distinction which it establishes, falls to the ground.

Other arguments, corroborative of the historical evidence, might be mentioned, which cannot, if they are admitted to be sound, be supposed altogether void of influence; particularly on the minds of those who, without investigating laboriously and fully the intrinsic strength of that evidence, have become acquainted with the objections which Hume and others have brought against its validity. And, although it is impossible to view, with any other sentiment than approbation, the can. dour which leads, and ought to lead the advocate of Christianity to disclaim and expose such arguments in its favour as are unsound, -it seems equally laudable to exercise great caution in pronouncing arguments fallacious, which appear capable, in no ordinary degree, of warding off prepossessions against the conclusiveness of its evidences.

sup

Depriving Christianity, however, of all port derived from such sources, Dr C. rests its truth' exclusively' on the purity of the historical record, the real occurrence of the miraculous phenomena, and the unimpeachable character of the witnesses. The proof of these points, he represents as every thing necessary to the conclusiveness of Christian evi

dence. To complete the proof, it is neither necessary to possess any previous conceptions of Deity, nor to take into view the character of the information given by the messengers.' The necessity, indeed, of referring either to antecedent conclusions of a theological nature, or to the character of the revelation, in order to complete the proof, could not be admitted without subverting the principles on which his theory of evidence is built. Such admission, in either case, would throw open a door for the discussion of the reasonablenessand excellence of Christian doctrine. The proof, therefore, of the truth and divine authority of Christianity, he represents, in many passages, as completed by the establishment of the points above mentioned. Enough for us to have established the authority of the Christi'an revelation upon the ground of its histo'rical evidence.' 'The question is made to rest 'exclusively on the character of the testimo'ny, and the circumstances attending it, and 'no antecedent theology of their own is suf'fered to mingle with the investigation. If 'the historical evidence of Christianity is 'found to be conclusive, they conceive the investigation to be at an end.' * Upon the

* § 176.

4

authority of the proofs already insisted upon, (external,) the New Testament must be re

ceived,' &c.; and nothing remains on our part but an act of unreserved submission to all the doctrine and information,' &c. After we have established Christianity to be 'an authentic message from God upon the the historical grounds, where the reason and 'experience of man entitle him to form bis conclusions, nothing remains for us but an un'conditional surrender,' + &c. The loose manner of expression to which Dr C. is accustomed, might lead his readers on many occasions to suppose, that the historical evidence, if complete, is in itself sufficient for establishing the truth of Christianity. This, however, is far from being the case. The historical evidence, in its proper acceptation, reaches no farther than to the establishment of certain facts. Whether these facts prove the truth of Christianity, is a point which involves the discussion of other evidence than that furnished by history. † § 192.

*

• What was origin

* Christianity is a Religion of facts.' ally the evidence of observation, is now transformed into the ⚫ evidence of testimony.' In laying before the reader, then, 'the evidence of the truth of Christianity, we do not call his ⚫ mind to any singular or unprecedented exercise of its facul⚫ties. We call him to pronounce upon the credibility of writ'ten documents,' &e.

The historical evidence being complete, its effect is to place the persons to whom it is addressed, nearly in the situation of those who were eye-witnesses of the miracles wrought in attestation of the truth of Christianity, and who heard its first publishers declare that it was communicated to them from heaven. Assuming then, that even on Dr C.'s principles, the historical evidence, in its proper acceptation, is conclusive,-let us examine by what further steps conviction of the truth of Christianity may on these principles be reached.

In this investigation we shall derive occasional aid from the use of the same fiction which our author has employed, for at once exhibiting the efficacy of the external evidence, and shewing its entire independence of the internal, and of all previous conclusions of a theological nature. For these purposes he has brought forward a personage, whose mind is devoid of all antecedent conceptions of Deity; and who, therefore, having remained impregnable to all those delusive evidences which natural religion furnishes, must be considered, according to Dr C.'s principles, as the proper representative of all the rational part of mankind. The mind of this

infidel personage is, in certain respects, of very peculiar construction. Dr C. remarks, that the evidences of Christianity are suited to every species of infidelity: the subject, however, which he has selected for the purpose of exhibiting the effect of his peculiar system of evidence, is not derived from any of the classes of unbelievers actually existing : he is an Atheist, but one whose existence is merely potential. In the production of atheism, a variety of causes may operate it may proceed from depravity of heart, from an au❤ dacious determination to take all hazards for the sake of acquiring distinction, from false views. of the effects of religion on society, &c. The power which causes of this sort possess, to steel the mind against the impression of evidence, is sufficiently known; but it is questionable whether there ever was a man, wholly unbiassed by prepossessions of any kind, who, after duly weighing the evidence furnished by na-; ture for the existence of an intelligent First Cause, honestly embraced atheism in consequence of the total inconclusiveness of that evidence, Here, however, the Atheist before us differs from all others. Dr C. does not bring his system of evidence into contact with "the more unmanageable tendencies of the