some error or evil in them is not found to correspond. When we have learned its design, and see its adaptations, we can then determine the questions which are suggested to us, as the moral condition of the species, in the state in which they exist apart from the impressions and advantages of revealed religion, is brought under our examination. In this examination, we must look not only to the moral practice of mankind, but to the principles of religion which were current among them.

There was once a book published with the title, 'Christianity ' as old as the Creation', which assumed the sufficiency of natural religion to guide mankind; and that the assumption might not be wanting in boldness, the light of this instructor and monitor, was asserted to be at once clear and perfect. Natural religion, it must be granted, does much for man, if it teach unequivocally the existence and attributes of God, the essentials of true worship, that God will pardon the sins of men upon repentance, and that there is a future state in which the good will be rewarded, and the bad will be punished. But who are the disciples that receive this illumination? Who are the propagandists of these rational doctrines? It is quite proper to ask, as the Lecturer does,

But whence did these truths break in upon men in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, except from the habitual exhibition of them by the Christian revelation, and by the Christian revelation exclusively, all the wisest heathen philosophers having failed to discover one of these truths during the lapse of ages? How came it to pass that Socrates and Plato and Aristotle wandered in total darkness about every one of them? How came it to pass that these principles were first taught by persons educated in the Christian religion, taught these truths in the greatest purity, and in conjunction with many others, by the lips of the Christian ministry, and trained up in all the habits and usages of a Christian community? Had these doctrines been wrought out by the study of some heathen philosopher of Northern Europe or distant Asia, some recluse in the deserts of Africa or the back settlements of the Western Continent, who had never heard of the Christian faith, an argument might be drawn from the fact; but the claims of men living under the meridian sun of Christianity, and of reformed Christianity, (for it was not till after the Reformation that Deists were known,) can never for a moment be admitted. As well might a foreigner residing amongst the inventions of the arts in England, seize on our brightest discoveries, and claim them as his own. The fact is perfectly intelligible; the notions of modern unbelievers are no more than the twilight of revelation after the sun of it has been set in their apostacy from God. Christianity has shamed away the grosser errors and vices of heathenism; and the unbeliever borrows now some of the revealed doctrines, in order to gain an audience amongst mankind. There is no proof that any one individual in any age or nation ever dis

covered any one of these principles, except as enlightened by Christianity.' Vol. I. pp. 72, 73.

The creed of modern Unbelievers, on a comparison with the theology of the philosophical leaders of antiquity, discloses some striking peculiarities, and illustrates very effectually the argument of the preceding paragraph. Why do we not find the Deists of our own times celebrating the ancient rites, attending sacrifices, pouring out libations, and calling each one upon his God? They build not temples to either the Dii majorum gentium, or the Dii minorum gentium: they have neither Penates nor Lares. The Eleusinian Ceres stands in the vestibule of Cambridge University Library, but the goddess has now no worshippers. It may seem strange that the light of nature should, in the later ages of the world, lead men to neglect the objects of worship which it led those who existed in the early times to venerate. The fact is plain, that a revolution has taken place in the views and practice of the natural-religionists; but how is this to be accounted for? Precisely as Mr. Wilson suggests. In one respect, the difference between ancient and modern natural religion is very remarkable. The basis of the old heathen theology was the principle of justice. Men were offenders; the gods were angry; the human conscience was awed by terrors; and propitiatory sacrifices were the means by which man at once confessed his sin, and sought to avert its punishment. In the modern creed, the Deity is pure benevolence; and the variations which Deism includes, are only modifications of goodness, not tempered with any infusions of a righteous retribution as the rule of the Divine government. The former system may be very like the construction of reason devising methods of relief, in reference to evils which were confessed and feared. But whence originated the latter? If, in these later ages of the world, only the same methods of discovering truth by which the ancient masters of philosophy attempted to penetrate its recesses, and in which they so signally failed, have been tried by their successors, how are we to account for the essential difference of the results? Have the latter more genius than the former? Are they more laborious in their study of phenomena? Does nature present herself to them to express herself in terms which she never previously uttered? Or do the moral aspects of the world furnish them with superior advantages, from which to deduce conclusions establishing the clemency of the Supreme Ruler, so as to be the ground of confidence to man, that, on his repentance, he shall receive forgiveness, and become the object of his Creator's favour? What changes in the modes of instruction, what improvements in the lessons of natural religion, are we to assume, as sufficient to explain the substitution of benevolence, in the modern systems, for the justice which forms the

basis of the ancient ones? We assign the influence of the merciful economy published by the Gospel as the vera causa of the difference; and perceive no way of escaping from the conclusion, that modern Deism, unassisted by the lights of Revelation, would be found constructing the same hypotheses, and wearying itself with the same abortive speculations, as those which give so melancholy a character to the ancient heathen theology.

