itself as the speaker. To the mind of Paul there could be no evidence but this.

2. But to us, who receive it mediately, there must be an external authentication.

That which convinced Paul could not convince any other. If we will place ourselves in the situation of Luke, we will perceive that he, though a companion of the apostle, and then present, required something different from his great leader. The voice of the Spirit— its peculiar tone-could not affect him. He did not hear it. The supernatural tenor of the communication could not, for, so far as he knew, the event might yet prove it false. What ground, then, had he for believing it divine? Some will answer, perhaps, that he knew Paul to be an inspired man, and a worker of miracles. But that comes to the same. He knew it, if at all, upon the evidence of some previous miracle. And so we may trace it back, until we come to the first of Paul's miracles, when it will be found that Luke's faith rested upon the fulfilment of the prophecy-upon the actual performance of the work predicted.

But, whatever may have been the case with Luke, the faith of Publius rested upon the result. His case is the same with that of one now inquiring into the truth of Christianity. For the first time, he had been brought into contact with a teacher professing divine authority. His mind was then in suspense whether he should receive this man's teaching as divine, or reject it as imposture. Such is our condition previous to conviction.

Yet the faith of Publius did not rest upon the result simply as showing that what Paul had said was true, but upon this: that the truth was one which God only could make known.

It will hence appear that there must be an authentication, and that that must be by miracles or prophecy; for the revelation contained in these is the only one which God alone can impart.*

That the authenticating evidence, to us, cannot be internal to the revelation, understanding, by that expression, the act of revealing, is plain. It may be contended that it must be internal to the thing revealed, or to the doctrine. This is a plausible notion, and perhaps too complimentary to our own reason to be fairly weighed.

Not to repeat here the reasoning of Mr. W., nor that of Dr. Alexander, who shows that there are many parts of Scripture to which that kind of proof does not apply, it is sufficient to remark, that even the demonstration that a doctrine is both true and above human reason, does not prove it divine. It may be angelic. The sorceress who proclaimed Paul and his companions servants of the most -high God, showing the way of salvation, spake the truth. Nay, more. She spake a revealed truth; yet not one revealed by God, but by the demon which afterward came out of her. Those truths,

* A remark or two, perhaps, should be inserted here. 1. Whoever undertakes a miracle, professes to have received from God an intimation that he (God) is about to perform a certain work. A miracle, therefore, implies a revelation, as well as a prophecy. 2. The honesty of the man does not prove the profession true. An honest man may think himself inspired when he is not. It must be shown, over and above, that the man knows when he is inspired and when not. The actual miracle proves this knowledge. We do not, therefore, infer inspiration from the honesty of those who claim it, as is often done, and (if I mistake not) by a writer already quoted, but from the fulfilment of their predictions.

alone, which refer to the divine purposes, are necessarily divine; and these can be traced by miracles alone.

It is remarkable that, to all these circumstances, we have a precise parallel in the perpetually recurring revelation, which we entitle the witness of the Spirit.

There, as here, the only evidence to the receiver is internal; to all others external.

3. Those evidences which are frequently called internal, are, in many cases, merely negative. The proper sense of internal, in this controversy, I have given above. That which is in the voice of God speaking, or in the thing spoken by God, is internal. This is the sense in which Mr. W. uses the term, when arguing the question;. and this is the sense of Mr. Erskine, in the note referring to his work in chapter 19.

Yet few of the arguments adduced by Mr. Watson are any thing more than negative arguments. That is, they simply remove objections. Their force will be seen in an imaginary case. An infidel objects: You say this book (the Bible) is divinely inspired? I do. If so, all its doctrines are infallibly true? Certainly. Well, then, its claims are void. I can prove some of its doctrines utterly false: as, for instance, that there is but one true God, the maker and governor, &c.

Now, in reply to this man, I adduce the various arguments from reason, in proof of the being and attributes of Jehovah. On that point he is put to shame. What have I accomplished? Have I proved Christianity divine? Certainly not. I have simply swept away that objection, which, indeed, is well worth doing, but not a proof of the divine origin of our holy religion.

