of argument, it is further stated, is in the highest degree unphilosophical. The evidence arising from testimony can have no affinity, can admit no juxta-position, with that arising from the contents of the record: so that even were those contents in the highest degree improbable, the evidence from testimony would remain the same; and the question of truth or falsehood, after all, resolve itself into thisIs it easier to receive the phenomenon of an obscure and mysterious revelation upon such testimony, or to receive the opposite phenomenon that such testimony is false? Is it the most practicable to account for the difficulties of the record, if true, or for its existence and general reception if false ? And the answer plainly meant to be implied by the author is this: I can much more readily admit the truth of the record on sound historical evidence, than I can admit its falshood from any supposed incongruity in its contents. The testimony I judge of by rational and incontestable rules; the doctrines are at best but the subject of conjecture. Prove to me only that the revelation has taken place in the manner and with the authority stated, and I then sit down, with my grammar and lexicon, to examine its contents and receive it in its proper character, as it is written, and because it is written.

The intelligent reader will here perceive the weapons of the grand master of philosophical scepticism in the northern school turned, by his countryman, with considerable dexterity against himself. But be fore we proceed to offer the very few humble observations which have occurred to us in examining this work, we shall present a few extracts from the work itself, either to prove that we have not misrepresented this truly Christian philosopher, or to afford the means of our refutation, if we have.

The work is divided into ten

chapters, of which we shall state the subjects in their proper order.

"On the Principles of Historical Evi

dence and their Application to the Question of the Truth of Christianity.— Books of the New Testament.-On the On the Authenticity of the different Internal Marks of Truth and Honesty to be found in the New Testament.On the Testimony of the original Witnesses to the Truth of the Gospel Narrative. On the Testimony of Subséquent Witnesses.-Remarks on the Argument from Prophecy.-Remarks on Internal Evidence, and the Objections the Scepticism of Geologists.—On the of Deistical Infidels.-On the Way of Proposing the Argument to Atheistical Infidels.-On the Supreme Authority of Revelation."

In the first chapter, Mr. Chalmers opens his system with the following able introduction:

"Were a verbal communication to come to us from a person at a distance, there are two ways in which we might try to satisfy ourselves, that this was a true communication, and that there was no imposition in the affair. We might either sit in examination upon the substance of the message; and then, from what we knew of the person from whom it profcased to come, judge whether it was probable that such a message would

bent by him; or we may sit in examination upon the credibility of the

messengers.

"It is evident, that in carrying on the first examination, we might be subject to very great uncertainty. The pro

fessed author of the communication in

question 'may live at such a distance from us, that we may never have it in our power to verify his message by any may be so far ignorant of his character personal conversation with him. We and designs, as to be unqualified to judge of the kind of communication that should proceed from him. To es timate aright the probable authenticity of the message from what we know of its author, would require an acquaintance with his plans, and views, and circumstances, of which we may not be est degree of sagacity to this investigain possession. We We may bring the greattion; but then the highest sagacity is of no avail, when there is an insufficiency of data. Our ingenuity may be un

bounded; but then we may want the materials. The principle which we assume may be untrue in itself, and therefore might be fallacious in its application.

"Thus, we may derive very little light from our first argument. But there is still a second in reserve, the credi bility of the messengers. We may be no judges of the kind of communication which is natural, or likely to proceed from a person with whom we are but Imperfectly acquainted; but we may be very competent judges of the degree of faith that is to be reposed in the bearers of that communication. We may know and appreciate the natural signs of veracity. There is a tone and a manner characteristic of honesty, which may be both intelligible and convincing. There may be a concurrence of several messengers. There may be their substantial agreement. There may be the total want of any thing like concert or collusion among them. There may be their determined and unanimous perseverance, in spite of all the incredulity and all the opposition which they meet with. The subject of the communication may be most unpalatable to us; and we be so unreasonable, as to wreak our unpleasant feelings upon the bearers of it. In this way, they may not only have no earthly interest to deceive us, but have the strongest inducement possible to abstain from insisting upon that message which they were charged to deliver. Last of all, as the conclusive seal of their authenticity, they may all agree in giving us a watchword, which we previously knew could be given by none but their master; and which none but his messengers could ever obtain the possession of. In this way, unfruitful as all our efforts may have been upon the first subject of examination, we may

derive from the second the most decisive evidence, that the message in question is a real message, and was actually transmitted to us by its professed author." pp. 1-4,

Having assumed the credibility of the messenger to be the fact - which lies immediately and solely open to reason, in the case of the Christian message, the author thus proceeds to the developement of his plan.

