It now appears that we are, at length, in full possession of all the arguments and evidences Mr. Owen has to offer in support of his positions. You will, no doubt, observe, that although his matter has been exhausted, and his comments finished, he did not once advert to the very important points submitted in my last speech; and submitted with the intention of eliciting from him something like an issue. But this he appears now, as formerly, studiously to avoid. One allusion, in the form of an objection, was made to my last speech. This was an objection to the arguments and views offered on the nature of evidence.

      He said "he could as soon fly to the stars as believe that God contracted himself into a little bush to speak to Moses." But who is it that believes this? I do not. All that the intelligent have ever contended for is, that the omnipotent and omnipresent Creator of this vast universe, can assume any visible form in any particular place, and exhibit himself just where, and when, and how he pleases. Mr. Owen caricatures, rather than quotes, or directly alludes to the circumstances of this case. Why is it that he cannot meet us on such ground as reason presents, that he must present himself on such ground as no person of sentiment or sense ever pretended to stand upon? But what I have particular reference to at this time, is the reason he assigns for his disbelief in miracles. His reason for disbelieving miracles is because he never witnessed one. It is contrary to his experience. But we have already shown, that for the same reason he rejects this species of evidence, or a miracle itself, he would be compelled to reject all testimony upon any matter of fact that had not come under his own personal observation. It would be as impossible for Mr. Owen to convince a native of the torrid zone, that water became, in these. United States, as hard as a stone, or that hailstones sometimes fell from the clouds, as it would be for me to convince him that Jesus Christ fed five thousand persons on a few loaves and fishes, or cured the lame, the deaf, and the blind, by a single word or a touch. The reason which a native of that region would assign for his unbelief, is just the same which Mr. Owen assigns for his disbelief in the miracles of Moses and Christ. They are contrary to his experience. Mr. Owen, however, is not consistent with his own theory in any case whatever--he seems to believe just what he pleases. He believes that meteoric stones, or stones composed of terrene substances, weighing from ten to one hundred pounds, have fallen from the clouds in different parts of the earth. This is also contrary to, or beyond the bounds of his experience. In fine, Mr. Owen's faith, small as it is, would be very considerably reduced in quantity and [279] strength, were he to act consistently with his own experience. But we have already sufficiently exposed his inconsistency in this particular.

      As I have now got the arena to myself, I will now submit to your consideration the course which I intend to pursue in conducting this argument, to something like a natural, and as far as circumstances will permit, to a logical termination.

      1. I shall call your attention to the historic evidence of the Christian religion;

      2. I shall next give a brief outline of the prophetic evidences, or rather the evidences arising from the prophecies, found in the inspired volume;

      3. We shall then draw some arguments from the genius and tendency of the Christian religion;

      4. And in conclusion, pay some attention to "the social system."

      This method, adopted now at the impulse of the moment, as best adapted to this crisis and stage of the discussion, may not be the most unexceptionable; but the singularity of the crisis to which we are come, will, I hope, apologize for its defects. If anything should be omitted, because not coming within the logical purview of this division of the subject, we shall rather endure the charge of being immethodical, than to omit noticing it, whenever it presents itself to our view.

      But as we are soon to adjourn, I will occupy a few minutes in finishing some remarks, which were cut short by the expiration of my last half hour. It was said, that we are indebted for all the great improvements in society to the philosophy of Christians, and not to the philosophy of skeptics. A free, a just, and equitable government has always developed the powers of the human mind. Political or civil liberty is essential to the expansion and development of human intellect. All history is appealed to in proof of this. Just in proportion as civil liberty has been enjoyed, have mankind, in all ages, distinguished themselves by the vigor and expansion of their minds. Let any man contrast the ancient Greeks, who were free, with their cotemporaries, the Persians, who were under a despotic government, and he will see the influence of free institutions in the genius, eloquence, and the daring enterprise of the former compared with the latter. Should he ascribe the superiority of their being of a different race, or to the influence of climate, let him turn his attention to the Lacedæmonians and their helots or slaves. When the Messenians were two centuries in slavery, one Lacedæmonian possessed the mental vigor and valor of half a score of them. But only draw the contrast which our country presents, and mark the difference between the citizen and the slave. The enjoyment of civil liberty is shown from reason and experience, from the faithful page of history, [280] to give a new impetus to all the faculties of man. To this liberty, then, we are constrained to ascribe the great improvements in all the arts of civilized and social life. But to see the connection between this liberty and these free institutions, and Christianity, we have only to ask, To whom are we most indebted for the improvements in government? The Reformation from Popery gave the first shock to the despotism of Europe. The labors of the Reformers, and the more recent labors of Milton, the poet, and Locke, the philosopher, have done more to create the free institutions of Europe and America, than the labors of all the skeptics, from Celsus to my friend, Mr. Owen.

      We ascribe much, to the intelligence, virtue, and patriotism, of our revolutionary heroes and statesmen. But there was one Christian philosopher to whom we are more indebted than to any one of them. Nay, perhaps, than to all of them. The cause of civil and religious liberty owes more to the labors of Mr. John Locke, than to all the skeptics in Christendom. His essay on Toleration, first burst the chains that held England and Europe fast bound under a religious and civil despotism. He had the honor, as Lord Verulam had, of originating a new era. As Lord Verulam had the honor, by his Novum Organum, of originating a new era in physics, so Locke, the philosopher, laid the foundation of a new order of society by his Essay on Toleration. This essay gave the first impulse to the spirit of inquiry, and laid the foundation of our present liberties. This Christian philosopher, drafted the first instrument called a constitution, imported into America. It was a form of government for the Carolinas. While we are grateful to all, who have labored in the cause of the emancipation of the human mind from the shackles of kingcraft and priestcraft; and while we are mindful of our more immediate benefactors, we are not to forget the praises due to those who have long since died, and whose victories were more efficient, and salutary in their consequences, though less boisterous, and less noisy, than those achieved by the sword or the cannon. Yet it should be known, and everywhere divulged, in all lands and among all people, that Europe and America are more indebted to the elaborate discussions and profound reasonings of our Christian philosopher, for the quantum of civil and religious liberty now enjoyed, than to all the skeptics who have written from the days of Pyrrhus to my friend, Robert Owen.

      The principles of investigation on which the inductive philosophy of Lord Bacon is founded, and those adopted by the Christian philosopher, Sir Isaac Newton, are those which should govern us on this occasion. "Everything," says this great teacher, "is to be submitted to the most minute observation. No conclusions are to be drawn from guesses or [281] conjectures. We are to keep within the certain limits of experimental truth. We first ascertain the facts, then group them together, and after the classification and comparison of them, draw the conclusion. There are generic heads or chapters in every department of physical or moral science. We are never to shrink from the test of those principles. Any argument, therefore, which we may offer, we wish to be examined by the improved principles of the inductive philosophy, by those very principles which right reason and sound experimental philosophy have sanctioned as their appropriate tests. But questions of fact are not to be tried by mathematical evidence. It has been well observed, that "the sciences are of a social disposition, and flourish best in the neighborhood of each other; nevertheless each of them claims to be governed by laws which are perfectly sui generis; and none of them can be constrained to agree to an intercommunity of jurisdiction with the rest: it is held essential to the truth and dignity of each of them, that it is to be tried only by its own laws." When we enter into an examination of the testimony on which religion is founded, we have no other scientific rules to resort to, than those which regulate and govern us in ascertaining the weight of all historic evidence.

      The first position, then, which we submit for examination, is one which properly belongs to the more general head of historic evidence. It is in the following words: "The volume called the New Testament was written by the persons whose names it bears, and at the time in which it is said to have been written." This is now a historic fact asserted. It is not proved as yet by us--but we will, anon proceed to the proof of it. This is to be examined in its own court; that is, as all matters or questions of fact are investigated--that we may, however, feel the need, and appreciate the importance, of proving this fact, we must premise a few things: The book called the New Testament now exists. It existed in the days of our fathers, of our grandfathers, of our great-grandfathers. It came into existence some way, by some means, at some particular time. Now we thank not Mr. Owen, nor any person else, for admitting all this. They cannot deny one of these assertions. But the question is, How came it into existence? Now let us see how rigid and severe we must be, and generally are, in examining or deciding this question.

      When we open any ordinary volume, and look upon its title page, we there discover that it purports to be the production of A., B., or C., and this mere inscription of the author's name on the title page is, in the absence of counter testimony, universally admitted to be rational and conclusive evidence of authorship. There being no counter testimony, we conclude from the title page, that the book is the production of the [282] author whose name it bears. If we have the general concurrence of our cotemporaries in the belief that such a book was written by such a person whose name it bears, we rationally rest satisfied on the question of its authorship. But in the examination of the authorship of the New Testament, we feel it necessary to scrutinize more severely. But men approach the examination of this question, not as they approach the examination of any other. The believer and the unbeliever approach it under great disadvantages. Religious men are afraid to call its truth in question. This religious awe acts as a sort of illusion on their minds. The skeptics are prejudiced against it. This prejudice disqualifies them to judge fairly and impartially upon the merits of the evidence. The religious awe of the Christian, and the prejudices of the skeptic are real obstacles in the way of both, in judging impartially of the weight of evidence in favor of this or any other position, at the bottom of the Christian faith. Dr. Chalmers very convincingly illustrates this matter in secs. 16, 17, and 18, of the article written by him in the Encyclopædia on Christianity. We shall beg the liberty to read it:

      "16. To form a fair estimate of the strength and decisiveness of the Christian argument, we should, if possible, divest ourselves of all reference to religion, and view the truth of the gospel history, purely as a question of erudition. If, at the outset of the investigation, we have a prejudice against the Christian religion, the effect is obvious; and without any refinement of explanation, we see at once how such a prejudice must dispose us to annex suspicion and distrust to the testimony of the Christian writers. But even when the prejudice is on the side of Christianity, the effect is unfavorable on a mind that is at all scrupulous about the rectitude of its opinions. In these circumstances the mind gets suspicious itself. It feels a predilection, and becomes apprehensive lest this predilection may have disposed it to cherish a particular conclusion, independently of the evidences by which it is supported. Were it a mere speculative question, in which the interests of man, and the attachments of his heart, had no share, he would feel greater confidence in the result of his investigation. But it is difficult to separate the moral impressions of piety, and it is no less difficult to calculate their precise influence on the exercises of the understanding. In the complex sentiment of attachment and conviction which he annexes to the Christian religion, he finds it difficult to say how much is due to the tendencies of the heart, and how much is due to the pure and unmingled influence of argument. His very anxiety for the truth disposes him to narrate the circumstances which give a bias to his understanding, and through the whole process of the inquiry, he feels a [283] suspicion and an embarrassment, which he would not have felt had it been a question of ordinary erudition.

      "17. The same suspicion which he attaches to himself, he will be ready to attach to all whom he conceives to be in similar circumstances. Now every author who writes defense of Christianity is supposed to be a Christian; and this, in spite of every argument to the contrary, has the actual effect of weakening the impression of his testimony. This suspicion affects, in a more remarkable degree, the testimony of the first writers on the side of Christianity. In opposition to it you have, no doubt, to allege the circumstances under which the testimony was given; the tone of sincerity which runs through the performance of the author; the concurrence of our testimonies; the persecutions which he sustained in adhering to them, and which can be accounted for on no other principle, than the power of conscience and conviction; and the utter impossibility of imposing a false testimony on the world, had they even been disposed to do it. Still there is a lurking suspicion, which often survives all this strength of argument, and which it is difficult to get rid of, even after it has been demonstrated to be completely unreasonable. He is a Christian. He is one of the party. Am I an infidel? I persist in distrusting the testimony. Am I a Christian? I rejoice in the strength of it; but this very joy becomes matter of suspicion to a scrupulous inquirer. He feels something more than the concurrence of his belief in the testimony of the writer. He catches the infection of his piety and his moral sentiments. In addition to the acquiescence of the understanding, there is a con amore feeling, both in himself and in his author, which he had rather been without, because he finds it difficult to compute the precise amount of its influence; and the consideration of this restrains him from that clear and decided conclusion which he would infallibly have landed in, had it been purely a secular investigation.

      "18. There is something in the very sacredness of the subject, which intimidates the understanding, and restrains it from making the same firm and confident application of its faculties, which it would have felt itself perfectly warranted to do, had it been a question of ordinary history. Had the apostles been the disciples of some eminent philosopher, and the fathers of the church, their immediate successors in the office of presiding over the discipline and instruction of the numerous schools which they had established, this would have given a secular complexion to the argument, which we think would have been more satisfying to the mind, and have impressed upon it a closer and more familiar conviction of the history in question. We would have immediately brought it into comparison with the history of other [284] philosophers, and could not have failed to recognize that, in minuteness of information, in weight and quantity of evidence, in the concurrence of numerous and independent testimonies, and in the total absence of every circumstances that should dispose us to annex suspicion to the account which lay before us, it far surpassed anything that had come down to us from antiquity. It so happens, however, that instead of being the history of a philosopher, it is the history of a prophet. The veneration we annex to the sacredness of such a character, mingles with our belief in the truth of his history, from a question of simple truth, it becomes a question in which the heart is interested; and the subject from that moment assumes a certain holiness and mystery, which vails the strength of the argument, and takes off from that familiar and intimate conviction, which we annex to the far less authenticated histories of profane authors."

      It is hard for any man to inspect this oracle with that degree of impartiality and mental independence necessary to demonstrate, or discriminate, in its truth. Many have suspicions of its truth, which arise solely from the awful import and inexpressible grandeur of the subjects on which it treats. The hundredth part of the evidence would be sufficient to convince them of the real authorship of the "Annals of Tacitus," which they require to satisfy them of the authorship of these sacred books.

      Making all due allowance for these odds and disadvantages against us, and acknowledging that we claim no exemption from the influence of these causes, we are disposed to approach this volume, as far as in us lies, without being influenced by that awe, or those prejudices, of which we have been speaking. Divesting ourselves, therefore, of all partialities, pro or con, let us, my friends, approach this position.

      I need scarcely inform this intelligent audience, that the volume called the New Testament is the production of eight different authors or writers--that it contains many different treatises in the form of Narratives and Epistles, written in different parts of the world, and at sundry intervals, and afterward collected into one volume. These eight writers are, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude. Four of them wrote Memoirs or Narratives of Jesus Christ; and four of them wrote letters to different congregations and individuals, in Asia and Europe.

      Each of these pieces was deemed by the writer perfectly sufficient to accomplish the object which he designed by it. But when all is collected into one volume, corroborating and illustrating each other, how irresistible the evidence, and how brilliant the light, which they display! To him who contemplates the New Testament as the work of [285] one individual, all written at one time, and published in one country; and to him who views it as the work of eight authors, written in different parts of the world, and at intervals in the extremes more than half a century apart, how different the amount of evidence, intrinsic and extrinsic, which it presents! The writers themselves, though all Jews, born in different provinces of the Roman empire, having each a provincial dialect, a peculiarity of style, and some of them of different ranks and avocations of life, give great variety to the style, and weight to the authority of this small volume. They are eight witnesses, who depose not only to the original facts on which Christianity is based, but to a thousand incidents which directly or indirectly bear upon the pretensions of the Founder of this religion: and from the variety of information, allusion, description, and reference to persons, places and events, which they present to us, they subject themselves not only to cross-examination among themselves, but to be compared and tried by cotemporary historians, geographers, politicians, statesmen, and orators: in fact, they bring themselves in contact with all the public documents of the age in which they lived and wrote. But of this hereafter in detail.

      But to approach the position to be proved still more closely. This volume purports to be the writings of these eight persons, and has been transmitted from generation to generation as such. We ascend the stream up to it fountain. We find it ascribed to them in the last century. Millions believed it. In the century preceding that, millions believed it: and so on, till we come up very nigh the times in which the works were written. What would, let me ask--what would be the quality and amount of evidence necessary to establish the fact of authorship of any other work of antiquity? We claim no favors. We ask for no peculiar process, no new or untried form of examination. We will constitute no new court of inquiry. We will submit the question of authorship to be tried by all the canons, or regulations, or rules, which the literary world, which the most rigid critics, have instituted or appealed to, in settling any literary question of this sort. Let me, then, ask--in such a court, would the fact of these writings having been universally received by all the primitive Christians, as the works of their reputed authors, be admitted as sufficient proof? Would the fact of these writings having been quoted as the genuine works of their reputed authors, by the earliest Christian writers, by the cotemporaries and immediate successors of the original witnesses, be admitted as proof? Would testimony of neutrals, would the testimony of apostates, would the testimony of the first opponents of the Christian religion, be admitted as proof? Would the concurrent and combined [286] testimony of all these be admitted, to prove the mere question of authorship? Most unquestionably these embrace all the proofs which human reason can require, and all which the archives of human learning can furnish, in proof of the authorship of any literary work in the world. Yes, manifold more than ever has been called for, and much more than can be adduced, to prove the authorship of any work of the same antiquity. The poems of Virgil and Horace, the annals of Tacitus, the orations of Cicero, the most popular works of antiquity, cannot afford half the proofs that they are the genuine works of the persons whose names they bear, as can be adduced to prove the authorship of the Memoirs of Jesus Christ, written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

      Although we might not be able to summon into one and the same court all the friends and all the enemies of Christianity, who wrote something upon the subject in the Apostolic and in the succeeding age, to attest that all the writings now ascribed to those eight authors were actually written by them; yet we do, in effect, the same, by hearing them in piecemeal or in detail. For example: it is, to quote the words of Dr. Chalmer's, "the unexcepted testimony of all subsequent writers, that two of the Gospels and several of the Epistles were written by the immediate disciples of the Savior, and published in their lifetime." Even Celsus, an enemy of the Christian faith, and the first Gentile writer who publicly opposes Christianity, admits this, or refers to the affairs of Jesus as written by his disciples. From the extracts which he makes in his book, there can be no doubt but that he refers to one or other of the four Gospels. He wrote about one hundred years after the first publication of the Narrative. "He takes it up upon the strength of its general notoriety, and the whole history of that period furnishes nothing that can attach any doubt or suspicion to this circumstance. The distinct assertion of Celsus, being an enemy to Christianity, that the pieces in question were written by the companions of Jesus, though even at the distance of a hundred years, is an argument in favor of their authenticity, which cannot be alleged for many of the most esteemed compositions of antiquity."

      But, although we give the testimony of Celsus first, it is not because there is no more ancient witness, but because he is the first philosophic adversary of the faith. There is a series of writers, in unbroken succession, from the days of the Apostles, all attesting the truth of the position before us. I have lying upon the table here before me, a volume of the writings of the primitive disciples of Christ, and first teachers of Christianity, the cotemporaries, and successors of the Apostles. Here (lifting up the volume, Mr. C. said) here is the testimony of Barnabas, of Clement, Hermas, Ingnatius, and Polycarp--Barnabas the [287] companion of Paul, Clement the bishop of the congregation in Rome, whom all antiquity agrees to be the person mentioned by Paul, Phil. iv. 3--Hermas, whom Paul mentions in his Epistle to the Romans--Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who flourished there A. D. 75, who took the oversight of that congregation thirty-seven years after the ascension of Christ--Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who had seen, conversed with, and was familiar with some of the Apostles--all these directly quote the historical or the epistolary books of the New Testament--and refer to these writings as of general notoriety. To these, I need scarcely add the testimony of Papias, the hearer of John, of Irenæus, Justin, and others, their cotemporaries. They either quote them by saying, as it is written, or by name. Let us have an example or two: Barnabas, in his epistle, says, "Let us therefore beware lest it come upon us as it is written. There are many called but few chosen." Now, this mode of quoting Matthew's testimony is more authoritative than the naming of him; for this appeal to his writings makes it evident that they were notorious, and of unexceptionable authority, even so early as the time of Barnabas. In the letter written by Clement from Rome to Corinth, in the name of the whole congregation in Rome, to the whole congregation in Corinth, say from five hundred Christians in Rome to five hundred Christians in Corinth, the sermon on the Mount is directly quoted, and other passages of the testimony of Matthew and Luke. But it would be tedious to be minute in furnishing examples of each sort of quotations here; more than forty clear allusions to the books of the New Testament are to be found in the single fragment of Polycarp, and there are more quotations in Tertullian of the second century, from the New Testament, than are to be found of the writings of Cicero, in all the writers of two or three centuries. Indeed, from the very time in which these writings first appeared, they were received according to their dates, and quoted and applied in the decision of all controversies, by all the commentators, as possessed of an authority, and to be heard with a reverence, paramount to all other. So scrupulous, too, were the ancient Christians of the authority of these writings, that when collecting them into one volume (for many years they were written and read in detached pieces) they would not agree to bind in the same parchment with them, any other writing not from the same authors. Some of them even objected to adding the Epistle to the Hebrews, because it wanted Paul's name; and some demurred to the Revelation, written by John, and to the Epistle of James, to the 2d of Peter, the 2d and 3d of John, and to that of Jude, because they had not reached some places as soon as the others. But after making themselves better acquainted with the claims of these writings, they ware added with the consent of [288] all the Christians in the Eastern, as well as in the Western Roman empire.

      There is not a writer on religion, which has come down to us from the second century (and of such writers the second century was not barren) who has not quoted these writings, less or more, as we do at the present day. But why occupy so much time in proving a matter which, we presume, neither Mr. Owen himself nor any skeptic of the present day, will deny? The laborious Lardner has given most copious proofs of the notoriety of these writings, and of the many quotations from them by the earliest Christian writers; and it is well observed by Paley, that "beside our gospels and the acts of the Apostles, no Christian history claiming to be written by an Apostle, or apostolical man, is quoted within three hundred years after the birth of Christ, by any writer now extant or known; or if quoted, is quoted with marks of censure and rejection." It is also well remarked by another writer, "that the agreement of Christians respecting the scriptures, when all the other differences are considered, is the more remarkable that it took place without any public authority being interposed. The only interference on record is that of the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 363. This council only declared, and did not regulate the public judgment of only a few neighboring churches, the council only consisting of thirty or forty bishops of Lydia and the adjoining country. The congregations of Christians, all independent at first, received those writings universally, because of their irresistible claims upon their faith. But I doubt not that as skeptics have the most faith in one another, they will prefer the testimony of one Celsus, an infidel, to the testimony of six men who had seen, conversed with, and were familiar with the Apostles. These six are Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias. Let them, however, remember, that their own Celsus, who had much better opportunities of detecting any imposition or fraud than they, appeals to the affairs of Jesus, as written by his own companions, and quotes these histories as notorious documents in his time."

[Half hour out.]

      The Honorable Chairman rose and stated, that in consequence of notice given by Mr. Owen, that he has offered all he has to say in the opening, we propose that Mr. Campbell will proceed until he finish his argument now begun; and that Mr, Owen may then reply, Mr. C. rejoin, and the discussion close.

      Mr. Campbell resumes--Mr. Chairman: Before resuming my argument, I presume it will not be amiss to state some facts relative to this discussion. Anterior to Mr. Owen's last visit to Europe, I had the pleasure of an interview with him, at which time we made our arrangements [289] for this controversy. From the fluency with which Mr. Owen spoke of his system, and of the present state of society, and from his known labors and zeal in the cause of skepticism, I did expect to find in him a very formidable disputant, and concluded it would be necessary for me to provide a great variety of documents for this discussion. The positions which have been so often read, I expected Mr. Owen would logically defend, one by one. He affirmed, and I denied. The onus probandi he took upon himself. Conscious of his inability to support these positions, it seems he has now abandoned them, any farther than assertions without proof, and declamation without argument, upon twelve other positions, may be imagined to have bearing upon them. I was prepared to rebut his proofs and arguments, had he presumed to defend his affirmations, but did not expect to have to assume propositions affirmative of the authenticity of Christianity, and prove them while I must rebut him. This failure of my friend, has very much embarrassed this discussion, and has obliged me to change my course, and to new modify my defense of Christianity. Mr. Owen had not finished his prefatory address, until I saw that he could not argue the verity of his assertions. I was, however, so much circumscribed by the rules of logic and decorums, as not to feel myself authorized to pay no attention to his propositions and heterogeneous matter, but to go on and argue positions of my own. I have stood in the center of a circle of embarrassments--embarrassed by the obliquity of Mr. Owen's method, and his disregard to the decisions of the presiding Moderators--at one time reminded that the ladies do not hear me; at another, the stenographer groans under the rapidity of my pronunciation; anon, the apprehensions that my half hour is almost fled, restrain my tongue and embargo my thoughts; so that I am surrounded with very vicious circumstances, as Mr. Owen would say. But now I hope to be in some measure relieved from the influence of these embarrassing circumstances--although the singularity of the issue may oblige me to omit a very large proportion of the documents which I had expected to offer.

      Authorized as I now am, by the decision of the bench, I proceed to the further confirmation of the truth of the position under discussion at the time of our adjournment.

      That the historical and epistolary books of the New Testament, were written by the persons and at the times alleged by themselves, is, perhaps, in the estimation of some, already sufficiently established. It would be easy to swell the list of the original vouchers with many distinguished names of the primitive defenders of Christianity, against the cavils and objections of Jews and Pagans. But the real strength [290] of the evidence in favor of the authorship is in the cotemporary writers. When we descend the pages of history no farther down than the tunes of Origen, who succeeded Tertullian only about twenty-five years, we find such declarations as the following: "The four gospels (says he, and he arranges them as we have them now arranged) alone, are received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven." That is, Christians differed on other matters, and in this one point alone there was not a single dissentient. It would only savor of display to add the names of Justin Martyr, Dionysius, Titian, Hegesippus, Athenagoras, Miltiades, and a hundred others, who quote these writings as the works of the persons whose names they now bear. It was well said by Origen, in his dispute with Celsus, the Epicurean philosopher, and opposer of the faith, when quoting a passage from these inspired books: "Thus it is written, not in any private book, or such as are read by a few persons only, but in books read by everybody." We cannot proceed to another item intimately connected with this, without reading from the argumentative Chalmers, the following remarks on these sentiments:

      "In estimating the value of any testimony, there are two distinct subjects of consideration; the person who gives the testimony, and the people to whom the testimony is addressed. It is quite needless to enlarge on the resources which, in the present instance, we derive from both these considerations, and how much each of them contributes to the triumph and solidity of the Christian argument. In as far as the people who give the testimony are concerned, how could they be mistaken in their account of the books of the New Testament, when some of them lived in the same age with the original writers, and were their intimate acquaintances, and when all of them had the benefit of an uncontrolled series of evidence, reaching down from the date of the earliest publications, to their own times. Or, how can we suspect that they falsified, when there runs through their writings the same tone of plainness and sincerity, which is allowed to stamp the character of authenticity on other productions; and, above all, when upon the strength of heathen testimony, we conclude, that many of them, by their sufferings and death, gave the highest evidence that man can give, of his speaking under the influence of a real and honest conviction? In as far as the people who received the testimony are concerned, to what other circumstances can we ascribe their concurrence, but to the truth of that testimony? In what way was it possible to deceive them upon a point of general notoriety? The books of the New Testament are referred to by the ancient fathers, as writings generally known and respected by the Christians of that period. If they were obscure [291] writings, or had no existence at the time, how can we account for the credit and authority of those fathers who appealed to them, and had the effrontery to insult their fellow-Christians by a falsehood so palpable, and so easily detected? Allow them to be capable of this treachery, we have still to explain, how the people came to be the dupes of so glaring an imposition; how they could be permitted to give up everything for a religion, whose teachers were so unprincipled as to deceive them, and so unwise as to commit themselves upon ground where it was impossible to elude discovery. Could Clement have dared to refer the people of Corinth to an epistle said to be received by themselves, and which had no existence? or, could he have referred the Christians at large to writings which they never heard of? And it was not enough to maintain the semblance of truth with the people of their own party. Where were the Jews all the time? and how was it possible to escape the correction of these keen and vigilant observers? We mistake the matter much, if we think, that Christianity at that time was making its insidious way in silence and in secrecy, through a listless and unconcerned public. All history gives an opposite representation. The passions and curiosity of men were quite upon the alert. The popular enthusiasm had been excited on both sides of the question. It had drawn the attention of the established authorities in different provinces of the empire, and the merits of the Christian cause had become a matter of frequent and moral discussion in courts of judicature. If, in these circumstances, the Christian writers had the hardihood to venture upon a falsehood, it would have been upon safer ground than what they naturally adopted. They never would have hazarded to assert what was so open to contradiction, as the existence of books held in reverence among all the churches, and which yet nobody, either in or out of these churches, ever heard of. They would never have been so unwise as to commit in this way a cause, which had not a single circumstance to recommend it but its truth and its evidences.

      "The falsehood of the Christian testimony on this point, carries along with it a concurrence of circumstances, each of which is the strangest and most unprecedented that ever was heard of. First, That men, who sustained in their writings all the characters of sincerity, and many of whom submitted to martyrdom, as the highest pledge of sincerity which can possibly be given, should have been capable of falsehood at all. Second, That this tendency to falsehood should have been exercised so unwisely, as to appear in an assertion perfectly open to detection, and which could be so readily converted to the discredit of that religion, which it was the favorite ambition of their lives to promote and establish in the world. Third, That this testimony could [292] have gained the concurrence of the people to whom it was addressed, and that with their eyes perfectly open to its falsehood, they should be ready to make the sacrifice of life and of fortune in supporting it. Fourth, That this testimony should never have been contradicted by the Jews, and that they should have neglected so effectual an opportunity of disgracing a religion, the progress of which they contemplated with so much jealousy and alarm. Add to this, that it is not the testimony of one writer, which we are making to pass through the ordeal of so many difficulties. It is the testimony of many writers, who lived at different times, and in different countries, and who add the very singular circumstances, equally unaccountable, which we have just now enumerated. The falsehood of their united testimony is not to be conceived. It is a supposition which we are warranted to condemn, upon the strength of any one of the above improbabilities, taken separately. But the fair way of estimating their effect upon the argument, is to take them jointly, and, in the language of the doctrine of chances, to take the product of all the improbabilities into one another. The argument which this product furnishes for the truth of the Christian testimony, has, in strength and conclusiveness, no parallel in the whole compass of ancient literature."

      To this we shall only add, that "the force of the above testimony is greatly strengthened by the consideration that it is the concurring evidence of separate, independent, and well-informed writers, who lived in countries remote from one another. Clement lived at Rome; Ignatius, at Antioch; Polycarp, in Smyrna; Justin Martyr, in Syria; Irenæus, in France; Tertullian, at Carthage; Origen, in Egypt; Eusebius, in Cæsarea, and Victorin, in Germany. The dangers which they incurred, and the hardships and persecutions which they suffered, some of them even unto death, on account of their adherence to the Christian faith, gave irresistible weight to their testimony."

      That the scriptures of the New Testament are now read in language communicating substantially all the same ideas, originally expressed in them, appears from the quotations found in the works of these first advocates of the Christian cause. To prevent the alteration or interpolation of these documents, the various sects which soon sprung up, afforded every sort of safeguard. Various sectaries arose under the influence of the Oriental philosophy, who rather engrafted Christianity upon their philosophy, than embraced Christianity as an entirely new system. The Platonic philosophy became the parent of many sects. The Platonists began to expound the scriptures philosophically, and this led to many factions among the Christians. Each party soon got into the practice of quoting the scriptures to prove its own tenets. The [293] opposing party narrowly scrutinized these quotations. This prevented the corruption of the text. And thus, by that government, which from evil still educes good, the very heresies themselves which disturbed the peace and retarded the progress of Christianity, became the guardians of the integrity and purity of the text.

      But I have not, as yet, to my own satisfaction at least, sufficiently fixed upon your memory, what I have more than once asserted, viz: That the testimony which the apostles and first Christians gave to the facts composing the gospel narrative, was not opposed by any counter testimony. Neither the authorship of the Apostolic writings, nor the facts attested in them, were ever opposed by any contradictory statements. All antiquity does not afford a vestige, public or private, of any contradictory testimony. The appearance and life of Jesus Christ, the miracles which he performed, the lives, and labors, and mighty deeds of his Apostles, his death and its accompaniments, are matters of fact uncontradicted in the annals of Rome, and of the world. Nay, they are universally admitted, both by Jews and Pagans. Though the opposition was a most violent one, though ridicule, defamation, and persecution, were all employed and displayed against the Christian cause, no one presumed to deny the facts. What but truth almighty could have stood such an ordeal, or commanded such an acquiescence? Edicts were promulgated against the Christians, and philosophers employed to write against them, but the former never questioned the facts, and the latter quoted the gospel history as authentic, and attempted to explain it away.

      Now the facts, many of them at least, were most easily disproved--such as Herod's summoning the scribes and chief priests on the application of the Magi; the slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem; that John the Baptist proclaimed Jesus, and was beheaded by the intrigues of Herodias; that Jesus fed many thousands on a few loaves and fishes; that Lazarus was raised from the grave; that Jesus was crucified; that the Apostles were gifted with foreign tongues on Pentecost; that Peter and John, by the name of Jesus, cured a cripple of the greatest notoriety, at the beautiful gate of the temple; that Paul was detained a prisoner by Felix; the conduct of the magistrates at Philippi ; his appearance before Agrippa, and Gallio, the elder brother of the philosopher, Seneca; and a thousand others recorded, the most easy of detection and refutation, yet not one of all these contradicted by any writer of that age, Jew, Pagan, or apostate Christian!

      But so far from being contradicted by any of the cotemporaries, all the impartial facts are admitted by the adversaries themselves. We shall examine a few of the first adversaries of the Christian religion. [294] We shall begin with the celebrated Trypho. This violent opposer of the Christian religion, was born before John the Apostle died. This is quite probable, for he held a public debate or dialogue with Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, in the city of Ephesus. During the debate, Justin Martyr mentions many of the gospel facts, and appeals to the miracles. Trypho and his four companions admit the facts, but ridicule the idea of Jesus being born of a virgin, as absurd; and say "it is foolish to suppose that Christ is God, and became man." He says it is impossible to prove that any can be God but the maker of the world! He denies not the facts, which, as a Jew, he had every facility to have done, had they been controvertible.