All those various reasonings about the divine Being, the fall of man, the atonement, &c., amount simply to this: they remove, each one, a specific objection, and no more.

4. That other sources of evidence, which have been styled internal, are not so to the doctrine, but to the record.

Whoever will consider that the end of all argument here is to establish the divine truth of the doctrines of holy writ, will perceive that by that phrase, internal evidence, when used without qualification, should be meant internal to the thing to be proved, i. e., to the doctrine.

Yet some have incautiously applied the term to that which is internal to the history, and thus have given to those who differ from them the appearance of undervaluing this source of evidence. But that an important office is assigned to it, may be seen by the synopsis of argument, to be given below.

Mr. Watson refers to the style and manner of the sacred writers as internal evidence. The writer on whose views some remarks have been made, to the manner in which they wrote and spoke ; the agreement of their testimony; their honesty of expression; their independence and dignity of thought; their purity of sentiment; boldness of manner, &c. All this appears to me indicative of the guileless character of the writers, and to be properly considered as internal to the narrative.

5. That, while the authentication is external to the doctrine, it must be internal to the record; and that, whatever argument comes

from an extraneous source, is, at the most, negative and transient, and, to the main question, superfluous.

The illustration of this will be very brief. Christianity, being a positive faith, must have a demonstration. It is not denied that it may have many proofs. Nevertheless, it is maintained that Providence has indicated its preference for one of a particular kind. Without arguing at present, it is affirmed that the circumstances of the case, and the actual foundation of the faith of Christians, point out the following as the characteristics of a conclusive and efficient argument for Christianity:-1. It must be simple, and easy to be understood. 2. It must be universally accessible; and, 3. In the Bible. The first, because intended for minds of every grade; the second, because designed to work universal conviction; the third, both because we are assured the record was made for this very end, (John xx, 31,) and because, if it be not so, some other book is indispensable besides the Bible.

Such an argument, I suppose, would contain the following positions: 1. The historians of the New Testament were honest men, as the book itself will show.

2. They were capable, by the same token.

3. These honest and capable men say miracles were wrought, and prophecies uttered. They must be believed.

4. A miracle, wrought by human instrumentality, implies inspiration, and contains a prophecy. They who wrought miracles must have been inspired.

5. Among the miracle workers were the writers.

6. They who wrought miracles at their option, must have known when they were inspired and when not.

7. They profess to have been inspired throughout the whole process of writing these books; divinely assisted in the history; fully inspired in the doctrine.

8. Therefore, these entire volumes are of divine authority.

Whatever else may be said of this argument, I think it will be admitted to possess the characteristics mentioned. It is simple. The propositions themselves are plain, and the passage from one to another obvious. It is in the Bible. Every part and parcel of it lies in the volume itself; we travel not one step beyond the record. To all who have the Bible, therefore, it is accessible.

Of negative arguments, it is not denied that there may be a variety. These take their aspect from those who object. Of these, there must be one for the Hindoo, another for the Esquimaux ; one for the philosopher, another for the peasant. But an objection answered is no objection. These arguments, having kept the faith for a season, die. Besides, they only refute the negative, that Christianity is not divine. When our object is to establish the affirmative, that Christianity is divine, the only, the immoveable basis of our logic, is

UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY;

for testimony, only, can prove a miracle; and miracle, only, such inspiration as God alone can impart. Upon this basis we establish the conclusion of the whole matter. This is ETERNAL LIFE, to know thee the ONLY TRUE GOD, and JESUS CHRIST whom thou hast sent. W. M. B.

ART. XI.-MISCELLANEOUS NOTICES.

