far the best view, which we have The dislike of former books seen, of the conclusions to be on the evidences of christianity drawn from Dr. Lardner's col has been objected to the serious lection; but while we admire as a fault. It has been alleged his masterly argument in support as a proof that their faith is un÷ of the Evidence, we deplore his reasonable, and that they are readiness to abandon the autho- enemies to reason. The recep→ rity of the Christian Revelation. tion of Mr. Chahners's work is He contends for the facts, but alone sufficient to disprove the affects to be little concerned for allegation. It first appeared as the doctrines, of the holy scrip- the article CHRISTIANITY in the tures. "Give me the Apostles Edinburgh Encyclopædia. Imtestimony," says he, and do mediately it engaged particular not stand in need of their judg- attention; and the volume before ment." Doctrinal errors have us, is the second edition, called so much prevailed among writers for by the desire of those who on the evidences of christianity, had access to the first, to give that the kind of discussion to the performance an easier and which they have devoted their more extensive circulation. This labours, has fallen into disrepute it has already obtained in no with many serious readers.- common degree; and the fact They feel no interest in defences evinces that when the subject is of that, which is at the same properly handled, it will never time mutilated, and corrupted, fail to interest believers of the and betrayed: H the argument, gespel thus managed, should be ever so victorious, it cannot produce the faith of the gospel which is not bonestly avowed, nor is convic tion likely to have any force on a subject, which is not felt, because it is not known. It is the excellence of the work before us, that it unites the evidence and the authority of the christian revelation: and, though the peculiar doctrines of the gospel are not brought forward in detail, the writer abundantly shews, that they are with him Imatter of serious belief. It is not enough to say, that he does not contradict, or that he indirectly admits; he cordially embraces, and he affectionately recommends them.. The spirit of his performance is clearly that of Paul in the celebrated declara-' tion: I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." Considering himself as called to address persons who do not yet believe, Mr. Chalmers argues from the historical evidence of christianity, in preference to what is called its internal evidence. He thinks that men in general, may judge very well of the credibility of the messengers, who say, they have been sent of God with a revelation to mankind; but are incapable of judging before hand, what it may be worthy of God to reveal. According to him, therefore, the external evidence alone of chris◄ tianity should be submitted to inquirers; and, when convinced by that, they ought to bow to the authority of revelation, and receive with the most profound reverence its fair meaning, whatever doctrines it shall be found to teach. This, he very ably, and at great length, shows, is the identical dictate of the experimental philosophy, the very principle mtroduced by the great BACON, and to which modern philosophers are indebted for the removal of so many erroneous theories, and the discovery of so many valuable truths. In this argument, we presume; will be found the characteristic feature, and the great strength et Mr. Chalmers's work. There are some serious readers, however, who scruple thus to set aside the internal evidence of christianity; because they know that many are brought to believe the gospel by means of it, before ever they attend to the external evidence. It appears from a passage in his prefixed advertise ment, that Mr. Chalmers admits this fact: The Author," says he," is far from asserting the study of the historical evidence to be the only channel to a faith in the truth of christianity. How could he, in the face of the obvious fact, that there are thousands and thousands of christians, who bear the most undeniable marks of the truth having come kome to their understanding" in demonstration of the spirit and of power." They have an evidence within themselves which, the world knoweth not, even the promised manifestations of the Saviour. This evidence is a 66 66 sign to them that believe," but the bible speaks also of a sign to them which believe not." From this passage, and from what appears to be in the Author's mind when he speaks of the arguments drawn from the internal evidence of christianity, we are, for our own part satisfied, that he does not really differ fror those who hesitate about the propriety of the ground on which he has chosen to rest his arguraent. At the same time, we wish, he had, in the above pas sage, been a little more explicit and distinct. The "manifestations of the Saviour" is an expression which may not by many be clearly understood. The demonstration of the Spirit is equally necessary, and equally to be expected, to give decisive effect, to the external, and to the internal evidence of christianityIn speaking of the internal evidence, he seems to have chiefly, if not solely, in view, notiona which men have previously adopted concerning the Divine Being, with which the doctrines of christianity must