admit were not the genuine doctrines of Christianity as contained in the Gospels, but the corruptions of the churches which, through ignorance or other motives, had imposed them on the world as articles of faith and I found that I could dissent from the church without in the least impairing my faith in the real doctrines of Revelation. Nearly the whole of the following observations, which I submit with much diffidence to the public, were written almost twenty years ago, and, as they were not intended for publication, I expressed my thoughts in very strong language. Some of the expressions have been softened, though, perhaps, there may still remain some which may appear harsh, and which, perhaps, might have been cast in a softer mould, had they been originally written for the press at the same time I conceive, when an author combats what he believes to be gross abuses and corruptions in matters of the highest concern, it is no part of his duty to state them in soft language and honeyed phrases, but to place them in the strongest light, and expose them in their true colours. UNIVERSITY CALIFOR INTRODUCTION. INFIDELITY is generally represented by theologians as having its exclusive source in the passions, vices, and immorality of its professors. This has been justly condemned as an arrogant and uncharitable conclusion. That many, hurried by the violence of their passions and a course of vice and profligacy, are tempted to renounce Christianity as a troublesome restraint on their criminal conduct, and have recourse to infidelity as a relief from the remorse and apprehensions with which a belief in the Gospel would disturb their vicious enjoyments, is a fact, I am afraid, too obvious to be denied. Others, from motives of vanity and a puerile affectation of shewing their superiority to the rest of mankind, are too apt to range themselves under the banner of infidelity, rather from an ambition of shewing their wit and displaying their talents for disputation, than from a thorough conviction; till, by their industry in search of arguments to establish their own doctrine and refute the reasoning of their opponents, they gradually confirm themselves in unbelief. having granted this, it must be allowed, on the other B But hand, that many conscientious and well-meaning men have rejected Revelation, because, after what they conceived to be a fair and honest examination, they did not think the evidence on which it is founded sufficient to command their assent. Among these many undoubtedly are honest, worthy, and moral men, and, if their incredulity be a fault, it is a fault of the head, and not of the heart. There is, however, reason to apprehend, that even where infidelity is not the offspring, it is in general the parent of immorality; for while men are actuated by motives, he who believes Christianity will, in the natural course of things, be a better man than he who rejects it; and for this plain reason, that the Christian has stronger motives to impel him to a virtuous and moral conduct than the unbeliever. The corruption of genuine Christianity, in the several religious establishments of the Christian world, is, perhaps, one of the principal causes of infidelity. Few have either leisure, inclination, or ability, to study their religion at the fountain head, in the records of the New Testament itself: they, therefore, adopt the doctrines of the church in which they are born, as true and genuine Christianity; and as there are few, perhaps no, churches, in which some errors and corruptions have not found their way, it happens not unfrequently that the objections of the infidel are levelled, not against the doctrines of Christianity, but only against the abuses of the establishment under which he lives. As these corruptions afford the fairest scope to the declaimer |