We have repeatedly been solicited to publish notices of new and rare works, for the information of our readers generally, and the preachers in particular. To something of this kind, under proper restrictions and regulations, we have inclined from the commencement of our official services in this place. Hitherto, however, we have not found it' convenient to adopt any systematic course in the matter. Slight no. tices of such books as come under our own eye, and we can recommend on our own responsibility, are all that we should think proper to admit into the Advocate and Journal. More than these, therefore, the read

ers of that work need not expect. The reasons which have determined our course in this matter, are, we think, good and sufficient; and we shall, therefore, at least for the present, adhere to it. But we have concluded to admit such as follow into the Quarterly, as the proper medium through which to publish them. That this comes within the appropriate design of a quarterly rather than a weekly periodical, all will agree. The only objection to the course we propose is, that our Review is less extensively circulated than the Advocate and Journal. This, however, we cannot help. It ought not to be so. There is no good reason why the Quarterly, the only periodical of the kind in the church, should not have as many subscribers and readers as the Advocate; and we cannot think that we are discharging our duty to the church by admitting into the latter work what properly belongs to the former, and thereby diminishing the principal motives to sustain it. We have reason to hope that the Review will soon obtain a more extended circulation, and fully answer the purposes for which it was instituted.

In regard to admitting these miscellaneous notices, we deem it proper to say, that we shall strictly adhere to the following regulations: They must come to us accompanied with the signature of a person, in whom, from our knowledge of his reputation, we can repose confidence. We shall admit none commending works, which, in our opinion, ought not to be recommended to public favor. But, as we cannot know, in all cases, the character of the books thus noticed, the writers of the notices must be held responsible for what they shall say of their contents, and not we. And such as may be copied from respectable cotemporary periodicals, after credit to the works from which we copy, the responsibility must rest with them. But, we repeat, we will admit no notice of a work which we have any reason to think of a doubtful character. As we have adopted this course in compliance with the suggestions of several of our respected correspondents, and from a persuasion that it will be satisfactory to many of our patrons, may we not

indulge the hope that they will aid us in it, by furnishing such notices and brief reviews of new and rare books which may fall in their way as will be calculated to interest our readers, and exèrt themselves to extend the circulation of this work.

TODD'S STUDENT'S MANUAL.

MESSRS. EDITORS:—

This work is accompanied with several very warm recommendations from Prof. Stuart, the Knickerbocker, Connecticut Observer, Episcopal Recorder, Hampshire, Springfield, Philadelphia, and United States Gazettes, Providence Journal, and the Northampton Courier. After so many respectable testimonials in its favor, to which others of equal respectability and influence might be added, a recommendation from your humble correspondent, however highly wrought, may be thought entirely unnecessary, and cannot, perhaps, gain for the work any more popularity than it already possesses, nor add much to its circulation. I am convinced, however, that many young Methodist preachers and Methodist students will not be likely to hear of this book, much less understand its real worth to that class of persons for whom it is more particularly intended, unless it be noticed in some of our own periodicals. Some of us, for want of the means, cannot afford to take many periodicals of any kind; and if our own give us not the necessary information on this subject, we must consequently remain ignorant.

This interesting book, Todd's Student's Manual, which, in a short time, has gone through seven editions, is divided into ten chapters. The first chapter is introductory, and embraces the Object of study; the second treats of Habits; the third, of Study itself; the fourth is on Reading; the fifth, on Time; the sixth, on Conversation; the seventh, on Politeness and Subordination; the eighth, on Exercise, Diet, and Economy; the ninth, on the Discipline of the Heart; and the tenth, on the Object of Life.

The object of study, the author informs us, is to fix the attention, to strengthen the memory, to form the judgment, to lead the student to think.and act for himself, to gain a knowledge of self and of human nature,—in a word, to discipline the mind in all its parts; to show it where to find tools, and how to use them. He thinks the real, close student, during his academical course, has the best opportunity of becoming acquainted with human nature; and he gains this knowledge by poring over his books in his study. This is, perhaps, doubtful. It may be a very good way of acquiring this information; but Methodist travelling preachers, who are a kind of circulating medium in the moral world, and who, in general, are not extraordinarily severe students, are probably best acquainted with human nature; and they gain their knowledge on this subject principally by personal observation, and daily intercourse with all classes of society, and persons of every variety of character.

"Habits," says the author, "are easily formed, especially such as are bad; and what, to-day, seems to be a small affair, will soon become fixed, and hold you with the strength of a cable. That same cable, you will recollect, is formed by spinning and twisting one thread at a time; but, when once completed, the proudest ship turns