1 great masters of reasoning, those distinguished lovers and propagators of truth, yielded a blind belief to stories which, from their very nature, are liable to be regarded as the fabrications of impostors? Can we imagine, that they credited accounts of miracles, of prodigies and wonders, without proof? This were a miracle indeed! No! such men believe such accounts only because they are constrained to believe them; because they see, that, if the facts related are extraordinary, the testimony which supports them, is likewise extraordinary; and that, if they reject Christianity, they must no longer submit to the government of reason. Let us now take a view of the other side, and consider how Christianity is affected by the infidelity of great men. Have they, let me ask, made a careful, impartial inquiry into the evidences of our religion? If we suppose they have not made this inquiry (a supposition which, as it respects many leading deists, is certainly correct) we want no further reason for their infidelity. It, indeed, follows as a natural consequence. Strong evidence alone will produce a conviction of the truth of marvellous events; and strong evidence concerning those recorded in the scriptures is to be obtained only by patient examination. But it may be asked on the other hand, is it conceivable that great writers would have employed their pens against the christian revelation, without having investigated its pretensions to authenticity? This, it must be confessed, appears at first view almost incredible. But when we consider the nature of the facts contained in the Bible; the aspect, under which they at first present themselves to the understanding; the reluctance we feel in yielding our assent to things so wonderful and so different from any within our own observation; the study requisite to collect the proofs of their authenticity; and the several ways, by which the mind is liable to be misled, such as, by strong prejudice, peculiarly active in countries where the established religion is an enormous mass of abuses-by an accidental habit of looking at Christianity through the medium of those objections and difficulties, which are, perhaps, inseparable from every system of revelation--by a sordid wish that a religion, so pure, so holy, so opposed to an unbridled license of the passions, may not be true -by a silly contempt of vulgar notions, and a perverse ambition, which some men display, and which seems, like a demon, to possess their minds, of astonishing the world by the originality of their ideas, at the expense of truth, religion, virtue, and common sense;―when, in short, we consider, how much there is, or may be, within and without us. to oppose inquiry upon this subject, we can readily conceive, that even the most distinguished ene mies of Christianity may have been prevented from acquiring that perception of the evidences of our holy faith, which could alone be expected to produce conviction. There is another point of view, under which this subject may be considered, perhaps to some advantage. One of the principal weapons, employed by infidels in their attacks upon Christianity, is ridicule; and no one has, probably, done more execution. When we find men, whose talents command our admiration, laughing in the face of the world at a religion, for which even the most distant probability of its divine origin ought to inspire reverence, our faith almost staggers; we ask, whether Christianity assailed by such men and in such a way, can possibly be true? Whether minds, which appear to have been sent from heaven to enlighten mankind, can have been thus blind or thus presumptuous? Whether those Titans of genius could have dared to assault the skies? Whether indeed they could have treated, with so much irreverence, the slightest appearance, the very spectres and shadows of divine truth?. But, if we view this mode of attacking Christianity in its just light, we shall be very differently affected by it; we shall consider it as a complete annihilation, in religious matters, of the authority of the writers by whom it is used. It is impossible. that a religion, to the truth of which so many great and enlightened minds have given a decided verdict, can be founded on arguments, which, in the opinion of any persons who attend to them, are so feeble, that they should not even shield it from contempt and ridicule. He, therefore, who scoffs and sneers at Christianity, gives a convincing proof, that he never can have made it a serious study; but that he has suffered himself to be borne along by those sportive, contemptuous emotions, which, in a mind void of consideration, are apt to be excited by accounts of supernatural transactions. A view of the real strength of our religion must, otherwise, have taught him more respect for it; its claims to attentive consideration, and its strong marks of truth would have been acknowledged, even though infidelity had continued unsubdued. On the whole, the belief of great geniuses and scholars of the divine origin of a religion which they have studied, shows, that it must be supported by strong arguments. The disbelief even of equal geniuses cannot prove the contrary; the utmost, it can prove, is, that arguments, which convinced others, did not convince them. And when we consider the various causes of infidelity which exist, and which operate with the greatest force on the loftiest intellects, we shall not be the less disposed to yield our assent to the truth of Christianity, because some men of brilliant parts have refused theirs, and have not distinguished this religion from the multitude of fabrications, which fraud, enthusiasm and force have imposed upon mankind. Whatever weight, then, the authority of great names has in this matter, it is altogether on the side of our religion; and to learn how considerable it is, we have only to call to mind a few of the illustrious men that have declared themselves Christians, to be fully satisfied. Though not sufficient to supercede inquiry into the proper evidences of Christianity, it is yet sufficient to procure for it respect and reverence prior to such inquiry; and to produce, at least a suspension of our disbelief, till we have seen it overthrown by substantial and irrefragable arguments. A LAYMAN. ' A SHORT ANSWER TO THE INQUIRY, WHY ARE YOU A COMMUNICANT? Or the peculiarities of christian worship, the ordinance of the Lord's supper would, I think, most powerfully arrest the notice, and excite the curiosity, of a stranger to our religion. It is formally announced on the sabbath preceding that of its administration; and in most of our churches there is an extraordinary service, for the purpose of disposing those who are to receive