The consequence of the foregoing observations is, that the question upon which the truth of Christianity depends, is scarcely at all what objections there are against its scheme, since there are none against the morality of it, but _what objections there are against its evidence_; or, _what proof there remains of it, after due allowances are made for the objections against that proof_: because it has been shown, that the _objections against Christianity, as distinguished from objections against its evidence, are frivolous_. For surely very little weight, if any at all, is to be laid upon a way of arguing and objecting, which, when applied to the general constitution of nature, experience shows not to be conclusive: and such, I think, is the whole way of objecting treated of throughout this chapter. It is resolvable into principles, and goes upon suppositions, which mislead us to think, that the Author of nature would not act, as we experience he does; or would act, in such and such cases, as we experience he does not in like cases. But the unreasonableness of this way of objecting will appear yet more evidently from hence, that the chief things thus objected against are justified, as shall be further shown,[186] by distinct, particular, and full analogies, in the constitution and course of nature. It is to be remembered, that, as frivolous as objections of the foregoing sort against revelation are, yet, when a supposed revelation is more consistent with itself, and has a more general and uniform tendency to promote virtue, than, all circumstances considered, could have been expected from enthusiasm and political views, this is a presumptive proof of its not proceeding from them, and so of its truth: because we are competent judges, what might have been expected from enthusiasm and political views.[187] CHAPTER IV. CHRISTIANITY, CONSIDERED AS A SCHEME OR CONSTITUTION, IMPERFECTLY COMPREHENDED.