"To form a fair estimate of the strength and decisiveness of the Chris

tian argument, we should, if possible, divest ourselves of all reference to religion, and view the truth of the gospel history, purely as a question of erudition. If at the outset of the investigation we have a prejudice against the Christian religion, the effect is obvious; and without any refinement of explanation, we see at once how such a prejudice must dispose us to annex suspicion and distrust to the testimony of the Christian writers. But even when the pre judice is on the side of Christianity, the effect is unfavourable on a mind that is at all scrupulous about the rectitude of its opinions. In these circum stances, the mind gets suspicious of itself. It feels a predilection, and becomes apprehensive lest this predilection may have disposed it to cherish a particular conclusion, independently of the evidences by which it is supported. Were it a mere speculative question, in which the interests of man, and the attachments of his heart, had no share, he would feel greater confidence in the result of his investigation. But it is difficult to separate the moral impressions of piety, and it is no less difficult to calculate their precise influence on the exercises of the understanding. In the complex sentiment of attachment and conviction, which he annexes to the Christian religion, he finds it difficult to say, how much is due to the tendencies of the heart, and how much is due to the pure and unmingled influence of argument. His very anxiety for the truth, disposes him to overrate the circumstances which give a bias to his understanding, and through the whole process of the inquiry, he feels a suspicion and an embarrassment, which he would not have felt, had it been a question of ordinary erudition." pp. 14, 15.

The authority of the Christian records having been in this manner placed on the same ground with that of other records of ancient days, Mr. Chalmers has no difficulty in triumphantly arguing its abundant superiority over every other. Why is the progress of Christianity, with its different circumstances, to stand on the attestation of the Roman historian Tacitus? It is also attested, in a far more direct and circumstantial manner, in the annals of another author-in a book

entitled, "The History of the Acts of the Apostles, by the Evangelist Luke,' Both of these perform ances carry on the very face of them the appearance of unsuspicious and well-authenticated documents. But there are several. circumstances, in which the testimony of Luke possesses a decided advantage over the testimony of Tacitus. These circumstances are well stated by Mr. Chalmers, p. 21. The author then makes some important observations, as to the value which would have been attached to the testimony of Tacitus, on the supposition that he had been still more circumstantial in his details of Christianity.

"Whence this unaccountable preference of Tacitus? Upon every received principle of criticism, we are, bound to annex greater confidence to the testimony of the Apostles. It is vain to recur to the imputation of its being an interested testimony. This the apologists for Christianity undertake to disprove, and actually have disproved it, and that by a much greater quantity of evidence than would be held perfectly decisive in a question of common history. If after this there should remain any lurking sentiment of diffidence or suspicion, it is entirely resolvable into some such principle as I have already alluded to. It is to be treated as a mere feeling,-a delusion which should not be admitted to have any influence on the convictions of the understanding." p. 25.

Many pertinent observations of a similar nature occur in this chap ter: particularly those in which the author blames Lardner for not enumerating amongst the witnesses to Christianity such of the original writers themselves in the New Testament as have given a decisive testimony to others, as Peter to Paul, Luke to his own" former treatise." Why should their inspiration alone, render them un worthy, or dubious witnesses to historical truth? The chapter thus concludes:

"All we wish for, is, that the argaments which are held decisive in other CHRIST, OBSERV, No. 160.

historical questions, should not be looked. upon as nugatory when applied to the investigation of those facts which are connected with the truth and establishment of the Christian religion, that away, and room left for the understand every prepossession, should be swept ing to expatiate without fear, and with-i out incumbrance." pp. 33, 34.

