Mr. Chairman: My friend, Mr. Owen, in his last address, has advanced a great many assertions, the bearing of which, upon the subject before us, I cannot perceive, unless, indeed, Mr. Owen's experience is to be received as tantamount to incontrovertible proof. But my opponent, numerous as his assertions are, advances nothing tangible. He avers, indeed, that he has no attachment to metaphysics; that he contemns metaphysical speculations, and seems plainly to insinuate that I wished either in whole or in part to base my defense of Christianity upon hair-breadth metaphysical subtilties. Now, I confidently appeal to every individual in this assembly, whether my principal, my sole aim, has not been to disentangle the evidences of Christianity, and every point connected with this controversy, from what was metaphysical or abstract. In the course of this discussion have I not tendered an issue to my opponent upon several points? So vague and indefinite is my opponent in the use of his terms, that I do not even know what he means by the word fact. [Here Mr. Owen defines a fact to be that which exists.] Well, now, we have my friend's definition of the word fact; he tells us a fact is that which exists; but I apprehend that no philologist will assent to this definition of the word. At this time my opponent relies upon twelve facts, which are to subvert all other historic facts and evidences in the world. These twelve facts, then, must be more puissant than Aaron's rod; than the ten categories of Aristotle; than the twelve tables of the Decemviri; than the precepts of the decalogue; or any code of laws or systems of legislation ever invented. For, by these twelve facts, every religious impression is to be obliterated; every religious idea is to be annihilated. Upon these twelve facts are founded an entirely new theory of man, and a universal moral renovation. Sometimes these are twelve divine laws of human nature; sometimes twelve logical propositions to be demonstrated; and then, twelve facts more potent than the rod of Moses. But out of all these twelve wonderful facts, where is the tangible fact before us? We have been told that a fact is that which exists; but a stone exists, and so does a tree, an idea, an opinion. But can we logically say that [211] an opinion is a matter of fact? Definitions of this character are to be found in the writings of the commentators upon the Justinian code--definitions which serve no other purpose but to obscure the text. We must have a more logical definition than this--a fact is that which exists. Stones, trees, and opinions exist, and are all these alike to be considered as matters of fact? But my friend has conceived twelve imaginations; he has twelve pretty dreams about human nature; and on these he has ventured to found everything necessary to the happiness of man. Now, suppose Mr. Owen should attempt to prove that there never was such a man as General Washington, and no such historic fact as the American Revolution, and no such monumental commemorative institution as the annual celebration of the fourth of July; that there never existed an Emperor Augustus, or an Emperor Napoleon; suppose, I repeat, that he should undertake to prove that Washington, the father of his country, the great moral hero, never existed, and that the United States have never been emancipated from the thraldom of the parent country; it would, I contend, be just as logical, as pertinent, and as rational, in Mr. Owen to adduce these twelve facts in evidence that all these matters of history were mere fictions and fables, as to attempt to prove, by the adduction of his twelve laws of human nature, that the facts on which religion is founded never had existence. There appears to me to be just as much logic, reason, and good sense in the one process of demonstration, as in the other.

      All my anticipations have, in the course of this discussion, been entirely disappointed. I did expect to have matters of fact plainly, rationally, and logically presented. I did expect to witness a powerful display of that reason which skeptics so much adore. Now, judge of my mortification in finding nothing presented to me but intangible verbiage; in discovering that my friend uses terms and phrases in a sense entirely at variance with their received interpretation and common acceptation; in a sense irreconcilable to what we call the common sense of mankind. I see plainly that there is nothing left for me but to proceed to avail myself of this opportunity of presenting the true grounds and solid reasons on which we Christians build our faith.

      Christianity is universally represented to be matter of belief, and belief always requires testimony. Now the question is, whether the Christian belief is rational. Christianity does not pretend to be a treatise on chemistry, or botany, or mathematics; but it makes a demand upon our faith; and is, simply, belief predicated upon testimony. All that it requires is, to examine its evidences; and the principal end [212] and aim proposed in this discussion, to which the public has been invited, was an examination into the evidences of Christianity.

