THE CHRISTIAN OBSERVER. No. 294.] build upon JUNE, 1826. [No. 6. Vol. XXVI. RELIGIOUS COMMUNICATIONS. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. THOUGH I conclude it is rather the plan of your work to the foundation of Christianity, considered as already firmly laid and cemented together in its irrefragable evidences, than to afford much space to the preliminary office of laying that foundation, yet as the proofs of Divine revelation are often adduced or alluded to in your pages, and the peculiar circumstances of the times demand that they should be familiar to every Christian reader, I send for insertion the following succinct view of the argument in favour of the Gospels, which I hope, by the blessing of God, may be found interesting and useful both to the confirmed Christian and to those who are "doubtful" or ill-informed upon the subject. I have confined myself to one single branch of this large inquiry; yet, if even this one argument can be just ly maintained, as without doubt it can, the Divine origin of the whole Bible is placed beyond the reach of hesitation or controversy. G. W. SKETCH OF THE EVIDENCE IN FA VOUR OF THE GOSPELS. By the fall of our first parents we have not only lost the original purity of our nature, but also much even of that power by which we could have traced the attributes of Deity in the objects of creation. With the pravity of our hearts, the means of finding out Jehovah to perfection by the light of reason have been decreased, and we must have continued to wander in hopeless ignorance of the CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 294. true dignity of our nature, of its originally high destination, and of the mode by which we may aspire to its recovery, if God in his infinite goodness had not vouchsafed to us the revelation of his will. From the period of the Fall we observe, that such revelations were made on this subject as suited the nature and necessity of the times when they were given. But although these revelations proceeded from a Being with whom no imperfection can dwell, still there was something in their nature which shewed they were intended merely to precede that better state of things attendant on the manifestation of the Messiah. In fact, they had severally contributed, by their gradual development of the character and plans of Jehovah, to put mankind in a condition for receiving the last communication he intended to make; and accordingly we find every cir cumstance in the moral and political world in full cooperation for the period of this intended announceOn the arrival of the time ment. most favourable for this display of sovereign love, the Son of God assumed our nature. Of the actions which he performed, and the doctrines and precepts he delivered in the course of his personal ministry, we have short but faithful accounts left us by four of his followers; and on the truth or falsehood of these accounts must stand or fall the fabric of Christianity. It is therefore a matter of supreme importance that we investigate with diligence the evidences by which they are proved to be a record from God. Of the two principal kinds of hu2 T man evidence, the one, namely, direct demonstration, is applicable to subjects which have little or no immediate relation to the purposes of common life; while the other, namely, moral evidence, embraces almost every species of information, on which our profit or happiness can depend. Although, in some of its stages, the latter is nearly destitute of authority in an argument, still it admits of so wide a range as frequently to approximate to, if not to equal, the most rigid species of demonstration. One of its chief branches is human testimony; and when we reflect on the variety and importance of the information arising from this source, we shall not wonder at the authority attributed to it, or the excessive care taken to ascertain the precise limits of its probability. To regard human testimony as carrying in itself the weight of presumptive evidence would be absurd. There are many circumstances which must unite with it ere we are required to admit it as conclusive. If the relator had no advantage from the propagation of his story; if corroborative testimony is borne by others who were in no way connected with him, or by whom the circumstances of the story were regarded with hostility; and if it fully accords with the temper of the times to which it relates, there can be no good reason for withholding from it our assent. Of this kind of evidence the Gospels are possessed, and therefore their genuineness is indisputable. But more than their genuineness is required to be proved. They come to us with claims peculiar to no other book, purporting to furnish the most infallible rules for the attainment of happiness, and to give us clearer discoveries of the nature and plans of the Supreme Being. We must therefore examine their internal evidence also; and if, on subsequent inquiry, it be found that the system they reveal harmonizes with these plans, supports the dignity and character of God, and com pletely supplies the various mental exigences of the world, we may then, it is presumed, conclude them to be not only genuine but Divine; not only the productions of the writers whose names they bear, but also the inspired oracles of the living God. The Gospels then must depend on the external and internal evidence which can be adduced in their favour. In the evidence which we have of their genuineness from antiquity, of course we shall not be guided solely by the friends of Christianity; although their testimony is by no means inconsiderable, when we consider that it was never invalidated by their contemporaries. The Gospels have even the admissions of heretics and heathen philosophers in their favour; and notwithstanding they attempt to disprove their Divine origin by such objections as arise from the nature of their contents, one branch of our argument is established, that they were unquestionably the productions of their reputed authors. In the Christian writers of the first, second, and third centuries, there are not only direct and palpable quotations from the