« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
claiming the miracles of Christianity to be illusions obviously this: how any mortal can pretend to exof imagination or mythical legends—the inspira- tract anything certain, much more divine, from tion of its records no other or greater than that of records, the great bulk of which he has reduced Homer's “Iliad,” or even Æsop's Fables ;'- to pure frauds, illusions, or legends—and the great rejecting the whole of that supernatural element bulk of the remainder to an absolute uncertainty with which the only records which can tell us any of how little is true and how much false ?* Surely thing about the matter are full ; declaring its whole it would need nothing less than a new revelation history so uncertain that the ratio of truth to error to reveal this sweeping restriction of the old ; and must be a vanishing fraction ;-the advocates of we should then be left in an ecstasy of astonishthese systems yet proceed to rant and rave—they ment—first, that the whole significance of it should are really the only words we know which can ex- have been veiled in frauds, illusions, or fictions ; press our sense of their absurdity-in a most edi- secondly, that its true meaning should have been fying vein about the divinity of Christianity, and hidden from the world for eighteen hundred years to reveal to us its true glories. “Christ,” says after its divine promulgation; thirdly, that it should Strauss, “is not an individual, but an idea ; that be revealed at last, either in results which needed is to say, humanity. In the human race behold no revelation to reveal them, or in the Egyptian the God-made-man! behold the child of the visible darkness of the allegorico-metaphysico-mysticovirgin and the invisible Father !--that is, of matter logico-transcendental “ formulæ" of the most oband of mind; behold the Saviour, the Redeemer, scure and contentious philosophy ever devised by the Sinless One ; behold him who dies, who is man; and lastly, that all this superfluous trouble raised again, who mounts into the heavens! Be- is to give us, after all, only the mysteries of a lieve in this Christ! In his death, his resurrec- most enigmatical philosophy. For of Hegel, in tion, man is justified before God !''*
particular, we think it may with truth be said that Whether it be the Rationalism of Panlus, or the reader is seldom fortunate enough to know that the Rationalism of Strauss—whether that which he knows his meaning, or even to know that Hegel declares all that is supernatural in Christianity knew his own. (forming the bulk of its history) to be illusion, or Whether, then, we regard the original compilthat which declares it myth—the conclusions can ers of the evangelic records as inventing all that be made out only by a system of interpretation Panlus or Strauss rejects, or sincerely believing which can be compared to nothing but the wildest their own delusions, or that their statements have dreams and allegorical systems of some of the early been artfully corrupted or unconsciously disguised, Fathers ;t while the results themselves are either till Christ and his Apostles are as effectually transthose elementary principles of ethics for which formed and travestied as these dreamers are pleased there was no need to invoke a revelation at all, or to imagine, with what consistency can we believe some mystico-metaphysical philosophy, expressed any thing certain amidst so many acknowledged in language is unintelligible as the veriest gibber- fictions inseparably incorporated with them? If ish of the Alexandrian Platonists. In fact, by | A has told B truth once and falsehood fifty times, such exegesis and by such philosophy, anything (willingly or unwittingly,) what can induce B 10 may be made out of anything; and the most fan- believe that he has any reason to believe A in that lastical data be compelled to yield equally fantasti- only time in which he does believe him, unless he cal conclusions.