it, to a more suitable observance of this rite of the gospel. The day arrives. The elements appointed by Christ are prepared, and believers assemble in the churches. The stranger waits to see the service performed. But no sooner is the christián benediction pronounced, than his astonishment is awakened by the departure of more than half of these worshippers, every one of whom, he supposed, was a disciple of Jesus. The doors are now closed. And what a spectacle is presented before him! Here are parents without their children, and children without their parents; wives without their husbands, and husbands without their wives. The nearest and most endeared relations are separated by this service, the author of which, he had been informed, was the Son of God; by whom each of his disciples believes that he shall be judged, and through whom each one hopes for redemption, and for life eternal in heaven. Could this be the design of the founder of christianity? Or are the conditions of admission to his church so rigorous, that a small number only can submit to them? Or is the ordinance indeed obligatory on all? Or was it intended only for one class of christians? These inquiries would naturally arise in the mind of the stranger; and he avails himself of an opportu nity of demanding of one who has observed the rite, 'Why are you a communicant? What is his reply? 'I am a communicant, for the same reason that I receive the gospel as a divine revelation; that is, from a conviction of the authority of Christ to teach the will of God, and to disclose the conditions of pardon and of final happiness. Having this conviction, I am bound to obey all which the gospel inculcates; and language cannot make a duty more plain than is the command, do this in remembrance of me.'-This is indeed very simple reasoning; but has it not all the force which truth can give to it? The authority of Christ, in all the commands of the gospel, is the authority of the Father who sent him. This will not be denied by any one who receives the New Testament as a divine revelation. If you should ask me, why I am a christian, or a believer in christianity? I should appeal to evidences, external and internal, to prove the divine mission of our Lord. But if you ask me, why I am a communicant? I allege as my first reason, the conviction these evidences have produced in my mind, that he is the Son of God; authorized and empowered to teach the way of salvation; and consequently, that all he requires has the sanction of divine commands. This argument, to be sure, to have any force, presupposes an acknowledgment of Jesus as a Teacher sent by God. But on him who avows his faith in the gospel, does it not impose a perfect obligation to keep this feast, which our Lord has instituted? This is a very important view of the subject. If he whom we call our Lord was not invested with the authority of God, why do we appeal to any of his laws? If he had this authority, how can we feel ourselves to be safe, while we thoughtlessly and habitually disregard any one of his commands? Do you say, this is but a positive rite; and cannot therefore, in its neglect, expose us to the consequences of violating a moral precept? But if it be commanded by God; or, which is the same thing, by one sent from God, it is as obligatory, as the moral precepts of the gospel. If the will of God be the basis of religious and moral obligation, -and it is equally so, whether the law be written on our hearts, be suggested by our conditions and relations, or promulgated by a divine messenger,-then are we equally accountable for the neglect, or the abuse of this institution, as we are of any divine. command. The authority of God, in all cases, must be equal; and to a believer in the gospel, the command, do this in remembrance of me, is a command of God. To us, indeed, the difference may be great, whether a man neglect this service, or the laws of justice and, benevolence; for in one case, he injures us essentially; and in the other, neither counteracts our interests, nor interrupts our pleasures. But God has no interests to be opposed, and no pleasures to be disturbed by man. He requires duties, not for his own sake, but for ours; and he would not give his authority to a command, of which it was indifferent whether we should obey, or disregard it. Even therefore if we could not discern any immediate advantages resulting from the service, a disregard of it could not be justified, while we are convinced of its divine appointment; for as soon as this conviction is produced, the service becomes to us essentially a religious duty, of which, equally as of other and universally acknowledged duties, we are to give account to God. I would not press an observance of this ordinance of our religion exclusively on the ground, that its obligation is supported by the authority of God; for God has not, in fact, required any thing of us, to which he has not attached benefits so important, as to establish the closest relation between our duties, and our highest interests. But the ground of that confidence, with which we look for the blessings which are in any instance assured to our piety and virtue, is, the authority of him who has assured them; and proportionally feeble will be our trust in the authority which dispenses promises, as is our sensibility and reverence of that which demands obedience to laws. A recurrence to the original source of obligation, the will of God,-or, which is the same thing as to every command of the gospel, the will of Christ, -is therefore not only proper, but frequently necessary, to produce conviction where it is not, and to strengthen it where it already exists. Hence a communicant may, and ought to adduce it as his first answer to the inquiry, 'Why do you observe this service? that Christ, his Lawgiver, to whom he applies for a knowledge of the will of God, has commanded it. And I appeal to any dispassionate judgment, whether I could innocently neglect, or refuse to partake of this ordinance, while I am convinced that the commands of Jesus have all the obligation of the will of God. I appeal to conscience, if our Lord has indeed given this command to all his disciples, whether his authority does not demand its observance of all, by every consideration that gives dignity to his character, and solemnity to his commands? It is Jesus, the Son of God; it is Jesus, whom you call your Saviour; whose laws you acknowledge to be the will of the Most High, and by whom we shall finally be judged, who says to you, Take, eat, this is my body; and, Drink ye all of this cup. If a stranger to our religion should ask you, whether you are a believer in the gospel of Christ, you would assert your faith with |