      It is conceded that our religion is built upon faith, and, therefore, all that can be legitimately inquired into on this topic is, whether this is a faith which a man, in possession of his intellectual powers and his five senses, can rationally entertain; whether a man of a sound mind can reasonably be a Christian. I presume this to be the true predicament of this discussion in its present stage. The question is, Whether to be Christians we must become dreaming enthusiasts, and the mere creatures of wild imagination? or, on the other hand, Can we be Christians on rational evidence and irrefutable testimony? I think I should be almost willing to leave it to a jury of twelve skeptics to decide, whether or not this is the legitimate question to be discussed here. The question before us is, Whether or not testimony on which Christianity is built, is of a character to carry conviction to rational minds? If so, every rational man must believe Christianity; if otherwise, he must reject it. I maintain that there is no other question at present before us. Now, in the prosecution of this inquiry, I have laid myself fairly open to the detection of any fallacy into which I may chance to fall. I have invited any gentleman who may be in possession of any historic, philosophic, or logical objection to my argument, to adduce it either orally or in writing; and I now reiterate the pledge to meet fairly, every fair and logical objection. I contend that I now stand upon the proper ground. I am not afraid that if all the lights of science were radiated upon Christianity, that any fallacy could be detected; but I contend this is no scientific question for scientific men to differ and speculate upon. I contend that the legitimate grounds on which Christianity is to be founded, are those which have been stated. We yesterday progressed so far in the argument introduced, as to inquire of you, if there were an individual among you who could be induced to set apart one hour of his time, or one lamb of his flock, or to plant a single stone in the ground, in perpetual commemoration of a fact which never did occur.

      I will venture to assert that if the people of Cincinnati were to erect twelve stone pillars upon the banks of the Ohio, commemorative of the fact that the first founders of this city passed over the refluent waters of the Ohio, as over dry land; took possession of this site, and here located themselves permanently; I say, these twelve stones erected in perpetual attestation of this supposed matter of fact would not be permitted to stand for one year. Such monuments would shock the common sense of little boys, and they would prostrate them. I do not [213] believe they could keep their monuments standing even a single day. But there is a nation now existing, which derives its origin from a period of more remote antiquity than that in which the foundation of the Chaldean, the Medo-Persian, the Grecian, Roman, or any other empire of antiquity was laid. Every living vestige of these once great and mighty empires of antiquity has disappeared; and there does not now exist the man who can trace up his lineage to any Greek of Roman progenitors, notwithstanding the ample means possessed by these nations of perpetuating the memory of their national existence and grandeur.

      But the Jewish nation is still in existence, and we see them still holding fast their venerable oracles, which were delivered to them four thousand years ago, and able to trace up their ancestry to old Abraham and Sarah. We discover them still devotedly attached to a religion so admirably contrived that it does not contain a type nor a symbol which was not designed for its perpetuation, and which does not prove it to be divine.

      The Jewish was, indeed, a nation sui generis, the only nation we know of, whose records are coetaneous with their primitive origin. These records were most solemnly deposited in that sacred chest, under the cherubim of glory, which none but the consecrated high priest dare approach. In it were deposited the two tables of the covenant in the handwriting of Jehovah. Their records not only constituted all the religion of the country, but the whole of the civil and municipal polity of their repository. Their whole institution was awful and terrible, and calculated to inspire reverence in the minds of all who had witnessed every monumental fact recorded in it. They had witnessed two millions of their contemporaries pass through the Red Sea; they had heard the voice of God and the sound of the trumpet; that had seen two millions sustained in the wilderness for forty years by a miracle; that had witnessed the miraculous passage over the Jordan. These were facts which caused the hearts of the natives to quake before the army of the Israelites, so that they gave up their possessions to them almost without resistance. The annals of this nation, coetaneous with their existence, have been wonderfully preserved; their religion alone has preserved these records. Moreover, the Jews have been made to hold these oracles in such a manner as to preclude the possibility of any collusion between them and Christianity.