      Justin cited the prophecy of Daniel vii. 13, and argues from it. "But," replies Trypho, "these prophecies constrain us to expect the Messiah to be great and illustrious; but he who is called your Christ, is without reputation and glory, so that he fell under the greatest curse of the law of God: for he was crucified."

      Trypho tells Justin that "in the tables of the Greeks, it is said, that Perseus was born of Danæ, while a virgin, he who is by them called Jupiter, having fallen upon her in the form of gold. Now, says he, you who affirm the same thing ought to be ashamed, and should rather say that this Jesus was man of man."

      Again, Justin affirms that the Jews knew that Jesus rose from the dead. He adds: "The other nations have not proceeded so far in wickedness against Christ as you, who are to them the authors of evil suspicions against that holy person, and against us, his disciples; for after you had crucified that only blameless and just person, by whose stripes healing has come to all who approach the Father through him, when you knew that he was risen from the deed and ascended into Heaven, as the prophets foretold should happen, you not only did not repent of the evil things you had committed, but choosing chief men at Jerusalem, you sent them forth into all the earth to publish that the sect of the Christians were Atheists."

      Justin having shown, from the Jewish scriptures, that another beside the Father is called God, Trypho replied; "You have, my friend, strongly and by many passages demonstrated this. It remains that you show that this person, according to the will of the Father, submitted to become man of a virgin, to be crucified, to die, to arise afterward, and to return to Heaven." Does not this prove that these facts, though ridiculed and defamed, could not be contradicted?

      Lucian, the Syrian, who was born about the year 120, gives the following account of one Peregrinus, who publicly burnt himself in Greece soon after the Olympic games, about the year 165: [295]

      "LUCIAN was a native of Samosata in Syria: he was born some time in the reign of Adrian, which began in the year 117, and terminated in 138. Although he did not write expressly in opposition to Christianity, he was strongly prejudiced against it. He gives the following account of Peregrinus, who publicly burnt himself in Greece soon after the Olympic games, about the year 165: 'Peregrinus, or Proteus, appears for a while to have imposed on the Christians, and to have joined himself to them.' Lucian, after saying that 'Peregrinus learned the wonderful doctrine of the Christians by conversing with the priests and scribes near Palestine,' and after going on to observe that they 'still worship that great man who was crucified in Palestine, because he introduced into the world this new religion,' he adds: 'For this reason, Proteus was taken up and put in prison, which same thing was no small service to him afterward, for giving reputation to his impostures, and gratifying his vanity. The Christians were much grieved for his imprisonment, and tried all ways to produce his liberty. Not being able to effect that, they did him all sorts of kind offices, and that not in a careless manner, but with the greatest assiduity; for even betimes in the morning there would be at the prison old women, some widows, and also little orphan children; and some of the chief of their men, by corrupting the keepers, would get into prison, and stay the whole night there with him: there they had a good supper together, and their sacred discourses. And this excellent Peregrinus (for so he was still called) was thought by them to be an extraordinary person, no less than another Socrates. Even from the cities of Asia some Christians came to him, by order of the body, to relieve, encourage, and comfort him. For it is incredible what expedition they use, when any of their friends are known to be in trouble. In a word, they spare nothing upon such an occasion; and Peregrinus' chain brought him a good sum of money from them. For these miserable men have no doubt but they shall be immortal, and live forever; therefore they contemn death, and many surrender themselves to sufferings. Moreover, their first lawgiver has taught them, that they are all brethren when once they have turned, and renounced the gods of the Greeks, and worship that Master of theirs who was crucified, and engage to live according to his laws. They have also a sovereign contempt for all the things of this world, and look upon them as common, and trust one another with them without any particular security; for which reason any subtile fellow, by good management, may impose upon this simple people, and grow rich among them.' Lucian afterward informs us that Peregrinus was set at liberty by the governor of Syria, and that at length he parted from the Christians. [296]

      "We have here an authentic testimony, from a heathen writer, who was well acquainted with mankind, to some of the main facts and principles of Christianity. That the founder of the Christian religion was crucified in Palestine; that he was the great Master of the Christians, and the first author of the principles received by them; that these men called Christians had peculiarly strong hopes of immortal life, and a great contempt for this world and its enjoyments; that they courageously endured many afflictions upon account of their principles, and sometimes surrendered themselves to sufferings. Honesty and probity prevailed so much among them, that they trusted each other without security. Their Master had earnestly recommended to all his followers mutual love, by which also they were much distinguished; and their assiduity in relieving and comforting one another, when under affliction, was known to all men. It is no disparagement to them that they were imposed upon by Peregrinus, who was admired by many others."

      "CELSUS, cotemporary with Lucian, was an Epicurean philosopher, who lived in the region of Adrian. He was one of the most virulent adversaries the Christian religion ever had, and also a man of considerable parts and learning. The book which he wrote against the Christians, in the year 176, was entitled 'The True Word.' He there introduces a Jew declaiming against Jesus Christ, and against such Jews as were converted to Christianity. Origen's answer to Celsus is not a general reply, but a minute examination of all his objections, even those which appeared the most frivolous. He states the objections of Celsus in his own words; and, that nothing might escape him, he takes them, he says, in the order in which Celsus placed them.

      "Celsus used only the gospels themselves in search of evidence against their truth. He never refers to any suspicious gospel or to any other accounts of the life of Christ. His attack is conducted not by denying the facts contained in the scriptures, of which he all along admits the truth, but by reasoning from such as the following topics: That it was absurd to esteem and worship one as God who was acknowledged to have been a man, and to have suffered death: that Christ invited sinners to enter into the kingdom of God: that it was inconsistent with his supposed dignity to come to save such low and despicable creatures as the Jews and Christians: that he spake dishonorably and impiously of God: that the doctrines and precepts of religion are better taught by the Greek philosophers than in the gospels; and without the threatenings of God." The following are specimens of the objections he brings forward:

      "What need was there for carrying thee, while an infant, into Egypt, [297] that thou mightest not be slain? For it did not become God to be afraid of death." "How can we think him God, who, to omit other things, performed none of those matters which we are told he promised? and who, being condemned by us, when he was sought to be punished, was caught basely lurking and flying, being betrayed by those whom he called his disciples?" "If you tell them that it is not the Son of God, but he who is Father of all whom men ought to worship, they will not be satisfied unless you also worship him who is the author of their seduction; not that they exceed in the worship of God, but that they, above measure, worship this man." Speaking of the crucifixion, Celsus says, "If not before, why did he not now, at least, exert his divinity, and deliver himself from this ignominy, and treat those as they deserved who behaved ignominiously both toward himself and his Father?" "If these men worshiped no other but the one God, they might justly inveigh against all other gods. But now they out of measure worship one who but lately appeared, and yet imagine they do not sin against God, though they also serve his minister." He affirms that Jesus, being "brought up obscurely, and obliged to serve for hire in Egypt, learned there certain powerful arts, for which the Egyptians are renowned; then returned greatly elated with his power, on account of which he declared himself a God."

      "Celsus represents Jesus to have lived but a few years before. He mentions its being said that Jesus was born of a virgin; that angels appeared to Joseph. He speaks of the star that appeared at the birth of Jesus; the wise men that came to worship him, when an infant, and Herod's massacring the children; Joseph's fleeing with the child into Egypt, by the admonition of an angel; the Holy Ghost descending on Jesus like a dove, when he was baptized by John, and the voice from Heaven declaring him to be the Son of God; his going about with his disciples, whom he calls boatmen, publicans, and wicked sailors; his healing the sick and lame, and raising the dead; his foretelling his own sufferings and resurrection; his being betrayed, forsaken by his own disciples; his sufferings; his praying, 'Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me;' the ignominious treatment he met with; the robe that was put upon him; the crown of thorns; the reed put into his hand; his drinking vinegar and gall; and his being scourged and crucified; his being seen after his resurrection, by a fanatical woman (as he calls her, meaning Mary Magdalene), and by his own companions and disciples; his showing them his hands that were pierced, the marks of his punishment. He also mentions the angels being seen at his sepulcher, and that some said it was one angel, others that it was two; by which he hints at the seeming variation in the accounts given of it [298] by the Evangelists. Upon the whole, there are in Celsus about eighty quotations from the books of the New Testament, or references to them, of which Origen has taken notice. And while he argues from them, sometimes in a very perverse manner, he still takes it for granted, as the foundation of his argument, that whatever absurdities could be fastened upon any words or actions of Christ, recorded in the gospels, it would be a valid objection against Christianity.

      "The reasoning, then, on both sides of this dispute proceeded on the supposition of the truth of the Gospel history. Celsus also grants that Christ wrought miracles. The difference between him and Origen, on this subject, lies in the manner of accounting for them; the one ascribing them to magic, the other to the power of God."

      "PORPHYRY, the philosopher, was born at Tyre, in Phenicia, about the year 233. He wrote a large treatise against the Christian religion, of which he was a very able and learned opponent. He endeavors to overthrow the authority of the scriptures, not by denying their authenticity, but by endeavoring to point out in them contradictions and absurdities; but he opposes no contradicting statement. He does not deny the miracles, but calls them 'the works of cunning demons,' and refers to some who he asserts performed miracles as great. He appears to have been well acquainted with the scriptures, and refers to numerous passages and circumstances in them, which he perverts, after the manner of Celsus, pointing out what he deems immoral and absurd. 'If Christ,' he objects, 'be the way of salvation, the truth and the life, and they only who believe in him can be saved, what became of the men who lived before his coming?' 'Christ threatens everlasting punishment to those who do not believe him, and yet in another place he says, with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again, which is absurd and contradictory; for all measure must be limited to time.' He objects that Peter was reproved by Paul, for that he did not proceed uprightly in preaching the gospel. Hence he argues the falsehood of the whole doctrine, as if it were a mere invention, since the heads of the churches disagreed. Other passages of scripture he reasons upon in a similar manner. The cause why Æsculapius wrought no cures, as he says, in his time, and why the other gods no longer gave responses, neither intermeddled in the affairs of men, he ascribes wholly to the honor that was given to Jesus; 'Since Jesus has been honored, none have received any public benefit from the gods.'

      "Notwithstanding what he says against the Christians, Porphyry gives an honorable testimony to the character of Jesus Christ. In his [299] treatise, entitled, 'Philosophy of Oracles,' the following passage, preserved by Eusebius, occurs:

      "What we are going to say, may perhaps appear to some a paradox, for the gods declared Christ to be a person most pious, and become immortal. Moreover, they speak of him honorably." And going on, he adds: "Being asked concerning Christ, whether he is God, he (Apollo) answered, 'That he who is renowned for wisdom, knows that the immortal soul continues after the body; but the pious soul of that man is most excelling.' He therefore affirmed him to be a most pious person, and that his soul, which the foolish Christians worship, like that of other good men, was after death made immortal; but being asked why he was punished, he answered, 'That the body indeed is ever liable to little torments; but the soul of the pious rests in the plain of Heaven.' And, immediately after this oracle, he adds, 'He was, therefore, a pious person, and went to Heaven, as pious persons do, for which cause you ought not to speak evil of him, but to pity the folly of the men,' (namely, who worship him)."

      "HIEROCLES, the philosopher, was prefect at Alexandria, in the year 303. He composed two books in order to confute the Christian religion. To these books Eusebius published an answer, which still remains. Hierocles endeavors to prove the falsehood of the scriptures, by attempting to show that they contradict themselves, for which purpose he makes observations on a great number of particular passages. The proof of Christianity, from the miracles of Jesus, he tries to invalidate, not by denying the facts themselves, but by showing that one Apollonius had performed equal, if not greater miracles, which were recorded, he says, not by ignorant men like Peter and Paul, but by Maximum of Ægis, and Damis a philosopher. 'Now,' says he, 'we reckon him who did such wonderful things, not a god, but only a man, whereas they (the Christians) give the appellation of God to Jesus, because he performed a few miracles.' Lactantius, in remarking on this, affirms, that the difference between the miracles performed by Jesus, and all impostors whatever, is evident from the manner in which they were regarded by mankind."

      "JULIAN, the Roman Emperor, succeeded to the throne of the Cæsars in the year 361. He had once made a profession of Christianity, but afterward abandoned it. In the year 363, he wrote a treatise in three books against the Christians, and to confute the Christian religion, against which he shows great inveteracy. Libanius the Sophist, who was acquainted with Julian, says: 'He wrote a treatise to show that these books which make the Man of Palestine to be God, contained nothing but silly and ridiculous matters.' Cyril wrote an answer to [300] this work, in which he transcribes many passages from it at length. Julian, like others whose works we have been considering, acknowledged the principal facts of the gospel history. The nature of Julian's objections, as well as his admission of the facts related, will be seen from the following extracts: 'Jesus having persuaded a few among you, and these of the worst of men, has now been celebrated about three hundred years, having done nothing in his lifetime worthy of remembrance, unless any one thinks it a mighty matter to heal lame and blind people, and exorcise demoniacs in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany.' 'Jesus, whom you preach, was one of Cæsar's subjects. If you refuse this, I will prove it by-and-by. But the thing is acknowledged. For you say, that he, with his father and mother, was enrolled under Cerenius. Now, after he was born, what good did he do to his relations? For he says they would not obey him.'

      "Alluding to the superstitious contentions of the Christians of that time about the observance of Easter, he says: 'These things flow entirely from yourselves, for nowhere has Jesus or Paul delivered you these things, commanding you to do them. The reason is, they did not expect that ever you would attain to this degree of power; for they were content if they deceived servant-maids and slaves, and by their means some wives and husbands, such as Cornelius and Sergius; of whom, if the one is remembered among the noted men of that time, for these things happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius, do you think that I lie concerning the rest?'

      "You are so unfortunate that you do not continue in those things which were delivered to you by the Apostles. For their successors have dressed them up for the worse, and more impiously. For neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark, ventured to call Jesus, God. But that good man John, perceiving that numbers of the Grecian and Italian cities were caught with that distemper, and hearing, as I suppose, that the sepulchers of Peter and Paul were privately worshiped, was the first who had the boldness to pronounce it.' Further, he objects what John says. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him. Whether then is this God word made flesh, the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father? and if he is the same, as I think, then certainly even you have seen God; for he dwelt among you, and ye beheld his glory."

      "Speaking of the Christians, he scoffingly says: 'Not only they of his time, but that some of those who at the beginning received the word from Paul, were such, is apparent from what Paul himself says, writing to them. For I presume he was not so void of shame, as to [301] send them such reproaches in his letter to them, if he had not known them to be just. These are the things which he writes of his disciples, and to themselves. 'Be not deceived; neither idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And you are not ignorant, brethren, that such were you also. But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified in the name of Jesus Christ,' 1 Cor. vi. 9-11. You see they were such, but they had been sanctified and washed, having been cleansed and scoured with water, which penetrates even to the soul. And baptism, which cannot heal the leprosy, nor the gout, nor the dysentery, nor any other distemper of the body, takes away adulteries, extortioners, and all other sins of the soul.' In the above passage, Julian says, 'I presume he was not so void of shame as to send them such reproaches in his letter to them, if he had not known them to be just.' This is the very argument formerly insisted on respecting the testimony of the first Christians, to whom the Epistles were addressed, which must have been applicable to them, or they would never have been received and acknowledged by them.

      "In a letter to Arsacius, high priest of Galatia, referring to the impiety of the Heathens, Julian recommends the example of the Christians: 'Why do we not look to that which has been the principal cause of the augmentation of impiety, humanity to strangers, care in burying the dead, and that sanctity of life of which they make such a show? all which things I will have to be really practiced by our people. It is not sufficient that you are unblamable yourself, all the priests in Galatia ought to be so likewise. I will, therefore, that you persuade, and even compel, all the priests in Galatia to live soberly, otherwise do you depose them from the priestly office, unless they, and their wives, and children, and servants, do religiously worship the gods, and also forbear to converse with the servants, children, and wives of the Galileans, who are impious toward the gods, and prefer impiety to religion. You are likewise to order them not to frequent the theater, nor to drink in taverns, nor to exercise any mean or sordid employments. Such as hearken to your directions, you are to encourage; others you are to reject. You are also to erect hospitals in every city, that strangers also may share in our humanity; and not only those of our own religion, but others likewise, if they are necessitous.' He then tells him what allowance he had made for that purpose. 'For,' says he, 'it is a shame when there are no beggars among the Jews, and the impious Galileans relieve not only their own people, but ours also, that our poor should be neglected by us, and left helpless and destitute." [302]

      "After all," says Julian, "these (Galileans) have in some degree a proper sense of religion, for they worship no abject and vulgar deity, but that God who is truly all-powerful and all-good, by whose direction the sensible world is conducted; the same I am persuaded that we also worship, under different names. They therefore seem to me to act very consistently, as they are not transgressors of the laws, but only err in paying their worship to this one God, in neglect of all the rest, and in thinking that we only, whom they style the Gentiles, are precluded from his influence."

      These testimonies are as worthy of the attention of the Christian public, as of the skeptics; for, while they prove that neither infidel Jews, nor Pagans, nor apostates from the Christian faith, in all their spite and malice, and with all the opportunities which they had, ever attempted to contradict one of the great facts on which Christianity is founded; they also give some striking attestations to the purity, excellency, and value of Christianity, as received and practiced by the primitive Christians. But the conclusion from these premises bearing upon the position before us (now, I hope, established in every mind in this assembly) which has led us so far into antiquity, is this--that the Christian scriptures, and the facts which they record, were admitted by the enemies of Christianity, as we now contend for them. But these infidels, like the modern, attempted to explain them away, to ridicule, or reproach them, as you have heard upon the present occasion, but, with what success, let the page of history, and our own experience, declare. I will only add, that I see in my friend, Mr. Owen, only a second edition of Celsus, in some respects abridged, and in others enlarged and improved. He dare not to deny the facts, but philosophizes against them, because repugnant to his Epicurean notions of matter, virtue, and happiness.

      These old skeptics reasoned against Jesus being Lord of the universe, and against his religion, just as a modern atheist reasons against the proposition, that God made this globe. A benevolent being could not create a world like this. See how badly it is planned, arranged, and adapted to the subsistence of animals. One part of it parched with a vertical sun; another bound in perpetual ice. One part of it dreary wastes, sandy deserts, and threefourths of the whole immense oceans. They have formed, in their own imagination, a standard of benevolence, and that will not apply to the appearance of things--and it is more consistent with the pride of philosophy to annihilate a creator, than to sacrifice their own imaginations to reason. So with these primitive skeptics; they opposed their own ideas, or their own [303] superstition, to incontestable facts; and rather than abandon the former, they thought good to attempt to explain away the latter.

      Two facts are established from the preceding documents and proofs--our adversaries themselves being judges:

      1. All Christian communities, from A.D. 33 to 101, whether previously Jews or Pagans, or both, to whom these writings were addressed, did receive and retain these writings, as the works of the persons whose names they bear.

      2. That all the opponents of Christianity whose works have come down to us--or whose arguments have been preserved in the writings of their opponents--did admit the gospel histories to have been written by their reputed authors; did admit the facts recorded, and never dared to question either the authorship of the inspired books, the time or place of their publication, or the verity of the facts stated by the eye and ear witnesses of the word.

      While on the subject of the authorship of these sacred writings, and on the incontrovertible nature of the facts stated in these narratives, I would think it not unsuitable, in this place, to take notice of the character of these writers, and the circumstantiality of the narrations.

      The question now before us, is: Does the character of these writers, as it presents itself to our view, from their own writings, or from any records which have come down to us, afford any ground to suspect either their sincerity, or any moral defect whatever? There is a species of evidence, sometimes called the internal evidence of Christianity. This is made up from the character of the writers, the particulars of style and sentiment exhibited, and also from the nature, object, and tendency of the doctrine taught, or the communications made. There is what is sometimes called the critical internal evidence; and the moral internal evidence. I am not, however, going into this matter at present. I only remark, that, although the internal evidence, found within the volume, is not supposed the best calculated to arrest the attention of the bold, declaiming infidel, or the curious speculating skeptic; yet this is the evidence which ever has made the deepest impression upon the mind of the honest inquirer; and affords a much greater assurance to the believer of the certainty of the foundation of his faith, than all the external proofs which have ever been adduced. The moral internal evidence of Christianity, is that which takes hold of the great mass of mankind, because it seizes the soul of man; it adapts itself to the whole man. It speaks to the understanding, to the conscience, to the affections, to the passions, to the circumstances, of man, in a way which needs no translation, no comment. It pierces the soul of man, dividing even the animal life from our intellectual nature, [304] and developing the thoughts and intents of the heart. There is an internal sense to which it addresses itself, which can feel, examine, weigh, and decide upon its pretensions without pronouncing a word.

      In silencing, confuting, confounding, and converting the bold opposer with a hard heart and a seared conscience, we do take hold of those strong, stubborn, and prostrating arguments, drawn from what we sometimes call the extrinsic sources. But when we aim at converting the great mass of mankind, we only think of laying open the internal evidences. In the former case, we begin by proving that God speaks; but, in the latter, we assume the fact, and prove it from what is spoken. That God speaks, ten thousand vouchers in the volume declare--none of which can be refuted. These are they which assure the Christian that his faith will never make his ashamed.

      But I will speak of the circumstantiality of the writers, that I may illustrate their sincerity. When a person attempts to impose upon us, he sometimes deals in generals, and avoids particulars. He keeps out to sea. He takes care not to deal much in dates, times, persons, and places of easy reference. He fears nothing more than specific terms, and minute details. But as there is a peculiar air of design, intrigue, imposture, or fiction, so there is an air of frankness, candor, honesty, sincerity, which it is as difficult to counterfeit, as to change the lineaments of the face. There is the physiognomy of truth. Sometimes it is mimicked. A labored minuteness instead of the unaffected details, an artificial particularity instead of the natural and incidental relation of circumstances, frequently, in works of fiction, assume much of their air of truth; but never so exact is the imitation as to escape the detection of the well informed and accurate examiner. A secret consciousness of merited suspicion will always blush through the most labored concealment. But the consciousness of truth, will, without a challenge, court investigation, and defy contradiction. There is an air of this sort which accompanies conscious truth, that never can be perfectly counterfeited. This fearlessness of consequences, this eager desire of examination, this courting of contradiction, is the most prominent feature in the character of all the original witnesses who attest the evangelical story. They take a range in their narratives, quite unnecessary, and go into circumstantial details, allusions to persons, places, and public events, which no necessity compelled, were it not that they defied doubt, and solicited examination. When they record a miracle, they go into a detail of circumstances, which renders rational doubt impossible. The witnesses of many of the miracles were very numerous, and in recording them, they challenge, as it were, and summon all the witnesses. Such, for example, was the fact in that sublime [305] miracle of feeding five thousand men upon five barley loaves and two small fishes. The place where, the time of year when, and many circumstances connected with this occurrence, put it in the power of each one of the five thousand, and, consequently, in the power of myriads of their cotemporaries, to contradict and repel such falsehood, if it had been one. But the conversations of the enemies, the deeds and sayings of the opponents, the objections and complaints of Scribes and Pharisees, are frequently detailed along with the cause which elicited them. All of which afforded the most ready means of detection.

      No country more than Judea, and no age more than the era of Jesus Christ and his apostles, made it difficult to pass off a forgery, if the impostors should be copious in their allusions to the events of the time and place. Now, the apostles and historians were most minute and copious in their allusions. But whence did this difficulty arise? Because the Jews were the most captious people, and the most conversant in all questions affecting their religious standing and character; because at that time there was an expectation that the Messiah should be born--and because the land of Judea experienced so many vicissitudes in its political relations, during the time this scene of things was exhibited. At the commencement of the period of the evangelical story, it constituted a part of a kingdom under Herod the great. Then it came under the dominion of Archelaus, under new arrangements; then it passed under the direct administration of the Roman government; the exaltation of Herod Agrippa to the sovereign power of his grandfather, for a time interrupted this order of things; and finally it is left in the form of a province, when the history of the New Testament closes. The surrounding countries also partook of similar changes in their forms of government. Now it would have been dangerous in the extreme for any impostors, living in any other country, or even in the same country, forty years after the close of the New Testament story, to have attempted to forge such a story, and antedate it even forty years; especially as the prominent characters of this story had much to do in the ecclesiastical judicatories of these times, and to appear before several of the magistrates and governors then in office under the Roman emperors. No man could now write the history of any prominent individual living in New Jersey some forty years ago, full of incident and allusion to the families and individuals of the neighborhood, and now pass it off for a work of the period which it pretended to describe. I ask, could such an attempt possibly escape detection, especially if copious in allusion and references to the manners, customs, and leading personages of the day? But how much more difficult if, in that period, four or five changes in the government [306] had taken place, and in the public management of its political concerns? It would have been impossible for the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, to have survived their authors, had they either been a record of false facts, or a disguised, perverted representation of facts which had occurred. It would exhaust your patience, my friends, and our strength, to attempt, were we now adequate to the task, to detail the allusions, references, and appeals to the illustrious personages, to the customs and institutions, Roman and Jewish, which then existed in that land and circumjacent country, and which are found in the historical books alone of the New Testament. I will just give you one example of the circumstantial minuteness of these historians, which may suffice for a specimen of what might be exhibited, were we to devote our attention to such development. I will only premise that, as the circumstance of having four historians gives us the opportunity of cross-examination, so the allusions to Jewish, Roman, and other usages, give us the opportunity of cross-examining the sacred with the profane historians and writers of that day, of which we rejoice to state there are not a few.

      The example to which I refer, is the trial, condemnation, and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Seven or eight allusions to persons, customs, and usages, which the sacred writers never explain, are found in the accounts of this trial, which will bear a cross-examination with all the authentic records of these times. Chalmers notices them in the following manner:

      "The fact that they are borne out in their minute and incidental allusions by the testimony of other historians, gives a strong weight of what has been called circumstantial evidence in their favor. As a specimen of the argument, let us confine our observations to the history of our Savior's trial, and execution, and burial. They brought him to Pontius Pilate. We know both from Tacitus and Josephus, that he was at that time governor of Judea. A sentence from him was necessary, before they could proceed to the execution of Jesus; and we know that the power of life and death was usually vested in the Roman governor. Our Savior was treated with derision; and this we know to have been a customary practice at that time, previous to the execution of criminals, and during the time of it. Pilate scourged Jesus before he gave him up to be crucified. We know from ancient authors, that this was a very usual practice among the Romans. The account of an execution generally ran in this form: He was stripped, whipped, and beheaded, or executed. According to the evangelists, his accusation, was written on the top of the cross; and we learn from Suetonius and others, that the crime of the person to be executed was [307] affixed to the instrument of his punishment. According to the evangelists, this accusation was written in three different languages; and we know from Josephus that it was quite common in Jerusalem to have all public advertisements written in this manner. According to the evangelists, Jesus had to bear his cross; and we know, from other sources of information, that this was the constant practice of these times. According to the evangelists, the body of Jesus was given up to be buried at the request of friends. We know that, unless the criminal was infamous, this was the law, or the custom with all Roman governors.

      "These, and a few more particulars of the same kind, occur within the compass of a single page of the evangelical history. The circumstantial manner of the history affords a presumption in its favor, antecedent to all examination into the truth of the circumstances themselves. But it makes a strong addition to the evidence, when we find, that in all the subordinate parts of the main story, the evangelists maintain so great a consistency with the testimony of other authors, and with all that we can collect from other sources of information, as to the manners and institutions of that period. It is difficult to conceive, in the first instance, how the inventor of a fabricated story would hazard such a number of circumstances, each of them supplying a point of comparison with other authors, and giving to the inquirer an additional chance of detecting the imposition. And it is still more difficult to believe, that truth should have been so artfully blended with falsehood in the composition of this narrative, particularly as we perceive nothing like a forced introduction of any one circumstance. There appears to be nothing out of place, nothing thrust in with the view of imparting an air of probability to the history. The circumstance upon which we bring the evangelists into comparison with profane authors, is often not intimated in a direct form, but in the form of a slight or distant allusion. There is not the most remote appearance of its being fetched or sought for. It is brought in accidentally, and flows in the most natural and undesigned manner out of the progress of the narrative."

      But as from the extraordinary circumstantiality of these historians and writers, so from every lineament of their character, from every action of their lives, from all their labors and sufferings in the cause, we may derive irrefragable proofs of their sincerity. To the whole phenomena of the characters of the original witnesses, it has been often objected, or rather insinuated, that men have been frequently moved by pride of opinion, the hope of reward, by avarice or ambition, to feign characters, and impose upon the credulity of the world: [308] that it is not improbable but that the original reporters and publishers of Christianity conspired together, from some of these sinister motives, to impose upon the credulity of posterity. Singular conspiracy indeed! A conspiracy to make mankind just, merciful, pure, forgiving, and affectionate to one another; to teach them to live in accordance with human nature, its origin, and its destiny; to fix all their supreme hopes upon objects unseen and future; and to deny themselves of all unhallowed gratifications! Singular conspiracy on the part of the conspirators, to forsake all earth born interests, to expose themselves to shame, persecution, and death, for making mankind pure and happy; to court infamy with those in power, and to render themselves obnoxious to the indignation of all the reputed wise, religious, and honorable among men! Astonishing conspiracy, which promises to the conspirators the absence of all worldly good, and the presence of all temporal evils, in proportion as they would be successful in accomplishing the objects for which they had conspired!

      Any suspicion or conjecture against the founders of Christianity, drawn from any document upon earth, Christian or infidel, is as unreasonable as Atheism itself.

      Viewed in whatever light we may, the Apostles, and first propagators of Christianity, are the most extraordinary men the world ever saw. As historical writers and laborers in the establishment of Christianity, they leave a character perfectly sui generis. They appear to have been selected, not only because they were obscure and illiterate, but because they were men of the humblest capacity. I have often admired the wisdom of the founder in selecting such advocates of his cause. He wanted eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses, and selected men from a calling which was more favorable to the production of good eyes and ears than perhaps any other. Good eyes and ears were better qualifications for the original Apostles, than all the learning and talents of the Archbishops of York and Canterbury. Good eyes, good ears, and a good memory, were the only indispensable qualifications to constitute such witnesses as Jesus Christ required. The most important part of their office was, to identify the person of Jesus Christ, and to attest the fact of his resurrection from the dead. To know his voice, and to distinguish his person, were matters of more consequence than most of us imagine. In truth, upon this depended the proof of the very fact upon which all Christianity rests, viz: the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Now, I ask, what school more favorable to qualify men for such an office, than the fisherman's life? Men whose ears and whose eyes are accustomed to the open air, by night and day; to the roaring of the billows, and who are constantly [309] observing the face of nature, are the most likely to possess those senses in the greatest perfection. And ridicule the idea who may, I will contend that good eyes and good ears were first-rate qualifications in an Apostle--a defect in either would have made them perfectly incompetent to the duties of the office.

      But this was not all. He wanted plain, unlettered men; men rather approaching to dullness than to acuteness of intellect; that ingenuity itself might not be able to attach suspicion to their testimony. They were neither fluent nor intelligent. They had no personal charms derived from learning or talent. On the other hand, it appears, from their frequent colloquies with Jesus, that they were uncommonly dull of apprehension. Had the original witnesses, whose first duty it was to identify the person of Jesus, and to prove his resurrection, been men so acute and learned as Paul, educated in the best schools of that day, and possessed of such a knowledge of men and things, some might have attributed their success more to natural than to supernatural aids.

      The duty of the original eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses, who were to identify the person, narrate the miracles, and repeat the discourses of the Messiah, in all their first embassies, was to proclaim a few facts without comment, and to enforce the necessity of reformation, because of the advent of the Messiah, and the approach of his reign. He did not send them, as some suppose, to make orations or sermons upon texts of scripture, but to proclaim that the era of reformation had arrived, and to confirm their proclamation by miraculous benefits bestowed promiscuously upon all.

      There never was such a model of finished human testimony, since or before, as that which the New Testament exhibits; in which no human being, how ingenious or malicious soever, can find a flaw, or even a weakness.

      Let us for a moment glance at another of its grand characteristics. First comes the rough, bold, and zealous Baptist, just dressed up to the taste of the times. To understand this singular appearance of John, you must recollect that the Jewish people were at this time divided in two religious sects, the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees were the most numerous and decent religionists in their day. The Sadducees were the most wealthy class of the Jewish nation, and indulged themselves in all sensual pleasures. Like the rich generally, they wished for no future state, and fondly believed there was none. They had not much moral influence with the people on these accounts. But the Pharisees had. Now it was more necessary that the pretensions of John should be favorably regarded by the Pharisees than the Sadducees; for if favorably received by the Pharisees, the more [310] general would be the reception of the Messiah by the whole nation. Now the Pharisees placed the highest degree of sanctity, just in such a demeanor, dress, and manner of life, as John the Baptist assumed. Thus he dressed himself to the taste of those who would give the most influence to his message. Hence we find that so soon as his preaching, dress, food, and manner of life, were known, the Jews in Jerusalem deputed very honorable characters, both Priests and Levites, to wait upon him to hear his testimony, and to report it in the metropolis. Thus the testimony of John in favor of the Messiah was favorably announced through Judea, and to the nation. In all respects the testimony of the harbinger wonderfully accords with that of the testimony of the twelve original Heralds, both in its general character and accompaniments.