be found, or made, to agree, before they will admit their truth. These, however, are no part of the evidence of christianity, but prejudices which tend to obscure it. To concede, to these is to be sure a very unphilosophical and dangerous principle: a principle, however, (as, Mr. Chalmers justly observes), commonly implied in the mode of defence adopted by writers on the Deistical Controversy. "Take up Leland's performance, and it will be found, that one half of his discussion is expended upon the reasonableness of the doctrines, and in asserting the validity of the. argument which is founded upon that reasonableness. It would save a vast deal of controversy, if it could be proved that all this is superfluous and uncalled for; that upon the authority of the proofs already insisted on, the New Testa-, ment must be received as a revela tiou from heaven; and that, instead of sitting in judgment over it, nothing remains on our part but an act of unreserved submission to all the doctrine and information whiche it offers to us. It is conceived, that in this way the general argument might be made to assume a more powerful and impressive aspect, and the defence of Christianity be more accommodated to the spirit and phi~ losophy of the tiines."--p. 189, 190. ་ We agree to all this, but would submit to Mr. Chalmers, that the internal evidence of christianity, properly so called, is the knowledge which it displays of man; a knowledge which every man may be able to discern, and may be constrained to feel: its appeals to conscience, as to what we are, what we have done, what we suffer, what we fear, what we wish, what we need its meet ing at once our character, and our state, with a suitable remedy; and proposing a change which comes with the double recommendation of being completely attainable, and unspeak ably advantageous. When the demonstration of the spirit" ac companies these appeals to the conscience and the heart, they area sign to them that be lieve not," as much as ever the historical evidence of christianity can be; and such a sign as produces the faith of which till now they were destitute. To feel their force requires no tedious process of investigation. Hence the rapidity with which they often overcome the most thoughtless. If there be no pre vious information, it may be soon John iv, 29,)" see a man, who told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ ?" "Now we believe," (answered her townsmen, v. 42,) not because of thy saying, for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." We do not say that these Samaritans had no reference to external evidence, but their words especially those of the woman, may illus trate the conviction produced by that internal evidence which we have endeavoured to describe.We add, that the believer, by whatever means he becomes such, will immediately set himself in earnest to learn. "As a new born babe, he desires the sincere milk of the word that he may grow thereby." Every successive lesson of christianity proves a trial of christian character. A hard saying may make some; who were said to have believed, go back. Hence the importance of our Saviour's address: "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John viii. 31, 32. With these remarks, we give the most cordial praise to Mr. Chalmers's Essay. It is a manly, eloquent, warm-hearted pleading with these who have not embraced the faith of the gospel, which we trust the Lord will render indelibly impressive on the minds of many. We can notice a few only of its particular excellencies. In treating of the application of the principles of historical evidence to christianity, he very ably shows, that, instead of being unduly baissed in favour of it, by a sense of its importance, as some allege, men are, from that circumstance, more difficult of persuasion on this, than on any other subject. He admits, indeed, that same, in their anxiety to promote christianity, may be disposed to overrate its evidences, "Let it be remembered, however, that while one species of prejudice operates in favour of Christianity, another prejudice operates against it. There is a class of men who are repelled from the investigation of its evidences, because in their minds Christianity is allied with the weakness of superstition; and they feel that they are descend ing, when they bring down their attention to, a subject which engrosses so much respect and admiration from the vulgar. It appears to us, that the pecuculiar feeling which the sacredness of the subject gives to the enquirer, is, upon the whole, unfavourable to the impression of the Christian argument. Had the subject not been sacred, and had the same testimony been given to the facts that are connected with it, we are satisfied, that the history of Jesus in the New Testament, would have been looked upon as the best supported by evidence of any history that has come down to us, It would assist us in appretiating the evidence for the truth of the gospel history, if we could conceive for a moment, that Jesus, instead of being the founder of a new religion, had been merely the founder of a new school of philosophy, and that the different histories which have come down to us, had merely represented him as an extraordinary person, who had rendered himself illustrious among his countrymen by the