In the present paper we shall confine our attention to some of the assertions in the chapter on the New Testament, and leave the others, on which instructive comment might be made, to be noticed in the articles which will appear from time to time on infidel objections and perversions.

The opening paragraph in the chapter to which we have alluded, very confidently asserts what we have in vain asked infidels to prove. "The Canon," says Mr. Bell, "was fixed by a council about 300 years after Christ." This council we take to be that of Nice, which was held A. D. 325. It was the first general council, and has been frequently appealed to by infidels, for the purpose of proving that the Canon was determined by authority and not evidence.* But that such a question as that of the Canon came before this council, there is no evidence to prove. "The notion," says Professor M'Lelland, "that the Nicene Synod fixed the canon of Scripture, or in any way contributed to it, is a PURE FICTION, which has found favour with some, because it seemed to countenance their theory, that we have received the canon of Scripture from the Church; and which infidels, in their turn, have seized upon to bolster up their favourite maxim, that our present catalogue is not the work of candid investigation, but ecclesiastical enactment." The apostate Taylor in his "Diegesis," a book of blunders, which was intended to lessen the weight of the christian evidences, but only lessened his own, makes a similar assertion to that of Mr. Bell, and quotes as his authority one Pappus. R. Cooper in his "Infidel's Text Book," appears to follow this worthy guide, and shews his usual credulity when his wishes point to his conclusions, by reposing implicit confidence in the genuineness of the extract as well as the document from which it professes to be taken. Who this ancient writer is, we have in vain attempted to discover. There was a Pappus in the fourth century, who is known for his geometrical writings; but there is not the slightest mention of his having given any account of the council of Nice. Infidels, therefore, in repeating Bell's, or Cooper's assertion, must be prepared to prove its accuracy. Men who make such loud protestations on behalf of truth, and clamour so fiercely to be regarded as sincere inquirers, should earn a character by their conduct, and not lay themselves open to the charges of dishonesty and prejudice, by blindly following leaders who are unworthy of confidence.

The genuineness of the Gospels is, with Mr. Bell, a matter of minor importance. He alleges that even though it could be proved that they are written by the authors whose names they bear, their authenticity would not be rendered more propable. "It must be borne in mind," says he, "that whenever the Gospels were written, they were neither printed nor published, but privately circulated § among congregations of Christians, not one in a hundred of whom could read." Notwithstanding what is here affirmed, we hold that the genuineness of the Gospels involves their authenticity. Their influence and position are unaccountable, except on the sup

*R. Cooper specifies the Council of Laodicea held according to him A. D. 363, as the one which "decided our present Canon of the New Testament." Now this famous council was a paltry gathering of thirty or forty Lydian Bishops, who are supposed to have been Arians; and Basnage tells us that it has been equally disparaged by Protestants and Catholics. How could a decree of such a council be accounted authoritative? and furthermore, what Protestant writer on the Canon ever appeals to a decree of a council as a reason for his believing that "our present Canon is the true Word of God?"

+ M'Lelland on the Canon and Interpretation of Scripture. 2d Ed.. 38.

We refer to a statement anent the four Gospels and the Council of Nice, which is said to be taken from a "Synodicum of the Council of Nice," written by one Pappus, whose writings, we may venture to say, Rob. Cooper never saw, and which if he did see, he could not read.

§ Mr. B. seems to think that they were secreted by the Christians, whereas, they were read publicly every Lord's Day, and the early Infidels never complain of any difficulty in getting copies.

position that their history is true. They took their place alongside the writings of the Old Testament, and were characterized as "the pillar and ground of the Church." On the faith of their truth, men lived and died Christians. But if the facts which they record, and to which they appeal, as evidences of the divinity of Christ's mission, were untrue, the success of Christianity in the very place where its founder was crucified as a malefactor, and the authority of the books which pretended to record his history, cannot be explained in any rational way.

But Mr. B. would have us to believe that the Apostles "were interested in propagating a belief in the divine mission of Christ." "Itinerant preaching," says he, "inspired by a vivid faith, must have been far from a painful and (an) uninteresting life, for a carpenter, a fisherman, or a cobbler; and hopes of a brilliant success in conversion, will support the ardent reformer amidst hardships, trials, and persecution." Now we should have liked had it been shown a little more clearly and fully, how the Apostles could be interested in spreading Christianity, except on the supposition of its truth. Their master had just fallen a victim to the hatred of the Scribes and Pharisees, for claiming to be the Son of God; and the populace had joined in the cry of "Away with him." What prospect of success could any man have in preaching to these, that He whom they had crucified was indeed the Christ-that his miracles, especially his resurrection, proclaimed him the Son of God-that eternal life was only through his name-and that they were now commanded to repent, and embrace Him as their Saviour? Could they expect anything else, than that the insane rabble who cried, "His blood be on us," would receive them with shouts of derision if the facts were untrue, and would subject them to their Master's fate? How then could they be interested? They could have no hope of "brilliant success," honour, or gain. If Christ's history, therefore, was a lie, his apostles acted in opposition to the principles which regulate conduct, which is absurd; and thus Mr. Bell's assertion is, of all infidel assertions, the most outrageously irrational.