      But with regard to the testimony of the twelve original witnesses, I have to remark, that not one of them understood for years either the nature or design of the mission of Jesus. This fact, if correctly understood, and applied, is of immense importance to the Christian public in correcting some mistakes into which they have fallen, and it gives very great additional weight to the testimony of the Apostles, respecting the capital item in the Record, viz: the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. They all, without exception, expected the Messiah would found an earthly kingdom, and reign over it forever. Their imaginations pictured out to them the mighty conquests, and illustrious victories they would achieve under him. Even the most gifted saints who departed not from the temple, when they first saw the wonderful child moved by the Holy Spirit, as it spake in the ancient prophets (not always understood by them whose tongues uttered its suggestions) expressed their joy and hopes in such strains as indicated expectations similar to those of his disciples--"that we," said they, "being delivered from our enemies, might worship him without fear all the days of our lives." They, one and all, expected an all-conquering king, in the person of Jesus. Hence so much of the war spirit in some of the Apostles, and so much worldly ambition in the mother of Zebedee's sons. Let my two sons, said she, sit, good master, one on your right. and the other on your left, when you ascend the throne. A crucified Messiah was as far from her thoughts, as the day of judgment is now from the anticipations of Mr. Owen. Not a man or woman on earth, till within a few days of the event, could understand or brook the idea of the crucifixion of Jesus.

      I do not say that the Apostles were quite disinterested in leaving their occupations to follow Jesus. This diminishes naught from their testimony. They expected he was able to reward them; and that he [311] would reward them. They looked for something in this world when they first set out as volunteers in his cause. Peter says: "Now, Lord, what shall we have, who have forsaken all, and followed you?" He made him a liberal promise which pleased him and his associates too, but this promise, even then, they misapplied. When he told them, without a figure, that he would be crucified, they could not believe it, so contrary was the issue of his life to their expectations. And when the Roman soldiers and the chief priests came to take him before the Sanhedrim, Peter was more disposed to fight than to surrender. In a word, the whole company of the disciples of Jesus, male and female, were disappointed when Jesus was crucified. Fear and consternation seized them all. Peter acted the coward, and they all fled. Even on the day of his resurrection, while two of them were going from Jerusalem to Emmaus, they spoke of his demise as a complete frustration of all their hopes. "We expected," said they, "that he would have redeemed Israel." But, alas! we are disappointed. He has not redeemed Israel, was their conviction at that moment. A temporal redemption was their expectation. And as for his resurrection from the dead, so far from plotting any story about it, it was the farthest thought from their mind; the female disciples were preparing to embalm the body, when they found the grave empty; and when they told the disciples that "the Lord was risen indeed," their "words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not."

      Now this being the expectation of these witnesses, as every document on earth proves--to suppose them capable of plotting and executing such a fraud, as the stealing of the body, betrays the grossest ignorance of the whole history of the times, of the nation, and of the Apostles. Nothing can be more plain than that when Joseph the Senator petitioned the Governor for the body, and interred it, the hopes and prospects of the disciples, as respected worldly objects, were buried in the same grave with it.

      Hence the incredulity of all the Apostles at first hearing of his resurrection, and the stubborn incredulity of Thomas, who happened to be absent when the Lord appeared to the others--I will not believe, said he. I would not believe my own eyes; for unless I handled him and felt the wounds made by the spear and the nails, I would not, I could not, believe. But a single sight of Jesus overcame all his resolution, and he is constrained to exclaim, My Lord and my God!

      But as I am brought forward to this most wonderful of all events, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is, too, the capital item in the apostolic testimony; and the fact on which the whole religion, and hopes of Christianity depend and terminate, I feel strongly disposed [312] to show that this is the best attested fact in the annals of the world. For I wish to have it placed upon record, and to be known as far as this work ever shall extend, either in time or place, that in our view, the shortest and best, because the most irrefragable way, to prove the whole truth and absolute certainty of the Christian religion, is to prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. This proved, and Deism, Atheism, and Skepticism of every name, fall prostrate to the ground. The Atheist will himself say, let this be proved, that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, walked upon this earth, eat, drank, and talked with men for forty days afterward, and, in the presence of many witnesses, ascended up into Heaven, and after his ascent thither, sent down infallible proofs that he was well received in the Heavenly world, and I will believe.

      I beg the indulgence of this assembly here. I wish to be diffuse on this one point. I desire it for the sake of every saint and sinner here--or who may read this discussion. I will aim at doing more than proving the fact, though this shall be kept continually in view. This fact proved, and all is proved. This is not a conclusion to which I have come from my own reasoning merely, nor from my own experience, though both lead to it. It is a conclusion to which the wisest of Christians have been led. But that which gives the casting vote in the court of my understanding, is the fact that Paul sets the example.

      Paul was not one of the original twelve. He was not chosen to be a companion of Jesus, to be an eye and ear-witness of what Jesus said and did. He was called to attest and proclaim the truth of Christianity to the world; to the pagan world, savage and civilized. All Gentile nations were embraced in his commission. He saw Jesus, after he had spent some months or years in persecuting him. Now the question is, how did this astonishing man argue the truth of Christianity against the philosophic Greek, Epicurean, or Stoic? How did he plead its truth with barbarian, Scythian, noble and ignoble? To ascertain this, we must follow him from Jerusalem to Athens, from Athens to Rome, from city to city, from nation to nation; and after mingling with his congregations in all places, we shall hear him rest all upon the fact of Christ's resurrection. Begin where, and with whom he may, here always he makes his stand.

      We shall just hear him in Athens. "Athenians," says he, "you are in all things too much addicted to the worshiping of demons. I see that you have erected an altar to an unknown God. This being whom you worship without knowing him, I now declare to you: God that made the world and all things therein, seeing he is Lord of heaven and [313] earth, dwelleth not in temples made with human hands, neither is he served as though he needed anything; seeing he gives to all life, and breath, and all things, and has made of one blood all nations of men who inhabit the earth; and now one of your own poets hath said--'For we his offspring are.' Now let me reason with you on your own principles. If we are the offspring of the Deity, there must be some similitude between him and us, as between parent and child. We can walk, and speak, and act; but your gods are dumb, and cannot move. They have no seeing eye, nor hearing ear, else the spiders would not spin their threads over their eyes, and weave their webs over their ears. Yet, you say, 'We are the offspring of God.' Thus 'tis easy to refute their superstition. But after pulling down their fine air-built speculations, he appears in the majesty of the gospel. He announces the Divine proclamation. This ignorant superstition of yours, God, says he, has hitherto overlooked; but now commands all men everywhere to REFORM. Reformation and remission of sins, he proclaims and enjoins. These he connects with the day of judgment:--for, continues he, he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world, by that person whom he has constituted judge of living and dead, concerning which matters he has given proof, faith, or assurance to all the world, by RAISING HIM FROM THE DEAD." Here he stands: this proves the whole mission of Jesus, and his appointment to be the supreme Judge. They had heard him talk about the anastasis in the market-place; but now knowing the resurrection of the dead, they supposed this anastasis was a god or goddess which Paul had proclaimed. But let it be remembered, that not only in the market-place with the Epicureans and Stoics, but when amid the Areopagus, or aldermen of the city, he makes the all-conquering proof of his doctrine, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

      But that I may argue the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, in your presence, with the greatest possible effect on this promiscuous audience, let me take another argument from this Apostle as my text. Permit me to open the New Testament:

      1 Cor. xv. You will find Paul in argument with some disciple of Epicurus, or some Sadducean dogmatist. We shall hear him state the old gospel which he so successfully proclaimed. This old gospel was not so full of dogmas and opinions as some of the modern. We have become so spiritual that our religion is rather a religion of opinions than of facts. Angels can live on opinions, or abstract truths, for aught I know; but so soon as mortals begin to live on opinions, they become lean. The primitive Christians believed facts, reposed in them, and drew their joys from them. But let us hear Paul state his gospel: [314] "Moreover, brethren, I will declare that gospel to you, which I once proclaimed among you, which you then received as true, in which you now profess to stand; and by which you ARE SAVED, provided you hold it in your memory, unless forsooth, 'tis all a lie, and in so believing it, you have believed in vain." "I delivered to you when I first came to Corinth, this gospel--1st. That Jesus Christ died for our sins; 2d. That he was buried; and, in the third place, that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures." This was the beginning, middle, and end, of Paul's gospel; whether it suit or non suit the fastidious taste of the times. He proceeds to prove the third fact, not so much to prove it, as to argue from it, as an established fact, one admitted by all the congregation of Corinth, and by myriads of Christians throughout the world.

      Old Plato reasoned about the immortality of the soul; but in the genuine spirit of Christianity, Paul avers that Jesus Christ brought life and immortality to our bodies. The dispute among the Jews was not about the immortality of the soul; but, Shall the generations of the dead ever come back again? This was the question which the Pharisees and the Sadducees argued. This is the grand point which must be always kept in view. Only show me the man, who, on the testimony of the Apostles and prophets, believes that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and I will engage to show you a Christian, not only in faith, but in works. A belief in this fact is the fons et principium of Christianity--the source from which the practice of all Christian virtues must be derived. This is the principle which leavens the whole mass--this is the balm of Gilead, the cordial which calms, and cheers, and comforts the heart.

      A person may believe opinions (it is, however, a misapplication of the term believe) until his soul freezes or falls asleep (pardon the expression). Facts, testimony, and faith, belong to the same chapter; and the last can only be in company with the former two. But we shall soon wander from the point before us. The old gospel was summarily comprehended in these three facts. The meaning of these facts is, what is called the doctrine of Christ.

      Paul proceeds to state the evidence on which the third fact was proclaimed in Corinth. He states a number of times that Jesus was seen alive; first by Cephas; then by all the apostles; then by five hundred disciples at one time; then by James; then by all the apostles; and last of all he was seen by himself. The number of times and witnesses greatly transcend all that is ever required to prove any fact. He, however, simply asserts the fact of his having been seen so often and by so many witnesses, the majority of whom are appealed to as still [315] living. We have the fact of his resurrection here asserted, and the evidence adduced. Now for the argument derived from the evidence submitted. To estimate the weight of this, let it be remembered that Paul had some bitter enemies in Corinth. These were the old materialists, the Sadducees. Very like my friend, Mr. Owen, they held to no spirit, resurrection, or future state. Now, as opposers of the apostle, they would be disposed to detect, if possible, any error, weakness, flaw, or falsehood in the argument. Mark how he challenges them--"How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" They had insulted him. He does not spare them. Surely in the polished, shrewd, and captious city of Corinth, which Cicero compliments as the lumen totius Graeciae, the eye of all Greece--surely, I say, if Paul is vulnerable, if his facts are false, if his argument be inconclusive, the "eye of all Greece" will see it; and the wounded pride of his opponents will publish it to the world.

      "When I came to you. first, did I not proclaim the resurrection of Jesus? Did I not prove it? Did you not believe it? Why then deny the resurrection of the dead saints; for both stand or fall together. If the dead saints are not raised, then why was Christ raised? and you know if he was not raised, and we affirmed that he was, we are found liars; our preaching, and your faith are both vain. You are yet in your sins.

      "Did I not tell you, he was seen by me also? Why did you believe me? Were not the signs of an apostle with me? Beside, you knew my history. The Jews all knew it; and some of you are acquainted with it. I am proud to confess it was not my education, nor the circumstances which surrounded me from birth to manhood, which made me what I am. I was born a Jew, and all my prospects were Jewish. My ancestors on both sides were Jews. My preceptor, Gamaliel, was a learned doctor of the Jewish law; I was educated in the metropolis at his feet. I was intimate with the whole sanhedrim. I was brought up in the greatest antipathy against Jesus and the Christians. I became a persecutor as soon as I finished my education. I went even to strange cities in pursuit of Christians, male and female. All this, my education and the circumstances which surrounded me from birth to manhood, prompted me to. But contrary to the influence of both by the evidence which I have detailed to you, I was constrained to renounce these vicious influences, and to proclaim the faith which you have received."

      We shall now let Paul plead his own cause with the Corinthian materialists. [316]

      He opens the case--he asserts the fact--Jesus rose from the dead. He summons the witnesses. They depose that they saw the same identical person who was crucified and buried, alive again. That they had the most indubitable evidence of the fact of his resurrection. They saw him, handled him, eat with him, drank with him, and conversed with him, and saw him ascend into heaven.

      Paul's first argument on the premises, is a reductio ad absurdum. You Sadducees, that are members of the congregation in Corinth, believed, and still declare your belief, of the above testimony, that Jesus rose from the dead. Now if you deny the future resurrection of the saints, you make the resurrection of Jesus of none account. For why should Christ alone rise to die no more, as one of the sons of men? If, then, you would prove that there is no resurrection of the dead, you must deny a fact which all Christians admit, and which you yourselves admit upon the aforesaid evidence, namely, the undeniable fact of the resurrection of Jesus. To deny the resurrection of the dead, is, then, to deny your own acknowledged belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

      2. Again, if Christ be not raised, our proclamation of the fact is false, and your belief predicated thereupon, is also false. This is another reductio ad absurdum.

      3. Again, we have been false witnesses concerning God--when we said that he raised up Christ; if, indeed, your assertion is true, that the dead are not to be raised, we are not merely deceived of men, but reproachers of God. This is inadmissible, as all our deeds declare.

      4. Again, on your hypothesis, faith is useless. You are still in your sins. This is contrary to your own experience.

      5. Also, all who have died for attesting their belief in Christ's resurrection, have thrown their lives away, and have actually, on your principles, perished.

      6. And we, too, who are suffering shame, and hazarding our lives every day, for proclaiming this fact, are, of all men, the most miserable; for we gain nothing in this life, as you yourselves know, but stripes, reproaches, and dangers, for publishing the fact of his resurrection. If we should have to fight with the wild beasts at Ephesus for the amusement of our adversaries, what would be the avails, if there be no resurrection, or future state?

      7. But, again, what is more reasonable, upon your own principles, believing, as you do, the five books of Moses, than that all the saints, by one man, should live again, seeing that by a man they all die?

      8. But, in the last place, if you will not admit the truth of the resurrection of the dead, your creed ought to be reduced to the standard [317] of the brute; and, like them, make eating and drinking, and all animal enjoyments, the all-engrossing concern of life. For death will soon reduce us back, upon your principles, to senseless matter. So reasons the apostle Paul with the Sadducean materialists, who lived too soon to deny the resurrection of Jesus, but not too soon to question the ultimate resurrection of the dead.

      I ought, perhaps, to apologize to some present, for the manner in which we connect the argument of the Apostle in this chapter. You must know that we do not subscribe to that system of text-preaching which authorizes a man to make as many sermons as there are verses in a chapter; and oftentimes these sermons on these texts are as detached from the scope on which they stand, as if the whole New Testament was a book of proverbs. Hence we cannot agree with him who makes these words, "if in this life only we have hope by Christ, we are of all men the most miserable," a text to prove that all the rich and honorable Christians in this day are of all men the most miserable; nor with him who makes these words, "as by Adam all die, even so by Christ shall all be made alive," a proof that all men, good and evil, shall be forever happy. This text-preaching, which has made the Bible the most unmeaning book in the world, has contributed much to make such men as Mr. Owen skeptics. Indeed, the sects and parties which now exist, built, as they are, upon text-taking and sermon-making, are the most formidable weapons with which the skeptics attack the citadel of truth. But yet they might as reasonably blame the sun for all the darkness now on this globe, as charge Christianity with such perversions as those to which we now allude.

      Luther and Calvin began a great reformation, and ever since we have been quarreling about what Luther and Calvin meant; and thus people get to hating one another on account of religious opinions. Whenever men will make the belief of Christian facts, and not an argument in abstruse opinions, or in the inferential reasonings of some orthodox commentator, the bond of Christian union, divisions, and all their evil concomitants, will cease; but so long as Christians demand unity of opinion, or a concurrence in the conclusion of some philosophic or speculative mind, essential to Christian faith and Christian character, so long will discords and divisions abound.

      Skeptics sometimes boast that they are more courteous to those who differ from them than Christians. So well they may boast! But there is not so much real cause of triumph in this matter as we suppose. They feel so little interest in all things pertaining to a future state, that it gives them no concern what any person thinks about it. But Christians feel so much at stake, so vast an interest in all [318] religious matters, that I can excuse them much more easily for being somewhat warmed at times, than I can praise the stoical apathy of the skeptics. If I were a materialist, I might be as courteous, and as indifferent to the opinions of others, as my friend, Mr. Owen. But should I ever appear to feel any more in earnest than he, it must be attributed to the greater interest I feel in all matters which are connected with immortality. It rouses a Christian to make him a bankrupt by a quibble--to rob him of the hope of immortal glory. While I disclaim all sectarianism, and all sectarian feeling, I would be the last to compliment away for a smile a single filing of sacred truth.

      But to return to the close of the Apostle's most triumphant argument with the Sadducean materialist.

      What could induce us to die every day--to rise every morning determined to die, if called upon, rather than to deny the truth which we promulge? What could induce us not only to hazard death, but, while we live, to be accounted the offscouring of the earth, and the filth of all things; to suffer hunger, nakedness, and stripes, for attesting and promulging falsehoods? Has ever the like occurred? If we be deceivers knowingly, and in such a case as this, if deceivers, we must be designedly so--do we not bear false witness in the presence of God, and do we not expose ourselves to the severest punishment? We must willingly prefer pain to happiness, if we are deceivers; for pain is our present earthly gain, and pain must be our future reward. We are, then, not only of all men the most miserable here, but must be so hereafter! It cannot be: we must cease to be accounted human beings before we can be accounted deceivers.

      But, says some skeptic (for Mr. Owen fails to make objections, and we will make them for him), how many thousands have suffered death in attestation of false religions? How many have suffered themselves to be burned, or crushed to pieces under the ponderous car of Juggernaut, in attestation of their religion? Will you, then, make the martyrdom and sufferings of the ancient witnesses a proof of the verity of their religion, and reject the same as proof of the truth of many pagan, and, what you would call, anti-Christian religions? This is something like you Christians; but it is a good rule which works both ways; and if you will prove Christianity to be divine, because some of its votaries suffered, you will be able to prove all the religions of the world divine, for the same reason, for some of their votaries suffered.

      Not so fast with your conclusion. All that we contend for is, that martyrdom proves the sincerity of the witness. This is all we want. Now we all admit that a man may be sincerely wrong in his opinions, and so misled as to die for them rather than to retract. But if, in [319] matters of fact, such as the assassination of Julius Cæsar, such as the death of Napoleon, or the Battle of Bunker's Hill, where the fact is submitted to all the senses, our senses could not be relied on, there would be an end to all certainty in the world. Now, when a person is so fully persuaded of such facts as to die in attestation of them, the death of such a person is not only a proof of his sincerity, but of the fact, because it is an object of sensible proof, in which there was no possibility of deception.

      The martyr to an opinion, in dying, says: I sincerely think. But the martyr to a fact, in dying, says: I most assuredly saw, or I certainly heard. Now the possibility of thinking wrong, even after having thought for years, is quite conceivable; but the possibility of seeing or hearing wrong, or not seeing or hearing at all, when opportunities have been frequent, and every way favorable, is inconceivable. A person who sees an object only once, or hears a narrative only once, can with difficulty be deceived or misled; but where an object has been repeatedly addressed to the eye, or to the ear, deception is not to be supposed. Every man may test this principle by inquiring how much more certain he is that a friend is dead whom he saw expire, than he is of the truth of any opinion derived from the mere comparison of abstract propositions.

      It was for publishing facts, sensible facts, and not for propagating opinions, that all the original martyrs suffered and died. Martyrdom, therefore, proves the sincerity of the martyr, who dies for an opinion, but it proves the truth of the fact, when a person dies in attestation of a sensible fact.¹

      But so soon as we have rebutted, and I hope refuted, the objection made to the superior credibility of the original witnesses, from the fact of their sufferings and martyrdom, I am assailed by another. Granted, for the moment, says some skeptic, that you have fairly made [320] out the fact of Christ's resurrection, by the testimony of his friends; still there is a suspicion resting upon that testimony, just from the fact that all the witnesses were Christians. Let us have some skeptical Jew, or some skeptical Greek, affirming the fact--produce some respectable Roman author, like Tacitus or Suetonius, who affirms the same fact, and then you may claim our assent with more reason.

      Strange illusion this, which compels a person to reject the better, and to believe the worst testimony. Now, why prefer the testimony of a man who will assert a great practical truth, and not accord with it in his behavior, to the testimony of another, who espouses the same truth and lives conformably to it? Does the fact of a person's living conformably to what he testifies, discredit his testimony? Yet this is precisely the logic of this objection. The man who cries fire, and sits in the burning house, is more to be believed, than the man who cries fire, and runs out of it! Now, suppose Tacitus had said that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and that he believed it; would he not have been enrolled among the Christians? And so of all others, Jews and Pagans. The instant they believe the fact, they would have ceased to be Jews and Pagans--they would have been embodied in the ranks of Christians. So that a little common sense, or a little reflection, would have taught such a skeptic in Christianity, that in asking for such evidence, he only asked for an impossibility--yes, an impossibility as great as to place two substances in the same spot in the same instant. If I could find a Pagan such as Tacitus, affirming that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and he still continuing a Pagan, I would have said that he did not believe it himself, or else viewed it as an imperative opinion. Nay, indeed, we have infinitely better testimony than that of Tacitus, or a thousand such--for we have the testimony of Paul, and myriads of Jews and Greeks who lived in those times and places, and had access to the evidences, who were as hostile to Christians and Christianity, as any skeptics now can be; and yet, so overpowering was the evidence, that from enemies they became friends. Now, to a logician, every convert made to Christianity, in those days, is a disinterested witness; and a most credible one too. For, if thousands of individuals, and of all ranks and degrees, Nicodemus and Joseph among the Jews, the Roman Proconsuls, the Athenian Mayor Dionysius, down through all the ranks in Judea, Greece, and Rome, and to the very slaves themselves, embraced at the peril of rank, fortune, and good name, of life and limb, the testimony of the Apostles living in their own times, with all the evidences triable by all the means which we could wish to have had--surely we have disinterested witnesses by the hundred, thousand, and myriad. I would not rank him among the same in intellect, who [321] would not admit that the three thousand on Pentecost, converted to the Christian faith, with all the cotemporary converts, for twenty or thirty years, were disinterested witnesses. They were so. Their conversion was a proof of the facts attested, and their changing ranks made them only better witnesses, than had they continued to admit the facts without being governed by them. I hope we shall hear no more about disinterested witnesses, when we have myriads of them to obey the summons.

      The hour of adjournment, I am admonished, has arrived. Perhaps Mr. Owen wishes to be heard. Before I sit down, I would observe, that it is due to the community, to the importance of the subject, and to ourselves, that we should bring this subject to a legitimate close. Circumstances to which I have before alluded, have deprived me of bringing forward, say two-thirds of the documentary evidence I expected to offer. I do wish my friend, Mr. Owen, to pay the greatest attention, and to offer every objection he can frame to this argument. We entreat any other person present, who has any objection, to make it known, either by word or writing. We do confidently believe, that we are able to demonstrate, that we have not been following any cunningly devised fable, but that we are compelled, by every rational consideration, to admit the truth of the divine oracles; and to repose implicit faith on that grand fact on which the whole of Christianity is established.

      Mr. Campbell continues: Mr. Chairman--When interrupted, yesterday evening, by the arrival of the hour of adjournment, we were engaged in demonstrating the truth and certainty of the historic fact, on which is founded the Christian religion. I mean the great fact of the resurrection of the man, Christ Jesus, from the dead. We progressed so far in the proof of this fact, as to show not only the testimony of the original witnesses themselves, but also the method in which they argued upon the evidence, and the reasons urged why their testimony should be accredited. The Apostles, we saw, presented themselves before the public as the most competent and credible witnesses that the world ever saw. They resembled, in no one point, persons carried away by enthusiasm, or attachment to opinions, about which honest men might differ, but as men whose sole business it was to proclaim facts, which had been submitted to the cognizance of all their senses. They do not merely affirm, that they only saw the Savior after his resurrection. They urge the matter, not only as affording ocular and audible, but every other kind of sensible proof. They proclaim that he repeatedly and familiarly conversed with them, for forty days; and that, during that time, he had, by many infallible [322] proofs, shown himself to be the identical person whom they had seen crucified, and concerning whose identity there could not exist the shadow of a doubt. Their testimony differs, toto caelo, from any testimony on the subject of speculative opinions. Their sincerity is also a sincerity sui generis, of its own peculiar kind. The difference between martyrdom for tenacity of opinion, and for attestation of fact, we have shown to be immeasurable. Martyrdom is, in all cases, evidence of sincerity; in the former case, it only proves belief in, and tenacity of, principles; in the latter case, inasmuch as it is impossible for all the senses of man to be imposed upon, there cannot, in the nature of things, be any stronger proof of the verity of a sensible fact, than to see men dying in attestation of it.

      These men were never accused of any crime, except what grew out of the pernicious influence which a belief in this fact was supposed to have upon mankind. We shall show, from all the annals of ecclesiastic history, that their persecutions originated in a dread of the influence which the promulgation of these facts was supposed to possess. The sole misdemeanor charged upon them, was their fearless development of this fact.

      We have stated that, on the morning of the first day of the week, the body was missing--we have shown that his resurrection was not anticipated by any of his disciples; that there was not an individual in the whole Christian fraternity that had the remotest expectation of his resurrection. On the contrary, their expectation was that he would have redeemed Israel. This precludes all possibility of his friends stealing the body, for they could have no temptation to steal it.

      We must look at the state of parties, at his time, in Jerusalem. They were divided into the opponents and friends of Christianity. There were no neutrals. The abduction of the body can be accounted for only in two ways--1st. His friends must have been the thieves; but to give color to this suspicion, they must have anticipated such an influence upon society, as that which actually did result from the fact of the resurrection. But this, it has been shown, they never did anticipate. If, 2dly, his enemies had stolen the body and had it in their possession, they would have produced it, in order to confound the opposite party. Suppose that, on the day of Pentecost, when the influence of the fact of the resurrection first began to be remarked, that they had then the body in their possession, the bare production of it would have silenced the Christians forever. The fact of the nonproduction of the body, by the enemies of Christ, proves, conclusively, that they had not got it.

      The historians say, that the Jewish authorities placed a guard over [323] the sepulcher. When the absence of the body was discovered, the sentinels, in their own exculpation, declared that his disciples stole him away while they slept. The story itself was incredible, and the author could, therefore, be no better.

      But on analyzing the natural feelings, both of his enemies and friends, we can discover no motive which could prompt either of them to such an abduction. The whole accumulation of evidence is of such a character, that in order to estimate the exact weight of it, we must take into view all the circumstances of the case. We have not merely their naked assertion that they had seen the Savior. The weight of the evidence does not rest merely upon this statement; nor does it rest upon our inability to account for the absence of the body, and its resuscitation; although all the witnesses concurred, yet the proof rests not there. Though these testimonies all corroborate and support each other, still the sequence and dependence of the facts, are so arranged in all the histories of these times, that the weight of the testimony rests not upon these alone, but upon circumstances of still greater moment, connected with these, viz: the personal sufferings of the disciples--the devotion of their whole lives to the attestation and promulgation of this fact. This is a very different kind of testimony from that of a man who should attest any particular fact, when the truth or falsehood of the fact could, in nowise, interest him. The concurrent testimony of a thousand persons in proof of any marvelous event, would not be the strongest evidence, if it were not an event of such a character, as ever afterward to exercise a paramount influence over their whole lives, and give birth to an entire change of conduct. But the naked assertion is but a small part of the evidence, compared with the principles which the fact itself necessarily involves. The twelve Apostles, and many of their coadjutors, who were the earliest converts to Christianity, and some of whom had as fair a start in the race for honor and distinction; these individuals, I say, all go forward in attestation of a simple fact, and thereby expose themselves to not only the persecutions of the Jews, but also of the Romans; for they, also, began to be jealous of the Christians. They suffered not only the loss of popularity with their countrymen, but they endangered themselves with the Sanhedrim, and with the Roman authorities. The motives which influenced them, in declaring this truth could have been of no ordinary character, since their attestation involved the sacrifice of every worldly interest. And not only this, but they were assured by the Savior that, for this very cause, they would be put to death. He told Peter that this cause would one day cost him his life.

      Peter was not a brave man. He shows himself, in one instance, to [324] be under the influence of the greatest weakness. He denies his Lord to save himself from persecution. These men were, without any remarkable exception, as great cowards as any that are to be found now-a-days. To be told, in the first instance, that their declaration of this truth would procure their persecution and death, was presenting the matter in such a light as would have overcome their resolution; but when once they had received the knowledge that the Lord had risen, they became as bold as lions. After this, we see Peter and John standing up in the Temple, and proclaiming this truth in open defiance of the whole Sanhedrim. Here we see that the influence of the belief of this fact of the resurrection made cowards brave. We see the timid Peter standing up boldly with his associates, men of no address, and with no arm of flesh to support them; yet they fearlessly proclaim the fact. They are put into prison; when released, they go back to the Temple and repeat the proclamation and travel from place to place, in order to disseminate it far and wide; until, at last, the opposite party began to perceive that if they did not put forth all their power, the existing order of things would be subverted by this sedition. To put a stop to the further spread of it, the disciples were martyrized.

      There is nothing like this in the ancient or modern world. Here you see men acting contrary to all the ordinary principles of human conduct--men naturally timid, shaking off their timidity, and dying rather than recant their proclamation of a fact. They did not die for their tenacious attachment to any speculative opinion, but for asserting that they had seen their crucified Savior risen from the dead, etc. Having received those proofs, they risked and sacrificed life in order to attest and to promulgate the fact. The weight of the testimony does not consist in any of these circumstances alone, but in the whole body of the evidence, taken in connection with its inseparable adjuncts.

      But we are not yet done with the proofs. There is no other historical fact of equal antiquity, that can be supported by one-thousandth part of the testimony that this is. There is no principle or criterion of evidence, but what is to be found in this attestation. Even experience contributes its share to make this matter of fact more clear than any other historic fact to be found in the annals of antiquity.

      There now exists the institution of a day consecrated to the commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus. We are not aware of the peculiar force of this institution. Had there been no weekly appropriation of time before the resurrection of Jesus, the commencement of such an appropriation would be an infragable monument of the event. But still it is attended with more force than usually accompanies a new institution. There was the abolition of the seventh day [325] among the first converts, as well as the appointment of the first. The seventh day was observed from Abraham's time, nay, from the creation. The Jews identified their own history with the institution of the Sabbath day. They loved and venerated it as a patriarchal usage. But it was not primarily observed on that account, for it was given to them as a part of their national compact. You will find the Lord enjoins the Sabbath day upon them with this preface: "I brought yon out of the land of bondage; therefore keep the Sabbath holy." The observance of this day, therefore, is not so much to be regarded as a usage derived from the patriarchs as a divine national institution, intended to perpetuate the memory of that wonderful deliverance which the Lord had wrought out for them. Here, then, is a nation strongly attached to this institution of the Sabbath day, because their forefathers had observed it. We well know the powerful influence of ancient national customs. Men love them, nay, venerate them, because their forefathers were attached to them. But taking into view the re-enactment of that day, and the making it a part of the national institution, and we find the Sabbath existing in the most powerful force, and sanctioned by the highest authority. Now to abandon the observance of that day, as every Christian did, and to substitute a new day of the week, having a different object and view, was greatly more difficult than to originate an institution entirely new--more difficult than to institute it co-ordinately with the old Sabbath day, so as to perpetuate the observance of the first and the seventh day also. I presume that even Christians have not sufficiently appreciated the import of this evidence. It would have been more easy to have superinduced the first day, and left the seventh day standing, because of its antiquity, and as an important part of the national covenant, than to change the day from the seventh to the first of the week. For these reasons, we perceive that it must have been much more difficult to abolish the old institution than to originate a new one.

      You will remember that our Savior was frequently charged with not keeping the Sabbath; how often was he accused of Sabbath breaking? There was no disrespect of the Jewish ritual, so frequently charged upon him. How did he refute the accusation? Why, says he, the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath day. After his resurrection, he explained this, and other sayings; and we find no difficulty in understanding a dictum in which we recognize a principle entirely new, which is not referable to the decalogue, and which, in fact, abrogates that precept of it which enjoins the observance of the seventh day. It was not the seventh part of time, but the seventh day, which was claimed by the Lord in the first instance. The commandment was [326] this: "But the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." The reason assigned must be changed before the day of observance could be altered. "The Lord rested on the seventh day and hallowed it." We could not substitute the observance of the fifth for the fourth of July, because there exists no rational pretext for it. Not so with regard to the consecration of the seventh part of our time. But the substitution of the first day for the Jewish Sabbath was as positive an origination of a new religious institution as the feast of the passover, or pentecost, or circumcision, or any other part of the Jewish ritual. But what distinguished the first day of the week? And why was it set apart? Solely in commemoration of a new creation. The last Sabbath day was kept by Jesus in the tomb; and it was so ordered as exactly to coincide with that symbolic representation of things which we find in the Old Testament. You shall not go out of your house on the Sabbath day; you shall rest within your house. Now the Savior did, through this day, lie in the grave. But the resurrection of Jesus on the first day of the week was the commencement of a new creation. Sublime as were the reasons which originally influenced the patriarchs to keep the Sabbath day, incomparably more sublime are those which now influence Christians to observe it. Hence the institution and consecration of the first day of the week, in commemoration of the matter of fact that our Savior rose from the dead on the morning of that day, is a positive commemorative institution, in direct attestation of the truth of the matter of fact and of the unspeakable importance of the occasion. This was not an event to be engraven on pillars of marble in order to perpetuate it, but upon the hearts of Christians--for all Christian hopes and joys must ever spring from it. It is a perpetual commemorative institution of the birth of immortal hope, of the dawn of life and immortality, upon the human race.

      While examining the divine mission of Moses, we remarked that the criteria of the verity of historic facts were these: That the facts should have been sensible ones; should have been witnessed by many persons; should have some commemorative institutions; and that those commemorative institutions should have been continuous from the instant in which the facts took place, down to our own time. All these strictly apply to this institution. For we read, in the New Testament history, that from the day of his resurrection, the Lord himself honored its weekly return. This was the day in which he was wont to have interviews with his disciples. And from that day until now, all Christians, Jews, and Gentiles, have celebrated it. To feel the force of the argument, let us place before our minds a Jew, zealous of the law of Moses, standing before a Christian preacher. He is convinced [327] of the fact of the resurrection, is baptized, and thus becomes a Christian. In becoming a Christian, he not only rejects the whole of the Jewish economy, but ceases to observe an institution as ancient as the creation, and becomes an observer of the first day for new reasons, and in obedience to a new Master. The revolution wrought in such an individual, is a sample of the power of truth and of the changes which Christianity made upon whole communities at is first promulgation.

