Owing to the different constitutions of the human mind, there always is, more or less, a certain difference of opinion upon all subjects in proportion to their want of self-evident proof. Then, when a subject confessedly has it not, ought we to expect from it those universal results which it could only produce by having it?
That there should be many who are not satisfied with the evidence of the Christian religion is not to be wondered at, since it is not of that nature to produce universal acquiescence. Where then can be the propriety of inveighing so bitterly against some for rejecting what, according to the nature of things, all cannot be expected to receive? Assuredly, the sin of doubting must be proportional to the evidence; then why should we attach the same punishment for disbelieving things that are not self-evident as we do for things that are?
With regard to the assertions, that "'tis their pride prevents their belief, that they make a Deity of their reason, and put themselves in opposition to Heaven," &c. it may be seriously asked, Are these assertors sincere in what they say, or is it merely spleen they, or any one, for an instant conceive it to be possible for a man in his senses, who has any idea of his Maker, or of himself, and is so deeply interested in the subject, to act in such a way?
There may be some reason for considering that doctrine to be false which might cause us to think existence a curse, rather than a blessing, and to entertain views inconsistent with the Divine Nature.
If the orthodox opinions be correct, how few among professors really profess! How small a proportion of mankind profess at all! It follows, according to even probability, that the number of the saved will be extremely small in proportion to that which is lost. Then, when a child is born, according to the laws of chances, there are very great odds against its being saved. Query, Whether it be a blessing to be born, to run any risk at all of endless misery, even were they very contrary of what they appear to be, greatly in favour of everlasting bliss?
It has often been said, that if Christianity is not competent to withstand the test of reason, it ought to fall.
To this opinion I willingly subscribe; and so confident am I of our succeeding against our adversaries, the Deists, that I am for truly putting Christianity to this trial. That is, I would that there should be allowed as perfectly free discussion in all theological matters, that the "Age of Reason," and other works of a similar nature, should be allowed to be published. Let the enemies of our religion bring forward their objections as fast as they like; have we not, or our part, a ready refutation for every one of them?