And what is the supposition Mr. B. brings in to bolster up this monstrosity? why, that itinerant preaching must have been far from an uninteresting life to a working man! But he forgets, that to adopt Christianity was to rend the ties of friendship, and to peril all worldly comfort. Luke's narrative of the Acts of the apostles shews, that the early converts were bitterly and zealously persecuted, even to death. Now, can any sane man imagine for a moment, that the certain prospect of being whipped, imprisoned, or stoned, was calculated to make a cobbler a preacher, or to inspire a fisherman with a zeal for oratorical displays in the cause of the new religion? But then, says this very learned and clear-sighted infidel, the "age was ignorant and superstitious," and, therefore, the best season for practising upon the credulity of the people. "Not one in a hundred," it appears, "could read." Now, unfortunately for Mr. Bell, this age was no other than the Augustan, the brightest period of Roman literature. Alexandria could boast of its library of 700,000 volumes, and its 14,000 students. Athens was still a seat of learning, and multitudes flocked to her schools. Pergamus, Ephesus, Tarsus, and Syrian Antioch, were also distinguished as "centres of intellectual life;" while Hellenic Science and Philosophy were everywhere cultivated by the dispersed Jews. Was this then an ignorant age? The man who says it was, only shows that while attempting to prove its darkness, he has been blinded by his own.*

"Free Church of Ancient Christendom." c. 1.

Nor does it appear probable that the ability to read was so rare an accomplishment as Mr. Bell asserts. There are several facts which point to a quite different conclusion. The cheapness of books seems to us to argue their extensive circulation. Now we know from Martial, that their price was by no means exorbitant; and that copies of works, of the same size as one of the gospels, could be had for a few pence.* Besides, the account in the Acts, of the converts who burnt an immense number of works on magic, argues an extensive knowledge among the people of the art of reading, and shows that Mr. B.'s assertion cannot be supported. But, even though it could, the evidences of Christianity would not be destroyed, and therefore he would gain nothing. But he has another assertion to serve him in his difficulties: the age was superstitious." This assertion, however, militates against himself, and thus, while attempting to pull down Christianity, he undermines one of the pillars of infidelity. It is a fact that a superstitious people are ready to believe anything, no matter how absurd, provided it be consistent with their notions, but slow to receive what militates against them; and thus the early success of Christianity, which went to overturn, not to foster, superstition, is a strong argument in favour of its own truth, while it is an incontrovertible demonstration of its power.

But it is also right to state what Mr. B. omits, that the age was likewise a sceptical one. The atheism of the Epicureans was almost universal among the higher circles, while the philosophy of the Academics, which asserted the uncertainty both of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul, was, at the same time, extensively prevalent. The learned had a thorough contempt for the supernatural, and thus the age was the very worst for the establishment of Christianity, had it been a fiction.

66

Such is a specimen of the inaccuracies which occur in three pages of this well-advised" statement of principles. Anything more discreditable in point of argument and scholarship we could not point out, always excepting Cooper's "Infidel's Text Book," which bears away the palm as the most notable production for ignorance, arrogance, blundering, and stupidity. If such works are to be taken as specimens of modern free-thinking, we must conclude that nature has become bankrupt, and that their authors and admirers are a spurious issue. For the sake of "common humanity" we would recommend infidels to be earnest, diligent, and independent in their inquiries, and not follow such blind leaders as Bell, Cooper, and Holyoake, whose writings have proved their disqualification for being teachers of "public truth.'

The Age and its Demands on Christian Young Men.

INTELLECTUAL activity is one of the characteristics of the age, the extension of the means of education, the dissemination of knowledge through the press, and the increased interest in the elevation of the masses, have had a great influence in awakening and stimulating thought. Men are now shaking off their mental slumber, and bracing themselves up to assert and maintain their individuality. Society is thus in a transition state, and the present time is, therefore, a critical one. The lower classes are steadily rising in point of information and intellectual culture to the level of the higher. They are beginning to feel that their know

* Professor Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels.-Vol. I., p. 31-2, note.

ledge is power, and are exerting a most important influence in changing the state of society. To bring this force under the regulation of proper principles, is of the utmost consequence, for if undisciplined, it will throw down the social fabric, and retard the work of human progression in which all are interested. To suppress it by withdrawing the means of enlightenment, would not only be tyranny, but would hasten on a fearful_anarchy. Besides, the conservation of society, and the certainty of progress, depend on other conditions. The diffusion of secular knowledge is to be hailed as a guarantee of social prosperity, when it is accompanied with sound moral and religious education.* The work of a reformer is, therefore, not to give power to a government, by cutting, through the perpetuation of ignorance, the sinews of a people which are their strength, but to raise man as an intellectual and a moral being. Intelligence and moral principle, sustained by religious faith, will then bind men together, rectify social injustice wherever it exists, incite to the help of those who require assistance, place a check upon immorality, and thus bring in a state of society in which the full benefits will be felt of that "peace and good will" Jesus came to proclaim.

