PREFACE.

In the following Essay, it is not the author's object to exhibit in detail the Evidences on which the truth of Christianity rests ;-nor to review the whole of the Treatise on the E'vidence and Authority of the Christian Reve'lation,' or even those parts of it which, to some readers, may appear the most striking and important. The greater part of Dr Chalmers's work is devoted to the exhibition of the external evidence. But he has not merely displayed this branch of proof as the most important and convincing: he has asserted its 'exclusive' legitimacy; and has represented as fallacious the principles on which the con

As

clusions of natural theology, and the internal evidences of Christianity are founded. all attempts to subvert those principles affect the external, no less essentially (though less directly) than the internal evidence, it seems an object of some consequence to expose the fallacy of Dr C.'s reasonings on this part of his subject; and to establish the philosophical, as well as scriptural character, of principles which form the ultimate foundation on which the whole of Christian evidence rests.-This, accordingly, is the aim of the following Trea

tise.

The ablest advocates of Christianity have been far from considering the different species of evidence, by which its claims to reception are supported, as traversing or obstructing one another: Nor, although they have estimated differently the importance of particular proofs, have any of them conceived it necessary or expedient to remove one great class, in order to give full effect to another. On the contrary, all the différent sorts of Christian evidences have been consi

dered as possessing peculiar value; as acting in unison, and giving force to the general argument; and great weight has always been. laid on the combined effect of the whole. Those only, indeed, who take a full and comprehensive view of the different branches of evidence, and who perceive their connection, and the support they give to each other, can have any just idea of the strength of the whole proof. It is this connection between the different parts which forms the strength of every circumstantial proof, and which constitutes its great security against minor objections. Bacon has justly observed, that the harmo ny of a science supporting each part the other, is, and ought to be, the true and brief 'confutation and suppression of all the smal'ler sort of objections. But, on the other

hand, if you take out every axiom, as the 'sticks of a faggot, one by one, you may quarrel with them, and bend them, and break them at your pleasure.'

But as full and comprehensive views of the general effect of Christian evidence, and of

the mutual bearings and dependencies of the several parts, can be considered as attainable by those only, who with more than ordinary powers of mind have devoted considerable time and attention to the subject ;-it is not to be wondered at, that of those who stand forward in defence of Christianity, there should be some who give such views of its characters and its evidences, as tend rather to weaken than to strengthen its cause. Beset as sound religion always has been with enemies on all sides, it is difficult while the attention is engaged in defending one point, or engrossed by the assaults of one foe, to conduct the defence in so vigilant a manner, as to leave no pass open to the entrance of an enemy in some other quarter. Hence several modern advocates of Christianity, or of its peculiar doc. trines, having obviously had their attention fixed upon the erroneous reasonings and insidious devices of those, who with singular absurdity appropriate to themselves the title of rational Christians,' have unwarily employed expressions and arguments which give coun

tenance to errors of an opposite nature;-and have thus laid religion open to the attacks of infidels, whose representations of Christianity, as having no foundation in reason, but in some inexplicable principle which they style faith, correspond very nearly with the senti ments held by religious enthusiasts in all ages. It is highly necessary to check the wild and extravagant excursions of reason into regions beyond its narrow sphere; but the exercise of that faculty within its proper province, is indispensable to revelation. It cannot be necessary to vilify and prostrate reason, or deny the authority of any of those laws which regulate human belief; in order to defend revelation against the attacks of those who either question its general credibility, or deny its higher truths. Any such mode of defence is indeed a virtual abandonment of all the evidences, by which a revelation can be proved to be divine. For unless the existence of those laws is acknowledged; and the compe-tency of reason, under their authority, to draw. conclusions regarding the existence and cha