supported by an extraordinary providence."-WARBURTON'S Works, vol. i. p. 50-57.

But it is only by actual perusal that a correct idea can be formed of this very extraordinary work.

EDWARD.

Do you regard it as conclusive?

MR. B.

That the divine legation of Moses was proved by the religion and society of the Jews being supported by an extraordinary providence, I have no doubt, but not for the reason here assigned. The hypothesis itself appears to me false, and I regard the whole only as a most splendid instance of the union of genius and learning to very little purpose. It has been excessively admired, and vehemently attacked. The controversies to which it gave birth lasted a long time, but effected very little for the interests of religion. A very short time ago the subject has been revived by Mr. Lancaster, in his work on the Harmony of the Law and the Gospel, which you will read with pleasure as well as advantage.

BEATRICE.

His arguments are drawn up very systematically.

MR. B.

At first but you soon lose sight of them in the

mass of learning which he brings forward, and in the continual development of new trains of thought it is, after all, a most astonishing performance.

One of the most systematic writers on the evidences is Huet, Bishop of Avranches, who, in his Demonstratio Evangelica, has drawn them out in a regular series of definitions, postulates, axioms, and propositions. It is also a work of great learning, but of a very different character to the Divine Legation of Moses. The evidences have also been subjected to the mathematical doctrine of chances by Craig; but the book is now forgotten.

EDWARD.

Have, then, any other remarkable defences of Christianity appeared, as founded upon omissions similar to that of a future state under the Mosaic dispensation?

MR. B.

Dr. Priestley, I believe, was the first who thought of defending Christianity by denying the immateriality of the soul.

BEATRICE.

But can this possibly be consistent with the language of Scripture?

MR. B.

I think not, and fully agree with the sentiments of Bishop Horsley.

"Though I admit the possibility of an inspired teacher's error of opinion in subjects which he is not sent to teach (because inspiration is not omniscience, and some things there must be which it will leave untaught); though I stand in this point for my own and every man's liberty, and protest against any obligation on the believer's conscience, to assent to a philosophical opinion, incidentally expressed by Moses, by David, or by St. Paul, upon the authority of their infallibility in divine knowledge; though I think it highly for the honour and the interest of religion, that this liberty of philosophising (except upon religious subjects) should be openly asserted, and most pertinaciously maintained; yet I confess it appears to me no very probable supposition (and it is, as I conceive, a mere supposition, not yet confirmed by any one clear instance), that an inspired writer should be permitted in a religious discourse to affirm a false proposition in any subject, or in any history to misinterpret a fact; so that I would not easily, nor indeed without the conviction of the most cogent proof, embrace any notion in philosophy, or attend to any historical relation, which should be evidently and in itself repugnant to an explicit assertion of any of the sacred writers."-HORSLEY'S Sermons, vol. iii. p. 179.

You will find the whole sermon very well worth a careful perusal; and it is upon the nature of the connexion between soul and body.

EDWARD.

Besides these, are there any other modes of proof which have been made use of which appear inconclusive?

MR. B.

The proof used by some Romanists appears deserving of censure, as well as one held by some

denominations of protestants. The former is that the books of the sacred Scriptures are canonical because the church constitutes them so, and the church has power so to do because the books are canonical.

BEATRICE.

In this the truth of each part depends upon the other, so that it is wholly inconclusive.

MR.B.

The second is an inward sensation, regarded as an attestation from God in favour of the sacred writings.

BEATRICE.

If we could be certain that a sensation of this kind were really from him, it would be no proof to another.

MR. B.

Besides these, there may be other proofs alleged in favour of Christianity, as weak as the objections made against it; but from neither can we conclude that Christianity is a divine revelation or not. The truth of Christianity rests on facts and reasonings, which no objections, yet adduced, are of sufficient force to overthrow. We need, therefore, no additional evidence; for there is already much more than what would be deemed sufficient to determine the truth in all ordinary cases; and inasmuch as the greatest consequences depend upon our conduct here, it

requires no great skill in logic to shew that the safest course is the best.

BEATRICE.

I could not reject, if I wished; but what are we to think of those who do?

MR. B.

Leave them to Him who alone can determine how far guilt attaches to their conduct. We are, in all respects, unable to decide respecting them. Our only care must be, that we perish not through their folly, that we contribute not to their ruin. I would not judge harshly of any individual; but I have the fullest conviction on my mind, that infidelity does not arise from any reasonable

cause.

THE END.

J. MOYES, TEMPLE PRINTING-OFFICE, BOUVERIE STREET.