But this intellectual activity, which we have said is characteristic of our times, acquires an importance, not only from the fact of its power when well directed, but from the efforts which are being made to throw it into a wrong channel, and thus introduce a destructive force into society.

Of these, the most dangerous are those which aim at the diminution of the authority of the Bible as the record of God's special message to man. The weakest of them in point of logical consistency, although by no means the most despicable in point of influence, is that miserable abortion of Robert Owen's, which has been dressed anew and dignified with the name of "Secularism". They who put it forward allege that "Christianity is now a mere obstruction, the mother of scepticism, hypocrisy, and malignity,"+ although at times they assert differently, and thus prove true of themselves what they affirm of our faith. They leave the existence of God, a moral government, and man's immortality, open questions. In this way, they foster atheism, and remove the only ground on which we can base morality. They thus destroy the conservative principles of society, and render progress, in its true sense, impossible. They, indeed, assert that it is a prime article in their creed to believe in this world, as if all others disbelieved in it, and allege that they are careful for moral and intellectual culture, and are seeking the amelioration of the social condition of the people. But by ignoring the religious, and thus, in fact, the moral nature of man, they place him on a level with the brutes, and take away these considerations which tend to restrain his passions, to purify his feelings, and to give the intellect and will supreme control. And thus, though they believe in this life, by denying the next, (for the affirmation of uncertainty is a practical negation), they rob this life of importance. Were Secularism, therefore, to prevail, our country would be deluged with immorality, and convulsed with anarchy. To extend this brutifying system, which attracts the lowest of society, but does not improve them, vigorous efforts are being made by properly organized associations, lectures, tracts, and periodical literature. The party, though not exceedingly numerous, is active, and its leaders, though neither profound as thinkers, nor skilful as reasoners, are yet men of tact and perseverance, and may, if unchecked, do immense evil.

* It is a remarkable fact, and one which gives weight to our assertion, that, in the best educated departments of France, in which the Prussian system of education has been partially adopted, but without the religious element, the greatest amount of crime exists.

Evans Bell's "Task of To-Day," p. 136.

More subtle and less repulsive, but not less inimical to man's highest interests, is that form of unbelief which has been called "Spiritualism," and which is expounded with so much eloquence and vigour by Parker, and others. Its advocates are, in numerous instances, men of talent and learning, and their writings have a winning freshness which commend them, but their theology is rotten to the core. The fine drapery of language in which it is dressed, is like a bridal robe around a corpse. They talk of the "living God," profess a profound sense of religiousness, and hold to forms of worship, but there is no spiritual life in their system. They abjure the authority of the Bible, and deny the fact of the atonement. In this way, they make the immortality of man uncertain, veil God's character, and thus render a true religious life in the soul an impossibility. They preach that God is love, and appeal to the stars and flowers as proof; but they forget that we have storms as well as sunshine, pestilence as well as flowers, and serpents as well as singing birds. They take no account of the fact, that even in the natural world "wrath is revealed against ungodliness," and thus fail to perceive that justice and holiness are essential attributes of Deity. Sin, in their system, has little significance, and the Scripture declaration, that God is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, which facts in nature corroborate, has no prominent place. They model theology according to their wishes, and fashion a god after their own imaginations. Hence, while their eloquence and fancy may delight the man of literary taste, their religious teaching proves a stone to him who is earnestly seeking for the bread of life. It brings no comfort, for it has no authority; and the heart can only be consoled by the assurance that thus hath God spoken.

The weakness of this system as a religion, has been clearly apprehended by the Secularists, and hence these anti-religionists hold the works of Greg, Newman, and Parker, in high repute, as attacks on the orthodox faith, which they dread and hate, and are zealous in promoting their circulation. They know that when once the authority of the Bible has been destroyed, religion will lose its power because its life, and "secularism," with all its horrors, take its place. Thus "spiritualism" and "secularism" tend virtually to the same end, and Parker and Holyoake are fellow-workers.

In addition to these, we have Popery struggling for the mastery. It is putting forth all its energies, and making a desperate effort to place our country under its accursed power. Its teachers are blander now than when Huss and Jerome of Prague preached. The Pope does not fulminate such anathemas as the licentious council of Constance sent forth, nor do his priests openly avow, as the Jesuits once did, "that they will persecute this accursed evangelical doctrine as long as they have a drop of blood in their bodies; and that they will eradicate it secretly and publicly, violently and deceitfully, with words and with deeds, the sword not excluded."* But the persecuting decree of the fourth Lateran Council is still unrepealed, and Popery is in reality as hostile to liberty of conscience now as ever it was.

We have thus determined antagonists, and it becomes us to be active. We are confident that the "old faith" will weather the storm, and prove, as it has ever done, man's true life and the world's safety; but we cannot forget that we must struggle manfully for its domination, under the conviction that God will aid us in the right.

We are not prepared to assent to those who represent the attacks which are now being made on Christianity as the most formidable it has had to encounter. The weapons which are employed are for the most part those which infidels from the days of Porphyry downwards have wielded, and our * Brownlee's "Popery an enemy to civil and religious liberty,"-p. 102.