      All histories declare, that the observance of the Lord's day has been continuous, from the morning of the resurrection down to the present day. All the criteria of infallible evidence, appear in this instance. The resurrection was witnessed by many, the commemorative institution takes place immediately, and has been perpetuated down to the present hour. The observance of the first day of the week, has been opposed because the seventh was enjoined in the Jewish ritual. But they who argue thus, are not thoroughly converted to Jesus Christ--they have not been divorced from the law--and seem not to regard the first day in the light of a commemorative institution at all. They seem to forget, or not to know, that the observance of days must be necessarily commemorative or prospective; for all time, abstract from this consideration, is alike holy and religious. They certainly must live in the smoke of the great city, Babylon, who observe the seventh day in commemoration of the work of creation; rather than the first day of the week in commemoration of the resurrection of our Lord. But we must proceed to another evidence of the resurrection.

      Before Jesus had ascended from Mount Olivet, he told them they were not to leave the city of Jerusalem in order to promulgate the resurrection, until they were clothed with new powers, every way adequate to confirm their proclamation. "Tarry there (said he) until you be endued with power from on high." The commemorative day of Pentecost had fully arrived. In the metropolis, at this time, there were but one hundred and twenty disciples. They were all convened in one place on the morning of that memorable day; that day on which the first sheaf of wheat was to be waved in the air or carried over their heads, as a thank-offering for the new harvest. Mark the coincidence of time, and the accomplishment of the ancient symbol. On that day, the earnest of the harvest, he commences the new economy; that the converts of that day might indicate the immense ingathering of the nations to the fold of the Messiah. Now, when the day of Pentecost was fully come, that very day, in commemoration of the Savior's resurrection, as "the first fruits of them that slept," that first day of the week--while the whole nation was assembled to celebrate this great festival, and his disciples convened to commemorate his [328] resurrection, behold the sound of a mighty rushing wind is heard, and all eyes and ears are turned to the place whence it proceeded. While they are flocking from all quarters to this place, in an instant many tongues of fire are seen encircling the persons of the apostles. These tongues of lambent flame, which covered the heads and faces of these apostles, were emblems of those foreign tongues, which, in a moment of time, they were able fluently to speak without ever having learned them. Not only the inhabitants of Jerusalem saw and heard the wonders of that day, but persons assembled at this great festival from all the Roman empire, heard and saw these tokens of the resurrection and ascension of the Lord. There were present, from Rome, Parthia, Media, Persia, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia Minor, Phrygia, Egypt, Pamphylia, Crete and all the African coasts of the Mediterranean. There were of all languages and nations, auditors and spectators of this event. They heard the marvelous sound from heaven, and saw the tongues of fire. They, moreover, heard the Galileans, with their Galilean brogue, pronouncing all the languages of the world; speaking to every man, in his vernacular tongue, the wonderful works of God. Peter explained the matter to them all. He gave meaning and emphasis to the whole scene. "The oracle of your prophet Joel is this day fulfilled. Jesus has been received into the heavens. He promised us supernatural aid to attest his resurrection. He has now accomplished it. Let all the house of Israel know, assuredly, that God has made that Jesus whom you, with wicked hands, by the Roman soldiers, slew, the anointed Lord or King of the universe. He is now in heaven, placed upon that throne which governs all, and has received from his Father this gift, as a token of his love, and approbation of his wonderful works on earth, which he has now exhibited upon us in the midst of you."

      In full conviction of all they saw and heard, as confirmatory of this proclamation, and deeply convicted of their guilt and danger, they exclaimed, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Seeing them deeply penitent of their former course, Peter answers their question by announcing to them the gospel, or good news, which he was authorized now, for the first time, to proclaim to the nation. He makes his proclamation in language clear and forcible: "Reform (said he) and be immersed, or, as it is in Greek, be baptised every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus, FOR THE REMISSION OF YOUR SINS; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit: for the promise you have heard from Joel is to you and your children, and to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call." They rejoiced that remission could be so easily received under the reign of the [329] Messiah, and forthwith were baptized for the remission of their sins, and were filled with all joy, and peace, and good hope; so that they eat their food with gladness, and simplicity of heart, praising God. Now let me ask, what sort of vouchers are these to the truth of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus? Will the wonders of that day, witnessed by thousands of the most disinterested persons, nay, many of them embittered enemies to the truth of Christianity; I say, will the testimony of three thousand one hundred and twenty persons, in attestation of a fact happening on the most public occasion, even on a national anniversary, in the metropolis, frequented and crowded with strangers from all nations under Heaven, be admitted in the courts of skeptics as good evidence?

      I would now ask, what could be added to the cumulative evidences of the resurrection of Jesus? The uncontradicted fact that the accounts we now have of it were written at the times and places alleged; the number and character of the witnesses; the sensible and frequent interviews which they had with him; the length of time he conversed with them; his visible ascension into Heaven in the presence of all of them; the descent of the Holy Spirit, just now mentioned in attestation of his reception into Heaven; the appointment of one day in every week to commemorate it; the effects it produced at home and abroad; and the sufferings and reproaches attendant on the publication of it, which terminated only with the martyrdom of most of the original witnesses. I say, to all this, what could be added? And yet, when all this is said, but a feeble representation of the amount of evidence and documentary proof is presented.

      We shall follow the witnesses a little farther. The Savior rose on the first day of the week. He showed himself alive, by many infallible proofs, during forty days. He appointed his disciples to meet with him on a specified day, on a mount which he had named. They did so. He gave them orders concerning their future course. They asked him a question concerning his kingdom, which he declined answering at that time. He forthwith ascended up, gradually receding from their sight, toward Heaven. They stood gazing after him, expecting him to descend; and might have stood there till the sun descended, had not two angels descended to console them, with the tidings that he was gone to Heaven, never to return till he came to judge the world. They went to Jerusalem--waited for ten days. Pentecost arrived--the incidents of that day we have noticed. The facts of his resurrection and ascension were then fully proved, to the conviction of thousands in one day. But we must accompany them a little farther, and scrutinize their doctrine and their progress. [330]

      The next incident in Luke's history of the labors of some of the Apostles, presents another marvelous scene to our eyes. Peter and John are going up into the temple at three in the afternoon, when all the devout persons of Jerusalem assembled for prayer. A notable cripple, more than forty years old, well known to many of the citizens of Jerusalem, perhaps to all of them, because he was every day carried and laid upon a couch at the beautiful gate of the Temple, was in the act of asking alms from two of the Apostles, then ascending the stairs. Peter and John told him to look on them. He did so, expecting to receive alms. Peter said. Silver and gold I have none, but such as I have I give you--"In the name of Jesus the Nazarene, rise up and walk." He caught him by the hand. The cripple arose, stood, walked, leaped, shouted, and praised the Lord Messiah. The congregation arose, crowded out into Solomon's portico, which held many thousands. They looked with astonishment, first on the cripple, then on Peter and John. Peter opened his mouth to explain this fact to them. He declined all praise, as due to him, for this miracle of healing--the power passed through the name of Jesus. He then told them how they had treated Jesus in the presence of Pontius Pilate--how they renounced him and released a murderer. Then he asserts his resurrection, and claims merely the honor of being a witness of this fact. He explains how the cripple was cured; shows them their error; excuses their infidelity, as arising from a misapprehension of the prophets; appeals to their own prophets; shows that Moses had distinctly pointed the nation to Jesus of Nazareth. In conclusion, he informed them that God, having raised up his Son from the dead, authorized them first to announce him to the seed of Abraham, with the assurance that God would yet bless and pardon them, every one of them, who turned from his iniquities. Here the number of the male disciples is augmented to five thousand.

      They were interrupted, at this time, by the priests and the captain of the Temple guard. The Sadducees disliked this new way of proclaiming the resurrection of the dead in the person of Jesus, for it was irresistible, and like to demolish their whole sect. They imprisoned Peter and John. The next day the whole Sanhedrim in the city, many being present who had tried and condemned Jesus, assembled to try and interrogate these two witnesses of the resurrection. Peter, formerly a coward, and constitutionally a coward, rises above himself, and with the utmost courage and confidence, addresses them on the indictment in the following words: "Rulers of the people and senators of Israel--if we are this day examined about the benefit conferred upon the cripple, by what means he has been cured, be it known [331] to you, and to all the people of Israel, that BY THE NAME of Jesus of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God has raised from the dead--yes, by HIM, this man stands BEFORE YOU sound. This is the stone which was set at naught BY YOU BUILDERS, that is become the head of the corner. Neither is there ANY OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN among men in which we can be saved."

      When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, perceived that they were illiterate men, and in private stations of life, they were astonished; and recollected that they had seen them in company with Jesus, about the time of his trial; and when they saw the cripple, standing sound and active before them, they were every man silent and confounded. After sending them out of the council chamber for a little, they consulted on the measures next to be pursued. That a signal miracle was done by these men, they said, THEY COULD NOT DENY, for it was manifest to all the citizens of Jerusalem; but to prevent its spreading farther, they agreed to severely threaten them to speak no more in that name. They did so. But Peter proposed them a question which they have not answered to this day: "Whether (said he) is it righteous, in the sight of God, to obey you rather than God? Decide this, if you please." They threatened them and dismissed them, for because of the veneration of the people, and the publicity of the good deed done in the name of Jesus, they dare do no more than threaten them.

      Thus they proceeded in Jerusalem. Multitudes flocked to the metropolis from the surrounding country and villages; and Peter became as famous for his miraculous powers in that city, as Jesus had been. They imprisoned him and some of his associates; but, the next morning, they found them in the Temple, declaring the resurrection and proclaiming reformation. The angel of the Lord discharged them from prison; and now the whole senate are alarmed, and begin to fear that the blood of Jesus would come upon them. "So mightily grew the word of the Lord and prevailed." They had Peter and his associates called before them again. They inquired, why they had disregarded their threats. Peter, in his Christian boldness, replied to the charge of HAVING FILLED JERUSALEM with their doctrine in defiance of those threats, in these words: "It is necessary to obey God rather than you." This was his apology. But he must do more than apologize. He must attest the all-conquering fact. He adds: "The God of our fathers has raised up Jesus whom you slew, hanging him on a tree. HIM HAS GOD EXALTED at his right hand, to be a PRINCE and a SAVIOR, to give reformation to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And WE ARE WITNESSES of these things, and the Holy Spirit also, whom God has [332] given to them WHO SUBMIT TO HIS GOVERNMENT. Had it not been for Gamaliel the Pharisee, who had some reason, as well as a strong prepossession in favor of the resurrection of the dead, they would have attempted their martyrdom. They were released, and home they went, "rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer shame for his name."

      So they progressed, till myriads of the Jews became obedient to the faith. Even many of the priests were baptized, and the crucified Jesus was worshiped by tens of thousands of those who had once considered him an impostor, or as a doubtful character. The Sanhedrim became more exasperated. The Sadducees are enraged. Stephen is murdered, INVOKING the name of the Lord, and attesting, with his last breath, THAT HE SAW JESUS standing on the right hand of God. Saul of Tarsus, who, at that time, consented to the death of Stephen, afterward converted, SAW JESUS and attested it with his blood. How increasing yet the evidence of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ!

      Persecution dispersed the disciples from the metropolis--the congregation is broken up; all are dispersed through Judea and Samaria, except the Apostles. They continue where the persecution rages most--and courageously hazard all in attesting the resurrection. The land of Judea falls before these dispersed proclaimers--and Samaria rejoices in the Lord. But to specify the conquests of this truth would be to narrate the whole Acts of the Apostles. Let the skeptics examine Luke's narrative through; his memoirs of Jesus Christ, and his Acts of Apostles; and then reply.

      Were we to follow these Apostles to Gentile cities, we should find them proclaiming the same facts, and we should see the same results attending. In the presence of magistrates, philosophers, and priests, they narrate the same facts, exhibit the same proofs--and all ranks and degrees submit to the government of the Messiah. The idols are hurled from. their seats, the temples are deserted, and no price is offered for victims. Rome itself, is now convulsed, and the Galileans are likely to fill the imperial city with their doctrine. The Roman writers now, we may expect, will notice them, as soon as the gospel makes inroads upon their superstitions. Here then we shall close the testimony of the authors of the New Testament, and we will inquire what the Pagans have to say about these wonderful events.

      But I must again remark, how much more attention is paid to the testimony of infidel Jews and Pagans, than to believing Jews and Pagans, by those who pretend to be so rational as to doubt the truth of Christianity. How often have we heard such persons say, "Produce [333] some disinterested witness, some Pagan, or some Jew, who was never converted to Christianity, who will attest the gospel facts, and we will believe." We will believe an incredible witness, and reject the credible. We would believe Tacitus, but we will not believe Paul. Let Tacitus assert the resurrection of Jesus, and will contend no longer. Well, now, suppose Tacitus had unequivocally said, Jesus rose from the dead. What would have been our logical conclusion? Either that Tacitus was a Christian or a hypocrite; and if either the one or the other, he would be unworthy of credit among skeptics. For, if he were a Christian, he would be as objectionable as Paul or Peter; for these rationalists have no other objection to their testimony, than that it was ex parte, or because it was the testimony of friends. Now, if Tacitus had said that Jesus rose from the dead, and continued an idolater, he must have acted the part of a knave, or a hypocrite. He could not sincerely believe this fact and continue a worshiper of idols. His testimony in that case, would be worth nothing. It is much more forcible as it stands, for he goes just as far as he could go, to continue a Pagan, and be worthy of credit. The Rationalists would have us to produce an impossibility as glaring, as to place two substances in the same place at the same time. They would have us to produce an unbelieving Pagan, speaking and acting as, and being, in fact, a believing Pagan. They want a Jew or a Pagan who will speak like a Christian, but who will not act like one. Now, as far as I can judge of 'testimony, I would incomparably prefer the testimony of the person whose life conforms to his testimony, to the testimony of the person whose life and whose testimony disagree. Now, if I found the words of Tacitus to differ from his character, I would not rely upon them as I do: and taking into view the character of the man, I have no hesitation in saying, that his testimony is altogether credible and I am sure proves everything that we wish, and everything that an infidel can require.² We have already given his testimony.

      The same may be said of other Pagan authorities. Taking into view their times, circumstances, and general character, I presume they are all worthy and credible witnesses. Josephus too, excepting that interpolation found in some copies, is a good witness; not respecting Jesus Christ, but many of the facts and circumstances recorded or alluded to in the historical books of the New Testament. But it is more to shame than to convince skeptics, that we trouble ourselves with the testimonies of either unbelieving Jews or Pagans. Those who will not believe such witnesses as sacrificed all temporal enjoyments, and [334] laid down their lives in attesting the Christian facts, who were above all temptation to deceive; so numerous, so well attested by their cotemporaries, for all moral excellence, will never be convinced by the testimony of Pagans like themselves.

      Perhaps I should place at the head of the list of Infidel, Pagan, and Jewish witnesses, the testimony of one Judas Iscariot, a traitor to Jesus Christ. The testimony of a traitor is sometimes more worthy of credit than the testimony of a friend. This Judas, as the case now stands, is a better testimony than combined testimony of the eleven friends. Judas had long been a familiar acquaintance, and ranked among the most intimate friends of Jesus. He was enrolled among the twelve Apostles. He had been so impartially treated by Jesus, that, until the night he betrayed him, not one of the others could suspect that he would prove a traitor. Now, had there ever been the least reserve shown by Jesus to Judas, or had he been treated in any way less confidentially than any of the other Apostles, as soon as Jesus told them that one of them should betray him, all eyes would have turned to Judas. To him they would have all pointed. Instead of saying one by one, "Lord, is it I?" they would all have said within themselves, it is Judas. He had been, during the whole ministry of Jesus, most intimately acquainted with his speeches, and his actions. If anything insincere, political, or contrary to the ostensible object of the mission of Jesus, had ever transpired in secret, or if ever there had been any conspiracy among his followers, to delude or impose upon the nation, Judas must have known it. This must be conceded by all who have ever read the gospel histories.

      Now that Judas was a designing, selfish, covetous, and insincere adherent to the party, must also be conceded. Seeing things going contrary to his calculations, that no immediate gain, honor, or advantage was likely to accrue--in an evil hour his passion for gain impelled him to seize the first opportunity of making as much as possible, by way of reprizals, for his disappointment in attaching himself to the retinue of Jesus. He therefore covenanted for thirty pieces of silver, the sum for which Joseph was sold into Egypt, to deliver into the custody of the Sanhedrim, the person of Jesus. He did so. Now had he been able to impeach Jesus of aught amiss in word or deed, it is evident he had the disposition and the opportunity; nay, to extenuate his own conduct even in the eyes of the chief priests and elders, it was necessary for him to make a disclosure; but he had nothing to disclose, save, after a little reflection, the agonies of his own mind. I have, said he, betrayed innocent blood. Heart-rending thought! Here is the money: release him. If you have done so, we care not, said the [335] priests; that is your concern, not ours. Now the import of the testimony of Judas is something like the following:

      A.B. is accused of some base or unworthy action. Eleven of his intimate friends and acquaintances, all of good character too, are summoned to give testimony in favor of A.B. They all give him a good character and exculpate him from the charge. Their testimony, though not the same words, concurs in every grand point or fact. There is a twelfth person summoned, who is known to the court and jury to be at that instant a bitter enemy of the accused. He is interrogated, and deposes--"That he has been intimately acquainted with A.B. for years, and that never did he know him speak an unbecoming word, or commit an unworthy action, in any one instance, either bearing upon the accused or any other human being. Nay, so far from that, he has lived the most exemplary life, and his whole conduct has been nothing but a bright display of purity, piety, and benevolence; and, moreover, adds he, I do not think him capable of an evil word or deed." Now such a testimony weighs as much, yes, weighs more with the jury, than the testimony of many friends, however unexceptionable their character. Now just such a witness was Judas. I have betrayed INNOCENT blood, said he; I have been instigated by the devil; my soul has no rest; and peace has departed from me. For so worthy a person as Jesus of Nazareth never lived: release him, or I die. He dies: and though a felo de se, he is a martyr to the truth of the pretensions and character of Jesus.

      We shall now present to this audience a few extracts from the historians of those times, from the edicts of the Roman emperors, and other public documents:

      "Josephus, the Jewish historian, was cotemporary with the apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion.

      "Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in his history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to until the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted spurious. It is, also, according to the manner of Josephus, in other parts of his history, to pass over in silence what appeared to make against his nation. When he wrote, the Christian religion had made considerable progress, and everything respecting it must have been well known to him. He had, therefore, no middle way. [336] It was necessary either to enter somewhat particularly into the subject, or to pass it over entirely. To have mentioned it, as if done in the passage in question, would have been to condemn himself. His testimony, then, to Christianity, is found in his silence; and especially, as he was a priest, is abundantly strong. Not having embraced the Christian religion, and, at the same time, being unable to contradict the facts on which it was founded, or to set them aside, he passes it quietly by. The minute description he has given of the other religious sects in Judea, fully proves that his silence was that of design, to which his circumstances compelled him.

      "His account, however, of the civil and religious affairs of Judea, of the princes and rulers who governed the nation, of the situations of places, of the customs of the country, and of the manners of the people, is perfectly agreeable to the representation of these things which we have in the gospels. In addition to this, he has given a decided testimony to the appearance of John the Baptist, and also an account of his being put to death by Herod. The reason he assigns for his execution is different from that given by the sacred historian; but as to the fact, there is an entire coincidence between them. His words are, 'Some of the Jews thought Herod's army was destroyed of God, he being justly punished for the slaughter of John, who was surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had put that good man to death, although he exhorted the Jews, after having exercised virtue and righteousness toward one another, and having performed the duties of piety toward God, to come to baptism. For thus baptism would be acceptable to him, not if they abstained from some sins only, but if, to purity of body, they joined a soul first cleansed by righteousness. But when many gathered round him, for they were much pleased with the hearing of such discourses, Herod, fearing lest the people, who were greatly under the influence of his persuasion, might be carried to some insurrection (for they seemed to do nothing but by his counsel), judged that it might be better to seize him before any insurrection was made, and to take him off, than, after affairs were disturbed, to repent of his negligence. Thus he, by the jealousy of Herod, being sent bound to Machærus, was there put to death; and the Jews thought that on account of the punishment of this person, destruction had befallen the army, God being displeased with Herod.' In this passage, Josephus attests John's preaching and baptism, and the general attention which his ministry attracted, as well as his being put to death by Herod.

      "Under the Roman government, it was customary for governors of provinces to send to the emperor an account of remarkable transactions in the places where they resided. Referring to this custom, [337] Eusebius says--'Our Savior's resurrection being much talked of throughout Palestine, Pilate informed the emperor of it, as likewise of his miracles, which he had heard of, and that, being raised up after he had been put to death, he was already believed by many to be a God.' These accounts were never made public, nor were any similar ones likely to be published, as such accounts were intended for only the information of government. Augustus forbade publishing the acts of the senate. But the above fact is attested by Justin Martyr in his first Apology, which, in the year 140, was presented to the Emperor Antoninus Pius and the senate of Rome. Having mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus, and some of the circumstances of it, he adds--'And that these things were so done, you may know from the acts made in the time of Pontius Pilate.' Tertullian, in his Apology, about the year 198, having spoken of our Savior's crucifixion and resurrection, his appearances to his disciples, and his ascension to heaven in the sight of the same disciples, who were ordained by him to preach the gospel over the world, goes on: 'Of all these things, relating to Christ, Pilate, in his conscience a Christian, sent an account to Tiberius, then emperor.

      "In another part of the same Apology, he speaks to this purpose: 'There was an ancient decree that no one should be received for a deity, unless he was first approved of by the senate. Tiberius, in whose time the Christian religion had its rise, having received from Palestine, in Syria, an account of such things as manifested our Savior's divinity, proposed to the senate, and giving his own vote as first in his favor, that he should be placed among the gods. The senate refused, because he had himself declined that honor. Nevertheless, the Emperor persisted in his own opinion, and ordered, that if any accused the Christians they should be punished.'

      "These testimonies are taken from public apologies for the Christian religion, presented, or proposed and recommended, to the Emperor and senate of Rome, or to magistrates of public authority and great distinction in the Roman empire.

      "TACITUS, the Roman historian, was born in the year 61 or 62. He was Prætor of Rome under Domitian in 88, and Consul in the short reign of Nerva in 97. In giving an account of the great fire at Rome in the 10th of Nero, about thirty years after our Lord's ascension, he says: 'To suppress, therefore, this common rumor,' (viz: that the Emperor himself had set fire to the city), 'Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishments upon those people who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the [338] procurator, Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, though checked for a while, broke out again, and spread not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city also, whither flow from all quarters all things vile and shameful, and where they find shelter and encouragement. At first, they only were apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterward a vast multitude, discovered by them; all which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity of mankind. Their executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs; some were crucified; others, having been daubed over with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night time, and thus burnt to death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theater upon this occasion and also exhibited the diversions of the circus, sometimes standing in the crowd as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer; at other times driving a chariot himself, till at length these men, though really criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment, began to be commiserated as people who were destroyed, not out of regard to the public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one man.'

      "Such is the testimony of Tacitus, who lived in the same age with the Apostles, to the principal facts which relate to the origin of the gospel, as well as to its rapid progress. He here attests that Jesus Christ was put to death as a malefactor, by Pontius Pilate, procurator under Tiberius; that, from Christ, the people called Christians took their name; that this religion had its rise in Judea; that thence it was propagated into other parts of the world, as far as Rome, where Christians were very numerous; and that they were reproached and hated, and underwent many and grievous sufferings.

      "Suetonius, another eminent Roman historian, was born about the year 70. He says, in his history of the life of the Emperor Claudius, who reigned from the year 41 to 54, that 'he banished the Jews from Rome, who were continually making disturbances, Christus being their leader.' The first Christians being of the Jewish nation, were for a while confounded with the rest of that people, and shared in the hardships that were imposed on them. This account, however, attests what is said in the Acts of the Apostles (xviii. 2), that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome, when Aquila and Priscilla, two Jewish Christians, were compelled to leave it. In the life of Nero, whose reign began in 54, and ended in 68, Suetonius says: 'The Christians too were punished with death; a sort of people addicted to a new and mischievous superstition.'

      "On the foregoing passage of Tacitus, and in reference to the [339] persecution of the Christians under Nero, Gibbon remarks: 'The most skeptical criticism is obliged to respect the truth of this extraordinary fact, and the integrity of this celebrated passage of Tacitus. The former is confirmed by the diligent and accurate Suetonius, who mentions the punishment which Nero inflicted on the Christians.' "In this persecution Paul is said to have been beheaded.

      "The reign of the Emperor DOMITIAN, under whom the second persecution of the Christians took place, began in the year 81, and terminated in the year 96. Domitian made inquiry after the posterity of David, and two men were brought before him of that family. 'At that time,' says Hegesippus, 'there were yet remaining of the kindred of Christ the grandsons of Jude, who was called his brother according to the flesh. These some accused as being of the race of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitianus Cæsar; for he too was afraid of the coming of the Christ, as well as Herod.' Of these men Mr. Gibbon says: 'They frankly confessed their royal origin, and their near relation to the Messiah; but they disclaimed any temporal views, and professed that his kingdom, which they devoutly expected, was purely of a spiritual and angelic nature. When they were examined concerning their origin and occupation, they showed their hands, hardened with daily labor, and declared that they derived their whole subsistence from the cultivation of a farm near Cocaba, of the extent of about twenty-four English acres, and of the value of three hundred pounds sterling. The grandsons of St. Jude were dismissed with compassion and contempt.

      "During the third persecution, which began in the year 100, in the third year of the Emperor TRAJAN, the younger Pliny was appointed proconsul of Bithynia, a province of the Roman empire, on the Euxine Sea. In that distant country there were now vast numbers of Christians, against whom the proconsul, according to the Emperor's edict, used great severity. Being desirous of more full information how to proceed against the Christians, and 'being moved,' as Eusebius says, 'at the multitude of those who were slain for the faith,' he wrote the following letter to Trajan, in the year 107, which was formerly noticed, and in the same year received the Emperor's rescript.

      "Pliny, to the Emperor Trajan, wisheth health and happiness. It is my constant custom, sir, to refer myself to you, in all matters concerning which I have any doubt. For who can better direct me where I hesitate, or instruct me where I am ignorant? I have never been present at any trials of Christians; so that I know not well what is the subject-matter of punishment or of inquiry, or what strictness ought to be used in either. Nor have I been little perplexed to determine [340] whether any difference ought to be made upon account of age, or whether the young and tender, and full grown and robust, ought to be treated all alike; whether repentance should entitle to pardon, or whether all who have once been Christians ought to be punished, though they are now no longer so; whether the name itself, although no crimes be detected, or crimes only belonging to the name, ought to be punished. Concerning all these things I am in doubt.

      "In the meantime I have taken this course with all who have been brought before me, and have been accused as Christians. I have put the question to them, whether they were Christians. Upon their confessing to me that they were, I repeated the question a second and a third time, threatening also to punish them with death. Such as still persisted, I ordered away to be punished; for it was no doubt with me, whatever might be the nature of the opinion, that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy ought to be punished. There were others of the same infatuation, whom, because they are Roman citizens, I have noted down to be sent to the city.

      "In a short time, the crime spreading itself, even while under persecution, as usual in such cases, divers sorts of people came in my way. An information was presented to me, without mentioning the author, containing the names of many persons, who, upon examination, denied that they were Christians, or had ever been so; who repeated after me an invocation of the gods, and with wine and frankincense made supplication to your image, which, for that purpose, I had caused to be brought and set before them, together with the statutes of the deities. Moreover, they reviled the name of Christ, none of which things, as is said, they who are really Christians can by any means be compelled to do. These, therefore, I thought proper to discharge.

      "Others were named by an informer, who at first confessed themselves Christians, and afterward denied it; the rest said they had been Christians, but had left them some three years ago, some longer, and one or more above twenty years. They all worshiped your image, and the statues of the gods. These also reviled Christ. They affirmed that the whole of their fault or error lay in this: that they were wont to meet together, on a stated day, before it was light, and sing among themselves alternately a hymn to Christ as God; and bind themselves, by an oath, not to the commission of any wickedness, but not to be guilty of theft, or robbery, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor to deny a pledge committed to them, when called upon to return it. When these things were performed, it was their custom to separate, and then to come together again to a meal, which they ate in common, without any disorder; but this they had forborne since the publication [341] of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I prohibited assemblies.

      "After receiving this account, I judged it the more necessary to examine, and that by torture, two maid-servants, which were called ministers. But I have discovered nothing beside a bad and excessive superstition.

      "Suspending, therefore, all judicial proceedings, I have recourse to you for advice; for it has appeared unto me a matter highly deserving consideration, especially upon account of the great number of persons who are in danger of suffering; for many, of all ages, and every rank, of both sexes likewise, are accused, and will be accused. Nor has the contagion of this superstition seized cities only, but the lesser towns also, and the open country. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it may be restrained and corrected. It is certain that the temples, which were almost forsaken, begin to be more frequented. And the sacred solemnities, after a long intermission, are revived. Victims likewise are everywhere brought up, whereas for some time there were few purchasers; whence it is easy to imagine what numbers of men might be reclaimed, if pardon were granted to those who shall repent."

      To the above letter the Emperor Trajan sent the following answer:

      "You have taken the right method, my Pliny, in your proceedings with those who have been brought before you as Christians; for it is impossible to establish any rule that shall hold universally. They are not to be sought for. If any are brought before you, and are convicted, they ought to be punished. However, he that denies his being a Christian, and makes it evident in fact, that is, by supplicating to our gods, though he be suspected to have been so formerly, let him be pardoned upon repentance. But in no case, of any crime whatever, may a bill of information be received, without being signed by him who presents it; for that would be a dangerous precedent, and unworthy of my government."

      "In the above letters, we have a public and authentic attestation to the amazing growth of the Christian religion, which had made such progress in the remote country of Bithynia, that the pagan temples were, according to Pliny, 'almost forsaken;' he also mentions that there had been Christians in that country twenty years before. Their blameless lives, the purity of their religious worship, their obedience to their civil rulers, in giving up what they did not consider to be enjoined by divine authority, and their fortitude in suffering, and steady [342] perseverance in the faith of Christ, are all unequivocally attested by their persecutors.

      "The Emperor ADRIAN was born in the year 76. He reigned twenty years from the death of Trajan, in 117. Trajan's edict being still in force against the Christians, they suffered persecution under Adrian's reign, although he published no new edict against them. Upon occasion, however, of the apologies which Quadratus and Aristides presented to him at Athens in the year 126, that persecution was moderated. Of Aristides, Jerome says, 'he was a most eloquent Athenian philosopher, and in his former habit he presented to the Emperor Adrian, at the same time with Quadratus, a book containing an account of our sect, that is an apology for the Christians, which is still extant, a monument with the learned of his ingenuity.' This apology is now lost. To Quadratus was ascribed the gift of prophecy, and he is said to have been 'a disciple of the Apostles.' The following is all that remains of the apology which he presented to Adrian; 'The works of our Savior were always conspicuous, for they were real, both they that were healed, and they that were raised from the dead; who were seen not only when they were healed or raised, but for a long time afterward; nor only while he dwelt on this earth, but also after his departure, and for a good while after it, insomuch that some of them have reached to our times.'

      "We are informed by Eusebius, that 'Serenius Granianus, proconsul, wrote to the Emperor Adrian, that it seemed to him unjust that the Christians should be put to death, only to gratify the clamors of the people, without trial.' The apologies of Aristides and Quadratus, presented about the same time with the above letter, appear to have contributed to procure the following favorable rescript from the Emperor Adrian: 'Adrian to Manucius Fundanus: I have received a letter written to me by the illustrious Serenius Granianus, whom you have succeeded. It seems then to me, that this is an affair which ought not to be passed over without being examined into, if it were only to prevent disturbance being given to people, and that you may not be left for informers to practice their wicked arts. If, therefore, the people of the province will appear publicly, and in a legal way charge the Christians, that they may answer for themselves in court, let them take that course, and not proceed by importunate demands and loud clamors only. For it is much the best method if any bring accusations, that you should take cognizance of them. If, then, any one shall accuse and make out any contrary to the laws, do you determine according to the nature of the crime; but, by Hercules, if the charge [343] be only a calumny, do you take care to punish the author of it with the severity it deserves.'

      "In the above rescript, Trajan's edict is not repealed: according to which, if a man was accused and proved to be a Christian, a President is required to punish him, unless he recant. But in a considerable degree, this rescript was favorable to the Christians. And the persecution, which before had been violent, was now restrained and moderated.

      "Beside the rescript, there is a letter of Adrian to Servianus, (husband of Paulina, the Emperor's sister), who was consul in the year 134. 'Adrian Augustus, to the consul Servianus, wisheth health. I have found Egypt, my dear Servianus, which you commend to me, all over fickle and inconstant, and continually shaken by the slightest reports of fame. The worshipers of Serapis are Christians, and they are devoted to Serapis, who call themselves Christ's Bishops. There is no ruler of the Jewish Synagogue, no Samaritan, no presbyter of the Christians, no mathematician, no soothsayer, no anointer, even the patriarch, if he should come to Egypt, would be required by some to worship Serapis, by others Christ. A seditious and turbulent sort of men. However, the city is rich and populous. Nor are any idle; some are employed in making glass, others paper, others in weaving linen. They have one God, him the Christians, him the Jews, him all the Gentile people worship.'