The four succeeding chapters descend more particularly into those historical evidences on which the truth of the New-Testament history depends; and they consider respectively the four capital positions:-1. That the different pieces which make up the New Testament, were written by the authors whose names they bear, is commonly assigned to them: and at the particular time which

2. That the New Testament itself contains divers internal marks of truth and honesty: 3. That there was nothing in the situation of the New-Testament writers, which leads us to perceive that they had any possible inducement for publishing a falsehood: 4. That the leading facts in the history of the Gospel, are corroborated by the testimony of others. several positions are, we think, both admirably argued, and brought powerfully to bear upon the general object of the work. But as they must of course in substance be found in the immortal pages of Leslie, Paley, Skelton, Lardner, Leland, &c., we shall not detain the reader by repeating them.

These

The sixth chapter, on the argument from prophecy, though treating it as "another species of evidence for Christianity, distinct from the testimony of its supporters," yet views the subject of prophecy in the same historical or circum stantial light in which other species of evidence had been examined. Were we called upon to estimate the comparative worth of the dif ferent chapters of the work, we should perhaps say, that we are as little pleased with this, as with any in the volume. The concep 2 I

tions of the author appear to us to have been obscure, both as to the degree and as to the nature of the evidence arising to Christianity from prophecy. The question of interpretation is here so intimately blended with the existence of prophecy, as.such, as scarcely to admit of complete reduction into his "exoteric" plan. The most valuable part of the chapter is that, we, think, in which he treats of the testimony afforded by the present state of the Jews, to the

truth of their own and of the evangelical writings.

The seventh chapter, however, abundantly compensates for any supposed deficiency in the sixth. The late discoveries of geologists render the science of geology an important department in the theory

of the evidences for revealed re

ligion. So many persons have now-a-days learnt to

"drill and bore

The solid earth, and from the strata there

Extract a register, by which we learn That He who made it, and reveal'd its date

To Moses, was mistaken in its age," as to render the subject highly important.-The just and appropriate reply given by the author to all these deep speculations, is this: Admit a higher antiquity in the world, than any ordinary reader of the Bible may have imagined,

“ in what possible way does it touch upon the historical evidence for the New Tes tament? The credibility of the Gospel miracles stands uponits own appropriate foundation, the recorded testimony of aumerous and unexceptionable wit nesses. The only way in which we ean overthrow that credibility is by attack ing the testimony, or disproving the authenticity of the record. Every other science is tried upon its own peculiar evidences; and all we contend for is, that the same justice be done to the ology. When a mathematician offers

to apply his reasoning to the pheno

mena of mind, the votaries of moral science resent it as an invasion, and make their appeal to the evidence of

consciousness. .When an amateur of botany, upon some vague analogies, offers his confident affirmations as to the structure and parts of the human body, there would be an instantaneous appeal to the knife and demonstrations of the anatomist. Should a mineralogist, upon the exhibition of an ingenious or well-supported theory, pre nounce upon the history of our Saviour and his miracles, we would call it another example of an arbitrary and unphilosophical extension of principles be yond the field of their legitimate appliand the quantity of testimony upon cation. We would appeal to the kind.

which that history is supported. We would suffer ourselves to be delighted by the brillianey, or even convinced by the evidence of his speculations; but we would feel that the history of those. facts, which form the ground-work of our faith, is as little affeeted by them, as the history of any storm, or battle,

or warrior, which has come down to us in the most genuine and approved re cords of past ages." pp. 175—177..

To the same effect, in p. 183

"Even admitting, then, this single objection in the subject of our Saviour's testimony, the whole length to which we can legitimately carry the objection is scepticism, or that dilemma of the mind into which it is thrown by two contradictory appearances. This is the unavoidable result of admitting both terms in the alleged contradiction. Upon the strength of all the reasoning which has hitherto occupied us, we challenge the infidel to dispose of the one term, which lies in the strength of the historical evidence. But in dif ferent ways we may dispose of the other, which lies in the alleged false hood of our Saviour's testimony. We may deny the truth of the geological speculation; nor is it necessary to be an accomplished geologist, that we may be warranted to deny it. We appeal themselves. They neutralize one ano to the speculations of the geologista ther." p. 183.

The plain fact is, that neither has our Saviour declared the age of the world, nor has Moses himself, as expressly as the objectors would imply. The method chosen by Mr. Chalmers to silence their objections, stands, we think