_Ans._ 2. If the cases were not parallel, there are plenty of other analogies, which show that God does not dispense his gifts according to _our_ notions of their value. _Objec._ 2. If Christianity be intended for the recovery of men, why not sooner introduced, and more widely diffused? _Ans._ The objection is just as strong against the natural sciences. Nay, if the light of nature and of revelation are both from the same source, we might _expect_ that revelation would have been introduced and diffused just as it is. 1.) Remedies for disease are known but to a few, or not known at all, nor to any without care and study. 2.) When proposed by discoverers, they have been treated with derision, and the use rejected by thousands whom they might have cured. 3.) The best remedies have been used unskilfully, and so made to produce more disease. 4.) Their benefit may come very slowly. 5.) In some cases they may be wholly ineffectual. 6.) They maybe so disagreeable that many will not submit to use them, even with the prospect of a cure. 7.) Sometimes the remedy may be entirely out of reach if we were ready to take it. All this reasoning may be applied to Christianity. VII. _Having obviated all objections to Christianity, from its containing things we should not have expected, we will now consider the objections against its morality._ =1.= Reason may judge, as to whether revelation contains things contrary to justice, and wisdom, &c. as those attributes are taught by natural religion. But no such objections are advanced, except such as would equally condemn the constitution of nature. =2.= There are indeed particular precepts, to particular persons, which _would_ be immoral, but for the precept. The precept changes the nature of the action. =3.= None are contrary to immutable morality. We are never commanded to cultivate the principles of ingratitude, treachery, &c. =4.= God may command the taking of life or property because these are _his_. =5.= The only real difficulty is, that such commands are liable to be perverted by the wicked to their own horrid purposes; and to mislead the weak. But such objections do not lie against revelation, as such, but against the very notion of _religion as a trial_. =6.= The sum of the whole is, objections against the _scheme_ of Christianity do not affect its truth; since there are no objections against its morality. Hence objections against it, aside from its evidences, are frivolous. Objections against the _evidence_, will be considered in a subsequent chapter, [_i.e._ ch. vii.] CHAPTER IV. CHRISTIANITY A SCHEME IMPERFECTLY UNDERSTOOD. In the last chapter it was shown that we might expect, beforehand, that a revelation would contain strange things, and things liable to great objections.