      "It is not surprising that in the above letter the Christians in Egypt, as to their worship, and in other respects, are confounded with the other Egyptians. But the inaccuracy of the representation in these things does not invalidate the general fact, which the Emperor here authenticates, that the Christians, within a century after the resurrection of Jesus, were so numerous throughout Egypt.

      "ANTONINUS, surnamed the Pious, succeeded Adrian in the year 130. To this Emperor Justin Martyr presented at Rome his first apology in the year 140. It is inscribed in this manner: 'To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus, the Pious, and to his son Verissimus and Lucius, and the Senate, and all the people of the Romans in behalf of men gathered out of all nations, who are unjustly hated and ill treated, I, Justin, son of Priscus, son of Bacchius, one of them of the city of Flavin Neapolis, in that part of Syria which is called Palestine, making this address and supplication.' The following are the concluding words of this apology: 'On the day called Sunday we all meet together; on which day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead; on the day before Sunday he was crucified; and on the day after Saturday, which is Sunday, he appeared to his Apostles and disciples, and taught [344] them those things which we have set before you, and refer to your consideration. If these things appear agreeable to reason and truth, pay a regard to them; if they appear trifling, reject them as such; but do not treat as enemies, nor appoint capital punishment to those who have done no harm; for we foretell unto you that you will not escape the future judgment of God if you persist in unrighteousness: and we shall say, the will of the Lord be done.'

      "The copy of an edict shall to be presented to the states in Asia, in consequence of the above and other representation from Christians, is still extant. It contains a strong testimony in favor of the Christians; but as its genuineness is doubted by some, it is here omitted, as well as everything among these early testimonies, of whose genuineness there is the smallest doubt.

      "MARCUS ANTONINUS, the philosopher, succeeded Antoninus Pius as Emperor, in the year 161. There is still extant a book written by him called his 'Meditations.' In the eleventh book the following passage occurs, in which he mentions the Christians: 'What a soul is that which is prepared, even now presently, if needful, to be separated from the body, whether it be to be extinguished, or to be dispersed, or to subsist still. But this readiness must proceed from a well-weighed judgment, not from mere obstinacy like the Christians. And it should be done considerately, and with gravity, without tragical exclamations, and so as to persuade another.'

      "The foregoing passage contains an attestation to the fortitude of the Christians who lived in the age next the Apostles, grounded on the assured conviction of the truth of that religion for which they suffered so much. The Emperor was a bigot in religion and in philosophy, and nothing but his prejudice against Christianity can account for his condemning that fortitude which he ought to have approved.

      "He ascribes the willingness of the Christians to die to obstinacy, and says, that 'a man ought to resign life only upon a well-formed judgment, and considerately.' But did not the Christians die in this manner? He says, 'it should be done with gravity, and without tragical exclamations,' upon which it has been observed, that 'it is not a little strange that a Stoic, whose writings are full of affectation, and are all over tragical, should blame the Christians for not dying without tragical noise and exclamation. If they then called upon God and Christ; if they then exhorted their brethren to constancy and perseverance; if they expressed a contempt for this world and its fading enjoyments; if they spoke in sublime strains of the felicities of the world to come; in a word, if they triumphed in death, as some of them did, there is nothing in it absurd or unreasonable, nothing but what is [345] truly admirable. The heathen people around them wanted nothing to make them sensible of it but a better knowledge of the Christian principles; such a persuasion of the boundless power and goodness of the One God, creator of all, and a well-grounded expectation of eternal life.' It will be recollected that the great persecution against the churches at Lyons and Vienne in France, some account of which has been given already, took place under this Emperor, who, therefore, ought not to have spoken in this manner of the sufferings of the Christians.

      "Marcus's expressions denote great uncertainty concerning a future state of existence. He is doubtful whether the soul, when separated from the body, shall be 'extinguished or dispersed, or shall still subsist.' He says again, 'to what purpose all this? ... You have made your voyage, and arrived at your port. Go ashore; if into another life, the gods are there; if into a state of insensibility, you will be no longer distracted by pains and pleasures, nor be in subjection to this mean vessel.'"

      Such was the amount of the speculations of heathen philosophers respecting a future state; yet, with but few exceptions, they went hand in hand in violently opposing that gospel which, presenting to all who will take the trouble to examine it, the most indubitable evidence of its divine original, has brought life and immortality to light.

      To trace this chain of evidence any farther, would be superfluous. Nothing can be more fully authenticated than what has been brought forward on this head; all of which so forcibly reminds us of what Paul said before king Agrippa--"this thing was not done in a corner."

      From these documents, it is incontrovertibly evident that the establishment and progress of Christianity was a matter of public and general notoriety; that it arrested the attention of all ranks and degrees of men, Jewish and Pagan; that all antiquity, Jewish and Christian, admit the gospel facts, namely: that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew; became the author of a new religion in Judea; was of the most obscure birth; was famous for supernatural power; was crucified in or near the metropolis, under Pontius Pilate, then procurator of Judea; that this suppressed the cause for a little time; that his resurrection, or some unexpected circumstance, caused it to revive and progress with uncontrollable power; that immense multitudes in Judea, and in all parts of the Roman empire, embraced it; that the Christians were a virtuous, patient, and religious people, only censured for their inflexible adherence to the gospel facts, and unequivocal reprobation of idolatry, which the Romans called "obstinacy;" that they endured every kind of indignity, persecution, torture, and death, rather than to [346] renounce their confidence in Jesus and their hopes of future happiness.

      It is also unquestionably evident, that it spread with the utmost rapidity over all the Roman empire; and in about two centuries after the death of the Apostles, did, in despite of the power of circumstances, and Mr. Owen's whole theory, establish itself upon the ruins of all the superstitions of ancient Rome. In whatever light we view the conversation of Constantine, whether sincere or feigned--(the latter is the more probable)--it proves that Christianity had won the day in leavening the minds of a majority of the millions composing this immense empire, before it had any favor shown it by the civil magistrates, or had a single legal provision in its favor. From the partial survey we are now able to take of all the documents before us, with others of a kindred nature, it appears to me, at least, that he must believe a greater miracle than any which Christianity exhibits, because altogether contrary to reason and experience, who can prevail on himself to think that Christianity is either the offspring of fraud or fiction; or that it is not what it appears to be, a religion of supernatural and divine origin.

      All sorts of witnesses attest the truth of the pretensions of Jesus Christ--friends, enemies, neutrals, Jews, Christians, Pagans, believers, unbelievers, apostates. But still the pillars are the twelve Apostles. There is admirably worked up in their testimony, more of the constituents of demonstration, than are to be found in any testimony ever exhibited on earth. It is a species of testimony which, when well understood and carefully weighed, produces a certainty in the mind not inferior to the certainty derived from demonstration.

      "It is a very singular circumstance," as one observes, "in this testimony, that it is such that no length of time can diminish. It is founded upon the universal principles of human nature, upon maxims which are the same in all ages, and operate with equal strength in all mankind, under all the varieties of temper and habit of constitution. So long as it shall be contrary to the first principles of the human mind to delight in falsehood for its own sake, so long as it shall be true that no man willingly propagates a lie to his own detriment, and to no purpose, so long it will be certain that the Apostles were serious and sincere in the assertion of our Lord's resurrection. So long as it shall be absurd to suppose that twelve men could be deceived in the person of a friend with whom they had lived three years, so long it will be certain that the Apostles were competent to judge of the truth and reality of the fact which they asserted. So long as it shall be in the nature of man, for his own interest and ease to be dearer than that [347] of another to himself, so long it will he an absurdity to suppose that twelve men should persevere for years in the joint attestation of a lie, to the great detriment of every individual of the conspiracy, and without any joint or separate advantage; when any one of them had it in his power, by a discovery of the fraud, to advance his own fame and fortune, by the sacrifice of nothing more dear to himself than the reputation of the rest; and so long will it be incredible, that the story of our Lord's resurrection was a fiction, which the twelve men (to mention no greater number), with unparalleled fortitude, and with equal folly, conspired to support; so long, therefore, as the evangelical history shall be preserved, so long as the books are extant, so long the credibility of the Apostles' testimony will remain whole and unbroken."

      But still we cannot dismiss this topic, until we glance at the other two commemorative institutions. For not only is there a commemorative day, but two commemorative actions, instituted to speak forth the certainty and importance of this event. These are the Lord's Supper and Christian Immersion, or as it is often called Christian Baptism. I place the Lord's Supper first; because first instituted, and because it commemorates an event prior to those which baptism chiefly contemplates. Before the Messiah was betrayed, on the night of the Passover, he institutes the breaking and eating of a loaf, and the drinking of a cup of wine, jointly among his disciples: as symbolically commemorative of the wounding or breaking of his body even unto death, and the shedding of his blood as the seal of the love of God to man, a sin-offering or a sacrifice for sin, indicative of the great pacification; of the reconciliation of a sinful world to the character and government of God. This wonderful scheme or plan of things for the redemption of man, now consummated by the shedding of the blood of the Son of God, was to be adumbrated or portrayed in a solemn commemorative institution, from that moment till the end of time. And so in all the public meetings of the Christian communities on the commemorative day, this commemorative action, this Christian festival, is to be, as it was from the beginning, observed. Not a single first day of the week has since transpired, not one week since the first constitution of the Christian church, without the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Till the days of Constantine, it was universal in every Christian congregation on earth; and although some churches made the celebration of the Lord's death an annual or semi-annual thing, yet the Romanists themselves, and some of those called dissenters, have never permitted this observance.

      The four grand criteria of Leslie, in all their force, apply to this [348] institution--the death of Jesus was a public and sensible fact--exhibited in the face of open day, and before many witnesses--the supper instituted in anticipation of it, the night in which he was betrayed, has continued from that time till the present moment, now nearly eighteen hundred years, and in defiance of skepticism, will continue till Jesus comes to judge the world.

      After the resurrection of Jesus, and before his ascension into Heaven, his last act is the institution of Christian immersion into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. He introduces this institution by avowing that "ALL AUTHORITY in Heaven and earth was delegated to him as the Son of Man." "Therefore," adds he, "go you, my Apostles, into all the world, and convert the nations, baptizing them into the name," etc. I would not be thought, my friends, to be influenced by any sectarian peculiarity in speaking of this institution. I trust I have given you evidence, at least, that I have no sectional, partisan, or sectarian feelings in this common cause. I am sorry that the naming of this institution in English gives offense to some; I choose here to use the Greek word baptizing instead of the English word immersing; and I would not mention this institution at this time, if I could do justice to this cause without it. But we all agree, and know, and feel, that this commemorative institution is one of the memorials, yes, one of the most important monumental actions in the Christian religion, and what is called the Christian world. For while the Lord's day commemorates merely the time of the resurrection, while the Lord's supper commemorates merely the death of the Redeemer--this institution commemorates his death, burial, and resurrection--the former indirectly, the latter two, directly, symbolically, and explicitly. All Christians know that this was the converting act, or, to speak less offensively, it was the act enjoined in the commission for converting the nations of the world. Hence the very place which it occupies, and the relation which it bears to the object and end of the mission, gives great emphasis to it. "Disciple the nations, baptizing them into the name, or convert the nations, baptizing," etc. The active principle shows its importance, as much as the words of Jesus to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter my kingdom" (that was the kingdom which he was about to establish upon this earth). But all Christendom agree in this, that this is the first action, necessary to making or forming a disciple. Even some of our brethren are so impatient for its influences, that they carry their new-born infants to it. All this proves that all Christendom now, as they did from the beginning, esteemed this as the first act, formative of a disciple of Christ; as far at least, as a profession, [349] or public avowal of Christianity, imports. And why has this been almost as universal as Christianity itself? Because that it alludes to, and commemorates, the great facts--the burial and resurrection of Christ. Jesus died, was buried, and rose again. So we die unto all authority and hope, save that of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, and consequently unto sin in this act. We, as all dead persons are, are then buried with Christ for a short time; he for a short time in the earth, and we for a short time in the water. We also rise with him: he rose from the dead, and we rise from our death unto sin, to walk, and live, and rejoice in a new life. He died unto sin once; but rose released, or "justified by the Spirit," from all imputation; so we rise released from sin, pardoned, justified, believing in him as "having been delivered for our offenses, and raised for our justification." So admirably exact is this commemorative institution, which is now, and has been almost incessantly observed, since the ascension of Jesus into Heaven. From the day of Pentecost till now, not an hour, and for ages past, not a second has passed without the repetition of this commemorative institution, in some way or other. Till the council of Ravenna, till the reign of Queen Elizabeth in England, this ordinance was significant of the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For every time that we see a person buried in the water and raised out of it, by the power of another, we see Jesus emblematically buried and raised again. And of the millions who profess Christianity, every one (with the exception of a few Quakers, who understand not the use nor meaning of commemorative institutions), does actively or passively submit to this monumental action, and publish, without uttering a word, to every spectator, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

      What a wonderfully contrived institution this; which by positive acts, which no a priori principles, nor modes of reasoning could have suggested; keeps itself forever standing before the eyes of men! Christ crucified, pierced, wounded, dead, buried, quickened again, ascending, exhibited in all its sacred acts of worship. In our prayers, we speak to Him, in our praises we speak of Him, in our positive acts of worship, commemorate Him, and in our moral actions, imitate Him.

      We now proceed to the next chapter of evidence which we proposed, viz:

      Though both poetry and moral lessons extemporaneously expressed, have been called prophecy in an enlarged sense of the term; yet, in its restricted and most appropriate use and acceptation, the term denotes the foretelling of things future and unknown. It is, therefore, in this sense, the word is used in the following argument: [350]

      The foretelling of future events depends upon a knowledge of them; or of the causes and connections of things which, from established principles, necessarily issue in certain results. All men are possessed of a certain species of this sort of knowledge. They have a data which enables them not only to conjecture, but even to foreknow with certainty what shall come to pass. This data is either the result of experience, of reasoning upon well-established principles, or upon testimony. We know that all the living shall die; that the trees will bud and blossom in spring; that the moon will change; a comet appear; or that an eclipse of the sun will happen on a certain day. Men of extraordinary sagacity can penetrate into futurity, and sometimes guess, conjecture, and even foretell, upon a large accumulation of probabilities, certain political events. But still the limitations and utmost bounds of this knowledge, are very narrow; and comparatively few are the events future of which any man can speak with certainty.

      But although we admit that such foreknowledge is possessed by many, yet the foundation on which it rests, is not what the skeptical philosophers allow it to be. For if they were to be put to the test, they could not prove any topics or data within the area of the premises from which they reason, that the sun will rise to-morrow, or that laws of nature will continue to operate as they have done a single day. Let them, or let Mr. Owen, set about the proof of such a position. But that knowledge of future events which we call prophecy, or which is necessary to the foretelling of future events, is possessed by no mere man, and therefore no man, unaided by some supernatural knowledge, can foretell any future event, except such as we have already defined. For example, no man could have foretold, three hundred years ago, that in the island of Corsica, from a particular person there living, would arise in three centuries, a man of extraordinary military powers and political skill, who, by a succession of the most brilliant exploits and victories, should exile an old dynasty from France, raise himself to imperial dignity, affright the monarchs of Europe, and after having dazzled the world with his success, should by a more sudden descent and overthrow, die an exile in a remote island of the ocean. No man could have told, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, that in the colony of Virginia, from an old English family, there would, in less than two centuries, arise a man who should be the firm and undaunted asserter of his country's rights--and by his council and heroic achievements, after a seven years' struggle, not only succeed in detaching thirteen colonies from the despotism of England, but in establishing a new world of republics, surpassing in the march of intellect, in advances toward national greatness, and in all the enjoyments of rational [351] liberty, all nations upon the earth. No mere man could have foretold such events. Now, this is precisely the species of prophecy of which we are now to speak in this branch of the argument. Such prophets and such prophecies do the sacred oracles present. But before we open the sacred volume, it is necessary to premise still further.

      It has been remarked that the existence of counterfeits and hypocrites, is a very stubborn and irrefragable proof that there is something genuine and authentic. No man is wont to pretend to anything which has not somewhere a real existence. At least, we have never met with such a case. All pretenses prove that something real exists. Now, among all nations there have been false prophets. The Pagans had their oracles, their auguries, and their divinations. Modern idolaters have their diviners and necromancers. Jews and Christians alone possessed, and gave the original of this idea. They alone afforded the realities of which these are the pretenses.

      Great were the ends, and most important were the uses of prophecy, in the estimation of the author of the Christian religion. It is interwoven through the whole web. Scarce a leaf is turned in the sacred volume without some prophetic annunciation. For giving to men just views of God's omnisciency, of his interest in the human family, and of his government or Providence, and for inspiring them with the spirit of true devotion, the prophecies were promulged.

      But all prophecies have one single end in view--Messiah and his kingdom. Whether individuals, cities, tribes, nations, empires, proximate or remote ages, are the burthen of the particular prophecies, Jesus, the Messiah, is the spirit and object of them all.

      Had we time, and the audience patience, to go into a methodical detail of the evidences arising from prophecy, we should have taken the following course:

      1. We should have examined the direct, literal, and express prophetic annunciations of the fates of the great empires and cities of antiquity. Among these the fates of Egypt, Tyre, Nineveh, Babylon, and Jerusalem, would have merited particular attention.

      2. The symbolic or figurative prospective institutions of the Jews' religion.

      3. The allusive and picturesque representations of double reference, first to persons and events immediately pressing upon the attention of the speaker, but ultimately adumbrating and applying to the Messiah and his kingdom.

      4. The direct, literal, and express predictions of the Messiah and his kingdom, found in the Jewish scriptures; and

      5. In the fifth place, the literal and symbolic prophecies of the New [352] Testament, reaching down to our own times, and to the ultimate fates of all the nations now on earth.

      Such would have been the outlines, were we to go into a general examination of this most inexhaustible source of evidence, argument, and proof of the authenticity of our religion.

      Under the first head, we. should have read the predictions of the fates of Egypt; particularly the 29th and 30th chapters of the prophecy of Ezekiel, delivered 589 years before the birth of the Messiah, and from the history of Rollin, and the modern history of Egypt, shown that these predictions, literal and direct, have been fully accomplished; that, from the most renowned and powerful of the kingdoms of the world, Egypt has become the "basest of kingdoms, and no more able to rule over the nations," according to the express declarations of the Jewish prophets. See Rollin, vol. 1, page 213, et sequentes.

      We should then have laid the oracles concerning Tyre before you, as uttered by Ezekiel xxviii. 1-21. This great city, who boasted in her strength, wealth, and beauty, and scoffed at Jerusalem, utterly perished, according to the oracle delivered 588 years before Christ. Rollin, vol. 2, pages 30, 31.

      Next, we should have called your attention to the predictions concerning Nineveh, as expressed by Nahum ii. 8, and iii. 1-9; by Zephaniah ii. 12-15. In these predictions it was distinctly declared that the Lord would make Nineveh a desolation and dry like a wilderness. This oracles was delivered by Nahum, 710 years before the Messiah, and little more than 100 years afterward it was literally fulfilled. See also Rollin, vol. 2, 43, 44.

      After this the fates of Babylon would have come in review; concerning this city we should have read Isaiah xiii. 1-22. This prediction was delivered by Isaiah 739 years before Christ, and about 200 years before the destruction of Babylon. But on these fates of Babylon, we should have read Isaiah xlv. 1; Jeremiah i. 1; and then Rollin's description of its destruction, vol. 2, from page 102 to 116--Philadelphia ed., 1825. But these would require too much time. Concerning Jerusalem, we may yet be somewhat particular.

      The predictions concerning the Jews are so very minute, literal, and graphical, extending through the greatest lapse of time, and occupying the largest number of prophets, living through many centuries, that it is most astonishing that any rational being can examine these and the history of this people, and doubt the inspiration of these prophets. Even Moses, in the 32d chapter of Deuteronomy, gives the whole prospective history, reaching down to times yet unborn. We may, perhaps, call your attention to this prophecy. But at present we shall [353] pass on, with one or two brief notices, to other matters of more direct bearing.

      Jeremiah xxxi. 32, expressly declares that the national constitution under which they then stood should be vacated, and a new one, of different provisions, instituted. But, in connection with this explicit promise and prediction, the Lord declares that, Sooner will the sun, moon, and stars cease to exist, than Israel crease to be a nation or people before him. Jeremiah xxxi. 35, 36. His words are: "Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and stars for a light by night; if these ordinances depart from my presence, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel, shall cease from being a nation before me forever." Thus adds the Lord: "If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth can be searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel, for all that they have done, says the Lord." This prediction is now nearly 2500 years old; and the children of Israel remain, even in their dispersion, a separate and distinct people. They have not amalgamated with any nation, nor can they. 'Tis now nearly 4000 years since God made promises to Abraham concerning his seed, which have been accomplished, and are still accomplishing. They continue a separate and distinct people; and although the great and mighty empires of the Assyrians, Persians, Macedonians, and Romans, have wasted away, still the seed of Abraham remains a people.

      That the Jewish scriptures, which contain these prophecies, read before the Christian era as they now read, is susceptible of the fullest proof. The version made by order of Ptolemy Philadelphus was completed nearly 300 years before the birth of the Messiah; and thus the Greeks were in possession of these oracles, as well as the Jews. The version of the seventy Jews was read in all the synagogues of the Jews, where the Greek language was spoken; they were public property ages before Jesus Christ was born, John the Baptist, or any of the persons recorded in the New Testament history. No person could have any motive to interpolate them in favor of these persons. They wanted motive as well as opportunity. Admitting, then, that these oracles, read before the coming of the Messiah, only one hundred years before his birth, as they read now, no man can, with any pretension to rationality, resist the claims and pretension of Jesus Christ. For he is as obviously the scope, drift, and termination of these prophecies, as ever did a conclusion flow from any premises. Now that these oracles were universally read by Jews and Greeks, as they now read, ages before the birth of Jesus, is as well established as any historic fact in the literature of the world. It was then read and known centuries before [354] the birth of the Messiah, that God had said, that the sun, moon, and stars, would cease to shine in the heavens, sooner than this people cease to be a nation. No conquest nor dispersion, then, ever could annihilate their national peculiarities. They yet continue; and if there was not another prediction, this one alone is sufficient to convince them that are not so blind as not to see the force of reason, nor to judge of the weight of testimony, beyond all rational objection. It would appear that nothing is waiting to gather this people into their own land, but the destruction of the Ottoman empire. This the prophecies seem to indicate. They are ever prepared to return, for they will not hold any real estate in any country in the world. Their expectation is to return, and who can say that the evidence in favor of such an event is at all doubtful, or the event itself improbable? "Blindness," says Paul, "has happened to them in part, till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled;" then all Israel shall be saved, then the Jews shall be consolidated and become the light of the whole world. And so all Israel shall yet be saved. "For if the casting of them away has been the means of reconciling the nations to the love of God, what shall the restoration of Israel to the favor of God be, but, as it were, life from the dead!" Then shall the funeral song of infidelity be sung. The destruction of the Mahometan and anti-Christian kingdoms, and the restoration of the seed of Abraham to the favor of God, are all that is necessary to the introduction of the Millennium. And that these events are upon the eve of being born, no man acquainted with the present history of the world, nor with the Christian prophecies, can doubt.

      But that many errors have been committed in certain interpretations of those oracles, we are willing to confess. But what sort of errors have they been? Errors arising from dates rather than from a mistake of the symbols; or from localities, rather than from a failure to understand the general drift of them. Prophecy is more like a blank map than a full history. The outlines of the countries and their relative situation, are accurately defined, but only a few of the principal places are named. It requires a very correct and minute knowledge of the countries, such only as travelers possess, to qualify a person to affix to every place its proper name. Now, in naming the places, there may many mistakes be committed by them who know and understand the outlines well. Such a knowledge of the prophecies all intelligent Christians may acquire who study them; but few can, with perfect precision, fix all the dates and circumstances belonging to the accomplishment of many of these predictions. We must always consider prophecy rather in the light of a general chart delineating the outlines [355] of a country, than as a topographical map fixing the locality of small places.

      But I should have observed, ere now, that if we had intended a minute examination of all the grand items of prophetic importance, we would have paid some attention to the symbolic representations of the Jewish worship and history, as very exactly portraying the advent, mission, and work of the Messiah. This is a singular institution. That a people should be nearly 1600 years attending to a symbolic worship, not one of them clearly apprehending the import of it, in all its bearings; and that these symbols should, all at once, burst forth upon a nation like so many witnesses rising from the dead, is as stupendous a display of the Divine wisdom and goodness as any other part of the whole economy. And such was the fact. A hundred incidents, never before understood, all coincide in their application to Jesus and his kingdom, and exactly concur in illustrating his person, mission, life, death, resurrection, and ascension, as so many commentators. It now appeared that not only the prophecies, but the law itself, was full of the Messiah, and a witness for him with a hundred tongues. But all the evidences arising from this species of prophecy, we must dispense with at this crisis.

      In like manner, all those symbolic personages and typical occurrences which, though seeming to refer exclusively to persons and events, of their own times, look forward. As the satirist, full of his object, glances at it in every person and incident he names, so these prophets, full of the spirit respecting the Messiah, glance at him through every person and event, as though he was the ultimate object continually in their eyes. I say, that this double entendre, or, as some improperly call them, double meanings, apparent in many persons and events, must be omitted at this time; and instead of dilating upon those symbolic personages, events, and institutions, we will fix our attention upon one vein of the prophetic mine, and work it with some degree of industry. And here, perhaps, we have raised too much expectation; for so ample are the direct and most explicit prophecies concerning the Messiah and his kingdom, that to set these in order, and pay a slight attention to each, would be more than our present strength, opportunity, and circumstances might permit. But without further preamble, we shall begin.

      A brief notice of the direct, literal, and express predictions of the Messiah and his kingdom, found in the Jewish scriptures, is all that we shall now promise.

      I ought, perhaps, to name seven of his most illustrious progenitors, who are signalized with oracles concerning him; all discriminating [356] him, and turning the eyes of an expecting world toward his more immediate parentage, according to the flesh. Shem, son of Noah, stands at the head of this list: "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem." "God shall persuade Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be in his servant." But soon the posterity of Shem branches out into numerous and powerful families, each of which founds an ancient nation. Another discrimination becomes necessary. Abraham is marked out, and the God of Shem becomes the God of Abraham. In the seed of Abraham the blessing is now promised. But Abraham has a son by Hagar, several sons by Kiturah, and one by Sarah; which of these shall be the honored progenitor? "In Isaac shall thy seed be called," directs our eyes to this branch of Abraham's descendants. But Isaac has two sons, Jacob and Esau; which of these? "The elder shall serve the younger," gives the superiority to Jacob. Now, Jacob has twelve sons, and which of these shall have the honor of giving a Savior to the world? "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from among his descendants till SHILOH come, and to him shall nations come." But, again, Judah becomes a numerous tribe, and still we desire another limitation. David, then, the son of Jesse, becomes the King of Israel, and David's son is to become DAVID'S LORD; but David sings more than a hundred songs concerning him, which detail his history as if written after "the root and offspring of David" had finished all the wonders of redemption.

      But the indices that point our way to the Messiah do not stop with David; they multiply as long as a prophet visits Israel: hence his mother is described as a VIRGIN by Isaiah--a virgin of the family of David. Singular prediction. Behold the virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a son, and his name shall be IMMANUEL. The sneers and impious scoffs of skeptics at the nativity of Jesus, had they noticed this oracle, would have been prevented or confounded. Let it then be noticed, that 700 years before this child was born, it was foretold that his mother should be a virgin.

      But the place of his nativity is also clearly and expressly named. So clearly and unequivocally was the place of Messiah's birth ascertained in the Jewish scriptures, that all the priests and scribes in Jerusalem could tell Herod the place, without a difficulty. "And thou, Bethlehem, art not the lest among the cantons of Judah; for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel."

      But THE TIME of the birth and appearance of the Messiah was most exactly pointed out. And as this is a matter of great moment, I shall just notice the various descriptions of this time, found in the Jewish [357] prophets. It was defined by several remarkable characters; the chief are:

      1. He was to come before the second temple decayed, or was to appear in the second temple.

      2. He was to come before Judah ceased to furnish a governor.

      3. He was to come while the Roman emperors were in their glory.

      4. And he was to come at the end of a definite number of years, from the permission given to rebuild the temple.

      Concerning the first of these predictions, we have to remark that when the second temple was building, the old men who had seen the first are said to have wept when they saw the second edifice progressing, because it was so inferior to that which Solomon built; but, to console them, it is foretold that the glory of the latter house shall greatly excel that of the former. So speaks Haggai, chap. ii. 7. "I will shake all nations," says the Lord, "and the DESIRE OF ALL NATIONS shall come, and I will fill this house with glory." "The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former." And why? Let Malachi declare: "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to HIS TEMPLE; even the messenger of the covenant whom you delight in; behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts." So that it is clearly and expressly stated that the Lord would come while the second temple was yet standing. The first temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar on the tenth day of August, 583 years before Jesus was born; and so the second was built about 500 years before the birth of the Messiah.

      [Here Mr. C. moved to adjourn till half past two o'clock, P. M.]

      Mr. Campbell continues: Mr. Chairman--When we adjourned, we were showing that the time of the coming of the Messiah was marked out and defined by a variety of characters that could not be mistaken.

      The scepter was not to depart from Judah until Shiloh came. But it was merely lingering in that tribe for some years before the birth of the Messiah, for the land of Judea had become a Roman province, but still the remains of the ancient regal power had not been wrested from the hands of Judah. But so feebly did he grasp the scepter, that it seemed to fall at the crisis when the harbinger appeared.

      The prophecy of Daniel, more circumstantially describes the time in the wonderful vision which he explained for Nebuchadnezzar. In this vision, there was a prospective view of the history of the world, from the time of the Chaldean or Assyrian monarchy down to the end of time. That this vision and prophecy might sufficiently attract the attention, and interest the feelings of all the world, it was vouchsafed [358] to an Assyrian king, and explained by a Jewish prophet. The Jews and Gentiles are both concerned in it. Nebuchadnezzar had the vision, and Daniel interpreted it. Thus Babylon and Jerusalem attest its truth. In this vision, and the interpretation of it, the four great pagan empires are most accurately defined. The golden head of the image which the king saw was avowed by Daniel to be the Chaldean dynasty, the silver shoulders were the Medo-Persian dynasty, the brazen body the Macedonian empire, and the iron legs the Roman empire. These were the only four empires of the pagan world which attained to universal dominion; they all had it for a time; they were all pagan empires, and exactly delineated in this image. These great empires are represented in the interpretation as the only empires that should have universal dominion. The Assyrian began 2233 years before the birth of Christ, lasted 1400 years, and ended 770 years before Christ. The Persian empire began 538 years before Christ, continued 200 years, and fell 336 years before the Christian era. The Macedonian or Grecian only continued ten years: it began 334 and ended 324 years before Christ. The Roman began 31 years before Christ, and after continuing 500 years, ended Anno Domini 476.

      Now it was distinctly said, that in the days of the last empire, the God of heaven would set up a kingdom in the world, which should obtain the universal empire of the world, and that it would break and bruise to atoms every particle of the pagan governments; and most astonishing of all, it would begin without human aid, or it would resemble a stone cut out of a mountain without hands, which, self-propelled, should roll on, increase, smite this wonderful image of the pagan government, demolish it, and fill the whole earth. Such was the imagery of the vision. And was not the Messiah born in the days of the Cæsars, who first formed and governed the iron empire?

      Two incidents in this prophecy are worthy of notice. 1st. The time fixed for the commencement of this new kingdom of God in the world. And 2d. That the Roman empire once subdued, there should never again be a universal empire upon the earth, save that of the crucified King. Now we do not know what efforts have been made to build up great empires, and how abortive they have all proved. The most successful effort ever made since the downfall of the Romans was that made by Napoleon. In the year 1813 he controlled the temporal destinies of sixty-four millions of human beings; but what was this number to the whole population of Europe, to say nothing of the other three quarters of the globe! Nothing like a universal empire has ever been established since the division of the Roman into ten comparatively petty sovereignties. [359]

      But Gabriel informs Daniel more definitely of the date of Messiah's birth, and of the commencement of the last great empire. He says, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin-offering, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in an everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know, therefore, and understand that from the going forth of the decree to restore and build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks. The street shall be built again, and the walls, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many, for a week, and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." When I have made another extract from Daniel, we have all the data before us. Chapter viii. 13. The question there proposed is, "How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" "And he said to me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Now, as the Lord said to Ezekiel, "I have appointed one day for a year," and as we find in symbolic language one day stands for a year, we are at no loss in coming to the following conclusions:

      From the time of the going forth of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until the death of Messiah, would be threescore and nine and a half weeks; that is, a period of four hundred and eighty-five or eighty-six years. Seven weeks make forty-nine years--sixty-two weeks make four hundred and thirty-four years--and in the middle of the week he was to establish the New Institution; that is three and a half or four years more. From the going forth of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the baptism of Jesus was four hundred and eighty-three years--his ministry was three and a half years, or the middle of one week; then he was cut off. And in half a week, that is, three and a half years more, Christianity was sent to all nations. This completes the seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years of Daniel. Now, from the birth of Jesus till the general proclamation of the gospel, was about thirty-seven years--which, subtracted from four hundred and ninety, makes the nativity of Jesus four hundred and fifty-three years from [360] the commencement of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, which occupied seven weeks, that is, forty-nine years. Daniel then fixes the time of the nativity; the commencement of the kingdom, or confirmation of the covenant; and the ultimate cleansing of the sanctuary, or purgation of the Christian church from anti-Christian abominations. This last event was to be two thousand three hundred years from the afore-said date. That is, from the birth of Jesus about eighteen hundred and forty-seven years. But all that lies before us now is the fact that Daniel gives the whole time intervening from the rebuilding of Jerusalem, after its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, till the birth of Jesus.

