Written defences of Christianity.

Early associations.

Instances.

which their researches have furnished, of the truth and divine authority of the Scriptures, or of the nature of the truths they reveal; and the works thus produced, have been among the strongest bulwarks of Christian faith. Our plan does not lead us to say any thing of efforts like these: it confines us to the attempts continually made to remove religious error, by argument and discussion, in the common intercourse of life; attempts which under certain circumstances are wise and successful; under others they are far worse than useless.

Religious discussion has its sole foundation in real or supposed religious error; and the nature of religious error is very little understood. Let us look at some of its sources.

1. One great source of erroneous impressions, on all subjects, is the power of influences exerted in early life, and which are sometimes so strong as utterly to bid defiance to all argument. Every one has observed the permanency of these early impressions of early life in such cases as the following. A child was once terrified, when very young, by suddenly seeing a snake, as it was playing in the grass; and up to the age of twenty, he retained an unconquerable aversion to the animal, so that his companions used to torment him by forcing upon his observation, pictures of snakes,- which would overwhelm him in an agony of terror and suffering. Another was carried to see a man who was shockingly mangled by an accidental explosion, in blasting rocks,and fifteen years did not obliterate the impression. During all the years of childhood and youth, the effects of gunpowder, in every form, were a continual terror to him. Now will you endeavor to overcome such feelings by argument? Will you go and try to prove to these terrified young men, that a picture cannot bite, or that the flash of a little squib cannot endanger them?

Religious antipathies; beyond the reach of argument.

But the reader will say that these are mere antipathies; they are not of the nature of erroneous convictions entertained by the understanding. So is a very large proportion of the dislike to religion, and the disbelief of its truths, mere antipathy, and not deliberate conviction, The cases just adduced to illustrate it, are certainly strong ones; but every man who will pause a moment to reflect, must see that a child, brought up under the influence of such associations as are in many families connected with the religious opinions of those who disagree with them, must inevitably, if human nature is consistent with itself, form such an antipathy. It may have men, or it may have opinions, for its objects, but in either case argument, as a corrective, would be utterly thrown away. It would not only be entirely insufficient to produce a change, but it would scarcely have any tendency to do it.

A sufficient allowance is not made for this by the opposite parties in a religious controversy. If one generation takes sides violently, on any question, they inevitably entail the quarrel. Their children have scarcely the opportunity to judge for themselves. The laws of the human mind almost compel them to feel as their fathers felt; for it becomes in such cases, a matter of feeling rather than opinion. No one, therefore, ought ever to cherish a harsh or an unkind thought towards any one, on account of his religious errors, if his father led the way.

This influence of early associations has more power than all other causes put together, in the formation of religious opinions. The children of Mahometans become Mahometans themselves, without arguments in favor of the Prophet; and in the Christian world, religious opinions are hereditary, and pass down with exceptions comparatively few and rare, from father to son; so that Popery, and Protestantism, Episcopacy and Dissent, and Presbyterian, Baptist, and Methodist opinions, oc

Opinions hereditary.

Irreligion the cause of error.

cupy, in the main, the same ground, from generation to generation. It is true, indeed, that argument has something to do with this, for though every faith has its defenders, to which all have access, still each child hears chiefly the voice of the one which its father chooses for it. But, notwithstanding this, every inteliigent observer of the human mind, and especially of the habits and susceptibilities of childhood, will at once admit, that other influences than those of argument are the efficient ones, in the production of these almost universal effects.

Let no one infer from these undeniable facts, that men are not accountable for the exercise of their reason in respect to their relations to God. They are accountable. The fact that men follow on so blindly after their parents in this, more than in any other case, is an indication of the cold indifference of the human heart to its religious duty. Parents cannot control their children's opinions and preferences, on other points, so completely; and they could not here, were not the heart so cold, so indifferent, so benumbed in respect to God. When the conscience is aroused, these chains are immediately broken, and the soul goes free to think for itself, and to throw away its shackles for ever. It may escape slowly from their thraldom, but escape it will, if any real penitence and any real love to God can find a place in the heart. So that what is justly to be inferred from these views, is not that men who are in error, are innocent, but that they are no more guilty than those who believe the truth, and yet live in sin. A thousand children, growing up without God, are all guilty for thus living in disobedience to his will; but if they do thus live, the question of their religious belief is not of much consequence as an indication of their real characters. Their belief is probably almost a matter of mere accident; so that, as to their characters, it makes no great difference who is. right, and who wrong in theory. Their guilt consists in

One great distinction.

Influence of feelings.

Instances.

their impenitence, which is common to them all, not in their errors, in which, from accidental circumstances, each may differ from the rest.

When we look around therefore upon society, we should make one great distinction in estimating human character, and that is, between those who love God, and those who love him not; and we must remember that from the very fact that the latter class do not love duty, they will make no honest effort, themselves, to learn what it is. They all drink in whatever is offered to them in childhood. Some are right, and some are wrong, but, as we have seen, accident has been most instrumental in deciding in each case, and ungodliness is the common foundation on which all stand. Induce them to abandon sin, and to return to God, in any respect, and their eyes will be opened. Act upon the heart first, and the intellect will rectify itself afterwards; though it will be by steps too hesitating and slow for our impatience to tolerate, unless we have considered, more attentively than most persons have, the extreme and almost unconquerable reluctance with which the power of early associations relinquishes its hold.

The first source of religious error then, is, these associations of early childhood, which reasoning never formed, and which she is utterly incompetent to overthrow.

2. Another very common source of error on all subjects, and especially in religion, is the bias of mind produced by the influence of the feelings. The danger of such a bias is universally understood in common life, and is guarded against, in many cases, with great care. Whenever a contention arises between two individuals, the friends and connexions of the respective combatants, with the same facts before their eyes, and guided professedly by the same principles of right and wrong, form

The contention.

The consumptive patient.

Bias in religion.

directly opposite opinions, and each party adheres to the views which mere feeling has produced, with inflexible pertinacity. So when any new speculation or plan of improvement is agitated in any community, each man will take sides on the question, just as his interests would be affected by the results. In the former of these cases, it is personal attachment, in the latter, pecuniary interest which constitutes the bias; but any other emotion may produce the same effect. We may mention one other case, which, though common, is melancholy and affecting in the extreme. How often will an unhappy man, conscious that he is unprepared for death, sink into the last stages of a lingering disease, steeled against all sense of the danger which he does not wish to see. His hectic cheek, and gradually sinking powers might give him most certain evidence that he is drawing near to the grave; but he shuts his eyes to every indication of his danger. Just because he wishes and hopes to be restored to health, he resolutely persists in believing that restoration is before him. The delusion, a very happy one, so far as its exhilarating power tends to sustain him under his final sufferings, but very melancholy in its tendency to keep him from finding peace with God, - clings to him to the last; and he sinks under the very hand of death, with an unwavering but baseless confidence that health and happiness are soon to return.

This tendency of the human mind is universally known; every man, in consequence of it, almost instinctively distrusts the opinions of others, where their feelings or their interests are involved in the question; and a wise man, under such circumstances, will distrust his own.

Perhaps there is no class of subjects on which men are more in danger from this source, than those connected with religion. The various interpretations which are given to the declarations of the Bible, alter very con