The interposition of the Deity, whom no man hath seen or 'can see, to instruct mankind, to hold actual intercourse with individuals of them, to communicate to them the knowledge of futurity and the principles of religious and moral truth, to intermit and to resume the communications, to do what revelation imports he has done, by manifesting himself in successive periods to some distinguished persons,-is, we believe, a subject of great difficulty to many minds. It is the subject which first occurs to their thoughts, on being invited to the investigation of the Christian evidences. It perplexes their understandings, to conceive of the fact itself; and the assignable modes of the intercourse bewilder their imaginations. But, in this hesitation, there is much of the influence of that primary cause of error, which refers to our own experience the solution of questions requiring a very different trial. Revelation, being miraculous, imports essentially to be limited to select individuals as the medium of its more extended utility; since it is obvious, that the admission of all persons to its immediate illuminations, would reduce it to the common course of nature. With respect, then, to the question of supernatural communication, its possibility must be at once conceded; and its congruity with the intelligence presiding over the world, and with the reasonable creatures who are governed by it, is easily apprehended. It involves no contradiction. In producing a rational creation, the Creator must have had reasonable ends, and the communication of his will to them could not be unreasonable. But there is no more difficulty in assuming subsequent communications, than there is in admitting the first of them. The only proper subject of examination is the fact, that a conveyance of religious knowledge purporting to be a revelation from God, exists; and this fact, like all facts, can be determined, in respect of the truth of it, only by the testimonies which support it. The New Testament relates, that Jesus, the Messiah, appeared in Judea, publishing doctrines which he affirmed were given to him immediately from heaven, wrought miracles publicly and frequently, and of various kinds, in attestation of his claims, and predicted future events;—that he was crucified, rose from the dead, according to his own announcement, conferred extraordinary powers on some of his followers, and charged them with the propagation of his doctrines;—and that he ascended into heaven in their presence. Is the New Testament which contains the relation of these circumstances, to be credited,

and are the facts to be believed? We must proceed with this inquiry in the same manner as we attempt to settle all historical questions. If we credit the books of the New Testament, we must believe the facts which it relates, just as we credit the Commentaries of Cæsar, and believe the events of his Gallic wars. On what ground do we receive the Commentaries of the Gallic wars as the writings of the Roman General? We never saw him at the head of his legions, or employed in recording his marches and his battles. We are separated from his times by many hundreds of years. Why then do we ascribe to him the authorship of the Commentaries? That he did write them, is a fact so well established that no one doubts it. But why is it believed? Because a chain of testimonies conducts us, link by link, to the credit which they received from his contemporaries as his own production. Who doubts the authenticity (that is the fact of Authorship) of Burnet's History of his Own Time ? But whence this universal agreement? By a chain of the like kind, but of fewer links, we reach the time and circumstances of its publication. So we prove the authenticity of the Books of the New Testament: and this proof is the first part of the process which the Christian inquirer will institute. Mr. Wilson's fourth and fifth Lectures are occupied with the proofs of the Authenticity of the New Testament. He has treated it copiously and minutely, not omitting any of the topics which are necessary or relevant to it, and skilfully combining the detached particulars into an irresistible array of testimony. The following summary of the contents of these two Lectures, will shew the fulness of the evidences adduced by the Author.

No one.

It had been shewn generally, that the genuineness of our books is supported by the same kind of arguments as men constantly employ on all similar occasions-that not one mark of spuriousness appears in our divine books-that it was morally impossible, from the circumstances of the case, that they could be forged-that men are continually admitting ancient books on the slightest external evidence-and that every external and internal proof unites to satisfy a reasonable and candid enquirer of the truth of the New Testament.

These general observations have been now established by actually tracing out the transmission of our books-by noticing the progress of the settlement of the Canon-by observing in all the specimens of the testimonies of Christian writers, the utmost sincerity-by weighing the admission of heathen adversaries and heretics-by running up our numerous ancient manuscripts now extant, to the manuscripts of Jerome, and to the autographs, or immediate copies of autographs, in the hands of Tertullian-by considering that the Apocryphal books want every one of these marks of authenticity, and are branded with every criterion of spuriousness-by adverting to the style and manner of the sacred penmen, and to the unexpected confirmations which are continually arising from the most extraordinary quarters-and by

VOL. VII.-N.S.

G

observing, finally, that our sacred volume stands unparalleled in the history of the world.' Vol. I. pp. 165, 166.

The proof of the authenticity of a document is independent of its contents. The inquiry may be conducted by a person who is entirely unacquainted with its import, and to whom its uses are unknown. In satisfactorily determining the genuineness of a book, we only trace it to its author, and the time of its original publication. We may then have other purposes to answer by continuing our examination, which will require us to be acquainted with its contents. Such is the question of Credibility; and in relation to this subject, we inquire into the truth of the facts contained in the record. Is the New Testament worthy of all acceptation' on account of the fidelity of its historical narratives? The New Testament is a written work, transmitted to us in the manner in which all literary productions of remote times have been conveyed to our own age. By whatever modes the credibility of such works is ascertained, the same must be applied to the Gospels. The works themselves may assist us in the inquiry, and proofs may be obtained from external sources. The character of the writers, and the complexion of their narratives, are internally supplied; and the testimonies which are to be collected from other writers and monuments, complete our materials for the investigation of the credibility of the authors. The writers of the New Testament are historians of contemporaneous facts, and their manner of describing them is altogether remarkable for simplicity, and for the presumption of truth which the most perfect integrity supplies. In reading Evelyn's Memoirs, we never find a distrust of his veracity, or of the truth of the facts which he records, rising in our minds. He describes the great fire of London, of which he was an eyewitness; and, if we wished so to do, we might substantiate the credibility of his narrative by the testimony of others. But such are our impressions from the evidence which his own work furnishes, that we assent without hesitation to his statements; and we should do so, in respect to the preceding fact, if all history were silent in reference to it. Such are the impressions produced by the inspired writers. It has been objected to the evangelical records, that more notice would have been taken by contemporary writers of the extraordinary facts which they detail, if they were indeed true. This objection is more specious than real; for, the more we reflect on the design and character of those writers, on their prejudices, their connections, their circumstances, the less shall we be surprised that so little is said by them. But the real importance of the question relative to them, is the fact of total omission, or of reference to the transactions. The affirmation is, that Christianity originated in Judea, in the time of the Roman emperor Tiberius; and Tacitus states, that the Christians had their name from Christ, who suffered death in the reign of