Gospels, but in the later writers of that period they are severally referred to under their distinctive appellations. Not only therefore is it proved, that the canon of the New Testament was settled at an early age; but, what is more to our present purpose, that the Evangelical histories were believed to be individually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Again, the heretics who sprang up immediately after the apostolic times, in general received all the Gospels as genuine, while they rejected other parts of the New Testament. Some of their followers even wrote commentaries on them; and while, by a perversion of particular passages, they endeavoured to fortify their own opinions, they yet concurred with the orthodox part of the community, in bearing testimony to their genuineness. Heathen philosophers also, aware that the Gospels were possessed of such authority among Christians, and satisfied that on the conviction of their falsehood depended the overthrow of Christianity, never attempted to call in question their genuineness, but simply represented several of their statements as derogatory to the nature of God, as contrary to historical truth, or as violating every known principle on which the moral and political universe is supposed to act. And not only do they refer to them generally but specifically. The Emperor Julian, for instance, gives each its distinct name, and never for a moment questions the validity of their claims to genuineness. To such a body of evidence nothing more needs be added. The genuineness of the Gospels is found to be supported by evidence of an unquestionable nature. It therefore remains, that we examine whether their contents are such as to exhibit the impress of Divinity. Let the external evidence in their favour be completely incontrovertible, unless their veracity is also demonstrable, their spirit the most pure and heavenly, their discoveries capable of supplying the deficiencies of our information relative to ourselves and a future state, they are a melancholy instance among many others of the ineffectual attempt to remedy the evils which pervade the moral world. In considering the internal evidence in favour of the Gospels, we are naturally led, in the first place, to regard their morality. Our preconceived notions of the nature of God, and the fitness of things, enable us to form some estimate of the degree of purity they ought to exhibit. In fact, unless there is in us this previous power of deciding on their claims to morality, and of ascertaining the extent to which, on a view of society as it is at present constituted, these claims are allowable, any system that pretends to instruct us in virtue may, for any thing we know to the con trary, have equal claims on our attention and reverence. But although our natural apprehensions are vitiated, we have still remaining within us so much sense of good and evil, as to be able to perceive with tolerable distinctness the broader lines which separate them; and it is only, or chiefly, in consequence of the distortion of our feelings and desires, that our reason is too frequently made subservient to the gratification of our corrupt propensities. And possessed of this power to appreciate the excellence of any mor: instruction, we shall not only be able from comparison to deduce the superiority of the Gospels in point of purity, but also to estimate the degree of evidence it affords in confirmation of that faith, of which it is a component part. Requiring purity of conduct, and supplying adequate motives and assistance for the perpetual maintenance of that purity, seem to constitute all that is most important in a system of morals. It is unnecessary to adduce passages from the Gospels, in which the strict observance of morality is inculcated, and the assistance of God's Holy Spirit is promised to all who seek it; but I may mention one circumstance, which completely establishes their superiority, and tends by its direct influence to produce a material improvement in the species. I allude to the perfect purity required in our thoughts, as well as actions. slight attention to our own feelings will shew that all our performances bear a resemblance, more or less remote, to the habit of our minds. It is possible for a man of depraved principles to pursue a virtuous course of conduct for a given time, in order that he may subserve a particular purpose of advantage; but for the same man, with the same feelings, and with no other end than the bare pleasure arising from the pursuit, to spend a life in the practice of every Christian virtue, is as easily conceivable as the inversion of the natural order of cause and A effect. Systems of philosophy were invariably deficient in this respect. If men acted the part of good citizens, their end was sufficiently answered; but the virtues which adorn the private walks of life were considered of secondary importance, and unnecessary, although expedient, to constitute the character of a truly great man. While, therefore, the principles of action were disregarded, and the vices which are naturally engendered by them were allowed in the retirements of society the most safe and uncontrolled exercise, we can now easily imagine what would be their probable effects on the circles where their operation was unnoticed. But Christianity, with a view to the highest elevation of our nature, imperatively enjoins purity of thought, as the only means of maintaining purity of conduct. In the Gospels we are commanded, with a view to the suppression of the malignant passions, "to humble ourselves in order to be exalted." Envy is a natural passion of the mind, and the view of superior greatness almost invariably calls it into exercise. We are, therefore, commanded to feel no solicitude respecting the honours of the world. Nay, so completely hostile is this spirit to that of our Master, that we are directly informed, "Whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased." And in order to habituate us to the cultivation of a principle, on which the superstructure of experimental religion must be reared to ensure its permanency, we are required to minister to