of Him who came "to seek and to save that which was lost; who, for that purpose, left safe in the heavenly fold the ninety and nine that were in no danger, and sought in the wilderness the poor wanderers whose perils quickened, not repelled, his sympathies. If He was called, though He was "without sin," the "friend of publicans and sinners," I shall not hesitate, who am but a sinner myself (albeit, I hope, a Christian), still to call by the name of "friend" one who is a sinner even as I.

The text you quote so tauntingly (forgive me for saying so, -but it is tauntingly), "What fellowship hath Christ with Belial -or what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel," is nothing to the purpose. That text is intended to forbid the voluntary formation of close and ensnaring intimacies with those who are estranged from the Christian life in either sentiment or character. No doubt a Christian father would not choose to have an unbelieving son, if he could help it; and, in the same manner, neither would a Christian man choose his special intimates among those who are alienated from his Master. But a parent cannot repudiate his parental relation because his son becomes an "unbeliever; and neither can a friend repudiate a friend. When friendship has been formed previous to the existence of any such disturbing causes, the bond cannot be rudely broken.

You would have done well to look into other passages. The New Testament prescribes, with that remarkable freedom from fanaticism, which, if its writers were fanatics, is a very singular characteristic, the terms of intercourse with an unbelieving husband, wife, or child, and, by parity of reason, with an unbelieving "friend ;" and what countenance is there for your taunt? Nay, with the unbelieving world in general, Christianity not only permits the ordinary transactions of life, but enjoins, in all such transactions, that uniform courtesy, kindness, and benevolence which, in fact, involve all the offices of friendship, and must of necessity often lead to it.

So far from the Christian being forbidden to come into contact with the "unbelieving" world, he is told the express contrary; to forbid this would be to tell him "to go out of the world."

Ꮓ

It

is only to a "brother that walks disorderly" that he is commanded to act thus; with him, "not even to eat,"-neither to give nor

exchange hospitality. Now alas that I should say so! you are no longer a "Christian brother,"—but I insist on it that you shall still be a "friend." So you must suffer me to address you in the old style, and if it will at all accommodate your scruples, I will call you one that is "without," and certify to the fact that you are not a Christian. If this will not satisfy you, and I must needs proceed according to the rule with which you upbraid me, that of treating our offending brother as a heathen man and a publican;" still, you will be pleased to recollect that it is after repeated admonition that that is to be done, and I have by no means admonished" you enough yet.

66

"Pray do it," I imagine you saying, "without the admonition." No I shall not; I shall persist in bearing with your offences, not only the "seven times," but the "seventy times seven," before I finally release you.

So that, in fine, you see I am a "burr," and shall "stick."

-

You let out the secret, I suspect, of your perverse scruples as to the possibility of our continued friendly intercourse. I say perverse, for there is seldom any scruple with gentlemen in your position when you say that you hope, if we are to keep up our former correspondence, I am not going to trouble you with that "intolerable" subject, the "evidences of Christianity!" This, and perhaps a little disposition to taunt me with the supposed bigoted exclusiveness of the Christian rule, must account for your unusual scruples.

As to the evidences of Christianity, never fear; I am so far from intending to trouble you with them, that I am about to show you how you may annihilate Christianity altogether; not by directly attacking it that, I regard, as proved by long experience to be useless but by establishing a better system! As Leslie entitled his little tract "A short method with the Deists," so, if you choose to adopt the course I shall point out, you may call it, "A short way with Christians," and I shall engage it will be effectual.

you

You will say, perhaps, that it is necessary, first, to destroy Christianity before you can introduce a better system. Ah! my friend, do not wait for that. Christianity is so long a-dying, that Deists will all die before you have a chance of establishing your own system. You may say of the Gospel, as the despairing husband of his litigious wife : "I am tired of getting the better before she is tired of losing the victory." Take no heed to it, but proceed at once, as if it were non-existent, to show the world "a more excellent way; " that dazzled world will then say of Deism, as compared with Christianity, what Paul says of Christianity as compared with Judaism: "It hath no glory," being eclipsed by a "glory that excelleth."