      Never was there such a climax of evidence presented. I am now looking back four thousand years; and am showing that from the remotest periods of antiquity there never has existed the possibility of [214] imposition in regard to these facts; in proof of this, I contend that it is impossible to impose upon any people the solemn and perpetual observance of an institution commemorative of a circumstance that never did occur. I defy Mr. Owen to produce the instance on record which goes to refute this position; or the historic fact possessing the four criteria which can be proved to be false.¹ But all the evidences are not yet before you.

      What is the philosophic character of this religion? Previously to the patriarchal revelations, it is presumable that there was not in the whole vocabulary of human speech terms expressive of the character and purposes of God or of spiritual ideas. In revealing religion to man, it became necessary to give him also a new vocabulary. This was executed, as we teach children, by signs, the art of reading and writing. We will take our illustration from the philosophy of a child's primer book. There we find the picture of a house, a. tree, lamb, etc., etc. Now, what does this mean? Is it intended merely to amuse the child? No; it is based upon the philosophy of his nature--upon the supposition that the infant, in order to associate ideas, must have the aid of sensible characters. There is much philosophy implied in the invention of a child's primer. The idea of a house is presented to the child in a diagram of an inch square. Thus the child discovers that a house can be represent ed artificially in so small a compass; and thus the way is prepared for introducing into its mind the use of literal characters; the letter A being as perfectly artificial as the picture of a house. In this way a child is taught to discriminate the elementary artificial characters of written language, and then we teach it the influence of these characters in combination. The introduction of the pictured primer book was based upon such views of the philosophy of the infant mind. And what was the picture presented by the Almighty in the gradual development of those oracles of which the Jewish nation was designed to be the repository? It was an altar--then a lamb-- and then a Mediator. The whole was developed by pictures and symbols. What were the altar, sacrifice, lamb, and priest, but so many pictures presented to the mind? It was therefore necessary that God should proceed on this plan, and teach this people a new language, different from that in which Adam was instructed. It now became necessary that a language of symbols should be adopted; and for this purpose God presented these pictures to their minds. Hence, a house was erected and filled with these symbols. There was not a pin in that house, nor any article of furniture, nor any garment, nay, not a loop, or a button, that was not prefigured to Moses on Mount Sinai--and all exhibited to him, as Paul says, as patterns of things in the heavens. These their religion taught them to regard with the deepest reverence. But the Jews did not understand the import of the symbols which they thus reverenced; and this proves the absence of all fraud and collusion. If they had understood the meaning of these symbols, and could have reasoned clearly from them to the things symbolized, there might be some ground to suspect collusion. But the striking fact is, that the nation which built the temple did not understand the symbols which it contained; and nothing could open their understandings to the apprehension of their import until one stood in that temple and took the vail which separated the visible from the invisible, and rent it in twain; showing them afterward what Moses and the prophets did mean. If skeptics understood this, they could no longer doubt the truth of Christianity. All plausible objections I am willing to examine; but those reasonings and speculations of Mr. Owen upon the social systems are no more objections to the truth of Christianity than are the Alleghany protuberances to the theory of the earth's sphericity. They are objections analogous in character to those of the old woman who would not believe in the revolutions of our planet because she never yet saw her garden turn round to the front of the house. There can be no substantial argument urged against the verity of these stupendous facts recorded in the annals of God's chosen people.

      The existing observance of the Jewish sabbath is of itself sufficient to silence all cavilers, and to convince every man capable of appreciating the weight of historic evidence, that there could not have been fraud, or collusion, or imposition, in the recorded facts concerning the origin and religion of this nation. This evidence, in my estimation, is invested with a solemn dignity, and I often regard it as the focus into which all the divine light of revelation is concentrated. Every part of the record conveys to my mind irresistible evidence that [216] Moses was commissioned by God, and that the Jewish religion is a divine revelation.

[COD 211-217]