knows the same truth by evidence quite independent But the first and most natural question to ask is of A, and for which he is not indebted to him at * Such is Quinet's brief statement of Strauss' mystico-all? Should we not, then, at once acknowledge mythical Christianity, founded on the Hegelian philoso- the futility of attempting to educe any certain hisphy. For a fuller, we dare not say a more intelligible, toric fact, however meagre, or any doctrine, whether account of it in Strauss' own words, and the metaphysical mysteries on which it depends, the reader may cousuli intelligible or obscure, from documents nine tenths Dr. Beard's translation ;-pp: 44, 45, of his Essay eu- of which are to be rejected as a tissue of absurd litled " Strauss, Hegel, and heir Opinions." + Of the mode of accounting for the supernatural oc
fictions ? Or why should we not fairly confess currences in the Seriptures by the illusion produced by that, for aught we can tell, the whole a fiction ! inistaken natural phenomena, (perhaps the most stupidly For certainly, as to the amount of historic fact jejune of all the theories ever projected by man,) Quiner eloquently says, “The pen which wrote the Provincial which these men affect to leave, it is obviously a Leliers would be necessary to lay bare the strange conse- matter of the most trivial importance whether we quences of this theology: According to its conclusion, regard the whole Bible as absolute fiction or not. the tree of good and evil was nothing but a venomous plant, probably a manchineal tree, under which our first Whether an obscure Galilæan teacher, who taught parents fell asleep. The shining face of Moses on the heighis of Mount Sinai was the natural result of electrici
a moral systein which may have been as good (we ty; the vision of Zachariah was effected by the smoke of can never know from such corrupt documents that the chandeliers in the temple; the Magian kings, with it was as good) as that of Confucius, or Zoroaster, their offerings of myrrh, of gold, and of incense, were three wandering merchants, who brought some glittering
ever lived or not; and whether we are to add tinsel to the Child of Bethlehem ; the star which went another name to those who have enunciated the before them, a servant bearing a flambeau ; the angels in the scene of the temptation, a caravan traversing the * Daub naïvely enough declares that "if you except all desert, laden with provisions; the two angels in the tomb, that relates to angels, demons, and miracles, there is clothed in white linen, an illusion caused by a linen gar- scarcely any mythology in the Gospel.”. An exception ment; the Transfiguration, a storm.” Who would 'not which reminds one of ihe Irish prelate who, on reading sooner be an old-fashioned infidel than such a doting and “Gulliver's Travels,” remarked that there were some maundering rationalist ?
things in that book which he could not think true.
elementary truths of ethics, is really of very little endeavored to account for the intractable phenommoment. Upon their principles we can clearly enon from natural causes alone-assigned, as one know nothing about him, except that he is the canse, the reputation of working miracles, the centre of a vast mass of fictions, the invisible reality of which he denied ; but he was far too nucleus of a huge conglomerate of myths. A cautious to decide whether the original founders thousand times more, therefore, do we respect of Christianity had pretended to work miracles, those, as both more honest and more logical, who, and had been enabled to cheat the world into the on similar grounds, openly reject Christianity belief of them, or whether the world had been altogether; and regard the New Testament, and pleased universally to cheat itself into that belief. speak of it, exactly as they would of Homer's He was far too wise to tie himself to the proof “ Iliad,” or Virgil's “Æneid." Such men, con- that in the most enlightened period of the world's sistently enough, trouble themselves not at all in history-aniidst the strongest contrarieties of naascertaining what residuum of truth, historical or tional and religious feeling—amidst the bitterest ethical, may remain in a book which certainly gives bigotry of millions in behalf of what was old, and ten falsehoods for one truth, and welds both together the bitterest contempt of millions for all that was in inextricable confusion. The German infidels, new-amidst the opposing forces of ignorance and on the other hand, with infinite labor, and amidst prejudice on the one hand, and philosophy and infinite uncertainties, extract either truth“ as old scepticism
the other—amidst all the persecuas the creation,” and as universal as human reason, tions which attested and proved those hostile feelor truth which, after being hidden from the world ings on the part of the bulk of mankind—and, for eighteen hundred years in mythical obscurity, above all, in the short space of thirty years, is unhappily lost again the moment it is discovered, (which is all that Dr. Strauss allows himself,) in the infinitely deeper darkness of the philosophy Christianity could be thus deposited, like the myof Hegel and Strauss ; who in vain endeavor to thology of Greece or Rome ! These, he knew, gasp out, in articulate language, the still latent were very gradual and silent formations ; originatmystery of the Gospel! Hegel, in his last hours, ing in the midst of a remote antiquity and an unis said to have said-and if he did not say, he historic age, during the very infancy and barbaought to have said, “Alas! there is but one man rism of the races which adopted them, confined, be in all Germany who understands my doctrine, it remembered, to those races alone; and displayand he does not understand it!” And yet, by his ing, instead of the exquisite and symmetrical account, Hegelianism and Christianity,“ in their beauty of Christianity, those manifest signs of highest results,” [language, as usual, felicitously gradual accretion which were fairly to be exobscure,] “ are one." Both, therefore, are, alas! pected ; in the varieties of the deposited or now forever lost.
