holy and happy. Its spirit and tendency, which once might seem ambiguous, are now, by universal acknowledgment, simply benign.

But we are still reminded of the errors, or, to use the objector's own word, the inconsistencies of Christians, even in these times, when, as we allege, our religion has recovered, in great measure, its pristine purity. Yet justly interpreted, this charge conveys the objector's own latent feeling, that Christianity is, what we are affirming it to be, an idea of perfection, which is in progress to exhibit its perfect symmetry. The objector means to say that, should the time ever come when the religion of Christ shall have mastered whatever now opposes its influence, and shall reign triumphant, in its own splendour, all men will have reached, under its guidance, a high stage of moral excellence. The objector means to say that, should he survive to so happy a day, he himself, urged forward in the general movement, will have become wise.

The same momentous fact, namely, That the moral energies of the Gospel are, in great part, yet to be developed, indirectly attested as it is even by its opponents, is most cordially admitted by its friends; who individually acknowledge, with humiliation, their personal falling short of the rule of their profession. Or, if we listen to those whose office it is to urge this rule upon others, evidence to the same effect is every day borne by all; for every pulpit exhortation, every didactic treatise, every urgent appeal made to the Christian community, as such; and every incitement to zeal and diligence in works of charity,

speaks the same language, and attests the deep conviction of each Christian bosom, that the heavenward impulses of the Gospel are in progress, only, towards their consummation in the virtue and happiness of mankind.

What then are the genuine elements of this power, which, by the confession of all, is carrying forward the social system towards goodness and felicity? WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY?

In the present instance we have consented to employ a compound phrase, and are to speak of Spiritual Christianity. Have we then in view certain refinements upon the broad principles of the Gospel? Or is it our purpose to recommend some scheme of piety, elaborately imagined, and delicately framed, and eligible for the few, and barely to be understood even by them? Indeed it is not.-We have no such purpose. We are not instructed to be the expositors or champions of partial notions, or of private conceits, or of fond peculiarities, or of mystifications; or of anything that does not lie clearly upon the surface of the inspired pages. We are of no party; we yield undue homage to no names; we have no unconfessed solicitudes, no indirect purposes; we challenge for our faith and doctrine CATHOLICITY, in the highest and best sense which that abused word may bear.

By Spiritual Christianity, therefore, we mean nothing more, (and we can mean nothing less) thanChristianity itself: Christianity in its simplicity, in its grandeur, in its integrity, in its beauty. Christianity, as it is truth absolute, truth eternal, truth of

infinite moment to every man, and intelligible to every man.

In proof of the breadth of the view which we mean to take of the Gospel, we bind ourselves to ask for no practical concessions in behalf of Spiritual Christianity which may not be demanded, as a necessary inference from some one of the principles that, without a doubt, are its visible characteristics. We inquire then what these visible characteristics are?

I.

In reply, We say FIRST, that CHRISTIANITY IS A RELIGION OF FACTS; and we use the term in its plain historic sense. Christianity touches the affections, and binds the consciences of men, on no other plea than that of its being a declaration of facts; and these, either long past, or now passing; or certainly anticipated as yet impending.

We have not therefore before us either a theory of abstract principles, or a system of sentiments, selected as excellent and refined, from among other eligible modes of feeling. We have not to do with a congeries of the best things of all systems, or with a convenient summary of the product of the wisdom of all times. We have not to recommend a rule for those who may think good to adopt it. We have before us nothing but a series of facts, and the just consequences of those facts. Christianity is historically true-it is true in its own sense; or it can have no claim upon our serious regard; and if, in vindicating

the high claim it advances, we cannot maintain our position on open ground, accessible to all minds, we fail by our own showing; or, rather let it be said that, irrespective of the ability, or the want of ability, of any single advocate of christian principles, the Gospel demands our submission, purely ON THE

GROUND OF ITS HISTORIC TRUTH.

IS THEN CHRISTIANITY HISTORICALLY TRUE?

In the present instance we do not hold ourselves obliged to undertake an argument so often, and so conclusively conducted; but rather we suppose ourselves entitled to assume this as granted; nevertheless, we must, for a moment, trace a single line of connexion between the historical truth of the Gospel, and those principles of our moral nature, to which an appeal is necessarily made in asserting the reality of spiritual religion.

What is it then which the question concerning the truth of Christianity supposes to be doubtful; or what is it which can be regarded as open to argument among those who are at once well informed, and candid? Not the actual existence of Christianity, as a visible institute, up through the course of time, from the present age to that of the Julian Cæsars. Nothing within the range of history-nothing mathematically demonstrated, is more certain than is the series of facts to which we now refer. Thus far then, we presume, there can be no controversy, or none amongst educated persons. Let church history be

what it may in its qualities, assuredly it is history— and this, close up to the moment of its alleged origination.*

What then is it that may be further questionable? Is it the antiquity and genuineness of the literary remains comprised in the canon of the New Testament? If there be indeed room for reasonable controversy on this ground, the demur, be it what it may, must be dealt with, not in the mass; but in detail; not in the mode of vague suppositions; but in that of a rigorous attention to every particle of the evidence, as severally bearing upon each separate portion of the document;-upon each book, each epistle, each paragraph, sentence, word, syllable, letter. There is no summary process by means of which a controversy like this may be disposed of. The question, if indeed there be a question, is one of historical criticism; and is to be determined in no other manner than by a diligent application of the rules of that now well-digested science.

Nor can it be necessary to remind well-informed persons, that the legitimate deductions of one science are not to be overruled by sidelong inferences, derived from another. The question being-whether Cæsar's Commentaries are indeed Cæsar's; we are not to be told, as a sufficient reply, that the newest discoveries in human physiology, or that recent experiments in

* The testimony of the Roman historian, to this effect, is by none called in question. Auctor nominis ejus Christus, qui Tiberio imperante, per Procuratorem Pontium Pilatum, supplicio affectus erat. Tac. An. XV.