certainly more worthy of the indolent trader in paradox, than of the professed searcher for truth.

- On the other hand, to many of the adversaries of Christianity no direct reply can, from the character of their writings, be attempted. Ridicule and ratiocination are heterogeneous quantities, and cannot be compared on any - principles of logical proportion; a sneer is not to be confuted by a syllogism; and where falsehood is not stated but intimated, it slips from the critic's hold, and eludes the grasp of detection. Yet, that no modification of attack might want its appropriate refutation, even on this ground the enemies of revelation have very little reason to exult. After effectively clearing the field of all antagonists who were disposed to try the weightier weapons of serious argument, the champions of the Christian faith have, in many brilliant instances, shown themselves not unwilling to challenge a superiority in the lighter contests of wit and humour; and we may affirm with perfect truth, that any advantage gained over them, in this sort of encounter, has been wholly ascribable to that wider license of witty allusion which a fearless disregard of the control of morals and decency must ever confer on its unblushing possessor. The fact is indeed unquestionable, that in natural powers of mind, the advocates of the gospel have, on the whole, far surpassed their opponents; and this truth, which by some has been adduced as a saving explanation of the undeniable discomfiture of infidelity, seems to us to be its most manifest disgrace. For if it be urged that sagacity and learning have sided with Christianity, to overwhelm dulness and incompetence, what is this but to admit that the verdict of the wise and the erudite has been in its favour? It is true that superior powers secured the victory, but what must be the claims of the cause which induced the possessors of such powers, unpaid and unforced, to become its devoted upholders?

In the present aspect of the thinking world, Romanisin is, in the mere conduct of its argument,--not to speak of its practical influences,--the great supporter of the more direct charge which infidelity makes on truth. To

a speculative observer it is truly interesting to find, among the many selfcontradictory perversions of error, the great asserter of authority against proof, the despotic tyrant of minds, becoming the indirect, but not therefore the less efficient auxiliary of that scepticism which spurns all authority, and demands for human reason a sovereignty not made for man. But it is perfectly true. The Romanist is obliged by the logical necessity inhe rent in his presumptive argument for papal and conciliar supremacy, to depreciate those evidences which are collected by reason for the authenticity, the original genuineness, and the subsequent conservation of the sacred records, in order to establish the necessity of that visible source of authority which he affirms to be resident in his degraded church. It is like some terrible judgment of Providence, that she whose presumption dared to claim the attributes of omniscience, should thus be condemned to aid the efforts of her bitterest enemies, in attempting to support her claim. Or perhaps it is still more like one of the shrewd devices of that spirit of evil (whose motto we may suppose to be,in his characteristic indifference as to means-" What care I, so that Christ be not preached ?") thus to arrange his two parties, so that, whichever gained the victory, unbelief should be advanced, and that superstition, in the very act of conquering infidelity, should yet secure it a partial triumph. And, though we had long been aware that this was the inevitable road through which the Romish argument had to pass in the journey to its fatal conclusion, we were seldom more completely startled with mingled feelings of horror and disgust, than in reading (it is but one instance out of many) the latter pages of the work in which the first lyrist of our day has, not long since, transferred his talents for fiction into the regions of religious controversy, and taught us to decorate the barrenness of a dry theology with the graces of poetical invention. We ask Mr. Moore where he found the arguments on which he bases his proof of the necessity of a living authority, and which he endeavoursfor as the advocate of Romanism he is obliged to do so-to strengthen by

every device of rhetoric and reasoning? Was it not in the guide-books of infidelity, or at least of Socinianism? And is not the latter portion of his book, if we abstract his own inference, at this moment a laboured synopsis of Deism? But we excuse Mr. Moore's argumentation, and we will charitably hope a sincerity, which his earnest exaggeration of scriptural difficulties would lead many an uncandid reader to question. We excuse his process of argument, because he is only acting in the spirit of the whole mass of Romish theology; because all alike reiterate the fatal maxim so unhappily authorised by the glorious but the erring Fenelon-either Catholic or Deist; beeause all alike are necessitated so to write that the reader who will not receive their conclusion is at least abundantly tempted with the whole resources of infidelity in order to understand their premisses.