      Now from these premises it is clearly established that the Messiah should be born while the second temple was standing; before the scepter and a lawgiver finally departed from Judah; in the reign of the Roman Cæsars; and four hundred and fifty-three years from the commencement of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. And does not the event exactly correspond with the predictions?

      But so clearly was the event predicted, and so general was the knowledge of it, through the Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures, then read through the Roman empire, that the expectation became general, that at this time some wonderful personage was to be born, who would put the world under a new government. This singular fact shows that the prophecies concerning the time in which the Messiah should be born were so plain in the estimation of all who read them, as to preclude all doubts as to the time of the appearance of the Messiah. But some will ask. Where is the proof of the fact that such an expectation was general? I answer, The history and poetry of Rome prove it. We shall summon some of their historians and the Mantuan bard, to give their evidence in the case.

      Suetonius, in the life of Vespasian--"Percrebuerat oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis, ut eo tempore, Judea profecti rerum potirentur." An ancient and constant tradition has obtained throughout all the East, that in the fates it was decreed, that, about that time, "some who should come from Judea would obtain the dominion of the world."

      Cornelius Tacitus speaks to the same effect when speaking of the prodigies which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem. He says: "Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret oriens, profectique Judæa rerum potiretur." That "Many understood them as forerunners of that extraordinary person, whom the ancient books of the priests did foretell, should come about that time from Judea and obtain dominion."

      From the Jewish prophets, the pagan Sibyls gave out their oracles, [361] so that the expectation was universal. The same year that Pompey took Jerusalem one of the Sibyl oracles made a great noise "that Nature was about to bring forth a king to the Romans." Suetonius says this so terrified the Roman senate, that they made a decree that none born that year should be educated. And in his life of Augustus, he says, that "those whose wives were pregnant that year did each conceive great hopes, applying the prophecy to themselves." "Senatum exterritum censuisse, ne quis illo anno genitus, educaretur, eos qui gravidas uxortes haberent, quod ad se quisque spem traheret curasse ne senatus consultum ad Aerarium deferretur."

      Appian, Sallust, Plutarch, and Cicero, all say that this prophecy of the Sibyls stirred up Cornelius Lentolus to think that he was the man who should be king of the Romans. Some applied it to Caesar. Cicero laughed at the application, and affirmed that this prophecy should not be applied to any one born in Rome.

      Even Virgil the Poet, who wrote his fourth Eclogue about the time of Herod the Great, compliments the Consul Pollio with this prophecy. Supposing it might refer to his son Soloninus then born, Virgil substantially quotes and versifies the prophecies of Isaiah, and applies them to this child Soloninus:

      Then the poet alludes to Isaiah lxv. 17: "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain:--"

      Then the expiation of Daniel is referred to:--

      The very words of Haggai last quoted are by the poet next referred to:--

      Virgil, as if he were skilled in the Jewish scriptures, goes on to state that these glorious times should not immediately succeed the birth of that wonderful child:--

      Now the question is not, whether Virgil applied this partly to Augustus, Pollio, or Soloninus then born; but, whether he did not apply it to the general expectation, everywhere prevalent, that a wonderful person was to be born, and a new age to commence.

      The Jews have been so confounded with these prophecies and events, that such of them as did not believe, have degraded Daniel from the rank of a great prophet, to one of the inferior prophets; and others have said that there were two Messiahs to come--one a suffering, and one a triumphant Messiah. But the excuses of mankind for their unbelief are so frivolous and irrational, that they deserve pity rather than argument. It is worthy of remark, however, that not only the Gentiles, the proselytes to the Jews' religion, the eastern magi; but myriads of the Jews themselves recognized these evidences, and bowed to their authority.

      But not only are the time and place of the birth of the Messiah pointed out in plain and direct predictions, but many of the prominent incidents in his life. I once attempted to enumerate the distinct and independent predictions concerning the Messiah and his kingdom, but after progressing beyond a hundred, I desisted from the undertaking, perceiving, as is said by John, that the testimony concerning Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. I will just mention a few incidents in the prophetic communications concerning him. That he should go down into Egypt, and be called back to Nazareth; the appearance, spirit, and mission of John the Harbinger; the slaughter of the infants by the decree of Herod; his general character, meekness, mildness, and unostentatious appearance. "A bruised reed he was not to break; [363] a smoking taper he was not to quench;" he was to use no sword, spear, scepter, nor torch, until he made his laws victorious. He was to make his most august entry into Jerusalem, mounted upon an ass; he was to be a man of sorrows and acquainted with griefs; his zeal was to be so intense as to consume and waste his corporeal vigor; he was to be betrayed by a familiar friend; when delivered up, his friends were to forsake him; his condemnation was to be extorted in violation of law and precedent; he was to be sold for thirty pieces of silver; the money was to be appropriated to the purchase of the potter's field; he was to bescourged, smitten on the face, wounded in the hands and feet, laughed to scorn, presented with vinegar and gall; to be patient and silent under all these indignities and trials; he was to be crucified in company with malefactors; his garment was to be parted; and for his vesture they were to cast lots; his side was to be pierced, and yet not a bone was to be broken, and he was to be buried in the grave of a wealthy nobleman. All these and many more incidents were spoken of, recorded, and anticipated from five hundred to a thousand years before he was born. And mark it well, the records which thus spoke of him were to be kept by the Jews and held sacred by the opponents of Christianity. So that the documents could not be interpolated. So precise were the Jews in the copies of their scriptures, that as some of the Rabbins assert, all the words, and even letters, used in their sacred books, were numbered.

      I would here introduce a very rational argument, of the nature of mathematical demonstration, showing the utter impossibility of so many predicted incidents ever meeting in any individual by chance, guess, or conjecture; in any other way, in brief, than in consequence of divine prescience or arrangement. It is extracted from a very valuable work published by Gulian C. Verplanck, Esq., 1824, pages 11-13:

      "Rousseau, in the eloquent and paradoxical confession of faith which he puts in the mouth of his Savoyard Vicar in Emilius, has said that no fulfillment of prophecy could be of any weight with him to prove a divine interposition, unless it could be demonstrated that the agreement between the prophecy and the event could not possibly have been fortuitous. This proof is more than any fair objector has a right to claim, since it is moral probability and not strict demonstration which we must act upon in the most momentous concerns of life, and as reasonable men we should rest on the same evidence in matters of faith. In both the wise man will be governed by common sense, applied to the investigation of rational probability.

      "In this case, however, we may accept the challenge of the skeptic. Where the points of fulfillment of prediction are numerous, it may be [364] literally 'demonstrated' that the probability of such accomplishment having occurred fortuitously is the most remote possible.

      "This argument is put in a practical and striking point of view by Dr. Gregory, of the Military Academy at Warwick, well known for many respectable and useful works, especially on mathematics and scientific mechanics.

      "'Suppose,' says he, 'that instead of the spirit of prophecy breathing more or less in every book of scripture, predicting events relative to a great variety of general topics, and delivering beside almost innumerable characteristics of the Messiah, all meeting in the person of Jesus, there had been only ten men in ancient times who pretended to be prophets, each of whom exhibited only five independent criteria as to place, government, concomitant events, doctrine taught, effects of doctrine, character, sufferings, or death--the meeting of all which in one person should prove the reality of their calling as prophets, and of his mission in the character they have assigned him. Suppose, moreover, that all events were left to chance merely, and we were to compute, from the principles employed by mathematicians in the investigations of such subjects, the probability of these fifty independent circumstances happening at all. Assume that there is, according to the technical phrase, an equal chance for the happening or the failure of any one of these specified particulars; then the probability against the occurrence of all the particulars in any way is that of the fiftieth power of two to unity; that is, the probability is greater than eleven hundred and twenty-five millions of millions to one that all of these circumstances do not turn up even at distinct periods. This computation, however, is independent of the consideration of time. Let it be recollected farther, that if any one of the specified circumstances happen, it may be the day after the delivery of the prophecy, or at any period from that time to the end of the world; this will so indefinitely augment the probability against the cotemporaneous occurrence of merely these fifty circumstances, that it surpasses the power of numbers to express correctly the immense improbability of its taking place.'

      "It is hardly necessary to draw the inference, which Dr. Gregory goes on to establish, that all probability, and even possibility of accidental fulfillment, as well as of fraud, must be excluded. The sole reasonable solution of the question is, that these predictions and their fulfillment can only be ascribed to the intention of a being, whose knowledge can foresee future events, unconnected with each other, depending on various contingencies, and the will and acts of free agents; or whose power is so omnipotent as to bend to the accomplishment of his own purpose the passions of multitudes, the ambition of princes, [365] the studies of the wise, the craft of the wicked, the wars, the revolutions, and the varied destinies of nations."

      I would here ask any rational skeptic how he will dispose of the argument. How can he remove this stumbling block out of the way of his infidelity? By what logic can he dispose of this document?

      I will now introduce the skeptics to the character of the founder of the Christian religion, as a logician, and give them a specimen of that ratiocination which he exhibited in pleading his cause with those who opposed his pretensions, in the metropolis of the Jewish nation. I will first read the passage as correctly rendered by George Campbell, of Aberdeen, for it is very much obscured in the common version. It reads thus, John's Testimony, chap. v, from verse 31 to 44:

      "If I [alone] testify concerning myself, my testimony is not to be regarded; there is another who testifies concerning me; and I know that this testimony of me ought to be regarded. You yourselves sent to John, and he bore witness to the truth. As for me, I need no human testimony; I only urge this for your salvation. He was the lighted and shining lamp; and for a while you were glad to enjoy his light.

      "But I have greater testimony than John's; for the works which the Father has empowered me to perform, the works themselves which I do, testify for me, that the Father has sent me.

      "Nay, the Father who sent me, has himself attested me. Did you never hear his voice, or see his form? or have you forgotten his declaration, that you believe not him whom he has commissioned?

      "You search the scriptures, because you think to obtain, by them, eternal life. Now these also are witnesses for me, yet you will not come unto me that you may obtain life. I desire not honor from men, but I know that you are strangers to the love of God. I am come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me; if another come in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, while you court honor one from another, regardless of the honor which comes from God alone? Do not think that I am he who will accuse you to the Father. Your accuser is Moses, in whom you confide. For if you believed Moses, you will believe me, for he wrote concerning me. But if you believe not his writing, how shall you believe his words?"

      To the captious Jews he thus addressed himself:

      1. "If I alone bear testimony of myself, my testimony ought not to be regarded." This is disclaiming any special regard as due him, above others, on the mere ground of his own pretensions. It was equivalent to saying: No person pretending to honors and relations, a mission and office, such as I pretend ought to be accredited and received [366] upon his mere profession. No assertions, abstract from other documents in such a case, are worthy of credit. Is not this reasonable?

      2. But, waiving my own testimony, there is another person whose testimony ought to be regarded. But let us hear the reason why--some reason must be assigned, on account of which more credit is due to this testimony. The reason is: "You yourselves sent to John." But in what does the cogency of this declaration consist? You Jews of this city, of your own accord, had formed such a high character of the integrity, capacity, and piety of John the Baptist, as to depute priests and Levites to him to know what his errand, mission, or testimony was. His character had convinced you of the reality of his pretensions, and he proved himself to your own satisfaction, as being far exalted above any earth-born motives of fraud or deceit. He was, yourselves being judges, a competent and credible witness. Now, what did he testify? Did he not tell you that he was not the Messiah; that he was but his harbinger; and that his fame must decrease while mine must increase; that he was from below, but I was from above? Why then did you not believe such a credible witness? Or why receive one part of his testimony and reject the other? I think, then, said he, his testimony ought, in such circumstances, to be regarded. Is not this also reasonable?

      3. But he proceeds: "I need not human testimony. I only urge this for your salvation." I would convince you upon your own principles, and show that your rejection of me is without excuse. John, indeed, was a brilliant light, and for a time you considered him an oracle and rejoiced in his light. "But the works that I do" are superior to any human testimony, and these "show that the Father has sent me." To these I appeal--they are public, sensible, notorious, benevolent, supernatural. Could mortal man have performed them? Have not the laws of nature been suspended by my word? Have not the winds, waves, demons, and diseases of every name, acknowledged my power? To these works, only, as proof of my mission, I appeal. They prove not that I am the Son of God, the Messiah. They only prove that the Father has sent me. This is all I urge them for; but if they prove that the Father has sent me, then all my pretensions are credible; for the Father would not have sent a liar or deceiver, invested with such powers. Now I ask, Is not all this reasonable and logical?

      4. But, again, The Father has himself attested me by his own voice: and by a visible appearance--"DID YOU NOT HEAR HIS VOICE? Did you not see his FORM?" Were not some of you on the Jordan when he attested me when I came up out of the water? Was there not a voice then heard, saying, audibly, "This is my beloved SON, in whom I [367] delight? You could not mistake the person of whom this was spoken; for over my head the heavens opened and you saw the Spirit in the form of a dove, coming down and lighting upon my head. You heard his voice then, and saw his manifestation. But you have forgotten this declaration concerning me! Is not this rational and pointed?

      5. Once more--"You do search the scriptures;" and why do you search them? Because you think them to contain a revelation from God, you think and acknowledge that eternal life is in them. This is all true; and in doing this, you act rationally, but why stop here? Now these very scriptures testify of me. To them I make my appeal. They all speak of me; and now show me the oracle, prophecy, or symbol in them, which respected him that was to come, which does not suit my character and pretensions, and I will find an excuse for you. Now I ask, Is not this conclusive?

      If this be not argument and logic, I never heard any. So reasons the Savior. This grand climax of reason ends in the prophecies of the Old Testament. But it is not yet finished.

      6. But adds he, You WILL NOT COME to me. It is not the want of light and evidence. You are now unable to reply. Yet you will not come to me that you might obtain that eternal life promised in the scriptures. I know you well. You have not a spark of the love of God in you. Had you loved God, you would have come to me. Your hearts are full of the honor of this world--these you seek more than the honors which come from God only; yes, this is the secret. It is not argument nor proof, but disposition that you want. You pretend great veneration for Moses. But you do not really venerate him; you do not believe him, for he wrote of me. Now if you do not, with all your professed veneration for Moses, believe him, how will you, or can you believe me? If, prejudiced in his favor, you do not receive his testimony, how, prejudiced against me, will you receive mine? But I tell you, however, I will not become your accuser. Your own Moses, in whom you trust, will one day convict you; for he said of me, that whosoever would not hearken to me, should be cut off from the congregation of God.

      Such is a specimen of the topics from which, and of the manner how, the Savior argued his pretensions, and plead his cause with the people. A more cogent and unanswerable argument is not, if I am any judge, to be found among all the fine models of ancient and modern literature. And let it, I repeat, be borne in mind, that he makes his last appeal to the scriptures and to Moses. Prophecy, then, in his judgment, is among the highest species of evidence, and it is that [368] which, as a standing miracle, he has made to speak for him in every age and to all people.

      But I must notice, while on this topic, that Jesus pronounced prophecies himself, which, to that generation, and, indeed, to subsequent generations, speak as convincingly as Moses spoke to the Jews, and his predictions have produced, and do produce, upon the minds of a vast community, similar expectations to those produced among the Jews.

      Hume says that "prophecy could not be a proof that the person who pretended to deliver oracles, spoke by inspiration; because the prophet is absent at the time of fulfillment; he is dead, and it could not prove to his cotemporaries that he was inspired." This would be true in one case, but in no other; when the prediction had respect to events at a distance; but this is only sometimes the case: for most of the prophets foretold events soon to appear, as well as events to happen after long intervals. We shall find, if we examine the New Testament, that Jesus foretold many incidents immediately to happen, which required as perfect an insight into futurity as events at the distance of a thousand years. His telling Peter, that on casting a hook and line into the sea, he should draw out a fish with a stater in its mouth; or his telling his disciples, that, at a certain place, they should find an ass and his master so circumstanced, and that such events would happen on their application for him, required as exact and as perfect a prescience as could have, four thousand years ago, foretold this discussion between Mr. Owen and me. How many events of immediate occurrence did the Savior foretell, with this additional remark, "This I have told you before it happen; that when it happens you may believe." Prophecy, indeed, seems designed to confirm faith as the events occur, as well as to produce faith by contemplating those which have been fulfilled. But we shall find that, beside the predictions uttered by the Savior concerning his own demise, and all the circumstances attendant upon it, he foretold one event of such notoriety and importance as to confirm the faith of one generation and to produce faith in all subsequent generations. This I specify as one of great interest and notoriety. This was the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, and the dispersion of the nation with all the tremendous adjuncts of this national catastrophe.

      Upon one occasion, when the sun was beaming upon the beautiful gate of the temple, which radiated with all conceivable splendor, when that edifice stood in all the glistening beauties of the precious metals, costly stones, and the finest specimens of architecture, the Savior took occasion to tell its fate, and that of the people who frequented it, in [369] such language as precluded the possibility of mistake in the interpretation. No prediction was more minute or more circumstantial than this one, and none could be more literal or direct. Both Matthew and Luke give us this prediction; the former in the 24th, and the latter in the 21st chapter of his testimony. The complete desolation of the temple to the foundation, to the removing of every stone, is foretold. The compassing of the city with armies, the slaughter of the inhabitants, and the captivity of those who escaped, are described. The fortunes of his disciples at this time, with all the terrors of the siege, and all the tremendous prodigies in the heavens and the earth accompanying these desolations, are named. And in the conclusion the audience is assured that all these things should happen before forty years--"before that generation should pass away." Now, this prophecy was written, published and read through Judea, and mentioned in the apostolic epistles for years before it happened; and a general expectation of this event pervaded the whole Christian communities from Jerusalem to Rome, and, indeed, through all the Roman provinces. The allusions to these predictions are frequent in the apostolic writings. It was necessary they should, for this reason; the Jews, as long as they possessed the government of Judea, the temple, and the metropolis; as long as they had any particle of influence at home or abroad, they used it with relentless cruelty against the Christians. The Apostles had to succor the minds of their persecuted brethren, and exhort them to patience and perseverance by reminding them of the speedy dispersion of them among the nations. So that all the Christians throughout the Roman empire looked for this catastrophe; and so it came to pass that such of the Christians as were in Jerusalem and Judea, about the time of the siege of Titus, fled according to the directions given by the Savior; and thus not a believing Jew perished in the siege.

      We lose many of the allusions to this event in the epistles, from our irrational modes of explanation, and neglect of the history of those times. Of these allusions the following specimens may suffice: To the church at Rome Paul says: "God will bruise Satan, or the adversary, under your feet soon"--not the Devil, as some ignorantly suppose. Adversary, in English, is Satan in Hebrew. "Get thee behind me, Satan," is a terrible translation of the Savior's address to Peter. The synagogue of Satan was only a synagogue of unbelieving Jews adverse to Christianity. "Brethren in Rome," says Paul, "God will soon put down the adversary of your religion, the Jews, who persecute you. Yes, their power to oppose you will soon be past." This clearly alludes to the expectation founded upon the prediction before us. [370]

      Paul more plainly intimates the destruction of the Jewish power in his first letter to the Thessalonians, written eighteen years before the siege: "Brethren in Thessalonica, you have suffered from your Gentile brethren such persecution as the congregations in Judea have suffered from their Jewish brethren, who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have greatly persecuted us, and do not please God, and are contrary to all men; hindering us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved; that they are always filling up the measure of their iniquities. But the WRATH OF GOD is coming upon them at length."

      Indeed, so frequent were the allusions to this prophecy, both in the public discourses and writings of the apostles, that their enemies began to mock them, and treat them as if they had been imposing upon the credulity of their cotemporaries. Hence, such allusions as these: "Where is the promise of his coming; for, from the times the fathers have fallen asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation?" Thus was Peter upbraided six years before the siege. The old Apostle, however, is not discouraged, being assured that he would make good his promise. "Yes," says he, "they think that we have too long talked of the coming of the Lord to avenge the iniquities of these people. They think that we mock your fears, and they say, 'The Lord long delays his coming to execute his vengeance upon this stubborn people.' But, my brethren, the Lord does not delay in the manner some account delaying; but he exercises long-suffering toward us, that all might be brought to reformation."

      In the letter to the Hebrews, written about six or seven years before the siege, Paul speaks to the persecuted Jewish brethren in the same style: "Yet a very little while, and he that is coming will come, and will not tarry." "Persevere, then, brethren, in doing the will of the Lord, that you may obtain the promised reward." James, too, in his letter of the same date, addresses both to the believing and unbelieving Jews on the impending vengeance. The wealthy and infidel Jew he commands to "weep because of the miseries coming upon them;" and for suffering Christians he animates with the hope that "the coming of the Lord is nigh." Thus do all the Apostles speak of this event with the same certainty as if it had actually happened.

      I need not detail the awful accomplishment of this prediction. Josephus has done this in awful colors. Tacitus, too, relates some of the circumstances. Every word of the prediction was exactly fulfilled, even to the plowing up of the foundations of the temple. It is remarkable that, on the tenth day of August, the very same day the [371] temple and city were laid waste by the Babylonians, the temple was burned by Titus' army.³

      I shall only give you another specimen of the prophetic spirit of the New Testament writers. Paul, in his letter to the Thessalonians, intimates that some persons had suggested that the end of the world was at hand. To counteract such an idea, which seemed to have influenced some to abandon the ordinary business of this life, he gives us a succinct view of the great series of events which were to come to pass before the end of the world. He describes a tremendous apostasy, in 2d Thessalonians, chap. ii. 1-10.

      "Now we beseech you, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together around him; that you be not soon shaken from your purpose, nor troubled, neither by spirit nor by word, nor by letter from us, intimating that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any method; for that day shall not come, unless there come the apostasy first, and there be revealed that man of sin, that son of perdition; who opposes and exalts himself above every one who is called god, or an object of worship. So that he, in the temple of God, as a god sitteth openly showing himself that he is a god. Do you not remember, that when I was with you, I told you these things? And you know what now restrains him in order to his being revealed in his own season. For the secret of iniquity already inwardly works, only till he who now restrains be taken out of the way. And then shall be revealed that lawless one; him the Lord will consume by the breath of his mouth, and will render ineffectual, by the brightness of his coming; of whom the coming is after the strong working of Satan, with all power and signs, and miracles of falsehood. And with all the deceit of unrighteousness, among them who perish, because they embraced not the love of the truth that they might be saved."

      On this observe that the Apostle declares that, in the great drama of human existence, the end of the world could not come until after the apostasy. This apostasy he describes as beginning to work in the first age of Christianity, but that it could not succeed in attaining its full vigor until pagan Rome should yield to Christian Rome. Until he that sat upon the throne and supported the pagan superstition, should be [372] supplanted and succeeded by a Christian emperor, in plain English. Then, says he, will come forth that lawless one, who will usurp the honors of God alone, in his dominion over the faith and the consciences of men. I will be interrogated here by the short-sighted skeptics, how it came to pass that a scheme so benevolent as the Christian scheme, if designed by a benevolent and wise being, could so far have missed its aim. How strange is it, say they, if Christianity originated in divine benevolence, that there should be such a scene in the great drama as this long night of the apostasy and darkness! And I reply, how strange it is that this terraqueous globe, created by a wise and benevolent being, should be three-fourths covered with immense oceans; and the remaining one-fourth so large a portion of mountains and fens, deserts and morasses! One part of it parched with an arid sky; and another locked up in relentless ice! Short-sighted mortals that we are! And we will scan the universe! Could not the earth have been a thousand times more fruitful? Nay, could it not have been a thousand times more comfortable to live in? Might we not have had loaves growing upon the trees, and wine in bottles hanging upon the vines, and thus have been exempted from so much labor, and toil, and care? In this way we might object to everything in the universe.

      I have, for years, contended that the handwriting of God can be proved. And can we not, even under oath, attest the handwriting of some men? Men have their peculiarities which will always designate them from the whole species. No two men write, speak, or walk alike. They are as distinct in each as in the features of their countenances, and the constitution of their minds. Each has an idiosyncracy of mind, an idiomatic style, as well as a peculiar chirography.

      No man who has accurately analyzed the few general principles which govern the universe, and examined the poisons and sweets which are strewed with so much liberality over the face of the globe; who has explored the regularities and incongruities which appear above and beneath, can doubt that the mind which originated the harmonies, the beauties, the sweets, and all the blessings of nature, originated also their contraries, and that it is the same wisdom and benevolence working in the natural and moral empires of the universe. They both exhibit the impress of the same hand.

      We cannot give a fair view of the next item on the genius and spirit of Christianity, unless we enlarge a little more upon this. We must glance at the design of the Jewish religion. In the logical arrangement of all subjects, much depends upon taking hold of a few general principles. Generalizing is not only the most improving exercise of the mind, but the best means of knowing things in the detail. This is [373] that power which, in a great degree, distinguishes the vigorous and well-discipline mind from that of inferior caliber and cultivation. If it were possible to present a general synthetic view, without a previous analysis, we would prefer it; for the only utility of analysis is to put us in possession of synthetic views.

      There is an error into which we are all apt to fall, in attempting to scan the moral government of the world. We do not like to be kept in suspense. Rather than remain in suspense, we will be satisfied with very incorrect or partial views of things. There is nothing more uncomfortable than a state of suspense upon any subject which interests us. Our views are always partial at best, but much more so when we have not put ourselves to the trouble to analyze, with patience, the whole data presented.

      When I hear persons caviling at the present state of things, and objecting to matters which they do not understand, I figure to myself, a person stationed in a small room, say ten feet square, before which is passing continually a map ten thousand square miles in extent; ten feet of which only, at a time, can be seen through an opening in one side. In this small room he sits and peruses this map, for seventy years. For many weeks at a time he sees nothing but immense oceans of water; then apparently boundless forests; then prodigious chains of mountains; then deserts, flats, wastes, and wildernesses. Here and there a succession of beautiful country passes before his eyes. After contemplating this map for seventy years, he exclaims, What an irrational, ill-conducted, and incongruous-looking thing is this! I have seen forests, deserts, and oceans, interspersed here and there with some small specks of beautiful country. I must conclude that the Creator of this planet was either unwise or not benevolent. But, suppose, that on a sudden, the walls of his cottage fell down, and his vision was enlarged and strengthened so as to comprehend, in one glance, the whole sweep of ten thousand square miles; what a wonderful revolution would he undergo! Infinite wisdom and design now appear, where before he saw nothing but confusion and deformity. So it is with him who sits judging on the moral government of the world.

      We have but a small part of the picture before us. Paul explains the whole of it. He teaches us that this world is, in the moral empire, what it is in the natural--a part of a great whole. When speaking of all the irregularities in human lot, and all the diversities in the divine government, in the different ages of the world, patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian, he teaches us that the whole of this arrangement is subordinate to another state of things, having relation to the whole rational universe. All this is done, said he, that now unto the thrones, [374] principalities, and powers, in the heavenly regions, might be exhibited, by the Christian scheme, the manifold wisdom of God. There are various grades of intelligent beings, who, in their different capacities, and according to their different situations and relations, are contemplating this scene of things; and from these volumes of human nature, the divine character is continually developing itself to their view.

      Yes, my friends, your various lots, capacities, and opportunities, and your respective behavior, under these varieties, with the divine economy over you, are furnishing new essays to be read in other worlds. You are all but different letters; some capital, some small letters, some mere abbreviations, commas, semicolons, colons, periods, notes of admiration, notes of interrogation, and dashes; all making sense when wisely combined; but when jumbled together, or separated, you are unintelligible and uninstructive to yourselves and all other intelligent beings. Angels read men, and by and by men will read angels, to learn the Deity. In the rational delights and entertainments of heaven you and they will read each other. Gabriel will tell you what were his emotions when first he saw the sun open his eyes and smile upon the new-born earth; what he thought when he shut up Noah in the ark, and opened the windows of heaven and the fountains of the deep. Yes, Raphael will tell you with what astonishment he saw Eve put forth her hand to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Gabriel will relate his joy when he saw the rainbow of peace span the vault of heaven in token of no more deluge. He will give you to know what were his emotions when sent to salute the mother of our Lord; and all the multitude will rehearse the song they sung the night they visited the shepherds of Bethlehem. In turn, you will tell them your first thoughts of God and his love; your own feelings as sinners; the agonies of sorrow and grief which once you felt; and how you met the king of terrors. Then will all the shades in the picture appear to proper advantage, and the seraphim and cherubim with their wings no more will hide their faces from man. All happiness, rational, human, or angelic happiness, springs from the knowledge of God. As it is now eternal life, so it will then be eternal happiness to know thee the only true God, and Jesus the Messiah, thy Apostle.

      A vail is yet on the face of Moses, and, indeed, on the face of many of the conspicuous characters of antiquity, in the views of many of our sectarian dogmatists. Some think that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were called, chosen, and elected, for their own sakes. They seem not yet to have learned this important lesson, that there never has as yet been one human being selected by the Almighty for his own sake. If it were necessary that the Messiah should enter our world, it was necessary [375] that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, David, Daniel, and a thousand others, should have been selected from the family of man, and discriminated by the great King as they were. On this one principle the religions of the Jews and Christians are altogether reconcilable. They mutually explain each other. They are but the portico and holy place, leading to the holiest of all.

      The calling and congregating of the Jews were for the same intent, and is relative to the general good of all nations as was the calling of Abraham, or the first promise of a Redeemer to the human race. They must be put under a special arrangement for developing the divine character and government, and for giving us a few lessons upon human nature, which never could have been taught by any other means.

      What does the Lord say concerning Pharaoh? "I have raised thee up for this purpose, that in your history and my government over you, my name might be known through all the earth." The localities and symbols of the Jewish religion made it entirely subordinate to the Christian but the genius and spirit of the latter is universal, or adapted to the whole human family, irrespective of all localities. But this only by the way. My remarks upon the apostasy gave rise to this disquisition, or rather an objection which we saw rising in the faces of some, constrained me to take this course, and to attempt to give some general hints, which, I trust, may repress that restive spirit of skepticism, which, like the demoniac among the tombs, is cutting itself to pieces, when pretending to forsake the haunts of the living for its own safety.

      In one sentence, it appears to be a law of human nature that man can only be developed and brought into proper circumstances to please himself, by what we call experience. You may not be able to account for it, but so it is, that man must be taught by experience. I think we will all agree in this, that if Adam and Eve could have had, while in Eden, the experience which they obtained after their exile, and which the world now presents, they never could have been induced to taste the forbidden tree. Every revolution of the earth, and all the incidents recorded in human history, are but so many preparations for the introduction of that last and most perfect state of society on earth called the Millennium. First we have the germ, then the blade, then the stem, then the leaves, then the blossoms, and last of all, the fruit. Therefore, as Paul said, the apostasy came first.

      The mystery of iniquity early began to work. She made mysteries of plain facts, that she might work out her own delusions. She, it was, that loved mysteries, that paralyzed the energies of the Christian spirit, and inundated the world with all the superstitions, fables, counterfeit [376] gospels, and all the follies of Paganism in a new garb. These found many admirers among the doting philosophers of Asia; and thus, by degrees, the lights of Heaven were extinguished, or put under the bushel of these abominable, delusive mysteries, until a long, dark, and dreary night of superstition besotted the world. These dark ages have sent them down to our times, and bequeathed a legacy which has impoverished rather than enriched the legatees. That man does not breathe whose mind is purified from all the influences of the night of superstition, which has so long obscured the light of the Sun of righteousness.

      Great and noble efforts have been made; but they ended in speculations; and sects and parties, built upon metaphysical hair-splittings, have long been the order of the day. These speculations are turning gray with age; and a religion pure and social, springing from the meaning of gospel facts, will soon triumph on all the speculations of the day.

      All the Bible critics, and even the commentators themselves agree, that Babylon must soon fall, like a mill-stone into the sea, never to emerge; and that her catastrophe will be succeeded by the millennial order of society. She shall be visited with the calamities of Egypt, Sodom, and Jerusalem combined; for she has combined within her dominions the enormities of the three; the filthiness of Sodom, the tyranny of Egypt, and the persecuting spirit of Jerusalem.

      Had not this defection been clearly arraigned before me, and predicted by the Apostle Paul himself--had he not told us that under the form of godliness all the vices of the world would be arraigned; that "self-lovers, money-lovers, proud, defamers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, without natural affection, covenant, or bargain breakers, slanderers, incontinent, fierce persons, without any love to good men, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power of it." I say, had he not taught us to expect such characters to creep into the church, I would have been prepared to join with Mr. Owen in opposing the religions of the world. But when I began to reason, I was taught to distinguish a thing from the abuse of it; and never to condemn anything until I was fully acquainted with it. I see that the apostasy which yet exists, is as clearly foretold as was the birth of Christ; and why should the accomplishment of one prediction confirm my faith, and the accomplishment of another weaken it?

      But this defection is not only foretold literally, but symbolized by John in the Apocalypse, under such combinations, and under such figures as are well calculated to inspire us with a horrible idea of it. [377] Do not be alarmed, my friends, at my naming the Apocalypse. This book is not so unintelligible as you have been taught to think. But I am not going into an analysis of it. I will only trace one idea which runs through it, and then I will be done with the apostasy.

      John, you remember, lived to be an old man; he survived the destruction of Jerusalem about thirty years. He saw antichrists beginning to show their faces, and was alarmed at the sight. He was exiled to Patmos for the testimony he gave of Jesus; and while there, viewing with anguish the apostasy beginning, it pleased the Lord, who had, while on the earth, honored this disciple with so many tokens of his love, to confer upon him another signal pledge. He cheered the heart of the old Apostle by promising him a view of the future fortunes of the church. After inditing seven letters to the seven congregations in Asia, he presents him with this astonishing vision: A window, as it were, is opened in heaven, and a scroll in the handwriting of an angel arrests his attention. This parchment, written within and without, and sealed with seven seals, is raised aloft in the hand of an angel; and a challenge is given to all the inhabitants of heaven, earth, and sea, to take and open the book. All was silent. John wept. Why did he weep? Because he knew the future fortunes of the church were written there, sealed up from all the living, and no one appeared able to open the seals and disclose the secrets. These he wished to know above everything in the world--therefore he wept bitterly.