irrupted substances—in the diffracted appearance That great problem—to account for the origin of various parts—in the very weather stains, so to and establishment of Christianity in the world, speak, which mark the whole mass. with a denial at the same time of its miraculous That the prodigious aggregate of miracles which pretensions—a problem, the fair solution of which the New Testament asserts, would, if fabulous, is obviously incumbent on infidelity—has necessi- pass unchallenged, elude all detection, and baffle tated the most gratuitous and even contradictory all scepticism-collect in the course of a few years hypotheses, and may safely be said still to present energetic and zealous assertors of their reality, in as hard a knot as ever. The favorite hypothesis, the heart of every civilized and almost every barrecently, has been that of Strauss—frequently re- barous community, and, in the course of three modified and reädjusted indeed by himself—that centuries, change the face of the world, and deChristianity is a myth, or collection of myths— stroy every other myth which fairly came in conthat is, a conglomerate (as geologists would say) tact with it—who but Dr. Strauss can believe ? of a very slender portion of facts and truth, with Was there no Dr. Strauss in those days ? None an enormous accretion of undesigned fiction, fable, to question and detect, as the process went on, the and superstitions ; gradually framed and insensibly utter baselessness of these legends ? Was all the received, like the mythologies of Greece and Rome, world doting—was even the persecuting world or the ancient systems of Hindoo theology. It is asleep? Were all mankind resolved on befooling true, indeed, that the particular critical arguments, themselves ? Are men wont thus quietly to admit the alleged historic discrepancies and so forth, on miraculous pretensions, whether they be prejudiced which this author founds his conclusion, are, for votaries of another system, or sceptics as to all ! the most part, not original ; most of them having No: whether we consider the age, the country, been insisted on before, both in Germany, and es- the men assigned for the origin of these myths, pecially in our own country during the deistical we see the futility of the theory. It does not accontroversies of the preceding century. His idea count even for their invention, much less for their of myths, however, may be supposed original ; success. We see that if any mythology could, in and he is very welcome to it. For, of all the such an age, have germinated at all, it must have attempted solutions of the great problem, this will been one very different from Christianity; whether be hereafter regarded as, perhaps, the most unten- we consider the sort of Messiah the Jews exable. Gibbon, in solving the same problem, and pected, or the hatred of all Jewish Messiahs, starting in fact from the same axioms—for he, too, which the Gentiles could not but have felt. The
Christ offered them, so far from being welcome, criticism on the subject. A miracle he declares was to the one a “stumbling-block," and to the to be an absurdity, a contradiction, an impossibilother, “ foolishness ;” and yet he conquered the ity. If we believed this, we should deem a very prejudices of both.