But Christianity will triumph over all-over her disguised and indirect enemies, as she has already triumphed over her professed and open ones. It is not the first time that she has escaped unhurt from collision, neither is it the first time that she has risen pure out of corruption. Early Christianity cast aside, after a weary struggle, the fine fetters of the Neo-platonist, and steered with good success through a thousand rival heresies: a later period found her overlaid with cumbrous observances; and a later period still saw Religion prostrate in the deep degradation of an almost omnipotent earthly supremacy. Yet from this, the sternest of all her trials, she soared, like her Founder, made perfect through suffering, because that Founder was still her invisible protector: from this she rose, like the glorified frame from the decay and pollution of the grave, and as if the church, "which is his body," like the natural body, "should not be quickened except it die," "should be sown in corruption," to be "raised in incorruption."

And through her whole more modern history, when assisting and assisted by the newly discovered powers of science and philosophy, when placed in the centre of an illumination which the elder world never knew, and exposed to the full blaze of a light which searches every crevice of every system

-how spotless has Christianity been found; how inquiry has warmed to admiration, and admiration to worship! How erect, and dignified, and unaltered has been the mild majesty of her march, while contending philosophies have crumbled around her feet! It is a noble thing to reflect that while such numbers have in their moral reasonings been guided for centuries back by Christianity, there has not yet been a real flaw discoverable in the philosophy of that system; and that the profoundest inquirers have acknowledged their obligations to its lights in the conduct of their investigations of speculative ethical science. Of what other system could it be said that its authority was no yoke? that it was perpetually an instructor and never a tyrant of the reason? that it was evermore before the spirit of every age? that philosophy only evolved new perfections in its doctrine, and was never wrong but when it forgot its principles. Imagine such an eulogy applied to any one system of human wisdom that has ever arrested the world. Every system has its follies but the peasant's of Bethlehem.

Let us state one instance of this rectifying influence of Christianity on the speculative schemes of uninspired philosophy. It is a very remarkable fact, that in the systems of antiquity very little superiority was assigned to the supreme virtue of benevolence, or— to adopt the Christian phraseologyof universal charity. Even as a matter of theory, its real preeminence was never perceived until after the religion of the gospel had enlightened and purified its disciples. Here, then, is the Jewish peasant correcting the philosophy of the world. Soon after the spread of his doctrine, we detect the Platonic school assuming it as their principle, and endeavouring to establish it as a point of union with the Christianity which they desired to assimilate to their own chaos of opinions, and too often succeeded in infecting. In an age long posterior, after partially colouring all the theological ethics of the schools, it was erected into the sole principle of virtue by Dr. Hutcheson. But he "who knew what was in man" had acted a wiser part and taught a truer lesson. The loftiest of virtues, though not the only one, he made it the characteristic badge of

sources for the sustenance, the benefit, and the amusement of every animal, that a benignant design is visible in all departments of the creation. It is true that some mishaps occur; that there is want, disease, grief, and pain. But this constitution of things is evidently not the elementary principle of God's government. Misfortunes are only the anomalies of nature, and are like the exceptions to general rules; and notwithstanding what may be said of the sufferings of individuals on particular occasions, the general preponderance is plainly on the side of happiness, not only in the human, but in the brute species. In our estimate of human misery, it is however fair to deduct from it so much as is caused by our own fault and imprudence, and also such evils as produce ultimate good, and these will leave a very small remainder

attributable to other causes.

"Even ease ought to be reckoned positive happiness, if we recollect what a number of favourable circumstances are necessary to conspire together for its accomplishment. The great attention excited by misfortune is a proof of the justice of this assertion, for the bounties of God are so extensive and so constant, that we do not prize them as extraordinary, though the occasional cessation of them calls forth our attention. Had God been a malevolent being, he would have formed our senses to be sources of constant pain, and might have contrived that every event and contingency should be a cause of grief or disappointment. If, therefore, our time is generally occupied with ease, often with happiness, and only sometimes with pain, it is impossible to hesitate in drawing a conclusion that the design of God is benevolent; especially if we remark that pleasure is established in many cases where it seems unnecessary, and is granted by the Deity for the sole purpose of conferring benefit."

The following passage may afford one instance out of many to evince that the impartiality professed in this work is not merely nominal, but that the views of the infidel are stated with quite as much candour as those of the Christian reasoner :

"As some enthusiastic people in most countries are ready, like the primitive Christians, to suffer martyrdom in sup

VOL. VI.

port of the most idle follies and extravagancies, the obstinacy with which some persons in the early times of Christianity maintained the truth of the miracles of that day, is, to my mind, no proof in their favour; for even at this moment there are many fanatics to be found, who would suffer martyrdom to prove their belief in the most visionary and untenable propositions, not excepting those which are absolutely contrary to their reason.

