mysteries, although confessedly above our reason, are not contrary to it. This is a plain and a well known distinction, and in the present case an incontrovertible one. No one for instance, can say, that the supposition of three persons and one God is contrary to reason. We cannot, indeed comprehend such a distinction in the divine nature; but unless we knew perfectly what that nature is, it is impossible for us to say that such a distinction may not subsist in it consistent with its unity. The truth is, on a subject where we have no clear ideas at all, our reasoning faculties must fail us, and we must be content to submit (as well we may) to the clear and explicit declarations of holy writ. It is indeed, natural for the human mind to wish that every thing in religion should be intelligible and plain, and that there should be not difficulties to perplex and stagger our faith. But natural as this wish may be, is it a reasonable one? Do we find that in the most important concerns of the present life, in those where our most most essential interests, our property, our welfare, our health, our reputation, our very life, are at stake, that no difficulties, no perplexities, no intricacies occur; that every thing is plain and level before us, and that we are never at a loss how to act, what opinion to form, or what course to take? There are few, I fancy, here present, whose experience has not taught them to their cost, the very reverse of all this. If then, even in the ordinary affairs of life, there is so much difficulty, doubt, and obscurity, how can we wonder to find it in religion also, in those inquiries that relate to an invisible world and an invisible Being, "to the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity * ?" And let it never be forgotten, that mysteries *"So far is it from being true (as some one has said) that where mystery begins, religion ends; that religion, even natural religion, begins with a mystery, with the greatest of all mysteries, the self-existence and eternity of God. Let any one tell us how an eternity can be past, unless it was once present, and how that can be be once present which never had a beginning."-Seed's Sermons, v. ii. S. 7. 459. mysteries are not (as is often insinuated, and often taken for granted) peculiar to the Christian rcligion, they belong to all religions, even to that which is generally supposed to be of all others the least encumbered with difficulties, pure deism; or, as it is sometimes called, the religion of nature, of reason, or of philosophy. Who, for instance, can grasp with the utmost stretch of his understanding, the idea of an Eternal Being; of a Being whose existence never had any beginning, and never will have an end? Where is the man whose thoughts are not lost and confounded in contemplating the immensity of a God who is intimately present to every part of the universe; who sees, with equal clearness, a kingdom perish and a sparrow fall, and to whom every thought of our hearts is perfectly well known * ? Who "J'apperçois Dieu partout dans ses œuvres. Je le sens en moi, je le vois tout autour de moi; mais sitôt que je veux le contempler en lui même, sitôt que je veux chercher où il est, ce qu'il est, quelle est sa substance, il m'echappe, & mon esprit troublé n'apperçoit plus Who can reconcile that foreknowledge of future and contingent events, which is an unquestionable attribute of the Almighty, with that free will and free agency, which are no less unquestionable properties of man? Who, in fine, can account, on the principles of mere natural religion, for the introduction of natural and moral evil into the works of a benevolent Creator, whose infinite goodness must necessarily incline him to intend the happiness of all his creatures? These plus rien. Rousseau, v. viii. p. 32. Enfin plus je m'efforce de contempler son essence infinie, moins je la conçois; mais elle est, cela me suffit; moins je la conçois, plus je l'adore. I have cited these fine passages from the eloquent Rousseau in his own language (for no translation can do justice to them) because no arguments are so convincing as those which are drawn from the concessions of sceptics themselves, which fall from them incidentally and undesignedly; and because the sentiments here quoted stand in direct contradiction to that writer's cavils in other places against the Christian mysteries. For if notwithstanding the difficulties which attend the contemplation of the Deity himself, he firmly believes his existence, on what ground can he make his Savoyard vicar doubt the truth of the Gospel on account of its mysteries?—V. viii p. 93. These considerations may serve to show, and it might be shown in various other cases, that it is vain to expect an exemption from difficulty and mystery in any religion whatever. The real truth is, that not only the religion of nature, but the philosophy of nature, the works of nature, the whole face of nature, are full of mystery; we live and move in the midst of mystery. And if, to avoid this, we have recourse to atheism itself, even that will be found to be more encumbered with difficulties, and to require a greater degree of faith than all the religions in the world put together. Let not then the mysteries of the Gospel ever be a rock of offence to you, or in any *This, M.Voltaire himself acknowledges; and it is a complete answer to all the objections he has made in various parts of his works to the mysteries of Revelation. See Questions sur L'Encyclopedie. Art. Ame. "The whole intellectual world is full of truths incomprehensible, and yet incontestable. Such is the doctrine of the existence of God, and such are the mysteries admitted in Protestant communions."Rousseau, v.ii. p. 15. |