least likely to advance the interests of human society; or, because, that which makes no claim whatever to our belief, or which, in doing so, betrays a bad one, can never rise higher in our estimation, than merely to leave us where it found us, unmoved, indifferent, and excusable.

Of our Revelation, however, it may be truly affirmed, that not one of these weak or doubtful circumstances attaches itself either to its origin, progress, or present state. We have, on the contrary, a series of miracles the most open and artless, the best attested, the most connected in matter and in object, and yet the most various, distinct, and widely divided, as to time, persons, interests, and events, that can possibly be imagined. We have too the testimonies of both friends and foes, commenced in the earliest antiquity, and carried down through the lapse of numerous ages, that however the text, the relations, or the doctrines, ought to be considered, the facts detailed are true and worthy of all acceptation.

It may be said in reply, perhaps, that still the truth of such miraculous events having taken place, depends after all upon the credit of a few historians: We answer: That the historians are not numerous we willingly allow; but then, they are such, supported as they are by innumerable collateral circumstances, as are worthy of all credit. They had, moreover, no earthly point to gain in giving their several testimonies; and many of them sealed these with their blood.-Again, if it once became necessary that miracles should cease (and surely they need not have been continued, when no adequate end could thus be secured); then would it also become necessary, that every succeeding age should consult the histories of past times, in order to put themselves in possession of the evidences of religion. If we have, however, in the case of our evidences, to look back, and to examine the histories of past times; we also have a combination of testimonies, given, indeed; by various and independent writers, conspiring to afford an assurance not less miraculous and convincing on the whole, than the several particulars themselves must have once been, taken singly. Those miracles, however, which consist of predictions (and with these our Scripture abounds) can never, so long as the testimony of history remains, lose their power to astonish and to convince: and

when we consider these in their character, as interwoven with one another, and with the fates of nations, as will be noticed in some cases hereafter in this work; we are forced to the conclusion, that this is the "Lord's doings, and that it is wonderful in our eyes."-It is not, however, our intention here to enter upon the proofs requisite to establish these points; this would be to trespass on the province of those who have written on the evidences of revealed religion. To these writers, therefore, the reader is now referred. *

Paley's Evidences, Chalmer's Evidences, Lardner's Credibility, &c. The ancient apologists, Justin Martyr, Josephus against Apion, Origen against Celsus, Eusebii Præparatio and Demonstratio Evangelica, Bishop Newton on the Prophecies, &c. &c.

DISSERTATION I.

PART II.

SECTION I.

ON THE VIEWS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN RATIONALISTS OF

GERMANY.

Ir should seem, from what has been laid down in the foregoing pages, that our Scriptures, considered in the light which has usually been termed orthodox, present nothing unreasonable, much less impossible, to the belief of Christians; and that what they do present, rests on the best, and indeed the only, grounds, which can ensure acceptance with beings truly rational. Objections loud and frequent have, however, been made to this view of the subject, and particularly of late years, by a large and respectable body of divines in Germany; who hesitate not to affirm that it is unreasonable, and, indeed, incompatible with the additional and progressive light, with which modern times have been blest; and that it must, therefore, be entirely given up. Assertions like these. cannot but be alarming, because they imply that mistake and error have attached themselves to Christianity from the very period, perhaps, in which it was first promulgated; and this will involve a charge either of blindness or corruption, or both, against those who have been its authorised teachers. But this might be borne, were a better, a more safe, and a more efficient view, proposed by those who make the objection; for I believe it cannot be of much importance generally, as to what different polemics may think on different but unimportant points of religious dispute, provided the ends for which religion itself has been given can be secured. Truth, however, is here the main point at issue. Religion, to deserve the name, must rest on truth; and, as we have already seen, its dictates must be authoritative, and the ends it pro