the wants, to promote the comfort, and even to put ourselves beneath the condition, of what are considered our inferiors: "He that is greatest among you, shall be your servant." Again, with respect to the licentious passions, where shall we find a more direct preventative to their exercise than in the declarations of our Lord in his Sermon on the Mount? And again: "Out of the heart proceed adulteries, murders," and all other vices; and, "these are the things which defile a man." Even a partial acquaintance with ourselves will confirm this assertion; and the wisdom of the Gospel is therefore evinced in placing an immediate check on the first impulse to sin. But it would be to little purpose to require purity of conduct, if our Divine Master did not also supply us with proper motives for its continuance. We may boast of the native worth of the human character, our innate preference of good to evil; but these considerations would be of little avail to the majority of mankind. Accordingly we find, that the Saviour enforces the practice of holiness and the avoidance of sin, by considerations from which even the unreflecting feel no inclination to appeal. The terrific detail of the proceedings of the last day-the half disclosed realities of two separate states in another world; the one replete with every gratification which can complete the happiness of an immortal and perfect creature, the other with such terrors as no imagination can reach; are all calculated to excite the most intense interest, and add their most tremendous sanction to the commands of our Creator. The fitness of things and the inherent loveliness of virtue, are considerations which might possibly influence a few philosophers; but the mass of mankind are too much swayed by their passions to be guided by any such motives, or on account of them to reason dispassionately on a subject where their interest or advantage is concerned. It is no unjust picture of human nature to say, that it cannot thus be actuated by purely disinterested principles, and much less when the ultimate end of action has respect solely to the agent. The pursuits of sin are sometimes found, or at least supposed, to be attended with alluring advantages in the present life; and, what greatly conduces to its steady and unabated ardour, it is usually followed by the approbation of the multitude; whereas obedience to the it commands of God is too frequently regarded as a pusillanimous quality; or, if a less harsh judgment is entertained, as the characteristic of a well-meaning but contracted intellect. Let any one declare then, whether man left to himself, with out any motives excepting such as a bare consideration of the nature of these opposite qualities presents, will prefer the latter to the former, with all his superadded weight of passions and imperfections. I think may be safely answered in the negative. We must have the prospect of some ultimate advantage, independent of the gratification a certain line of conduct yields, before we can be induced to forsake habits and principles, entailed on us from the Fall, and strengthened by repeated acts of subsequent transgression. This, as we have seen, is supplied in the Gospels. Our hopes are excited by descriptions of the surpassing glories of heaven; and our affections are engaged by its being declared, that in that happy place they will find their legitimate and noblest exercise, in the knowledge and love of God. On the contrary, if we persist in the practice of sin, we are warned of its awful consequences by de scriptions, which must create feelings of unmingled terror in every mind awake to the momentous subject. There is another point of view in which the Gospels are preeminent above every other system. It is not merely necessary that we have proper motives for the performance of virtue; it is also requisite that we have a proper standard, by which to judge of their validity. Actions κατα λογον, and actions ὡς ὁ ορθος λoyos роoтain, are considered by Aristotle, as constituting the perfection of morality; and he therefore proposes them as fit standards, by which to form our moral approbation or disapprobation. standard might be good, if our reason could remain a calm and dispassionate judge. But so long as The we possess the feelings of human nature, so long as the temptations to sin continue unabated, we are completely incapacitated for passing an impartial sentence on actions, in which we ourselves are particularly interested. We are therefore far from being competent judges of the blemishes or merits of our own deeds, and to act as others consider kara Moyov, would evidently in many cases be utterly impracticable But the Gospels teach us to refer to a much higher standard in estimating our performances. Being clothed with all the majesty By setting before us a of purity, rewarding the just, and punishing the evil-doers,-by exhibiting to us a portraiture of the most perfect character that ever existed, displayed in a vast variety of situations, and by laying down the most plain and practical rules for the direction of our conduct in every conceivable emergency, we are supplied with a standard every way adequate to guide us with safety in the formation of our moral judgments. And above all, as before remarked, we have the promised influences of the Holy Spirit, not only to assist our understandings, but to sanctify our hearts. With respect to morality, then, the Gospels are unrivalled. In fact, the moral systems of the heathens were grossly deficient in the qualities we have hitherto ascribed to the Gospels, and their defects were still farther augmented by the permission of some immorality. Their different authors had all some vicious propensity; and to excuse their conduct, it became necessary to palliate its enormity, or to place it in the light of a negative virtue. The unaccommodating spirit of the Gospel is strongly contrasted with this. tion of eternal death to the workers By its unequivocal denunciaof every kind of ungodliness, it at once shuts up every avenue to sin; while its enactments are rendered still more binding by the force of an example, in which malice and |