      At length the Lion of the tribe of Judah comes forward and takes the scroll, and prepares to open the seals. Universal joy is everywhere diffused, and John dries up his tears. The first seal is broken, and the scroll once unrolled; "Come and see," a mighty angel proclaims. John heard, looked, and beheld "a white horse, and on him sat a king, wearing one crown, with a bow and a quiver full of arrows." He rides off. Instructive emblem of the Lord beginning to subdue the nations to the obedience of faith. I will not detain you with a notice of all the seals. They are all opened; seven trumpets are blown when the seventh seal is opened, and seven vials are poured out in judgments upon the inhabitants of the earth. The intermediate seals, trumpets, and vials, symbolize the events of one thousand two hundred and forty years; or more folly all the events since the pagan persecutions down to our own times.

      But at the close of the different acts of this great drama, John sees the same person he formerly saw, mounted on a white horse, followed by all the armies of heaven, mounted on white horses; he had now upon his head many crowns, and he was clothed with a vesture dyed with blood, emblem of his conquests, and he had now, from the number of his conquests, obtained all the crowns of the kingdom of the earth, [378] and had a name written which no one understood but himself, and upon his vesture and on his thigh was written in brilliant capitals, "KINGS OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS." So that the termination of the vision of the seals, trumpets, and vials, places the Lord Jesus before us as having subdued all the nations of the world to the obedience of faith. This is the animating view which the Lord gave John, and through him has communicated to all nations of the earth, who consult these divine oracles. We rejoice to know that this period is right at hand, when the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the whole earth as the water cover the channel of the sea.

      The world, I mean the Christian communities, are tired of sectarianism; light is rapidly progressing; the true nature of the Christian institution is beginning to be understood, and all the signs of the times indicate the approach, the near approach, of this happy era.

      You have, my friends, in the preceding hints, a solution of all the difficulties which can be proposed upon the past or present order of society--an explanation of all the dark specks which appear upon the moral map of the world. My object was not to unfold the prophecies, but to give you a few hints upon the grand outlines, and to afford sufficient data evincive that the authors or writers of the New Testament were most certainly under the guidance of that omniscient one to whom the end of all things is as open and manifest as the beginning. To suppose that all these predictions found in both Testaments, first, concerning the fates of the mighty empires of the pagan world; next, concerning the character, coming, and kingdom of Jesus Christ; then, concerning the fates of his religion, and the fortunes of all the superstitions in the world; I say, to suppose that all these predictions are mere guesses or conjectures, or that they were written after the events transpired, or never written at all, by the persons whose names they bear, are suppositions, assertions, or what you please to call them, at war with all the literature of the world, with universal experience, with the common sense of mankind, and with the events which are now transpiring in the world. Such a supposition on rational mind can entertain; and we may say further, that neither Mr. Owen, nor any other person, will venture to examine or attempt to refute the argument derived from this source. It stands now, as it stood two thousand years ago, a document which defied criticism, which, with but half the light which New Testament prophecy has accumulated, convinced every man who had the patience and the honesty to examine it; and which, by the gradual and constant completion of the unfulfilled pre-dictions, is designed one day to prostrate all the infidelity upon the face of the earth. [379]

      We promised you some remarks upon the genius and tendency of the Christian religion, and also some strictures upon the social system. These will require another day. Indeed, my respected auditors, I have much reason to admire your patience and the deep interest you have taken in this discussion. It proves that you are alive to the great importance of the subject. The good order and decorum which have been exhibited by this assembly on this occasion, have never been surpassed, I presume, by any congregation on any occasion. I am unwilling to trespass upon your patience, or farther to exhaust my own strength, already far spent; but when I reflect upon the immense importance of the subject, I should think that I was sinning against the best cause in the world, and was wanting in benevolence to my cotemporaries, were I not to attend to the subjects proposed, or although the evidence which has been deduced, from any one of the topics introduced, is sufficient to establish the truth of our religion to the honest inquirer, as we judge; and you must see, I think, by this time, that it is more than my friend, Mr. Owen, can refute; yet, being conscious that each argument in the series confirms all the rest, and that without the topics proposed the evidence would be incomplete, I must, therefore, my friends, beg your attendance another day. Not, indeed, for the sake of carrying a point, nor for the pride of victory; for well I know that the evidences of Christianity have been triumphantly established long ago. It was my intention from the commencement, that all the documents relied on in conducting this controversy should go to the public in a permanent form: such also has been the intention of my opponent. We are constrained to think that he is actuated by a noble benevolence, though sadly mistaken in his views. But that our cotemporaries may have the advantage of all the lights that the present controversy can elicit from a new exhibition of a part of the magazine in the Christian treasury, we wish to be favored with your attendance another day.

      Mr. Campbell continues: Mr. Chairman--I have just now found on my desk a few questions from some unknown hand, which, I suppose, have been presented to me from my own invitations given during the discussion. As these questions bear upon our discussion, I beg leave to give a brief answer.

      The first is, Are the books composing the Old and New Testaments the only books of divine authority in the world?

      I answer positively, Yes. I have already said, that the books composing the two Testaments contain more than what is properly called a Divine Revelation. They contain much history which can with no propriety be called a Divine Revelation; for example, the history of the deluge--the confusion of human language--the dispersion of the [380] human family--the biography of the patriarchal judges, and kings of Israel--the chronicles of Judea and Israel. All the things recorded in these sections were known before written, and therefore could not be REVELATIONS. But it was necessary that these important facts, because of their intimate connection with the people to whom Divine Revelations were made, should be recorded and divinely authenticated. Hence the Pentateuch, in addition to all the revelations which it contains, presents us with a historic record of the first ages of the world, divinely authenticated.

      The question concerning the nature of inspiration, whether (for instance) original ideas were always suggested to the writer, or whether the ideas sometimes communicated were only a mere reviviscence of former impressions, is one that has been ably discussed. However this question may be decided, it affects not the question before us. The Holy Spirit promised to the Apostles was to do one of two things: either to suggest things entirely new, or to bring all things to their remembrance which they had seen or heard. This was done. The writings of the Apostles and of the prophets are authentic histories, written under the guidance of the Spirit of God; or they are immediate and direct revelations of matters inaccessible to mortal man.

      Query 2. What credit is due to the books of the Old Testament, called the APOCRYPHA?

      Let it be observed that there were many other authentic and true narratives and documents among the Jews, as there are among the Christians, beside the sacred writings of the prophets and Apostles. But it was not necessary to have under the divine patronage various histories by various authors upon the same subjects. It would have greatly increased the natural and necessary labors of life had all these records been preserved and collected into a set of volumes, and the reading of them all made necessary to understand either the scheme of divine government or of man's redemption. But to enable us to acquire all that is necessary to be known, certain books have been preserved by the divine authority. The Apocrypha--at least some books of it--contain a true history; but it does not claim to be a Divine Revelation. We receive the records of Philo and Josephus, and many of the primitive Christian writers, as credible narratives of their own times; and, as far as they treat of times immediately subsequent to the apostolic age, they may be called the Apocrypha of the New Testament. All these writings may be, and most of them are, certainly credible and authentic works; but they constitute no part of either religion, and make no such claims upon us.

      Query 3. How are we to ascertain the authorship of Job, some parts [381] of the book of Deuteronomy, such as the death and burial of Moses, the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews? etc.

      It is not necessary that we should be able to prove the authorship of every particular piece composing the Old and New Testaments to prove their authenticity.⁴ The book of Job, for instance, has no name attached to it, nor circumstances mentioned in it, which could decide the author of it. Whether it was written by Ezra, Nehemiah, or any Jewish prophet, perhaps, could not now be decided. My belief in the authenticity and authority of this book, and all anonymous parts of the Old Testament, is founded upon the following basis: The Jewish scribes received them; the whole Jewish nation received them; their own internal evidence attests their pretensions; and, above all, they were quoted as genuine and approbated as parts of the sacred records and revelation, by Jesus Christ, or his Apostles, concerning whose inspiration and certain knowledge of the character of these works we cannot entertain a rational doubt.

      Concerning the question about the burial of Moses, and other such [382] additions made to some books in the Old Testament, they proceed from inattention to the contents of the volume. Joshua wrote some additions to the books of Moses, called "the Law of God;" and that he, or Ezra, or some of the distinguished guardians of these sacred records, should have added the deaths or other posthumous circumstances belonging to the history of these great prophets, is inferable from this fact just now stated. Joshua says he wrote some additions to "the Book of the Law of God," a name applied to the books of Moses. It is the style of Cæsar's commentaries, expressed in the third person: "So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem; and Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God."

      Respecting the letter to the Hebrews, although not having directly the authority of Paul's name, it proves itself to be his work. It contains certain direct allusions to Paul's labors, and he speaks of himself in such a style, and with such references to circumstances in which he was a party, as to render it certain that he is the writer. A person may introduce himself by a periphrasis, or circumlocution, without directly naming himself. Thus Paul introduces himself to the Hebrews to avoid encountering a prejudice existing against him in the minds of the unbelieving Jews, for whose benefit, as well as that of the believing Jews, he designed this letter.

      Touching the authorship of these writings, although I think we have already sufficiently established this matter, I would remark, that, of the Apostles' letters, the autographs themselves, as well as many extrinsic circumstances, decided their pretensions. Paul's name, written by his own hand, after his amanuensis had written an epistle, was added to such of them as were not wholly written by himself. The congregations or individuals to whom they were addressed--some of whom were so addressed as to have provoked them to have rejected the letters if they had dared--were the best judges of the authenticity of these writings; and the fact of their having been received as such by these congregations, alone, had we no other proof, amounts to the whole evidence we have in proof of the authorship of the most popular works of Greece and Rome. If these writings had not been the productions of their reputed authors, or if such of them as are anonymous had not been known to have been the works of well-attested authors by their cotemporaries, many would have been proud to have claimed them as their own. I do not know what human being would not have been proud to have been the author of the book of Job, or to the letter to the Hebrews; and their being anonymous, yet received into the sacred writings, is as valid proof of their authenticity as if they had, [383] like the greater part of both Testaments, been inscribed with the names of their authors.

      Query 4. But we are also asked, Are we sure that we have the genuine works of these authors? Are there no interpolations?

      When I hear of interpolations and contradictions, I think of the Honorable Soame Jeyns, once a skeptic. He had concluded to publish a work against the Christian religion; but thinking that he ought to be well acquainted with its fables and absurdities before he ventured to appear before the public, he determined to make himself well acquainted with the contents of the book. But he soon found good reasons to reform his plan; and, instead of furnishing a work against the Christian religion, he gave the world a short and unanswerable treatise upon the truth and authenticity of it. This treatise on the "Internal Evidences" is written in a masterly style, and with a boldness which nothing but the assurance of faith could inspire. He makes the following bold assertion which many would think is going too far:

      "For I will venture to affirm, that if any one could prove, what is impossible to be proved, because it is not true, that there are errors in geography, chronology, and philosophy, in every page of the Bible; that the prophecies therein delivered, are all but fortunate guesses, or artful applications, and the miracles there recorded, no better than legendary tales; if any one could show that these books were never written by their pretended authors, but were posterior impositions on illiterate and credulous ages, all these wonderful discoveries would prove no more than this, that God, for reasons to us unknown, had thought proper to permit a revelation by him communicated to mankind, to be mixed with their ignorance, and corrupted by their frauds from its earliest infancy, in the same manner in which he has visibly permitted it to be mixed, and corrupted from that period to the present hour. If, in these books, a religion, superior to all human imagination, actually exists, it is of no consequence to the proof of its divine origin, by what means it was there introduced, or with what human errors and imperfections it is blended. A diamond, though found in a bed of mud, is still a diamond, nor can the dirt, which surrounds it, depreciate its value, or destroy its luster."

      All the interpolations, and different readings, though numerous as Michaelis, a very learned German professor, makes them, counting all the minutiæ of letters and points, do not affect the character of a single fact recorded in the whole New Testament. Indeed, men have been so much more concerned about the doctrines than the facts of scripture, that they are much more alarmed about the omission, or [384] change of a term, affecting some favorite conclusion to which they have come, than about the evidence on which the great salutary facts are established. Hence has arisen the great ado about interpolations. And if there were ever any interpolations designedly introduced, it was for carrying some doctrine or theorem, and not for proving a fact. Hence skeptics have nothing to fear from interpolations. But a notice of the dark ages here may not be out of place, especially as most of these different readings and interpolations occurred during this dreary period.

      During this period, all learning was locked up in the dark cloisters and confined to the gloomy monasteries of papal superstition. The scriptures, before the art of printing, were in the hands of ignorant monks and nuns, who spent their lives in transcribing them. A majority of these copyists, did not understand the language in which they wrote them. We have seen some of these ancient manuscript copies. Large margins, for the purpose of notes and references, were usually left on these manuscripts. It frequently happened that some of the copyists, unable to discriminate the marginal notes from the text, transcribed some of the explanations into the text. This occasioned various discrepancies between the copies. After the revival of literature and the Reformation, careful and exact comparisons of these copies were made, and the text was purged of most, if not all, these interpolations. In these numerous and careful revisals and comparisons, not only of the copies, but of the most ancient manuscripts, and the quotations found in the works of the primitive fathers, almost everything of a doubtful character, even to the very expletives, were rejected. We have, most unquestionably, the most exact and faithful representation of the prototype of this volume that we have of any other book in the world. It would be impossible to interpolate the sacred text now, because of the rival sects. The same difficulty existed always, almost from the beginning; excepting that the invention of printing, and the multiplication of copies consequent thereupon, have imposed more insuperable barriers in the way of such liberties, than existed before. But when we take into view the VENERATION of even the most ignorant ages for these writings, and the tremendous awe inspired from the sanctions found at the close of the volume, together with sectarian jealousy, no work has been so much guarded against corruption. And a greater proof we cannot have of the truth of these remarks, than the fact that the church of Rome, in which most of the copies now extant were found, the corruptions of which are so clearly pointed out and condemned in the Epistles, have for ages transcribed the predictions, expositions, and censures pronounced upon herself, and [385] handed to the Reformers the sacred text to condemn and expose her own abuses.

      Query 5. How is it that St. Matthew says in a certain place, It was prophesied by the prophet Jeremiah, and no such prophecy is found in Jeremiah, but in Zechariah?

      To this we reply that the divisions which now obtain in both the Old Testament and the New, are of modern origin. Cardinal Cairo, in the twelfth century, divided the scriptures of the New Testament into chapters; and Robert Stephens, in the sixteenth century, divided them into verses. These distributions were made to facilitate references to these writings, but in thousands of instances they have obscured the sense of them.

      The Jews divided all the writings of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, into fifty-four sections, for the purpose of reading them once in a year in their synagogues. Four of these sections were shorter than the others; and whether designed for two of their greatest solemnities, to be read together, two on each occasion, we cannot say; but so it was, that the whole volume was read once every year in their public meetings. But in quoting these writings, they sometimes quoted them under the general running title of these sections; or more loosely, under these heads--the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. At other times they were quoted with the most minute reference, as, for instance, "It is so written in the second Psalm." Sometimes the whole writings are called the Law. The Savior once quotes the Psalms thus: "It is written in the Law, They hated me without a cause;" yet this is found in the book of Psalms. The running title to the sections of the prophetic writings is said by some to have been Jeremiah; others have said that the Jews called Jeremiah the weeping prophet, and used his name as an appellative, to denote all those predictions which had respect to the suffering of the Messiah. But one thing is obvious, that there was among all persons in that age a loose or general reference, as well as a strict and accurate reference to sayings in the prophets. If, then, Matthew did actually use the name of Jeremiah instead of the name Zechariah, it may have proceeded from some of those causes assigned. But whether or not, it affects no more the credibility of the testimony of Matthew concerning Jesus Christ, than the fact of Paul's forgetting how many he had baptized in Corinth, proves that he was not inspired with an infallible knowledge of the gospel.

      Such objections as these exhibit a very strange state of mind, and show that the objector is entirely ignorant of the real grounds on which we assent to the divine authority of these records.

      Having, then, very briefly attended to these questions, I proceed to [386] the topic proposed on Saturday evening. To form correct ideas of the genius and tendency of Christianity, we must pay some attention to the genius and design of the former dispensation. This we have already glanced at in our remarks upon the apostasy. Until the time of Abraham, all the nations upon the earth had the same general views of the Divinity that created all things and presided over the world. This will appear from all the ancient documents which penetrate into the most remote antiquity of the world.

      In forming a correct view of the religious character of the ancient nations, it is necessary here to inquire how far the inhabitants of Persia, Assyria, Arabia, Canaan, and Egypt, were affected or influenced by the religious institutions of this period; for these were the first nations whose institutions gave a character to all the nations of the world.

      Abraham was the son of Shem by Arphaxad. The Persians were the descendants of Shem by Elam. The common parentage of Abraham and the Persians laid a foundation for some similarity in their religion. Abraham's ancestors dwelt in Chaldea, and at the time that God signalized Abraham, the Chaldeans had begun to apostatize from the service of the true God. Hence the separation of Abraham from among them. But Dr. Hyde, and the most learned antiquarians, present documental proof that the Persians retained the true history of the creation, of the antediluvian age; and so attached were the Persians to the religion of Abraham, that the sacred book which contained their religion is called Sohi lbrahim, i e., the Book of Abraham. For a considerable time after Abraham's day they worshiped the God of Shem, for they did not know all the special communications to Abraham.

      The Arabians, down to the time of Jethro, retained the knowledge of the true God. How long after we are not informed, but their religious institutions, as far as we have account, differed little from those practiced by Abraham, with the exception of circumcision.

      The Canaanites themselves, in Abraham's time, had not apostatized wholly from the religion of Shem. The king of Salem was priest of the Most High God; and during Abraham's sojourning among them, they treated him with all respect as the prophet of the true God.

      Even among the Philistines at Gera, Abraham found a good and virtuous king favored with the admonitions of the Almighty. This he little expected, for he was so prejudiced against those people that, on entering their metropolis, he said, "Surely the fear of God is not in this place." But he was happily disappointed. For Abimelech, in his appeal to Heaven, says, "Lord, wilt thou slay a virtuous nation?" And the Lord did not deny his plea, but heard and answered his [387] request. There appears in the whole narrative no difference in the religious views or practice between Abraham and Abimelech, the king of the nation.

      The Egyptians, too, in the time of Abraham, were worshipers of the true God. In upper Egypt they refused, as Plutarch informs us, to pay any taxes for the support of the idolatrous worship; asserting that they owned no mortal, dead or alive, to be a God. The incorruptible and eternal God they called Sneph, who, they affirmed, had no beginning, and never should have an end. In the first advances to mythology in Egypt, they represented God by the figure of a serpent, with the head of a hawk in the middle of a circle. We find no misunderstandings nor difference between Pharaoh and Abraham, when the latter went down into Egypt. Indeed, with the exception of the Chaldeans, who were the oldest nation, and the first to introduce idol or image worship, we find a very general agreement in all the ancient nations respecting religious views and practice. And the first defection from the religion of Noah and Shem which we meet with in all antiquity, was that of the Chaldeans.

      Now, to save the world from universal idolatry, Abraham is called; and in four centuries his posterity were erected into a nation for this primary object, to teach the unity, spirituality, and providence of God, as well as to introduce a new vocabulary by a symbolic worship, to prepare the world for understanding the Divine character and government preparatory to the mission of his Son.

      Abraham was called at a time when idolatry began to appear in Chaldea, and when families began to have each a family god. When his descendants became numerous, and large enough to become a nation, and the nations had each its own god, it pleased the ruler of the universe to exhibit himself as the God of a nation. Hence originated the theocracy. Here it is necessary to suggest a few general principles of much importance in understanding the varieties which have appeared in the divine government. From the fall of man the governor of the world withdrew from all personal intimacies with the race. He no longer conversed with man, face to face, as he was wont to do in Eden. The recollections of the Divinity became more and more faint as Adam advanced in years, and the traditionary information communicated to his descendants became less vivid and impressive in every generation. All new communications from the Creator were through symbols, by messengers, or rather through things already known. Things entirely unknown can only be communicated to the mind by things already known. This axiom is at the basis of all revelations, and explains many otherwise inexplicable incidents in the [388] divine communications to man. The natural symbols and the artificial names of things became, from a necessity of nature, the only means through which God could make himself known to man. This, too, has been the invariable rule and measure of all the discoveries which God has made of himself, his purposes and will. Hence the spangled heavens, all the elements of nature, the earth, and the sea, with all their inhabitants; the relations, customs, and usages existing among men, have all been so many types or letters in the great alphabet which constitutes the vocabulary of divine revelation to man. He has been personated himself by his own creatures, and spoken to man through human institutions. Hence he has been called a Sun, Light, Father, Husband, Man of War, General of Hosts, a Lord of Battles, King, Prince, Master, etc., etc. He has been spoken of as having eyes, ears, mouth, hands, feet, etc., etc. He has been represented as sitting, standing, walking, hasting, awaking. He has been compared to a unicorn, lion, rock, mountain, etc., etc. He has made himself known in his character, perfections, purposes, and will, by things already known to man. This is the grand secret which, when disclosed, removes many difficulties and objections, and sets in a clear light the genius of the Jewish age of the religious world.

      Now when God became the king of one nation, it was only doing what on a more extensive scale, and with more various and powerful effects, he had done in calling himself a Father. Both were designed to make himself known through human relations and institutions. One type, symbol, or name, is altogether incompetent to develop the wonderful and incomprehensible God. But his wisdom and goodness are most apparent in making himself known in those relations and to those extents which are best adapted to human wants and imperfections. And the perfection in these discoveries consists in their being exactly suited to the different ages of the world and stages of human improvement. At the time when he chose one nation and made himself known to all the earth as its King and God, no other name, type, or symbol was so well adapted to the benevolent purpose, as those selected. For when Israel was brought out of Egypt, all the nations had their gods; and these gods were esteemed and admired according to the strength, skill, prowess, and prosperity of the nation over which they were supposed to preside. Hence that god was the most adorable in human eyes, whose people were most conspicuous.

      Wars and battles were the offspring of the spirit of those ages co-temporaneous with the first five hundred years of the Jewish history, and with the ages immediately preceding. Hence the idea was, that the nation most powerful in war, had the greatest and most adorable [389] god. Now as the Most High (a name borrowed from this very age) always took the world as it was in every period in which he chose to develop himself anew, or his purposes, he chose to appear as the Lord of Hosts or God of Armies. And to make his name known through all the earth, he took one nation under his auspices, and appeared as their Sovereign and the Commander-in-Chief of all their armies. Hence the splendid and easy-bought victories of the Israelites. One could chase a hundred, and ten put a thousand to flight. This explains the deliverance out of Egypt, and how the Lord permitted Pharaoh's heart to be hardened--for the purpose of making his name known through all the earth. Pharaoh and his court knew not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and impiously asked, "Who is the Lord, that I should obey him?" But Moses made him know, and tremble, and bow. By the time when the Jews were settled in Canaan, the world was taught to fear the God of Israel, the Lord of Hosts; and so it came to pass that all the true and consistent knowledge of God upon earth, among all nations, was derived directly or indirectly from the Jewish people.

      But we must not think that only one purpose was gained, or one object was exclusively in view in any of those great movements of the Governor of the World. This is contrary to the general analogy of the material and spiritual systems. By the annual and diurnal revolutions of the earth, although by the former the seasons of the year, and by the latter, day and night seem to be the chief objects, there are a thousand ends gained in conjunction with one principal one: so in this grand economy, many, very many illustrious ends were gained, beside the capital one just mentioned. For, as in the vegetable kingdom we have a succession of stages in the growth of plants; as in the animal kingdom we have a succession of stages in the growth of animals; so in the kingdom of God there is a similar progression of light, knowledge, life, and bliss. We have in the vegetable kingdom the period of germinating, the period of blossoming, and the period of ripening the fruit. So we have infancy, childhood, youth, and manhood, in our species. Each period calls for special influences and a peculiar treatment. So it is in the kingdom of God. It had its infancy, its childhood, and its manhood. In each stage it was diversely exhibited. The patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian ages were adapted to these.

      Again, we are not to consider the special temporal favors bestowed upon the Jews, as indicative that the divine benevolence was exclusively confined to one nation to the exclusion of all the earth beside. As well might we say that the husbandman who cultivates his garden despises or neglects his farm, or that he exclusively loved that part of the soil which he incloses with a peculiar fence. Other [390] circumstances and considerations require these specialties. The general good of the human race, and the blessings of all nations in a son of Abraham, were the ultimate and gracious ends in view in all these peculiar arrangements. This promise and guarantee were made to Abraham before the time of these ages or dispensations. So that the calling of the Jews and their erection into a nation under the special government of God, were but means necessary to that reign of favor under which we now live.

      But some will still say, Why was not the Messiah born immediately after the fall, and why was not the Christian era the only era of the world? Why did not the Universal Benevolence introduce the best possible order of things first? Such cavilers remind me of the child who asks, whether from curiosity or petulance: Why does not the ripe ears of corn come up from the seed deposited in the earth? Why does not the full ripe ear first present itself to our eye? Would not a kind and benevolent being have done this rather than have kept us waiting for many months, for the tedious process of germinating, growing, shooting, blossoming? etc., etc. Could not an almighty, and benevolent being, have produced the ripe ear without waiting for a sprout, stalk, leaves, blossoms, and all the other preparations of nature to form an ear of corn? We are, even in the common concerns of life, but poor judges of propriety; and it is extreme arrogance for us to arraign Omniscience at the tribunal of our reason when we cannot tell the reason why the blossom precedes the fruit? Do we not see that it is the order of the universe, natural as well as moral, that there should be a gradual development? "In the fullness of time" when all things were fully ripe, he sent for his Son.

      One part of the human family is cultivated like a garden, and another part is left like a wilderness, unfenced, and undressed. The vineyard, however, after a while produces, through an unavoidable degeneracy, no better grapes than the wild vines in the forest--and the hedge is torn down. A new order of things is developed, and the middle wall of partition crumbles to pieces. The Jew and Gentile are alike degenerated, and the new order proceeds upon a leveling principle. Now, no human being could have known that a government like the Theocracy, placing a people in such enviable circumstances so that system placed the seed of Abraham, would have secured so little to itself, and so little to the people under it, had not the experiment been made and continued as it was.

      But all these matters will be much better understood when we contemplate the constitution of the Jewish nation. This constitution is, in one point of view, very very pertinently called by the apostle Paul [391] The Letter. No term could have been more appropriate to exhibit the views which Paul taught, than this term letter. The constitution under which this nation came into existence, as a nation, was written by the Finger of God, upon two tables of stone. But here let me explain myself. The instrument written upon these two tables is sometimes called the moral law of the whole universe; sometimes the ten commandments; sometimes the old covenant, and the old testament. Now, the terms testament and covenant in the Scotch idiom, and in the English, are supposed equivalent to one and the same Greek word, diatheke. For the king's translators have many a time rendered this Greek word by both of these English nouns. The term covenant, in Scotland, has been applied not only to individual arguments, but to national compacts. Institution, or even constitution, in our day, much more correctly represents to us in our modes of thinking the true import of this term. The writing upon the two tables was in reality, in its original promulgation, and in the use made of it, precisely what we called a constitution. The nation received it as such, and the two tables on which it was written were called "the two tables of the covenant;" and the chest or ark into which it was deposited was called "the ark of the covenant." The whole covenant must have been on the two tables, else it must have been an imposition to call them the two tables of the covenant; and, again, the whole covenant must have been in the ark or it would have been a deception to call that ark "the ark of the covenant." I need scarcely add that the reason why the volumes called the old testament, containing the writings of Moses, the prophets, and the devotional pieces called the Hagiographa, is not because all these writings were the covenant or testament, or constitution of Israel, but by a figure of speech the thing containing is often called the thing contained. Because these writings contain this covenant or constitution they are all called by the name of the old covenant, testament, or constitution. In like manner we shall see that the New Testament has received its name from the same figure and example.

      There were many other laws given to the Jews from the king beside this instrument, but these were not of the same high character with those thus written on the two tables. They were only "leges sub graviori lege," laws under a supreme law; for the constitution of every country is the supreme law of the land. But the proof lies here: the Lord declared, If Israel would accede to the items to be proposed, they would, in consequence, become a peculiar nation, a new sort of kingdom; a community exalted above all the national communities upon earth. They agreed to these preliminaries. Then the Lord said, in their hearing: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the [392] land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; therefore ye shall," etc. Such was the agreement, and such were the items afterward called, the covenant or constitution.

      This constitution continued in one sense for about fifteen hundred years. It could not be broken, or made of none effect, by the transgression of a few individuals. But as soon as the great majority of the people departed from it, God ceased to reign over them as he had done. He allowed his enemies to make prisoners of them; to invade and devastate their land, and carry them into bondage again. Now, so long as this people lived up to the letter of this instrument, so long they were under the especial government of God; and under all the miraculous displays which we see distinguished their history from their eduction from Egypt till they were carried into Babylon by the Assyrian monarch. This explains the reason why miracles continued in Israel so long--and why they ceased at the period alluded to. Miracles were the order of the day for many hundred years in all the important epochs of their history. But after the captivity, the special providences ceased.

      Now, let us hear Jeremiah, who lived about these times, speak of this covenant and the intentions of the Lord concerning them.--Jer. xxxi. 31, 32, 33, 34:

      "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt (which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband to them, saith the Lord); but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord; for they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more."

      Jeremiah then predicts a time when this constitution would cease to be the constitution of Israel--and a new one of a different character introduced. We do not, as some might think, speak of the abrogation or disannulling of anything moral. The laws of morality, like those of nature, are immutable; but the particular forms, and arrangements, and modifications of these principles should be changed, and the whole inscribed, not upon stone, but upon the hearts of men. Now here is the essential difference between the old and the new constitution. The [393] former was not written upon the heart, the latter is. The former was pure letter, the latter is pure spirit. The first, pointed out to the eye, to the intellect of man, a rule of life; the latter, infuses it into the soul or gives a disposition and bias to these principles of action: nay, it imparts to the heart the principle which the letter or law only laid before the eyes. I develop the matter no farther here. I only prepare the way for this sweeping distinction that the Jewish covenant or institution was a covenant or constitution of the letter or law. In one sentence, the first was a constitution of law: the second, or Christian, is a constitution of favor.

      Let us hear Paul elaborate this matter, 2 Cor. iii. 6-18:

      "Who indeed hath fitted us to be ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: now the letter killeth, but the spirit maketh alive. Besides, if the ministry of death, imprinted on stones with letters, was done with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly on the face of Moses, because of the glory of his face which was to be abolished; how shall not the ministry of the spirit rather be with glory? And, if the ministry of condemnation was honor, much more doth the ministry of righteousness abound in honor. And therefore, that which was glorified, was not glorified in this respect, by reason of the excelling glory. Besides, if that which is abolished, is abolished by glory, much more that which remaineth, remaineth in glory. Wherefore, having such a persuasion, we use much plainness of speech; and not as Moses, who put a vail upon his face, that the children of Israel might not steadfastly look to the end of the thing to be abolished. Now their minds were blinded; for until this day, the same vail remaineth in the reading of the Old Covenant, it not being revealed, that it is abolished by Christ. Moreover, until this day, when Moses is read, the vail lieth upon the heart. But, when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken from around it. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. For we all, with an unvailed face reflecting as mirrors the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord of the spirit."

      Here is the contrast--letter and spirit. "The letter kills--the spirit gives life. Ministration of death--ministration of spirit, that which is done away, and that which remains." Glorious the former in its promulgation, more glorious the latter in its introduction;--tending of the one is to bondage, of the other to liberty. All human privileges are constitutional. Therefore as in the constitution, so are the privileges of the people whose it is.

      But here we must observe that there is some reason in Mr. Owen's [394] remark, that men are not to be made happy by letter or law. Written codes of laws, however good, are not adapted to augment human happiness, much less to produce it. Laws are restraints--the more numerous, the more are the restraints; to restrain a person is to diminish his enjoyments. It is therefore much more conducive to human happiness to remove the cause which makes these restraints necessary. To infuse into the mind such principles as will make men happy is infinitely more rational than by good laws to curb evil principles already implanted. To remove the disposition to steal, is much more rational than to promulge laws against theft. That system then is incomparably the most conducive to morality, good order, and happiness, and is, therefore, by far the most rational, which removes the evil principle, rather than attempts to curb it by legal restraints. The law was not made for good men. In any state of society the only happiness that good men derive from law is protection. In no other way can it conduce to their happiness. It is made for evil doers.

      So far, then, Mr. Owen is right; but had he known what follows, he never would have adopted so ineffectual a scheme as that which he has proposed. The Almighty gave us an excellent specimen of what a good law could do; he made the experiment for us in the history of the Jews. He gave them the best constitution, the finest country, and a well-arranged society--a very social system. The twelve tribes were twelve communities. They supplied themselves and created a large surplus; so that for two years, at least, in every seven, they rested, and their land rested one. They were under the best government, and enjoyed the greatest share of social privileges ever enjoyed by any people; yet they became worse and worse.

      Now he found fault with the whole economy, and introduced a new one upon quite different principles. Instead of circumcising the flesh, he circumcised the heart; and instead of giving a code of laws to govern men's outward actions, he gives them new hearts; or, in other words, by a constitution of pure favor, or grace, he implants noble principles, so efficient, as neither confiscation of goods, imprisonment, nor death itself, could induce them to do a mean action. I admit that since men have corrupted Christianity by converting it into a new code of laws, observances, and ceremonies, it has not been so productive of those happy influences as it once was almost universally; yet still its direct influences upon all who believe and understand it, are equal to what they ever were; and its indirect influences upon society at large, have civilized and moralized it to an extent far beyond any system ever exhibited on earth.