poses certain of attainment: otherwise, it can offer grounds only for opinion, but none for faith; matter for speculation, but little for practice. The new views (or rather old ones revived), however, propose grounds very different from these : they positively deny the authority which we have been urging as necessary for the purposes of true religion; and at once deprive the Scriptures of their claim both to inspiration and miracle; and then argue, irrationally, as far as we can see, that a religion claiming no higher an authority than human infirmity, is sufficient both to inform the head, and to amend the heart; to lay claim to the faith, and to raise the hope; and not only to make society all that it is capable of being made in a religious and moral point of view, but also to afford the assurance of a happy immortality beyond the grave. This we cannot help believing is most unreasonable to suppose; because we know the fact, that mere morality, or even science, has never yet brought about effects like these; and for the best possible of all reasons; because they are not conversant with matter at all calculated to do so. The question at issue, however, rests on very different grounds. Both parties here ascribe to the Scriptures supreme authority in matters relating to religion; and the question is: How ought these to be understood? The Rationalist affirms, that on the orthodox view they present much that is unreasonable; and consequently, incredible. This we have shewn is not the case. He also affirms, that on the views of the Rationalist they present nothing but what is most reasonable. This we deny and our proofs will presently be given. We shall first, however, proceed to investigate the principles themselves, upon which these views are proposed; and then, in the next place, to examine their application in detail, at some length.

It has already been remarked, that the system termed Rationalism (Rationalismus), is not new, although its supporters are anxious to have it believed that it is. The truth, however, is, its leading principles are to be found in the fragments still preserved of the ancient objectors to Christianity, as Porphyry, Hierocles, and others; and, with some embellishments, in the writings of the later but equally celebrated Spinoza. For replies to the former, the ancient Apologists may be profitably consulted:-to the latter, the

divines and others of modern times.* I shall confine myself, therefore, to the consideration of some of the leading principles as proposed by the Rationalists; and, if it can be shewn that these are unsound, it will not be necessary to follow them into all their particulars; because the foundation being once sapped, the superstructure itself must necessarily fall.

One of the first principles of this school is: + That "philosophy and religion are bound together by the most necessary ties of connection; so much so, that no doctrine of any authoritative religion whatever, can be proposed to an enlightened man, with any probability of its being accepted, unless it first submit to be tried by right reason. And, it is added, as the improvements in science are now such as to have shaken all former merely authoritative religious notions, the study of philosophy, upon which the more modern creeds have been formed, and on which they securely rest, ought the most strenuously to be inculcated. Nor, it is said, will philosophy in any way injure a religion leading to a real knowledge of God; on the contrary, it is necessary for the purpose of determining what are the true fundamentals of a

*On the life and writings of this extraordinary and misguided man, see the Bibliotheca Hebræa of Wolfius, vol. i. p. 239, art. 378; Bayle's Dictionary, tom. ix. art. Spinoza, edit. 1739. Clarke on the Nature and Attributes of God, passim. Condillac, Traité des Systêmes, tom. ii. chap. x. &c.

I shall cite a book here accessible to all, namely, the "Institutiones Theologiæ Christianæ Dogmaticæ," by Wegscheider, (edit. 1826), because, not only is this a book of considerable authority in Germany, but because abundant references will be found in it to other works, either in Latin or German, composed by the leading authors of this school. The passage alluded to is: "Arctissimo cum vera philosophia vinculo theologia, si vel formam vel materiem ejus respexeris, conjuncta cernitur.... nulla religionis alicujus positivæ doctrina homini cultiori possit probari, nisi ad sanæ rationis, sensu veri atque honesti recte imbutæ....tanquam ad lapidem Lydium, priùs exacta fuerit. ....Quo magis autem nostris temporibus progressu doctrinarum omnium fides auctoritatis qualiscunque concussa est, et fundamenta, quibus theologia olim superstrui solebat, labefacta sunt; eo gravius sanæ philosophiæ, qua theologia recentior ut fundamento nititur solidissimo, studium theologiæ cultoribus commendari debet. . . . Tantum verò abest, ut philosophia religioni quæ animum ad veram Dei cognitionem erigit, repugnet, ut hæc ab illa, quæ sint vera fidei religiosæ fundamenta, explicari sibi cupiat. (§ 15, pp. 64, 5.) The following are the sentiments of Spinoza on this subject: "Cum itaque mens nostra ex hoc solo, quod Dei naturam objective in se continet, et de eadem participiat, potentiam habet ad formandas quasdam notiones rerum naturam explicantes, et vitæ usum docentes; meritò mentis naturam, qua