over the evidence for the Divine authority of the book, and to raise difficulties on its contents. But I contend that this course of proceeding is altogether unphilosophical. In science, it would lead to frequent errors. The explosion of such a practice was the main principle of Lord Bacon's philosophy, and to the explosion of that very principle on which Socialists seem determined to act, modern science is indebted for all her solidity, and all her triumphs. Philosophy flourishes in the present day, simply, because her votaries have learned to abandon their own creative speculations, and to submit to evidences, let her conclusions be as painful and as unpalatable as they will. The same lesson and the same principle ought to be carried into theology. It is true, that this is an enlightened age. But, as Dr. Chalmers truly observes, "the human mind owes all its progress to the confinement of its efforts within the safe and certain limits of observation, and to the severe restraint which it has imposed upon its speculative tendencies. And we throw away the very instrument by which the present proud and wonderful fabric of philosophy was reared, the moment that we... begin to theorize and excogitate."* If the mathematician were to deny the truth of all in which he saw difficulties, instead of looking simply to the process of the proof, he would be constantly stopped in his investigations. But if imbued with the spirit of his science, he will be ready to follow the proof, wherever it may lead him, and wholly apart from his previous conceptions of the truthfulness of the result he will be able to advance. In the mixed sciences, truths have to be received when proved, which even seem to be opposed to the outward Nor would it be tolerated when such a result was deduced by legitimate process, that it should not be confided in through preconceived ideas of its fallacy or inconsistency. And shall that be tolerated in religion which is not tolerated in science, when preconceived ideas in religion Evidences, pp. 283, 284.

senses.

*

must be so vastly more susceptible of error than in science? Make a thousand objections against the contents of the Bible. One single principle is sufficient to overturn them all-the ignorance of man. And to oppose speculative objections to positive evidence is wholly inadmissible. If the Bible professes to be a revelation from the great God, the evidences for this pretension are to be examined, and when positive proof is alleged, it cannot be met with declarations of what seems incongruous in its contents. If I establish by evidence which you cannot refute, the claims of the Bible, then, I contend, you are bound to receive the result to which such a process of proof has led, wherever that result may land you. Suppose that I hold in my hand an Act of the British legislature. If I could show you the incontrovertible records of the Parliament, in which it was enacted, and could refer you to the printed copy in the archives of the nation, is it to be allowed that, neglecting all this positive proof which incontrovertibly proves it to be what it professes, you are to refuse an acknowledgment of its claims to be an Act of the British legislature, because you consider its contents improper? Much less, then, when a book which professes to be the statute-book of that God who is "King of kings, and Lord of lords," is placed in your hands, and evidences are adduced of a plain and positive nature, to prove it to be what it professes, is it to be allowed that these matters of fact should be esteemed as nought, to give place to metaphysical objections to the character of its contents.

"All this is so manifestly contrary," remarks the present Bishop of Calcutta, "to every principle of fairness and sincerity, that it would never be tolerated on any subject whatever in human affairs; and, therefore, least of all, should it be tolerated in a matter so momentous as religion. The only legitimate ground of argument against Christianity is against its evidences, not its matter. If it be from God (as it professes) the matter is Divine; and this is a question

then beyond and above man. At all events, it is not the primary question-the sole primary inquiry is, are the evidences such as may satisfy a candid person that the Revelation is of Divine authority. Till this is settled, every thing else is trifling."* Not but that, when the positive proof has been examined, the defenders of Christianity have followed its opponents into the ground on which they seem so much the more desirous of entering. Christianity has its internal as well as its external evidences. But the first ought to be regarded as subsidiary to the second. On the one we are on firmer ground than on the other. In examining the external evidences, we are dealing with what is within our province, and are divesting the subject of all that is sacred or abstruse. We are dealing with facts and not with opinions, with events and not with sentiments. We are treating the Bible just as we would treat any secular book. But when we come to rest the reception of the Bible on the accordance or non-accordance of its contents with what we conceive to be the character of God, we rest it on that of which we have no experience, and in which we are peculiarly liable to err in the formation of our judgment. The subject is inaccessible; and instead, therefore, of dwelling on this, the more reasonable course, doubtless, is, to examine the Bible's outward claims, to be a revelation from heaven; and, if these be established, then not to sit in judgment over it, but unreservedly to submit to all the doctrines and information which it offers to us. And I am entitled to demand, of every enlightened disciple of Lord Bacon here present, that he approve of such a process, and acknowledge that "the same habits of philosophising to which science is indebted for all her elevation in these latter days, should lead him also to cast down all lofty imaginations, and bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ."+

