In some instances too, it may well be that the very objections which might never have been heard of but for such unwise obtrusion of them, may occasion doubts which the answer would not remove. If I were a preacher, I should certainly take opportunity, now and then as it fairly offered itself, to give folks a clear and brief statement of the outline of the Christian evidences, and the principal grounds on which a reasonable faith is founded —on the principle that they ought to be, like the Berœan converts, intelligent as well as sincere Christians. But I should as little think of descanting frequently or diffusely on infidel objections, as of talking to an apple-woman about the principles of political economy, on which, like the rest of the world, she, without knowing it, bought and sold. But what has all this to do with the mode in which you are to deal with the infidel himself? If the road be thorny, still he chooses it, even while he complains of its ruggedness, and you must needs follow him.

You say, and say truly, that you cannot but think that the Bible so reflects, as in a mirror, the great fact of man's spiritual condition and necessities, that if any one will read it with "simplicity," he must feel how true it is to our nature. I quite agree with you; but, first, a man may admit the wants of human nature, yet object to the Bible mode of meeting them; may admit the disease, and yet reject the remedy. Now the very question is here; and directly the man comes to that, the historical problem returns; for surely as long as he doubts the remedy, he is not likely to take it. What are the facts of Christianity, and on what grounds are they to be accepted as such ?—this question he perforce in such a mood must revolve. A man may admit a vague, or even 'distinct sense — there are few, that are not idiots, but will — of man's moral destitution; his weakness, guilt, and fears; his uncertainty on all the great moral problems which it most imports us to 'know; whence we came, and whither we are going; - but he will not, on that account, take the remedy proposed, unless he believes it to be such. Do not, then, since you must deal with such men, fall into the foolish cant which represents it of little use to argue with them on the question of the "Christian evidences".

for though you may think, and think justly, that the men defraud themselves of a great benefit when they make the evidences so "long and thorny a path," it is the path for the present in which alone you can encounter them.

And then, secondly, as to reading the New Testament with "simplicity," this is, in fact, to suppose the principal work done; get them to do that, and you need not argue with them long. Meantime, I fancy your "simplicity" is great, if you expect they will do it. For my own part I think it is but too plain that the generality of such folks read the Bible for no other purpose than to hunt up objections. They are like the sceptic of whom Fuller says "He keeps a register of many difficult places of Scripture; not that he desires satisfaction therein, but delights to puzzle divines therewith; and counts it a great conquest when he hath posed them. Unnecessary questions out of the Bible are his most necessary study; and he is more curious to know where Lazarus' soul was, the four days he lay in the grave, than careful to provide for his own soul when he shall be dead."

In a word, your position in reference to such, is much like that of the ethical philosopher in relation to some young idiot,-we now and then meet with one, who protests he can see no distinction between "moral right and wrong,"-believes that conscience is a bundle of "conventionalities" and "artificial associations," and the rest of the gibberish proper to that theory. You may decline reasoning with him, certainly; but if you do, it is of no use to insist on the transcendental evidence which you have in your own consciousness, of which he denies the experience in himself; though, by the bye, you may perhaps shrewdly suspect young scamp lies nor can you insist on the "sublimity, and beauty, and grandeur" of Virtue and the "deformity " of Vice, since he denies their very existence. Happily there are not many such people; but if you reason with them at all, you must take the old way of logic and induction,—you must reason from facts: and assuredly you will then soon find them complaining of this "dry, logical" treatment of the subject; they at the same time,

the

I

by every art of sophistry, making it ten times as "thorny" as it need be !

If you do not choose to argue with such a man in the only way his peculiar position allows, you must close the dispute with Dr. Johnson's concise dilemma, - "Either the man believes what he says, or he does not; if he does not, he is a liar ; if he does, why, then, let us count our spoons!"

Most cordially do I agree with you, that to those who will experimentally prove Christianity, there is evidence as far transcending all logical demonstration as the consciousness of the happiness of well-doing surpasses a mere intellectual conviction that virtue will lead to happiness.

