and circumstances of man in his present state, as well as to qualify him for a higher and a holier, that wherever cordially embraced in its primitive and uncorrupted purity, it is found to be productive of such glorious moral results, as contradistinguished from the results invariably produced in pagan lands by the inculcation of the religi ous dogmas of Paganism? Proclaimed where and among whatever people, nation, or tribe of mankind it may, it is found to be productive of like blessed results. It transforms, spiritualizes, and elevates alike the polished civilian and the untutored barbarian, the accomplished scholar and the unlettered rustic. It brings peace, love, hope, and celestial joy, alike to the palace of the rich, and the cottage of the poor. It is found to renew the nature and purify the heart alike of sovereign and subject, master and servant, rich and poor, bond and free, implanting in each the graces of humility, mutual dependence and obligation, as well as of that faith, hope, charity, and filial obedience, which are the indubitable characteristics of that moral change which from its radically transforming character clearly evinces the Omnipotence and Divinity of its origin. That the religion of the Gospel has done and is still doing all this for our fallen humanity, is undeniable; it is patent to the living world. Who then will deny that this religion is Divine? Alas! but too many; and hence the necessity for works written with a view to combat the mischievous assaults of its misguided assailants - the false reasoning and charming sophistry of one of whom it is the purpose of the writer to candidly consider and duly expose in the following pages.

MODERN INFIDELITY DISARMED,

IN A

REPLY TO M. RENAN.

CHAPTER I.

AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE Gospels.

RUE candour and fair argument every one will professedly commend; but unfortunately for the cause of truth, the exercise of these virtues, especially in religious investigations, is by no means so general. An honest, upright mind, however, can afford to be candid, since his sincere desire and steadfast aim are to know and love the truth. Honest doubts, on all questions that will admit of doubt, are certainly admissible; so candour and fair argument in order to a rational solution of them, all will acknowledge to be indispensable. But if, for example, we wished to test the credibility of anything contained in the writings of Cicero, Pliny, Tacitus, or any other well-known historical personage, would it not evince a very great lack of candour, would it not be the height of presumption and folly to bring to the consideration of the subject a mind pre-occupied with a purely speculative

and FANCIFUL theory as to what events did or did not transpire in their day? But this is precisely the state of mind that M. Renan has been pleased to bring to a consideration of the events which are recorded in the Gospels. In writing his work which he presents to the world under the title of "The Life of Jesus," he has steadily adhered to a primary principle as laid down in his introduction, which is to regard as an interpolation, a fictitious creation, or false teaching, everything found in the Gospels that does not accord with his preconceived speculative views; and this he does, as we shall subsequently show, almost invariably without even an attempt at proof. That it partakes of the supernatural, or in some other respect clashes with his philosophy, is, in his estimation, though against every just rule of historical criticism, sufficient to justify such denunciation. His style is: "This or that does not accord with my idea of what should be in the Gospels, and therefore I pronounce it unauthentic. This and the other are not in accordance with my creed as a philosopher, and therefore I pronounce them legend." His is, therefore, not the rational mode of approach. He does not approach these sacred oracles--proved to be such by even his own admissions, properly weighed he does not approach them in the spirit of, "Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth;" but, repudiating even the most overwhelming evidence in proof of their Divine origin, in effect, to the Almighty he says, "Speak thou the things that become sound doctrine!" Presumptuous man! even a child in humble, trusting dependence on the Spirit's aid may understand the Scriptures better than he.

His preferences, in general, are towards the discourses of Matthew, the narratives of Mark, and such portions of

the other Gospels as are to his mind unobjectionable. "On the whole," however, he remarks, "I admit as authentic the four canonical Gospels, and the authors are, generally speaking, those to whom they are attributed."1 But having previously formed a religious theory and creed for hinseif, in going over their contents he is determined, in general, to exclude therefrom, or explain away, all that his judgment leads him to pronounce irrational, and in particular, everything that asserts or implies the supernatural; and by thus entirely excluding the Deity from the work, and making it a purely human production, he would, in effect, liberate the conscience from its moral obligation to observe its teaching and obey its precepts. But the man who attempts to exclude the Deity from a work professing in its almost every page to have come from Him, must needs, one would think, have some very rational ground on which to rest his daring attempt. His deductions and conclusions should at least be made to avoid coming into antagonistic collision with. the established, manifestly just, and universally recognised principles of historical criticism. But the fact that such principles are virtually ignored by M. Renan, and that he has not advanced even the shadow of a logical argument against the miracles and all that is recorded as partaking of the supernatural in those writings which he himself acknowledges to be authentic, is demonstrative of the groundlessness of his positions, and of the utter hopelessness of the unhallowed cause which he has unfortunately espoused.

Said an inspired Apostle of the Divine Founder of our faith, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."" But in contravention of this sage counsel of one of its first and ablest propagators, as being quite in consonance with the genius of Christianity properly understood, M. Renan 1 Introduction, p. 21.

2 I Thess. v. 21.

thinks with Hume that as to the orthodox Christian belief, "our holy religion is founded in faith, not in reason." But if these notable writers had been as far-seeing as they supposed themselves to be, they might have perceived that our holy religion is founded in reason no less than in faith-that, in fact, faith invariably implies and includes ' reason.' Hence, also, the further Scripture counsel"Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.”1 If, moreover, we say we believe a thing, whatever it may be, there is always a "because" connected with such belief, thus invariably involving a process of reasoning. We say, eg., I believe because I saw, heard, or felt. I believe because the testimony of credible witnesses leave no room for doubt I believe because the testimony of reliable history fully justifies such belief. And so, partly on the testimony of authentic and reliable history, and partly on the supernatural effects everywhere produced in the minds, hearts, and lives of men, by the Scriptures, we say, we believe them to be the truth of God; and believing, on such evidence, that God speaks, anything that He reveals, whether in relation to the past or the future, we of course receive as true. Now, in all this there is a ceaseless process of reasoning-logical reasoning; and thus it will be seen that " "reason" can never for a moment be logically separated from "faith." Reason of itself, however, is not a sufficient test of all the revelations and manifestations of Divine truth. Reason and faith have each their legitimate domain; God is the Author of both, and sets bounds to each. The domain of faith comprehends many things recorded by the pen of inspiration as historical verities which, to finite minds, are incomprehensible, and may even appear inconsistent with imperfect 1 1 Pet. iii. 15.