wisdom of his sayings, and the beneficence of his actions. We venture to say, that had this been the case, a tenth part part of the testimony which has actually been given, would have been enough to satisfy us. Had it been a question of mere erudition, where neither a predilection in favour of a religion, nor an antipathy against it, could have impressed a bias in any one direction, the testis mony, both in weight and in quantity, would have been looked upon as quite unexampled in the whole compass of ancient literature."p. P. 12, 13, 14. Of the success with which Mr. Chalmers has applied the argument for christianity to the present state of philosophical opinion, we think his "remarks on the scepticism of Geologists" an admirable specimen. Some of those who have lately been speculating on the structure of the Earth, assign to it a higher an tiquity, than most of those who read the Bible had any concep tion of. Our author contends, that this supposition, although it should be admitted, cannot invalidate the strength of the his torical evidence of christianity, And while that evidence remains untouched, he shews that, in various ways, we may dispose of the alleged authority. "We may deny the truth of the geological speculation; nor is it ne cessary to be an accomplished geologist, that we may be warranted culations of the geologists themto deny it. We appeal to the spe➡ selves. They neutralise one another, and leave us in possession of the Old Testament. Our imaginafree ground for the informations of tions have been much regaled by the brilliancy of their speculations, but they are so opposite to each other, that we now cease to be imBut pressed by their evidence. the supposed falsehood of our Savithere are other ways of disposing of our's testimony. Does he really saical antiquity of the world? It is true that he gives his distinct testimony to the divine legation of Moses; but does Moses ever say, assert what has been called the Mo that when God created the heavens time alluded to than transform them and the earth, he did more at the Or does he ever say, that there was out of previously existing materials? not an interval of many ages be twixt the first act of creation, de- meaning of any philosopher is colscribed in the first verse of the book lected from his words, and these words tried as to their import and· of Genesis, and said to have been performed at the beginning; and significancy, upon the appropriate those more detailed operations, the principles of criticism, the mind and account of which commences at the meaning of the spirit of God is not second verse, and which are de- collected upon the same pare and cribed to us as having been per- competent principles of investigaformed in so many days? Or, final- tion. In order to know the mind ty, does he ever make us to under- of the Spirit, the communications. stand, that the genealogies of man of the Spirit, and the expression of these communications in written went any farther than to fix the antiquity of the species, and, of con- language, should be consulted.— sequence, that they left the antiqui- These are the only data upon which ty of the globe a free subject for the the enquiry should be instituted. speculations of philosophers?-We But, no. Instead of learning the do not pledge ourselves for the truth designs and character of the Alof one or all of these suppositions. mighty from his own mouth, we sit Nor is it necessary that we should. in judgment upon them; and make It is enough that any of them is in- our conjecture of what they should finitely more rational than the re- be, take the precedency of his reWe do jection of Christianity in the face of velation of what they are. its historical evidence. This histori- Him the same injustice that we do cal evidence remains in all the ob- to an acquaintance, whose proceedstinacy of experimental and well-ings and whose intentions we venattested facts; and as there are so many ways of expunging the other term in the alleged contradiction, we appeal to every enlightened reader, if it is at all candid or philosophical to suffer it to stand." p. 183, 184, 185. ture to pronounce upon, while we refuse him a hearing, or turn away from the letter in which he explains himself. No wonder, then, at the want of unanimity among Christians, so long as the question of "What thinkest thou?" is made the principle of their creed, and, for the safe guidance of criticism, they have committed themselves to the endless caprices of the human intellect. Let the principle of "what thinkest thou" be exploded, and that of what readest thou" be substituted in its place. Let us take our lesson as the Almighty places it hefore us, and, instead of being the judge of his conduct, be satisfied with the safer and humbler office of being the interpreter of his language. Now this principle is not exclusively applicable to the learned.— The great bulk of Christians have no access to the Bible in its original languages; but they have access to the common translation, and they may be satisfied by the concurrent testimony of the learned among the different sectaries of this country, that the translation is a good one. We do not confine the principle to critics and translators; we press it upon all. We call upon them not to form their divinity by independent |