concise enthymeme (after having proved that posLet us suppose a parallel myth—if so we may tulatum though) all that it was necessary to conabuse the name. Let us suppose the son of some struct on the subject. A miracle cannot be true; Canadian carpenter aspiring to be a moral teacher, ergo, Christianity, which in the only records by but neither working nor pretending to work mira- which we know anything about it, avows its absocles ; as much hated by his countrymen as Jesus lute dependence upon miracles, must be false. Christ was hated by his, and both he and his coun- It is a modification of one or other of these trymen as much hated by all the civilized world be- monstrous forms of unbelieving belief and Chrisside, as were Jesus Christ and the Jews ; let us fur- tian infidelity, that Mr. Foxton, late of Oxford, ther suppose him forbidding his followers the use of has adopted in his “ Popular Christianity;" as all force in propagating his doctrines, and then let us perhaps also Mr. Froude in his “ Nemesis." It calculate the probability of an unnoticed and acci- is not very easy, indeed, to say what Mr. Foxton dental deposit, in thirty short years, of a prodigious positively believes ; having, like his German proaccumulation about these simple facts, of super- totypes, a greater facility of telling us what he natural but universally accredited fables ; these does not believe, and of wrapping up what he does legends escaping detection or suspicion as they believe in a most impregnable mysticism. He ceraccumulated, and suddenly laying hold in a few tainly rejects, however, all that which, when years of myriads of votaries in all parts of both rejected a century ago, left, in the estimate of worlds, and in three centuries uprooting and de- every one, an infidel in puris naturalibus. Like stroying Christianity and all opposing systems ! his German acquaintances, he accepts the infidel How long will it be before the Swedenborgian, or paradoxes-only, like them, he will still be a the Mormonite, or any such pretenders, will have Christian. He believes, with Strauss, that a mirsimilar success ? Have there not been a thousand acle is an impossibility and contradiction—"insuch, and has any one of them had the slightest credible per se." As to the inspiration of Christ, chance against systems in possession-against the he regards it as, in its nature, the same as that of strongly-rooted prejudices of ignorance, and the Zoroaster, Confucius, Mahomet, Plato, Luther, Argus-eyed investigations of scepticism? But all and Wickliffe-a curious assortment of “ heroic these were opposed to the pretensions of Chris- souls." With a happy art of confusing the tianity; nor can any one example of at all sim- " gifts of genius,” no matter whether displayed in ilar sudden success be alleged, except in the case intellectual or moral power, and of forgetting that of Mahomet; and to that the answer is brief. The other men are not likely to overlook the differhistory of Mahomet is the history of a conqueror ence, he complacently declares “the wisdom of and his logic was the logic of the sword. Solomon and the poetry of Isaiah the fruit of the
In spite of the theory of Strauss, therefore, not same inspiration which is popularly attributed to less than that of Gibbon, the old and ever recur- Millon or Shakspeare, or even to the homely ring difficulty of giving a rational account of the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin ;'in the same origin and establishment of Christianity still pre- pleasant confusion of mind, he thinks that the sents itself for solution to the infidel, as it always" pens of Plato, of Paul and of Dante, the pencils has done, and, we venture to say, always will do. of Raphael and of Claude, the chisels of Canova It is an insoluble phenomenon, except by the ad- and of Chantrey, no less than the voices of Knox, mission of the facts of the New Testament. “ The of Wickliffe, and of Luther, are ministering inmiracles,” says Butler, are a satisfactory ac- struments, in different degrees, of the same spirit.”'I count of the events, of which no other satisfactory He thinks that“ we find, both in the writers and account can be given ; nor any account at all, but the records of Scripture, every evidence of human what is imaginary merely and invented.'' infirmity that can possibly be conceived ; and yet
In the mean time, the different theories of unbe- we are to believe that God himself specially inlief mutually refute one another ; and we may spired them with false philosophy, vicious logic, plead the authority of one against the authority of and bad grammar.”'He denies the originality another. Those who believe Strauss believe both both of the Christian ethics (which he says are a the theory of imposture and the theory of illusion gross plagiarism from Plato) as also in great part improbable ; and those who believe in the theory of the system of Christian doctrine. Nevertheof imposture believe the theory of myths improb- less, it would be quite a mistake, it seems, to supable. And both parties, we are glad to think, are * Pp. 62, 63. + P. 72. # P. 77. 6 P. 74. quite right in the judgment they form of one II (Pp. 51-60.) We are hardly likely to yield to Mr. another.