It is our felicity that we "know whom we have believed; that we "speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen," when we say that the Gospel is no "cunningly devised fable." I also firmly believe that even he who does not fully yield to it, will do so if he honestly examines with a desire to understand and a willingness to receive it. "He that will do the will of God shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God." But this requires docility and candour: where there are these, the “evidences" in the ordinary sense would be brief enough, and would no longer be "thorny."

Yours ever faithfully,

R. E. H. G.

P. S. This is a tract rather than a letter; but the immense importance of the subject induced me to express my thoughts very fully.

LETTER XXXIV.

To the Rev. S. W

My dear Mr. W—,

March, 1845.

As a comparative stranger, I have no right to trouble you with advice; yet as a sincere well-wisher, who admires your talents, and is most anxious that you should do justice to the glorious function you have assumed, permit me to make one or two remarks on a sentiment which I lately heard you express, and which a little alarmed me for your success.

You said, I recollect, that "as you were going to a remote country village, it would be easy to satisfy your rustic congregation; that you did not apprehend they would make large demands on preparation; and that simple truth, expressed in simple language, would be quite enough for them."

Enough, I am sure, if the words be rightly understood; only I fancy that, if that be the case, it will be found that "simple truth, expressed in simple language," must involve very careful preparation. "Simple truth" must not mean commonplace, nor "simple language" any plain words that come to hand. If you would produce any lively or durable impression on any audience (rustic or polished matters not), you must give them thoughts that strike, and these must be expressed in apt words; and to speak in this fashion will require, depend on it, very careful study. Take heed of the fallacies lurking in the terms "simple truth" and "simple language ;" for they are rocks on which many a man has struck.

"Simple truth"-the simple truth of the Gospel, I trust, will ever be the basis of your preaching, as I am sure you desire it to be. Apart from that assemblage of doctrines and precepts which can alone make Christianity a thing worth listening to by sorrowful and guilty humanity, all pulpit eloquence will be but 'sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal." I hope, too, that these truths (as you propose) will be expressed in "simple language.” But Truth-the most important truth a preacher can enforce—

66

may be easy of comprehension, and it may be expressed in forms none can misunderstand, and yet its advocate may have utterly neglected his entire duty notwithstanding. His business is, by apt method, arrangement, illustration, imagery, vivacity of language, animation both of style and manner, to render Truth, not simply understood, assented to with a drowsy nod, then slept over, -but felt; not only known, which, by the way, it generally is, before he opens his lips, but the object of sympathetic intelligence, and the source of emotion; to animate it with life, to clothe it with beauty, and make it worthy of "all acceptation."

Now, to do all this for your rustic audience, will demand, (take my word for it,) not less study and effort than if you were preaching to the most polished audience in the land in some respects more, for you might legitimately speak to these last (and perhaps more easily to yourself) on many subjects which would be mere Hebrew and Greek to the parishioners of your Ultima Thule; and, for similar reasons, the range of your diction will also be more limited. On the other hand, rely on it (and I say it after much observation of the effects of public speaking), if the topics are such as your audience can deal with (and let me tell you they can deal with a good deal more than is generally thought), none of the pains you may bestow on your discourses on the arrangement of your thoughts, and on your modes of illustrating and expressing them will be thrown away. Your audience, however rustic, will show that they appreciate excellence of style, though they may not be conscious of the why, and perhaps never dream -simple souls!-that you are eloquent at all. So much the better, my dear sir;-and better still, if, which is much more difficult, you can forget it too.

However, though they know nothing of "analytical criticism," nothing of the "principles of logic and rhetoric," you do; and you will see that if you comply with the genuine "rules of art," by truly adapting your discourse to your audience, your audience will show that they naturally obey the laws of criticism, though they do not comprehend them. They will show here, as in other cases, the characters "of the law written on their hearts," though