And this is in fact pretty nearly Mr. Erskine’s argument in his Internal Evidence: an author, concerning whom personally I have no wish to use one harsh word, not doubting that in his theory he is unjust to himself, and is only the organ, eloquent and ingenious, of unfolding a theory, which it has been his unhappiness to mistake for that Catholic faith which is revealed in the Gospel. Let us now turn to the Essay in question.
1.
Mr. Erskine begins in the following words:
“There is a principle in our nature, which make us dissatisfied with unexplained and unconnected facts; which leads us to theorize all the particulars of our knowledge, or to form in our minds some system of causes sufficient to explain or produce the effects which we see; and which teaches us to believe or disbelieve in the truth of any system which may be presented to us, just as it appears adequate or inadequate to afford that explanation of which we are in pursuit.”
After speaking of two processes of reasoning which the mind uses in discovering truth, viz., one, “by ascending from effects to a cause,” and the other, when we “descend from a cause to effects,” he observes:
“In these processes of reasoning we have examples of conviction upon an evidence which is, most strictly speaking, internal—an evidence altogether independent of our confidence in the veracity of the narrator of the facts.”—P. 8.
Observe, he starts with this general proposition, viz., that we naturally “believe or disbelieve in the truth of any system which may be presented to us,” according as it contains in it, or not, a satisfactory adjustment of causes to effects, the question of testimony being altogether superseded. Accordingly, he expressly says a little further on of the Apostles: “Their system is true in the nature of things, even were they proved to be impostors,” p. 17; that is, the Scripture scheme of salvation is true in the nature of things; and self-evident, so that it needs nothing besides its intrinsic verisimilitude to compel our assent to it.
He explains himself thus:
“The first faint outline of Christianity,” he says, “presents to us a view of God operating on the characters of men through a manifestation of His own character, in order that by leading them to participate in some measure of His moral likeness, they may also in some measure participate of His happiness.”—P. 12.
“If the actions attributed to God, by any system of religion, be really such objects as, when present to the mind, do not stir the affections at all, that religion cannot influence the character, and is therefore utterly useless.”—P. 23.
“The object of Christianity is to bring the character of man into harmony with that of God.”—P. 49.
“The reasonableness of a religion seems to me to consist in there being a direct and natural connexion between a believing the doctrines which it inculcates, and a being formed by these to the character which it recommends. If the belief of the doctrines has no tendency to train the disciple in a more exact and more willing discharge of its moral obligations, there is evidently a very strong probability against the truth of that religion … What is the history of another world to me, unless it have some intelligible relation to my duties or happiness?”—P. 59.
Now in these passages there is, first, this great assumption, that the object of the Christian Revelation is ascertainable by us. It is asserted that its object is “to bring the character of man into harmony with that of God.” That this is an object, is plain from Scripture, but that it is the object is nowhere told us; nowhere is it represented as the object in such sense, that we may take it as a key or rule, whereby to arrange and harmonize the various parts of the Revelation,—which is the use to which the author puts it. God’s works look many ways; they have objects (to use that mere human word) innumerable; they are full of eyes before and behind, and, like the cherubim in the Prophet’s vision, advance forward to diverse points at once. But it is plainly unlawful and presumptuous to make one of those points, which happen to be revealed to us, the end of ends of His providence, and to subject everything else to it. It plainly savours of that Rationalism above condemned; for what is it but to be resolved, that what is revealed to us, is and shall be a complete system; to reject everything but what is so complete; and to disallow the notion of Revelation as a collection of fragments of a great scheme, the notion under which the most profound human philosophy is accustomed to regard it?
“Christianity,” says Bishop Butler, “is a scheme quite beyond our comprehension. The moral government of God is exercised by gradually conducting things so in the course of His providence, that every one at length and upon the whole shall receive according to his deserts; and neither fraud nor violence, but truth and right shall finally prevail. Christianity is a particular scheme under this general plan of Providence, and a part of it, conducive to its completion, with regard to mankind; consisting itself also of various parts and a mysterious economy, which has been carrying on from the time the world came into its present wretched state, and is still carrying on for its recovery by a divine person, the Messiah, who is to ‘gather together in one the children of God, that are scattered abroad,’ and establish ‘an everlasting kingdom, wherein dwelleth righteousness.’ … Parts likewise of this economy, are the miraculous mission of the Holy Ghost, and His ordinary assistance as given to good men; the invisible government which Christ exercises over His Church … and His future return to judge the world in righteousness, and completely re-establish the kingdom of God … Now little, surely, need be said to show, that this system or scheme of things is but imperfectly comprehended by us. The Scripture expressly asserts it to be so. And, indeed, one cannot read a passage relating to this great mystery of godliness, but what immediately runs up into something which shows us our ignorance in it, as everything in nature shows us our ignorance in the constitution of nature.” 1