Foxton in our love for Plato, for whom we have expressed,
and that very recently, (April, 1848,) no stinted admiraBut what must strike every one who reflects, as tion; and what we have there affirmed, we are by no the most surprising thing in Dr. Strauss, is, that means disposed to retract—that no ancient author has apwith the postulatum with which he sets out, and proached, in the expression of ethical proof, so near to the
maxims, and sometimes the very expressions, of the Goswhich he modestly takes for granted, as too evi-pel. Nevertheless, we as strongly affirm, that he who dent to need proof, he should have thought it contrasts (whatever the occasional sublimity of expres
sion) the faltering and often sceptical tone of Plato on worth while to write two bulky volumes of minute religious subjects, with the uniformity and decision of the
pose that Mr. Foxton is no Christian ! He is, on through stony places by the light of his own soul, the contrary, of the very few who can tell us what and stumbles not. No human motive is present Christianity really is; and who can separate the to such a mind in its highest exultation—no love falsehoods and the myths which have so long dis- of praise--no desire of fame--no affection, no guised it. He even talks most spiritually and with passion mingles with the divine afflatus, which an edifying unction. He tells us “God was' passes over without ruffling the soul."'* indeed, in Christ, reconciling the world unto great many fine phrases of the same kind, equally himself.' And but little deduction need be made innocent of all meaning. from the rapturous language of Paul, who tells It is amazing and amusing to see with what us that “ in him dwelt all the fulness of the God- ease Mr. Foxton decides points which have filled head bodily ;'* I concede to Christ" (generous ad- folios of controversy. “In the teaching of Christ mission !) “ the highest inspiration hitherto granted himself, there is not the slightest allusion to the to the prophets of God,"t-Mahomet, it appears, modern evangelical notion of an atonement.' and Zoroaster and Confucius, having also statues in “The diversities of 'gists' to which Paul alludes, his truly Catholic Pantheon. “The position of Cor. i. 12, are nothing more than those different Christ,” he tells us in another place, is “ simply gifts' which in common parlance, we attribute to that of the foremost man in all the world,” though the various tempers and talents of men." | "It he soars far above all principalities and powers' is, however, after all, absurd to suppose that the -above all philosophies hitherto known—above miracles of the Scriptures are subjects of actual all creeds hitherto propagated in his name”--the belief, either to the vulgar or the learned."I true Christian doctrine, after having been hid from What an easy time of it must such an all-sufficient ages and generations, being reserved to be dis- controvertist have! closed, we presume, by Mr. Foxton. His spirit He thinks it possible, too, that Christ, though ualism, as usual with the whole school of our new nothing more than an ordinary man, may really Christian infidels, is, of course, exquisitely re- have “ thought himself Divine,” without being fined—but, unhappily, very vague. He is full of liable to the charge of a visionary self-idolatry or talk of " a deep insight”-of a “faith not in of blasphemy-as supposed by everybody, Trinidead histories, but in living realities—a revelation tarian or Unitarian, except Mr. Foxton. to our innermost nature." “ The true seer,” he counts for it by “ wild sublimity of human says, “ looking deep into causes, carries in his emotion, when the rapt spirit first feels the throbheart the simple wisdom of God. The secret hings of the divine affilatus,” &c. &c. A singuharmonies of nature vibrate on his ear, and her lar afflatus which teaches a man to usurp the name fair proportions reveal themselves to his eye. He and prerogatives of Deity, and a strange " inspihas a deep faith in the truth of God.”I "The in- ration” which inspires him with so profound an spired man is one whose outward life derives all ignorance of his own nature ! This interpretation its radiance from the light within him. He walks we believe, is peculiarly Mr. Foxton's own. Evangelical system--his dark notions in relation to God
