And now, if the use of the affections in religion, in _general_, be at length shewn to be conformable to reason, it will not require many words to prove that our blessed Saviour is the proper object of them. We know that love, gratitude, joy, hope, trust, (the affections in question) have all their appropriate objects. Now it must be at once conceded, that if these appropriate objects be not exhibited, it is perfectly unreasonable to expect that the correspondent passions should be excited. If we ask for love, in the case of an object which has no excellence or desirableness; for gratitude, where no obligation has been conferred; for joy, where there is no just cause of self-congratulation; for hope, where nothing is expected; for trust, where there exists no ground of reliance; then indeed, we must kiss the rod, and patiently submit to correction. This would be indeed Egyptian bondage, to demand the effects without the means of producing them. Is the case then so? Are we ready to adopt the language of the avowed enemies of our adorable Saviour; and again to say of him "in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," that "he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him[31]?" Is it no obligation, that he who "thought it not robbery to be equal with God," should yet for our sakes "make himself of no reputation, and take upon him the form of a servant, and be made in the likeness of men; and humble himself, and become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross[32]?" Is it no cause of "_joy_, that to us is born a Saviour[33]", by whom we may "be delivered from the power of darkness; and be made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light[34]?" Can there be a "_hope_ comparable to that of our calling[35]"--"Which is Christ in us, the hope of glory[36]?" Can there be a _trust_ to be preferred to the reliance on "Christ Jesus; who is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever[37]?" Surely, if our Opponent be not dead to every generous emotion, he cannot look his own objection in the face, without a blush of shame and indignation. SECTION III. _Consideration of the Reasonableness of Affections towards an invisible Being._ But forced at last to retreat from his favourite position, and compelled to acknowledge that the religious affections towards our blessed Saviour are not unreasonable; he still however maintains the combat, suggesting that by the very constitution of our nature, we are not susceptible of them towards an invisible Being; in whose case, it will be added, we are shut out from all those means of communication and intercourse, which knit and cement the union between man and man.