f his work which is valuable to the philosopher, who
watches the influence exercised at that time by psychological
speculations; and he proposes to show that the doctrines of the gospel are
neither contrary to reason nor above it. He exhibits the impossibility of
believing statements which positively contradict reason;(398) and contends
that if they do not really contradict it, but are above it, we can form no
intelligible idea of them. He tries further to show that reason is neither
so weak nor so corrupt as to be an unsafe guide,(399) and that scripture
itself only professes to teach what is intelligible.(400) Having shown
that the doctrines of the gospel are not contrary to reason, he next
proceeds to show that they do not profess to be above it; that they lay
claim to no mystery,(401) for that mystery in heathen writers and the New
Testament does not mean something inconceivable, but something
intelligible in itself, which nevertheless was so veiled "that it needed
revealing;"(402) and that the introduction of the popular idea of mystery
was attributable to the analogy of pagan writers, and did not occur till
several centuries after the foundation of Christianity.(403)

It is possible that the book may have been a mere paradox,(404) the effort
of a young mind going through the process through which all young men of
thought pass, and especially in an age like Toland's, of trying to
understand and explain what they believe. But students who are thus
forming their views ought to pause before they scatter their half-formed
opinions in the world. In Toland's case public alarm judged the book to
have a most dangerous tendency; and he was an outcast from the sympathy of
pious men for ever. If he was misunderstood, as he contended, his fate is
a warning against the premature publication of a paradox. The question
accordingly which Toland thus suggested for discussion was the prerogative
of reason to pronounce on the contents of a revelation, the problem
whether the mind must comprehend as well as apprehend all that it
believes. The other question which he opened was the validity of the
canon.(405) Here too he claimed that his views were misunderstood. It was
supposed that the mention made by him concerning spurious works attributed
to the apostles, referred to the canonical gospels. Accordingly, if in his
former work he has been considered to have anticipated the older school of
German rationalists, in the present he has been