The way in which he disposes of the miracles, (candidly confessed) with the glorious recognition of Him is essentially that of a vulgar, undiscriminating, in the Gospel as “our Father-his utterly absurd appli- unphilosophic mind. There have been, he tells Utopian of all republics, with the broad, plain, social us in effect, so many false miracles, superstitious ethics of Christianity--the tone of mournful familiarity stories of witches, conjurors, ghosts, hobgoblins, (whatever his personal immunity), in which he too often of cures by royal touch, and the like-and therespeaks of the saddest pollutions that ever degraded humaaily, with the spotless purity of the Christian rule of fore the Scripture miracles are false! Why, who life-the hesitating, speculative tone of the master of the denies that there have been plenty of false miraacademy with the decision and majesty, of Him who cles? And there have been as many false relig* spake with authority, and not as the Scribes," whether Greek or Jewish-the metaphysical and abstract charac ions. Is there, therefore, none true? The proper ter of Plato's reasonings with the severely practical char business in every such case is to examine fairly acter of Christ's-the feebleness of the motives supplied by the abstractions of the one, and of the intensity of the evidence, and not to generalize after this absurd those supplied by the other-the adaptation of the one to fashion. Otherwise we shall never believe anythe intelligent only, and the adaptation of the other to thing; for there is hardly one truth that has not universal humanity-the very manner of Plato, his gorgeous style, with the still more impressive simplicity of its half score of audacious counterfeits. the Great Teacher--must surely see in the contrast every Still he is amusingly perplexed, like all the indication, to say nothing of the utter gratuitousness (historically) of the contrary hypothesis, that the sublime rest of the infidel world, how to get rid of the ethics of the Gospel, whether we regard substance, or miracles—whether on the principle of fraud, or manner, or tone, or style, are no plagiarism from Plato. fiction, or illusion. He thinks there would be “a rainly be very ignorant either of Plato or of Christ. As great accession to the ranks of reason and comthe best apology for Mr. Foxton's offensive folly we may, mon sense by disproving the reality of the miraperhaps, charitably hope that he is nearly ignorant of cles, without damaging the veracity or honesty of both.' Equally absurd is the attempt to identify the inetaphysical dreams of Plato with the doctrinal system of the simple, earnest, and enthusiastic writers by the Gospel, though it is quite true, that long subsequent whom they are recorded ;" and complains of the date the speculations of ihe sage they loved, to the doc- coarse, and undiscriminating criticism of most of trines of a still greater master. But Plato never extorted the French and English Deists, who explain the from lis friends stronger eulogies tha: Christ has olin miracles - on the supposition of the grossest fraud extorted from his enemies.
* P. 44.
# P. 104.
* P. 65.
acting on the grossest credulity.” But he soon shall thy proud waves be staid." We cannot finds that the materials for such a compromise are wish better to any such agitated mind than that it utterly intractable. He thinks that the German may listen to those potent and majestic words : Rationalists have depended too much on “ Peace-be still !" uttered by the voice of Him “single hypothesis, which often proves to be in- who so suddenly hushed the billows of the Galisufficient to meet the great variety of conditions læan lake. and circumstances with which the miracles have But we are at the same time fully convinced that been handed down to us." Very true ; but what in our day there are thousands of youths who are remedy? “We find one German writer endeavor- falling into the same errors and perils from sheer ing to explain away the miracles on the mystical vanity and affectation ; who admire most what they (mythical) theory ; and another riding into the least understand, and adopt all the obscurities and arena of controversy on the miserable hobby-horse paradoxes they stumble upon, as a cheap path to a of 'clairvoyance' or 'mesmerism ; ' each of these, reputation for profundity ; who awkwardly imitate and a host of others of the same class, rejecting the manner and retail the phrases of the writers whatever light is thrown on the question by all they study; and, as usual, exaggerate to caricathe theories together.” He therefore proposes, ture their least agreeable eccentricities. We with great and gratuitous liberality, to heap all should think that some of these more powerful these theories together, and to take them as they minds must be by this time ashamed of that ragged are wanted ; not withholding any of the wonders regiment of most shallow thinkers, and obscure of modern science--even, as would seem, the pos- writers and talkers who at present infest our litersible knowledge of “chloroform"'*---from the prop-ature, and whose parrot-like repetition of their agators of Christianity!