"From time immemorial there have been accounts of miraculous visions which nobody can believe to be true. There are few who have not heard of such impressions having been made on individuals whose passions were heated, or whose

nerves

were weak; and the power of fancy is so strong in them, that they would persist to the last extremity in affirming the reality of such visions. If, then, the narratives and actions of the early Christians cannot be accounted for on the principle of fraud, they may be explained by enthusiasm, which derives from false sensations the effects of truth, and which sometimes produces the most extraordinary opinions, and the most energetic actions in conformity with those opinions.

"It is admitted, by all who understand human nature, that when men have been carried to a certain pitch of enthusiasm, they become persuaded that they have actually wrought miracles; and, in relating them, they not only tell what they believe to be true, but like the preceding, express astonishment at all those who disbelieve them. We ought to view as narratives of this kind the miracles recorded by the Apostles, who may have been convinced, not only individually but collectively, that they wrought wonders which existed only in their imaginations."

We will present the answer to these objections as a fair specimen of the unaffected yet energetic style of the whole :

"Your comparison between the zeal of enthusiasts and that of the Christian martyrs is inadmissible, because martyrdom, in support of opinions, is far removed from that which attests plain facts. I readily admit that it is no certain proof of the truth of opinions, but it certainly is a powerful evidence for the

S

simple facts that had fallen under the observation and experience of the first witnesses. I also deem the sufferings of Christians, in the succeeding age, weighty proofs of the truth of their religion, though they were not eye-witnesses, for they had ample means of convincing themselves, by intercourse with those who saw and heard the miracles which they attested.

"That there have been individuals who, without good grounds, believed themselves inspired and endowed with miraculous powers, I do not pretend to doubt; but however convinced such persons may have been of their own powers, it is impossible that they could have persuaded others to agree with them, as failure must have exposed them to the derision of the multitude. But in the case of the Apostles, the reality of the miracles can be ascertained by their effects; for those writings which you suppose to have sprung from enthusiasm, mention the circumstances in such a manner as to preclude the suspicion of that state of mind having influenced either their own conduct or that of their converts.

"Peter spoke plainly to the people who witnessed the miracle performed by himself and John in restoring to activity the lame man who lay asking alms at the gate of the Temple; appealing to their senses to vouch for the miracle thus performed on him whom they had been accustomed to see every day at the same place, and who had been lame from his mother's womb.'*

"Enthusiasm did not enable Peter to convince the spectators at Lydda that Eneas had been debilitated by palsy during eight years, and that he sprung up to health, vigour, and agility at his word. They had known the patient before as well as after the miracle, and therefore their immediate conversion could

not have arisen from enthusiam.

"Enthusiasm could not have made him perform, or the spectators believe, the miracle which raised the deceased Tabitha to life. All the inhabitants of Lydda and Joppa must have been enthusiasts if such a solution should be adopted, and not one individual could have been possessed of sufficient sanity to argue with the mad citizens of those towns.

*Acts, iii. 16. Ibid. viii. 5, 6.

** Acts, ix.

"If Paul, when in company with Barnabas, at Lystra, healed a man who had been "a cripple from his mother's womb," there must have been some reality in the miracle, otherwise the inhabitants, who were idolaters, and, of course, hostile to Christianity, would not have said, "the Gods are come down to us in the likeness of men;" nor would the priest of Jupiter have brought oxen and garlands to the gates; nor would he have been disposed to sacrifice with the people, in honour of those Apostles, had the miracle been unreal.||

"But I should exceed the epistolary limits did I recount to you all the apostolical miracles which are exempt from the charge of enthusiasm. Of course, I will not dwell on the general conversion of the citizens, effected by the miracles of Philip at Samaria, nor on the great effect produced by the supernatural deeds of Paul at Ephesus,* ** at Corinth,++ and at Thessalonica.‡‡ In all these cases conversion was effected by miracles alone."

We are inclined, however, to think that the most useful portion of this work, because the portion which reduces to a compact and systematic form what can with most difficulty be collected from the large masses of learned disquisition which originally contain them, is the part which discusses seriatim the particular objections to the authenticity of the Old and New Testaments. To extract or to investigate our author's reasonings on these subjects should be done with more detail than we can afford, or not at all. To be just, therefore, to his merits, we prefer to conclude with general recommendations of his labours.

To some of our readers it will, we doubt not, be an additional recommendation that this work has proceeded from the Irish branch of the united church. While suffering under the heavy stroke of a persecution scarcely discountenanced by the legislature, and of confiscations directly authorized by its edicts, it is indeed wonderful that its energies are not wholly paralyzed, and that, its men of thought can, with something of the spirit of the great mathematician of old, continue their