hieroglyphics; which might gradually be still further improved into writing properly so called."

[D]. Part I. Chap. ii. § 4. p. 89.

To say, that numerous old manuscripts exist; that they admit of classification and date, and other characteristics; to speak of evidence, derived from contemporary history, from the monuments of art, from national manners and customs; to assert that there have been persons qualified for the task, who have examined duly these several branches of evidence, and have given a satisfactory report of that research, is to make a statement concerning the evidence of Christianity, which is intelligible indeed, but is not itself the evidence, not itself the proof, of which you speak. So far from this being the case, we cannot but feel, that the author who is guiding us, and pointing out these pillars of our faith, as they appear engraved on his chart of evidence, can himself, whatever be his learning, be personally acquainted with but a very small portion. The most industrious and able scholar, after spending a life on some individual point of evidence, the collation of manuscripts, the illustrations derived from uninspired authors, translations, or whatever the inquiry be, must, after all, (it would seem,) rest by far the greater part of his faith, immediately on the testimony of others; as thousands in turn. will rest their faith on his testimony, to the existence of such proof as he has examined. There is no educated Christian who is not taught to appreciate the force of that proof in favor of the genuineness of the New Testament, which may be derived from the consent of ancient copies, and the quotations

found in a long line of fathers, and other writers and yet not one in a thousand ever reads the works of the fathers, or sees a manuscript, or is even capable of deciphering one, if presented to him. He admits the very groundwork of his faith on the assertion of those who profess to have ascertained thesc points; and even the most learned are no further exceptions to this case, than in the particular branch of evidence which they have studied. Nay, even in their use of this, it will be surprising, when we come to reflect on it, how great a portion must be examined only through statements resting on the testimony of others.

"Nor is it a question which can be waived, by throwing the weight of disproof on those who cavil and deny. It turns upon the use which is made, more or less, by all, of the posi tive proofs urged in defence of Christianity. Christianity is established; and it may be fair to bid its assailants prove, that it is not what it professes to be, the presumption and prescriptive title being on its side; but Christianity does not intrench itself within this fortress: it brings out into the field an array of evidences to establish that which, on the former view of the case, its adherents are supposed not to be called on to maintain. It boasts of the sacred volume having been transmitted pure by means of manuscripts; and by asserting the antiquity, the freedom from corruption, and the independence and agreement of the several classes of these, the Christian contends for the existence of his religion at the time when Christ and the apostles lived. Ancient writings are appealed to, and quotations cited by various authors from the New Testament are adduced, which go to prove the same. Even profane history is made to furnish contemporary evidence of the first rise of Christianity. Now it is the way in which this evidence is employed that is the point to be considered; the question is, in what sense all this can be called

evidence to the mass of Christians. All this is, in short, positive proof; and he who has examined manuscripts, or read the works in question, has gone through the demonstration; but he who has not, (and this is the case with all, making a very few exceptions,) has not gone through the process of proof himself, but takes the conclusion on the word of others. He believes those who inform him, that they, or others, have examined manuscripts, read the fathers, compared profane history with holy writ. Can this be called reasonable faith? or, at least, do we not pretend to be believ ing on proofs of various kinds, when, in fact, our belief rests on the bare assertions of others?

"It is very important that the case should be set in its true light, because, supposing the Christian ministry able, and at leisure, to investigate and sift the Christian evidence for themselves, the same cannot be done by the barrister, the physician, the professional man of whatever department besides theology, however enabled by education; and then, what is to be the lot of the great mass of the people? They, clearly, are incompetent even to follow up the several steps of proof which each proposition would require. They take it for granted, if they apply the evidence at all, that these things are so, because wiser persons than they say it is so. In the same spirit as the question was put of old,' Have any of the rulers believed on Christ? but this people who knoweth not the law are cursed,' Christians must generally, it would seem, believe in Christ, because their spiritual rulers do, and reject the infidel's views, because these people are pronounced accursed. Nay, the supposition of the clergy themselves having the qualification, and the opportunity to ge through the process of proof, is only a supposition. They often want either or both; and it is impossible that it should not be so. The labor of a life is scarcely sufficient to ex

amine for one's self one branch alone of such evidence. Fot the greater part, few men, however learned, have satisfied themselves by going through the proof. They have admitted the main assertions, because proved by others.

11

"And is this conviction then reasonable ? Is it more than the adoption of truth on the authority of another? It is. The principle on which all these assertions are received, is not that they have been made by this or that credible individual or body of persons, who have gone through the proof - this may have its weight with the critical and learned but the main principle adopted by all, intelligible by all, and reasonable in itself, is, that these assertions are set forth bearing on their ace a challenge of refutation. The assertions are like witnesses placed in a box to be confronted. Scepticism, infidelity, and scoffing, form the very groundwork of our faith. As long as these are known to exist and to assail it, so long are we sure that any untenable assertion may and will be refuted. The benefit accruing to Christianity in this respect from the occasional success of those who have found flaws in the several parts of evidence, is invaluable. We believe what is not disproved, most reasonably, because we know that there are those abroad who are doing their utmost to disprove it. We believe the witness, not because we know him and esteem him, but because he is confronted, cross-examined, suspected, and assailed by arts fair and unfair. It is not his authority, but the reasonableness of the case. It becomes conviction well-grounded, and not assent to man's words.

"At the same time nothing has perhaps more contributed to perplex the Christian inquirer, than the impression which vague language creates of our conviction arising, not out of the application of this principle to the external and nonumental evidences of Christianity, but out of the examination

of the evidence itself. The mind feels disappointed and un. satisfied, not because it has not ground for belief, but because it misnames it. The man who has not examined any branch of evidence for himself, may, according to the principle above stated, very reasonably believe in consequence of it; but his belief does not arise immediately out of it, is not the same frame of mind which would be created by an actual examination for himself. It may be more, or it may be less, a sure source of conviction; but the discontent is occasioned, not by this circumstance, but by supposing that it is one of these things that does, or ought to, influence us, when in fact it is the other; by putting ourselves in the attitude of mind which belongs to the witness, instead of that which belongs to the bystander. We very well know how the unbroken testimony of writers during eighteen centuries to the truth of Christianity ought to make us feel, if we had ascertained the fact by an examination of their writings; and we are surprised at finding that we are not in that frame of mind; forgetting that our use of the evidence may be founded on a different principle.” ― HINDS, on Inspiration.

-

[DD]. Part I. Chap. ii. § 4. pp. 94, 95.

The following extracts are from the fifth Lecture on Pofitica. Economy, being the portion alluded to in the text.

"When we dismiss for a moment all antecedent conjec tures, and look around us for instances, we find, I think I may confidently affirm, no one recorded, of a tribe of savages properly so styled, rising into a civized state, without instruction and assistance from people already civilized. And we