own stereotyped phraseology, mingled with some But, alas! the phenomena are still intractable. barbarous infusion of half-Anglicized German, The stubborn “Book” will still baffle all such threalens to form as odious a cant as ever polluted efforts to explain it away; it is willing to be re- the stream of thought or disfigured the purity of jected, if it so pleases men, but it guards itself language. Happily it is not likely to be more from being thus made a fool of. For who can fail than a passing fashion ; but still it is a very unto see that neither all nor any considerable part of pleasant fashion while it lasts. As in Johnson's the multifarious miracles of the New Testament day, every young writer imitated as well as he can be explained by any such gratuitous extension could the ponderous diction and everlasting antithof ingenious fancies; and that if they could be so eses of the great dictator; as in Byron's day, explained, it would be still impossible to exculpate there were thousands to whom the world " was the men who need such explanations from the a blank” at twenty or thereabouts, and of whose charge of perpetrating the grossest frauds ? Yet" dark imaginings," as Macaulay says, the waste this logical ostrich, who can digest all these stones, was prodigious; so now there are hundreds of presumptuously declares a miracle an impossibility dilettanti pantheists, mystics and sceptics, to whom and the very notion of it a contradiction.f But everything is a sham,” an “unreality ;" who enough of Mr. Foxton.
tell us that the world stands in need of a great There are no doubt some minds am
“ prophet,” a seer,” true priest,” a large whose power we admit, and whose perversion of soul," a "god-like soul,"'*—who shall dive into power we lament, who have bewildered themselves “the depths of the human consciousness," and by really deep meditation on inexplicable myste- whose “utterances” shall rouse the human mind ries; who demand certainty where certainty is not from the “cheats and frauds” which have hitherto given to man, or demand, for truths which are everywhere practised on its simplicity. They tell established by sufficient evidence, other evidence us, in relation to philosophy, religion, and especthan these truths will admit. We can even pain- ially in relation to Christianity, that all that has fully sympathize in that ordeal of doubt to which been believed by mankind has been believed only such powerful minds are peculiarly exposed-with on “ empirical" grounds, and that the old answers their Titanic struggles against the still mightier to difficulties will do no longer. They shake their power of Him who has said to the turbulent intel-sage heads at such men as Clarke, Paley, Butler, lect of man, as well as to the stormy ocean, “ Hith- and declare that such arguments as theirs will not erto shalt thou come, but no farther and here satisfy them.
We are glad to admit that all this vague pre* Pp. 86, 87.
tension is now but rarely displayed with the scur+ Mr. Foxton denies that men, in Paley's "single case rilous spirit of that elder unbelief against which in which he tries the general theorem,” would believe the miracle ; but he finds it convenient to leave out the most the long series of British apologists for Christiansignificant circumstances on which Paley makes the validity arose between 1700 and 1750 ; but there is ity of the testimony 10 depeud, instead of stating them fairly in Paley's own words. Yet that the sceptics (if often in it an arrogance as real, though not in so such there could be) must be the merest fraction of the species, Mr. Foxton himself immediately proceeds to * See Foxton's last chapter, passim. From some exprove, by showing (what is undeniably ihe case) that pressions one would almost imagine that our author him. almost all mankind readily receive miraculous occur- self aspired to be, if not the Messiah, at least the Elias, rences on fur lower evidence than Paley's common sense of this new dispensation. We fear, however, that this would require thein io demand. Surely he must be re- “ vox clamantis' would reverse the Baptist's proclamaLil to the Irishim who placed his ladder against the ition, and would cry, “ The straight shall be marie crooked. iw uf.
i and the plain places rough,”