* See Bishop D. Wilson's Evidences of Christianity, vol. ii., pp. 222, 223,

12mo edit.

Chalmers's Evidences, p. 290.

By this method, too, the very extensive subject allotted to me for this evening's lecture will be materially narrowed. I purpose to narrow it still further by confining my proofs to the New Testament. If I prove to you the Divine authority of the New Testament, the Divine authority of the Old Testament will follow, for almost every separate book of the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament, as of Divine authority; and the entire Old Testament is represented to be the word of God.*

Confining your attention, then, to the New Testament, I would first inquire into its GENUINENESS and AUTHENTICITY, that is, whether it was actually written by the persons to whom the several books are ascribed, and whether its professed relations of occurrences are relations of facts, as it was believed by the writers, that they actually happened. Of these circumstances, we must judge precisely as we are accustomed to judge in all similar cases. How do we determine that the writings of Cicero or of Tacitus are genuine and authentic? We have no other way of determining than by testimony. And this being in their favour, I never heard of an individual who entertained a doubt on the

subject. Yet the evidence is extremely small compared with what may be adduced for the New Testament. There is, in fact, no book extant of the same age which possesses scarcely a thousandth part of the evidence of its validity. Why then should books be received without hesitation as genuine and authentic, with the smaller evidence, while doubt is entertained of a book which possesses so vastly larger evidence? If the New Testament is rejected, in consistency, all other ancient writings in the world ought to be rejected, and human testimony wholly thrown aside as worthless. No classic writing can produce in its favour testimony at all comparable to that which the New Testament produces. Is it then rational to receive classic writings with

* Luke xvi. 29; xxiv. 27; John v. 39; 1 Peter i. 10-12.

out hesitation, and to cast doubts on the New Testament? Testimony is the proper evidence for the case to be decided. If we had to determine on things material and sensible; the proper evidence would be an appeal to the senses. If we had to determine on results of a demonstrative character; the proper evidence would be, the application of just reasoning. But, if we have to determine on past matters of fact; the proper evidence is testimony. For instance, if I want to determine whether or not I can see; the proper evidence is for me to open my eyes and make the experiment. Neither argument nor testimony would suit the determination of such a case. If I want to determine whether similar triangles are to one another in the duplicate ratio of their homologous sides; the proper evidence will be to examine, by the powers of the mind, into the proofs which are alleged, as drawn from the relations which may be determined to subsist between similar figures. Neither an appeal to the senses nor to testimony, would be the evidence to be legitimately employed for the determination of such a case. But if I want

to determine whether at the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th centuries there lived such a man as Sir Isaac Newton, and whether he was the author of the Principia attributed to him; my only method of determining whether these are matters of fact is by testimony. Neither my senses, nor any abstract reasoning can possibly decide it.

Testimony, then, being the only mode by which we can attain knowledge on such a subject; let us make the inquiry what testimony can be adduced in favour of the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament. The testimony is complete and uninterrupted from the Christian era downwards to the present age.* I can hardly conceive what it would be possible to add to it, to increase it. The book consists of twenty-seven distinct writings by eight distinct writers, which though now all bound together, were long kept separate. These smaller books, now comprised in one, bear *Note I. Appendix,