But I must first, in another letter or two, lay before you briefly some of the reasons on which I would advise you to raise the siege of Christianity. I know that the attacking party often has some advantage over those who act on the defensive, but not always; and from the length and tediousness of this war, and various other reasons which I shall detail to you, I do not augur well for your success. A defensive war is not always so bad,- especially if the besieged occupy a Gibraltar, and the besiegers wooden fortresses and a fluctuating element; above all, if it comes to redhot shot into the bargain. There is something invigorating, I grant, in assault; but none in knocking one's head against stone walls. Now, without implying anything (that I may not offend you) as to the truth of Christianity, I think it may be shown that the assault in this case is of that description.

Yours faithfully,

R. E. H. G.

P. S.-You will perhaps think all the latter part of this letter mere badinage. I assure you I am most serious. Though I am convinced of the truth of Christianity, yet if it be false, I am as deeply anxious that it should be proved so, as you can be. I am persuaded (though I might be puzzled to give a reason for it in that case) that nothing but good can come out of Truth; and therefore, if she still be at the "bottom of the well," let me have

the advantage of your (or of any man's) wheel and axle to get the jade out.

I am also deeply convinced that if Christianity be false, the best method for proving it so is that I shall hereafter point out.

LETTER XCII.

To the Same.

1852.

My dear Friend,

I am led to regard the assault on Christianity as hopeless -because I see that it has been continued for so many generations in vain; and especially that its enemies have had, for more than a century, every opportunity of doing their worst,- that is, of saying their worst, and have achieved nothing.

Nor can I, on the calmest survey, perceive on what grounds you can promise yourself a chance of success.

You cannot say, as in other cases, "This religion sprang up in an unhistoric age, and among barbarous people." On the contrary, it entered the world amidst the light of literature and civilisation, and immediately began to propagate itself amongst the nations most renowned for both, as well as elsewhere. Christ appeared to the world, as he appeared to the apostle on his way to Damascus, with a "light from heaven" at noon day."

66

You cannot say, as in other cases, "This religion is received only by a particular race or nation, and cannot travel out of it; it is local, and, like other similar religions, will die when political changes or military conquest shall try it." On the contrary, it has been adopted by the most diverse races, by the most different nations, by Greeks, Romans, English, French, Germans,- by Barbarian and Civilised alike; by people distinguished by every conceivable variety of culture, laws, manners, climate; and it has

been retained in spite of political and military revolutions of the most confounding nature; revolutions which have shivered into atoms a score of other religions. It dwells in every zone-under every form of polity—its habitat would seem the bosom of humanity.

You cannot say that "it has been adopted only by vulgar intellects, and without investigation." On the contrary, genius of the highest order among the most lettered and civilised of the nations, has, in ten thousand instances, calmly, after the fullest scrutiny, and with the deepest knowledge of the laws of evidence, declared the proofs of its truth unassailable. The books that the litera ture of a dozen nations has contributed to its defence would alone make an immense library!

You cannot say that "its enemies have had no liberty of pleading on the other side." On the contrary, from the earliest times downwards, and especially during the last century and a half, antagonists have appeared in all the most polished Christian nations, with the fullest liberty of employing every weapon, whether of ridicule or of argument, against Christianity; they have written thousands of books, not one in a hundred of which is remembered twenty years after its publication, and have constructed half a dozen theories, -reciprocally contradictory, it must be admitted, of accounting in a natural way for the origination of this troublesome religion. Some of the writers of such books, as Gibbon and Voltaire, for example, have on other grounds been of enormous popularity, and yet the position of Christianity remains much the same!

You cannot say "its enemies" have not a thousand times paraded the "discrepancies and contradictions" which you affirm exist in the Bible: for this they have been doing ever since the time of Porphyry and Celsus till now;-yet, mortifying to relate without getting one in ten thousand to suppose that such discrepancies at all shake the historical authority of the Scriptures.

You cannot say that "The Book has not given you every advantage:" for never was there one which more irritates the pride