unreasonable in themselves, or
that they are misplaced in religion. He can scarcely however intend that
the affections are in their own nature unreasonable. To suppose him to
maintain this position, were to suppose him ignorant of what every
schoolboy knows of the mechanism of the human mind. We shall therefore
take it for granted, that this cannot be his meaning, and proceed to
examine the latter part of the alternative. Here also it may either be
intended, that the affections are misplaced in Religion, _generally_, or
that our blessed Saviour is not the proper object of them. The strain of
our Objector's language, no less than the objections themselves which
he has urged, render it evident that (perhaps without excluding the
latter position) the former is in full possession of his mind.

This notion of the affections being out of place in Religion, is indeed
an opinion which appears to be generally prevalent. The affections are
regarded as the strong-holds of enthusiasm. It is therefore judged most
expedient to act, as prudent generals are used to do, when they raze the
fortress, or spike up the cannon, which are likely to fall into the
hands of an enemy. Mankind are apt to be the dupes of misapplied terms;
and the progress of the persuasion now in question, has been
considerably aided by an abuse of language, not sufficiently checked in
its first advances, whereby that species of Religion which is opposite
to the warm and affectionate kind, has been suffered almost without
disturbance, to usurp to itself the epithet of _rational_. But let not
this claim be too hastily admitted. Let the position in question be
thoroughly and impartially discussed, and it will appear, if I mistake
not, to be a gross and pernicious error. If amputation be indeed
indispensable, we must submit to it; but we may surely expect to be
heard with patience, or rather with favour and indulgence, while we
proceed to shew that there is no need to have recourse to so desperate
an enemy. The discussion will necessarily draw us into length. But our
prolixity will not be greater than may well be claimed by the importance
of the subject, especially as it scarcely seems to have hitherto
sufficiently engaged the attention of writers on the subject of
Religion.

It cannot methinks but afford a considerable presumption against the
doctrine which we are about to combat, that it proposes to exclude at
once from the service of Religion so grand a part of th