      But what I now contend for is, that pure Christianity is founded [395] upon the most philosophic view of human nature. It aims not at reforming or happifying the world by a system of legal restraints, however excellent; but its immediate object is to implant in the human heart, through a discovery of the divine philanthropy, a principle of love, which fulfills every moral precept ever promulgated on earth. Here is the grand secret: the religion of Jesus Christ melts the hearts of men into pure philanthropy. It converts a lion into a lamb. It has done this in our times in countless instances. Mr. Owen only dreams of reformations. Christianity alone changes, regenerates, and reforms wicked men. The materialists declare their system "cannot make a wicked man good." Skepticism never converted a wicked man since the days of Celsus till now. Mr. Owen cannot produce one instance. But Christianity, taking hold of the heart of man, not by law, but by love; not by letter, but by favor, has converted millions of the worst characters into the very best. Yes, the religion of Jesus sheds abroad in the human heart the love of God; and that love, purifying the heart, overflows in all good actions--kind, humane, benevolent; not only to the good, but to the evil. This is the true philosophy. Correct the spring--the fountain. "Make the tree good." Engraft a new scion on the old stock. Infuse new life. Warm the heart by the wonderful love of God, exhibited and sealed by the blood of his Son. Let this love, this pure benevolence, this genuine philanthropy, but reach the soul of man, and then all is pure within and moral without.

What law could never do, though as holy, just, and good as the constitution of Israel, through the weakness of the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, has done; he has condemned sin, wounded it, and killed it by a most transcendently glorious display of love.

      Where are Mr. Owen's weapons to reform the world? He dare not, in fact he does not, pretend to reform the world. He owns he has nothing to propose adequate to the task; and, therefore, only promises to save the next generation by a whimsical arrangement of circumstances. He proposes to grow better men and women, not to improve the present race. And what is the pith of his philosophy? Why, it is this: Transplant a crab tree and it becomes an apple tree. But the great reformer's philosophy was, engraft a new scion. Such is the exact difference between the scheme of Mr. Owen and the founder of Christianity.

      But let us have a word from Paul on the contrast between the Jewish and Christian religion. I will, for the sake of dispatch, paraphrase [396] a part of the fourth chapter to the Galatians, thus: "Now I say, the heir, as long as he is a minor, differs in no respect from a slave, though he be lord of all; for he is kept under tutors and stewards until he is of age, or until the time appointed in the will of his father. Just so it was with us Jews, while in our minority, which was during the dominion of the old constitution; we were kept in bondage, restrained, and curbed by the elements, or leading principles of that institution of law. But when the fullness of time appointed by our father in his will had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, and born under the old constitution, that he might be a fellow-subject (I cannot say fellow-citizen) with us under that constitution, that he might be consitutionally qualified to buy us off out of the slavery of the letter; that we might be elevated from the rank of trembling slaves, to the adoption of sons. And now, having been raised to the rank of sons, God has, under a new constitution, given us the spirit of his Son in our hearts; so that we confidently and affectionately say, as little children speak, Abba, Father. Now, my brethren of the Jews, once subjects of the old constitution, you are no more bondmen, but sons in feeling, in spirit, and in truth, too, by relation; and if sons, you know you are heirs of God through his Son, the Messiah. Well, then, brethren, you will never, I hope, desire to be under the old constitution again; but, I trust, you will stand firm in the liberty which you enjoy of serving God under the new constitution, not in the oldness of the letter, but in a new spirit."

      Often does Paul rally upon this point: You Christians are "not under law, but under favor;" sin shall not, then, have power to lord it over you, seeing you are not under the condemning genius of law, but under the pardoning, reconciling, purifying, and ennobling genius of favor.

      This is the genius of Christianity. By Moses came the age of law. By Jesus, the Messiah, came the reign of favor. So sang the angels when they announced his birth, "Glory to God in the highest heavens; Peace on earth, and good will among men." Letters only reach the eyes, but favor can touch the heart. Laws expressed in words assail the ears and aim at restraining actions; but love pierces to the heart, and disarms the rising thought of mischievous intent. It is called the reign of Heaven, because down into the heart it draws the heavenly feelings, desires, and aims. From heaven it came, and to heaven it leads. I will shake the heavens and the earth, says the Lord. I will revolutionize the world; and how, my friends, but by introducing new principles of human actions?

      Paul informs us that the new constitution is every way better than [397] the old one. The Mediator is superior to Moses--its provisions better--its seal and pledges better. It runs in a few sentences. It promises:

      1. To write the law upon the heart. That is, to implant the principle, which induces to all the good and pious works which the law demanded, and which will exclude the necessity of law taking cognizance only of the outward deeds.

      2. It promises to all subjects the remission of all sins; and, consequently, banishes all guilt and fear from the conscience.

      3. It assures all the citizens of having a just knowledge of God; and,

      4. It promises that God himself shall be theirs, and they his.

      Now, let me ask what is wanting in this new constitution (and this is the whole of it), to make men just what reason says they ought to be--to make them good companions and happy in themselves?

      How much happiness is there in doing good? All this happiness is theirs, for it imparts the disposition. How much happiness is there in having all fear of death, all guilt and shame removed from the soul of man? This happiness is theirs. How much happiness in seeing all our fellow-citizens knowing the character of God, his will and designs with regard to the whole human race, and all rejoicing in God? This happiness is theirs. And how much real felicity is there in having all the treasures of God, all the riches of the heavenly inheritance in prospect; as well as all assurance given us that on earth we shall never be deserted nor forsaken by the Lord. Now all these are constitutional privileges belonging to every citizen of this kingdom--to every one under the new constitution. There is not one citizen in the kingdom, of which this is the constitution, who has not in his heart the law of love written; not one who does not know God; not one who has not all his sins forgiven; not one who has not a good hope of the heavenly and eternal inheritance. Such is the unexaggerated character, genius, and design of the new constitution, or Christian religion.

      We are not, my friends, to suppose that the patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian religions, as we call them, are three distinct religions. They are but one religion. The seed was sown in the patriarchal age; the plant sprung up and put forth its leaves and blossoms under the cultivation of the Jewish; it ripened and was matured under the Christian. Favor was promised under the patriarchal, was symbolized and shadowed forth under the Jewish, and accomplished and realized under the new constitution. The first formed good individuals; the second, while held sacred, made a happy nation, and comparatively a moral people; but the third fills men with heavenly influence; with peace, and joy, [398] and righteousness, and can make, and will terminate in, a pure and happy world.

      Mahometanism is only a corruption and perversion of Judaism and Christianity. Idolatry is but a perversion and corruption of the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations. The apostasy or anti-Christ is but a corruption of Christianity, a heterogeneous commixture of Judaism, paganism, and Christianity. There has been but one religion ever in the world. In other words, the fountain whence all superstitions have originated, was one and the same. Hence we find the prominent ideas of divine revelation in every superstition on earth. As we trace languages to a common fountain and origin, so we trace religions. Idolatry and polytheism were the worst of all the corruptions in degrading man. But as the sweetest wine will make the sourest vinegar, Christianity when corrupted has exhibited the most cruelty and tyranny. Hence the Inquisition has been the most cruel and wicked tribunal upon this earth. The fine, vigorous, plethoric constitution, when subdued by a malignant fever, exhibits the greatest mass of corruption. But who argues hence that a fine, vigorous, and healthy constitution is a curse, shocks all common sense.

      But the root of all the corruptions of Christianity was the incorporating with it the opinions and speculations of Egyptian and Indian philosophy. All the systems flourishing upon the earth when Jesus was born were, with the exception of the Jewish (and that, we all know, was much corrupted), mere systems of abstract opinions and speculations. Grecian and Roman, as well as the eastern philosophy, had filled all the reasoning part of society with the most air-built and visionary schemes about matter and mind, creation and providence. Conversions from these ranks, from all the sects of philosophers, polluted, finally polluted, the Christian sanctuary. So that Christianity became with them a science, a fit subject of speculation as much as any of the doctrines of Plato or Socrates. From these unhallowed commixtures spring the creed systems of ancient and modern times, so that finally almost every vestige of the ancient simplicity and the true genius of Christianity disappeared, and various schemes of sectarian and philosophic Christianity succeeded and supplanted it.

      This creed system has been the fruitful source of all the corruptions in morals, as well as the parent of all the religious discords now in Christendom. But for it Deism, Atheism, and Skepticism would have found no resting-place among us. Many of the skeptics, and even Mr. Owen himself, have been attacking anti-Christ, and thought they were opposing Christ. They have not the disposition to discriminate between what Christianity is, and the abuses of it. It requires but little [399] logical acumen to detect the sophistry, and but moderate powers of declamation to expose the fooleries, of most of the systems and exhibitions of Christianity. And he must be dull of apprehension who has not felt, in this discussion, that Mr. Owen has been fighting against the perversions of Christianity, rather than against the religion of facts, of morals, and of happiness which our Redeemer has established in the world. But matter and mind, body and spirit, in their greatest supposed opposition to each other, are not greater contrasts than a religion of opinions and a religion of facts.

      And here I beg leave to illustrate this distinction very briefly. It seems to have been abundantly proved, before the Christian era, that opinions are too feeble to stimulate to virtue and goodness, and too impotent to restrain from vice and immorality. Correct opinions, we see in our times, will not purify the heart, nor reform the life. Nothing that must be argued out by a long process of ratiocination, can be of much power in regulating human conduct. Its strength is exhausted by the time the point is proved. And it must be evident to all that a system which requires much reason to comprehend, would be most unsuitable to the great mass of mankind. A thousand persons can believe a fact, for every one that can comprehend a logical process of reasoning. Opinions, too, are, after all, but probabilities. They can never rise higher than a strong probability; but faith produces, in many instances, absolute certainty, and is, in the very constitution of human nature, evidently intended to be a common and a most powerful principle of action. But opinions are not, in the constitution of human nature, ever intended to be a common, nor a powerful principle of action. They are only to govern us, or to teach us to move with caution, or sometimes not to move at all, in the absence of faith and knowledge. Faith and knowledge are the governing principles of action, and opinion is only to be consulted in the absence of these two.

      The Messiah, well knowing what was in man, adapted his religion to the nature and wants of men, and hence made its reforming, purifying, and saving efficacy to consist in the belief of naked facts; facts which, when believed, have an intrinsic, inherent, and inalienable power to govern a man's thoughts, wishes, motives, and conduct. The Christian's creed, then, runs in the following style: I believe that Jesus was the son of Mary and the son of God; that he cured all sorts of human maladies by his power; was persecuted and rejected by his own nation; crucified, buried, and rose again, and ascended into heaven. Whatever was done or said by him, reported and attested by his companions, who were his witnesses to the ends of the earth and the end of time, constitutes a legitimate article of the Christian's creed. If [400] there have been one hundred well-attested facts, there are a hundred articles in the Christian's creed. This is the only way that a reasonable and an intelligent man can enumerate the articles of his belief. But because all the facts, minor and major, in the evangelical histories, are comprised or rather terminate in the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ--nay, indeed, in one THAT HE ROSE AGAIN by the power of the Father; the Apostle identified the belief of these with salvation; or, in other words, he said: "If you confess with your lips the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved." This belief, as far as faith is concerned, brings a man into the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

      But how different this from creeds of human construction! They begin and proceed with the mere assertion of abstract views--such as the omnipresence and omnisciency of God; the purposes and decrees of the Almighty; abstract views of the fall of man; his physical and moral powers; various schemes of redemption; the nature of faith, atonement, and righteousness, etc., etc. Moses did not thus frame a creed for the Jews. He lays down no definition of God, but launches off thus: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The Apostles begin their creed in the same style: "In those days came John the immerser proclaiming and saying," etc. Such is the difference between the creed of Christians and philosophers. The Presbyterian, Baptist, Episcopalian, and Methodist creeds are so many systems of religious philosophy, built, as they suppose, upon the Bible; just as Sir Isaac's system of nature is built upon the material universe. But the old-fashioned creed of the first Christians ran in such sentences as these: "The Lord is risen, indeed, and has appeared to Peter." "God has commanded reformation and forgiveness of sins to be proclaimed to all nations under heaven," etc.

      But up comes a grace, religious, philosophic sectary, and says, in a very serious mood, Why, Sir, thousands believe your gospel facts, and they have no more influence upon them than the belief of the Mussulman in the mission of Mahomet. How will you account for this? I tell you. Sir, you are the cause yourself. You have taught them to think that such a belief is good for nothing, and in believing you the facts are neutralized, just as acids and alkalis form new substances, and neutralize each other. It is so in the minds of men. A lie may be believed along with truth--and the particular lie and particular truth taught in one sermon, equally believed, render one or both inoperative. Hence it is that the most valuable truths are inoperative. A person who has been taught all his life that nothing but silver and gold can purchase food and raiment, might be presented with a bank [401] bill worth ten thousand dollars, and yet, under the belief that it was not money, might perish with hunger or cold in the absence of gold and silver, thinking that he had no money to go to market; but let some person teach him that this bank bill, by a new agreement of society, was, by appointment or law, good for ten thousand pieces of silver; the moment he is persuaded of this, he feels himself rich, and rejoices with exceeding joy. So let a person be undeceived on this cardinal point, and be taught, that to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, to be assured of this fact, is all that is necessary to constitute saving faith, or such a belief as will, if obeyed, introduce a man into the kingdom of heaven, and a correspondent joy and gladness must ensue.

      Ah! my friends, the dogmas which represent the scriptures as a sealed book, and that teach that new revelations must be given to open the seals, or all that is written is useless; the dogmas which teach that saving faith is a principle wrought in the heart independent of the testimony of God, that faith is the consequence of regeneration; that a man must be first saved, then believe, and all their kindred dogmas, have put weapons into the hands of the adversary of our faith, as well as have made the word of God of none effect in the hearts and lives of all who believe them. Many skeptics mistake the dross of mere human doctrines and dogmas for the pure gold of Christianity.

      Men have, under the dominion of opinions, been made to love and hate one another for the agreement or collision of their opinions. But under the dominion of faith they are taught to allow a difference of opinions. There is but "one faith," but nowhere is it written that there is but one opinion. All Christians are in reality of one faith; for all believe the gospel facts, and he that does not believe the gospel facts cannot be a Christian. But the Apostle Paul positively commanded all Christians to maintain the "unity of the faith," and to "receive one another without regard to differences of opinion." There is only one faith, but many opinions, and many different degrees of knowledge; and Christianity makes allowances for these.

      A sub and a supra prefixed to the word lapsarian, or the letter i in the word omousios, or omoiousios, have made different communities under the banners of him, who, in his own person, and by his apostles, condescended to all the weaknesses and dullness of intellect found in man or woman who loved his person. Sectaries have forgotten that God is love, as manifested in Jesus Christ to the world; that all Christianity is resolvable into this grand truth, that "God so loved the world as to send his only begotten Son into the world, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him might be saved." Who, believing this, can think that [402] he would condemn a person that loved him because he could not apprehend the metaphysical import of a prefixed sub or supra, or an intermediate i?

      Little children can apprehend and approve the gospel facts, as well, or as firmly as Sir Isaac Newton did. But they cannot understand any of the abstract dogmas of the various philosophic sects. Why then exclude them from the fold of Christ? The Apostle John addressed the congregations of his time as composed of old men, young men, and children. That they were literally such, appears from his address to each. The old men had known Jesus Christ from the beginning of the proclamation concerning him. The young men had overcome the world, notwithstanding the strength of youthful passions. And the little children had begun well, they had been baptized, they had just received the remission of their sins. All these had, however, one faith, believed the same facts; but of very different attainments, both in knowledge and in behavior. How foolish those systems that require all men to be of one standard height in religious opinion; which will have the iron bedstead of Procrustes for fixing the stature to which every roan must grow, on peril of losing his head or his soul!

      The genius of Christianity is love. Its tendency is peace on earth and good-will among men--and it will eventuate in glory to God and man in the highest heaven. It contemplates the reformation of the world upon a new principle. It aims at conquering men by love. And he is a superficial philosopher who cannot see that this is the only rational way to promote purity and happiness--for these are inseparable companions--Happy the pure in heart, for they shall see God. And no system which leaves man not in the possession of a quiet conscience can bestow him happiness. Love has a transfiguring or transforming efficacy upon the human mind. To impress the image of God upon the human heart, it is necessary that the love of God should be exhibited to the human mind. Men cannot be made to love by commands and threats--that would be most unphilosophic. If we would have men to love, we must present an amiable object. This is God's method. To fill men with love to him, he shows them that he loves them. They say, "we love him because he first loved us." That system which promotes, or is calculated to promote, the greatest degree of love among men, is the most philosophic plan for purifying and reforming the world. This. Mr. Owen's system has lost sight of. There is nothing in it to produce love. It wants an object, amiable and magnificent, to arouse reflection, admiration, and love in man. Eating and drinking and lodging in the same departments, are all the stimulus he has to present to the human mind to promote love. And yet who does not [403] know that the fastings, and watchings, and hardships, and dangers of a single campaign, or of a shipwreck, will produce more kind feelings and solicitude for the welfare of our companions, than the feasting together for years, at the same festive board, is capable of producing? If men were to rack their ingenuity to eternity, to invent a scheme for promulging love and good-will among men, they could find nothing half comparable to the Christian scheme. It finds men hated and hating one another, full of bitterness and wrath, yet all in the same calamity. It teaches them that they are all shipwrecked, bankrupts, miserable, and wretched. It makes them feel this; and then presents them with the love of God, sealed by the death of his Son.

      But as yet we have said nothing about doctrine. True, indeed, we have not spoken of the doctrines of the gospel. This word is not in the plural form when applied to the truths of Christianity. We sometimes read of the doctrines of demons; but it is only the doctrine of Christ. When this term does not mean teaching, which it often does, it simply denotes the meaning of the facts. Hence the meaning of any fact, such as the death or burial of Jesus Christ, is the doctrine of the death or burial of Christ. As is the moral to the tale, so is the doctrine to the fact. Hence all who believe the facts and understand the meaning of them, have the sound or wholesome doctrine of Christ. Some may, we admit, believe the facts and not understand the meaning of them. In such a case, the facts believed will either not operate at all, or have a morbid influence. The apostolic epistles, so far as doctrinal, are expressive of the meaning of the gospel facts. They taught the new converts the legitimate bearing and results of the facts believed. The other parts of these letters were exhortatory, or deductions from the facts, calculated to direct and comfort Christians. But all the doctrine of Christ grew out of the facts, just as all Christian faith is founded upon the testimony concerning them.

      Two sentences found in John's writings explain the whole design of both the historical and epistolary parts of the apostle's writings. The design of the historical books is thus expressed by John: "Many other signs, truly, did Jesus, in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these that are written, are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name." The design of the epistolary part he has as clearly expressed: "These things do we write to you, brethren, that your joy may be complete," or that you may know the things which have been gifted to you from God.

      Having so far glanced at the genius and design of the Christian scriptures, and the Christian religion, and remotely at its tendencies, [404] we shall give place to Soame Jenyns again on the tendency of this religion. The extract which I am about to read, not only shows the natural tendency of this religion, but constitutes a formidable argument in proof of its authenticity. For as I hinted to you before; this erudite and acute statesman triumphantly proves the Divine authority of this religion, from the religion itself, or what is not unfrequently termed, the internal evidence--concerning the object of this religion, he says, pages 13-16:

      "First, then, the object of this religion is entirely new, and is this: to prepare us by a state of probation for the kingdom of heaven. This is everywhere professed by Christ and his Apostles to be the chief end of the Christian's life, the crown for which he is to contend, the goal to which he is to run, the harvest which is to pay him for all his labors. Yet, previous to their preaching no such prize was ever hung out to mankind, nor any means prescribed for the attainment of it.

      "It is indeed true, that some of the philosophers of antiquity entertained notions of a future state, but mixed with much doubt and uncertainty. Their legislators also endeavored to infuse into the minds of the people a belief of rewards and punishments after death; but by this they only intended to give a sanction to their laws, and to enforce the practice of virtue for the benefit of mankind in the present life. This alone seems to have been their end, and a meritorious end it was; but Christianity not only operates more effectually to this end, but has a nobler design in view; which is, by a proper education here, to render us fit members of a celestial society hereafter. In all former religions, the good of the present life was the first object; in the Christian, it is but the second. In those, men were incited to promote that good by the hopes of a future reward; in this, the practice of virtue is enjoined in order to qualify them for that reward. There is a great difference, I apprehend, in these two plans; that is, in adhering to virtue from its present utility in expectation of a future happiness, and living in such a manner as to qualify us for the acceptance, and the enjoyment of that happiness; and the conduct and disposition of those, who act on these different principles, must be no less different. On the first, the constant practice of justice, temperance, and sobriety, will be sufficient; but on the latter, we must add to these an habitual piety, faith, resignation, and contempt of the world. The first may make us very good citizens, but will produce but a tolerable Christian. Hence it is that Christianity insists more strongly, than any preceding institution, religious or moral, on purity of heart, and a benevolent disposition; because these are absolutely necessary to its great end. But in those whose recommendations of virtue regard the present life only, [405] and whose promised rewards in another, were low and sensual, no preparatory qualifications were requisite to enable men to practice the one, or to enjoy the other; and, therefore, we see this object is peculiar to this religion, and with it was entirely new.

      "But although this object, and the principles on which it is founded were new, and perhaps undiscoverable by reason, yet when discovered, they are so consonant to it, that we cannot but readily assent to them. For the truth of this principle, that the present life is a state of probation and education, to prepare us for another, is confirmed by everything which we see around us. It is the only key which can open to us the designs of Providence in the economy of human affairs; the only clue which can guide us through that pathless wilderness, and the only plan on which this world could possibly have been formed, or on which the history of it can be comprehended or explained. It could never have been formed on a plan of happiness, because it is everywhere overspread with innumerable miseries; nor of misery, because it is interspersed with many enjoyments. It could not have been constituted for a scene of wisdom and virtue, because the history of mankind is little more than a detail of their follies, and wickedness; nor of vice, because that is no plan at all, being destructive of all existence, and consequently of its own. But on this system all that we here meet with may be easily accounted for; for this mixture of happiness and misery, of virtue and vice, necessarily results from a state of probation and education; as probation implies trials, sufferings, and a capacity of offending; and education, a propriety of chastisement for those offenses."⁵

      More has been read here than is necessary to our object, the prominent idea on which we emphasize is, that the tendency of this religion is to produce purity of heart as essential to present and future happiness; not to obtain it as a reward, but to prepare ourselves for the enjoyment of it. A person to sustain any character must have a previous training. A plain unlettered man would feel himself but ill at ease among the polished grandees of this world; his taste, education, and habits would disqualify him for all enjoyments in their society. Now, this is a prominent design of the Christian religion, not only to reveal a future state, but to prepare us for the enjoyment of it. A design so apparent in the volume as to make it a Miracle, to me at least, how any person could conceive the authors of it to be bad men, deceivers, or impostors. [406]

      That the object or design of the Christian religion is not political, needs scarcely to be proved; when speaking of the personal character of this religion, Mr. Jenyns very forcibly remarks, pages 20-22:

      "And here I cannot omit observing, that the personal character of the author of this religion is no less new, and extraordinary, than the religion itself, who 'spake as never man spake,' and lived as never man lived. In proof of this, I do not mean to allege, that he fasted forty days, that he performed a variety of miracles, and after being buried three days, that he arose from the dead; because these accounts will have but little effect on the minds of unbelievers, who if they believe not the religion, will give no credit to the relation of these facts; but I will prove it from facts which cannot be disputed. For instance, he is the only founder of a religion in the history of mankind, which is totally unconnected with all human policy and government, and therefore totally unconducive to any worldly purpose whatever. All others, Mahomet, Numa, and even Moses himself, blended their religious institutions with their civil, and by them obtained dominion over their respective people; but Christ neither aimed at, nor would accept of any such power, he rejected every object, which all other men pursue, and made choice of all which others fly from, and are afraid of. He refused power, riches, honors, and pleasure; and courted poverty, ignominy, tortures, and death. Many have been the enthusiasts, and impostors who have endeavored to impose on the world pretended revelations, and some of them from pride, obstinacy, or principle, have gone so far as to lay down their lives, rather than retract. But I defy history to show one, who ever made his own sufferings and death a necessary part of his original plan, and essential to his mission; this Christ actually did; he foresaw, foretold, declared their necessity, and voluntarily endured them. If we seriously contemplate the divine lessons, the perfect precepts, the beautiful discourses, and the consistent conduct of this wonderful person, we cannot possibly imagine, that he could have been either an idiot or a madman; and yet, if he was not what he pretended to be, he can be considered in no other light. And even under this character he would deserve some attention, because of so sublime and rational an insanity there is no other instance in the history of mankind."

      In speaking of the moral character and tendency of the Christian religion, the same very acute writer observes: "That every moral precept founded on reason, is carried to a higher degree of purity and perfection than in any other system of the ancient philosophers of preceding ages--every moral precept, founded on false principles, is entirely omitted, and many new precepts added, peculiarly [407] corresponding with the new object of this religion." From these peculiarities he deduces a very powerful argument in proof of its Divine origin. The first item has been frequently noticed by other writers. But few have spoken more explicitly on the false virtues omitted on the Christian religion, though universally applauded in all other religions. These false virtues are, valor, patriotism, and friendship. His remarks upon these three being very brief, I beg leave to read them, pages 31-36:

      Valor, for instance, or active courage, is for the most part, constitutional, and therefore can have no more claim to moral merit, than wit, beauty, health, strength, or any other endowment of the mind or body; and so far is it from producing any salutary effects by introducing peace, order, or happiness into society, that it is the usual perpetrator of all the violences, which, from retaliated injuries, distract the world with bloodshed and devastation. It is the engine by which the strong are enabled to plunder the weak, the proud to trample upon the humble, and the guilty to oppress the innocent. It is the chief instrument which ambition employs in her unjust pursuits of wealth and power, and is therefore so much extolled by her votaries. It was, indeed, congenial with the religion of Pagans, whose gods were, for the most part, made out of deceased heroes, exalted to heaven as a reward for the mischiefs which they had perpetrated upon earth, and, therefore, with them this was the first of virtues, and had even engrossed that denomination to itself; but whatever merit it may have assumed among Pagans, with Christians it can pretend to none, and few or none are the occasions in which they are permitted to exert it. They are so far from being allowed to inflict evil, that they are forbid even to resist it; they are so far from being encouraged to revenge injuries, that one of their first duties is to forgive them; so far from being incited to destroy their enemies, that they are commanded to love them, and to serve them to the utmost of their power. If Christian nations, therefore, were nations of Christians, all war would be impossible and unknown among them, and valor could be neither of use nor estimation, and therefore could never have a place in the catalogue of Christian virtues, being irreconcilable with all its precepts. I object not to the praise and honors bestowed on the valiant, they are the least tribute which can be paid them by those who enjoy safety and affluence by the intervention of their dangers and sufferings; I assert only that active courage can never be a Christian virtue, because a Christian can have nothing to do with it. Passive courage is indeed frequently, and properly inculcated by this meek and suffering religion, under the titles of patience and resignation, a real and substantial virtue this, and a direct contrast to the former; for passive courage arises from the [408] noblest dispositions of the human mind, for a contempt of misfortunes, pain, and death, and confidence in the protection of the Almighty; active, from the meanest; from passion, vanity, and self-dependence. Passive courage is derived from a zeal for truth, and a perseverance in duty; active is the offspring of pride and revenge, and the parent of cruelty and injustice. In short, passive courage is the resolution of a philosopher; active, the ferocity of a savage. Nor is this more incompatible with the precepts, than with the object of this religion, which is the attainment of the kingdom of heaven; for valor is not that sort of violence by which that kingdom is to be taken; nor are the turbulent spirits of heroes and conquerors admissible into those regions of peace, subordination, and tranquillity.

      "Patriotism also, that celebrated virtue so much practiced in ancient, and so much professed in modern times; that virtue, which so long preserved the liberties of Greece, and exalted Rome to the empire of the world; this celebrated virtue, I say, must also be excluded; because it not only falls short of, but directly counteracts, the extensive benevolence of, this religion. A Christian is of no country; he is a citizen of the world; and his neighbors and countrymen are the inhabitants of the remotest regions, whenever their distresses demand his friendly assistance. Christianity commands us to love all mankind; patriotism, to oppress all other countries to advance the imaginary prosperity of our own. Christianity enjoins us to imitate the universal benevolence of our Creator, who pours forth his blessings on every nation upon earth; patriotism, to copy the mean partiality of an English parish officer, who thinks injustice and cruelty meritorious, whenever they promote the interests of his own inconsiderable village. This has ever been a favorite virtue with mankind, because it conceals self-interest under the mask of public spirit, not only from others, but even from themselves, and gives a license to inflict wrongs and injuries, not only with impunity, but with applause; but it is so diametrically opposite to the great characteristic of this institution, that it never could have been admitted into the list of Christian virtues.

      "Friendship likewise, although more congenial to the principles of Christianity, arising from more tender and amiable dispositions, could never gain admittance among her benevolent precepts for the same reason; because it is too narrow and confined, and appropriates that benevolence to a single object, which is here commanded to be extended to all. Where friendship arises from similarity of sentiments, and disinterested affections, they are advantageous, agreeable, and innocent, but have little pretensions to merit; for it is justly observed, 'If ye love them, which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also [409] love those that love them.' But if they are formed from alliance in parties, factions, and in interests, or from a participation of vices, the usual parents of what are called friendships among mankind, they are then both mischievous and criminal, and consequently forbidden, but in their utmost purity deserve no recommendation from this religion."

      As Mr. Jenyns, though a very honorable member of the Baptist Parliament, dared to avow that patriotism was not one of the Christian virtues, we may add that even the policy which we so much approbate in this community under the name of "The American System," though most unquestionably good policy, is a very bright example of the correctness of his remarks upon patriotism. The patriotism of Great Britain would not permit her to buy the products of our soil; and our patriotism will not permit us to buy the products of her mechanical labors; she will compel her own subjects to suffer rather than purchase our corn and flour; and we will endeavor to deprive the manufacturing classes in Great Britain of the means of subsistence to hold up our own. All this is good policy and good patriotism, but no part of the Christian religion. To call this a virtue may be correct in politics, or economics; but in the Christian religion it would pass for a false virtue, and very justly, according to the genius of this religion, which embraces all Christians in its affection, and all mankind in its benevolence.

      Some have rather censured than applauded some of the precepts found in the "sermon on the mount." Pretty thing, indeed, say they, to be commanded "to turn the other cheek to him that has already smitten us once;" and to go "two miles with him that compels us to go one." Yes, indeed, a pretty thing for the proud and retaliating! But the question is. Which is the speedier way to end a controversy? Now take the precept literally, and doubt not the controversy will be sooner terminated, and less danger will be incurred by turning the other cheek than by striking back; and we will sooner get rid of an unprofitable companion by going two miles with him, than to stop and quarrel on the road. Now, taking them literally, which is not in accordance with the genius of such maxims, or the Savior's intention, I presume; but, I say, take them literally, and they are, in their tendency, better than any other course which can be pursued to terminate the quarrel.

      But Christianity inculcates many virtues unknown and untaught before, each of which demonstrates its divinity and excellent tendency. I will prefer taking notice of them in the words of Mr. Jenyns to my own desultory remarks. [410]

      On the beatitude which says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," he remarks:

      "This was so new, and so opposite to the ideas of all pagan moralists, that they thought this temper of mind a criminal and contemptible meanness, which must induce men to sacrifice the glory of their country, and their own honor, to a shameful pusillanimity; and such it appears to almost all who are called Christians, even at this day, who not only reject it in practice, but disavow it in principle, notwithstanding this explicit declaration of their Master. We see them revenging the smallest affronts by premeditated murder, as individuals, on principles of honor; and, in their national capacities, destroying each other with fire and sword, for the low considerations of commercial interests, the balance of rival powers, or the ambition of princes. We see them with their last breath animating each other to a savage revenge, and in the agonies of death, plunging with feeble arms, their daggers into the hearts of their opponents; and what is still worse, we hear all these barbarisms celebrated by historians, flattered by poets, applauded in theaters, approved in senates, and even sanctified in pulpits. But universal practice cannot alter the nature of things, nor universal error change the nature of truth. Pride was not made for man, but humility, meekness, and resignation; that is, poorness of spirit was made for man, and properly belongs to his dependent and precarious situation; and is the only disposition of mind which can enable him to enjoy ease and quiet here, and happiness hereafter. Yet was this important precept entirely unknown until it was promulgated by him who said, 'suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven; verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.'"

      Another precept, equally new and no less excellent, is forgiveness of injuries. "You have heard," says Christ to his disciples, "Thou shall love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy; but I say unto you, love your enemies; bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you." This was a lesson so new and utterly unknown, until taught by his doctrine, and enforced by his example, that the wisest moralists of the wisest nations and ages, represented the desire of revenge as a mark of a noble mind, and the accomplishment of it as one of the chief felicities attendant on a fortunate man. But how much more magnanimous, how much more beneficial to mankind, is forgiveness! It is more magnanimous, because every generous and exalted disposition of the human mind is requisite to the practice of it; for these alone can enable [411] us to bear the wrongs and insults of wickedness and folly with patience, and to look down on the perpetrators of them with pity rather than with indignation; these alone can teach us, that such are but a part of those sufferings allotted to us in this state of probation, and to know, that to overcome evil with good, is the most glorious of all victories; it is the most beneficial, because this amiable conduct alone can put an end to an eternal succession of injuries and retaliations; for every retaliation becomes a new injury, and requires another act of revenge for satisfaction. But would we observe this salutary precept, to love our enemies, and to do good to those who despitefully use us; this obstinate benevolence would at last conquer the most inveterate hearts, and we should have no enemies to forgive. How much more exalted a character, therefore, is a Christian martyr, suffering with resignation, and praying for the guilty, than a pagan hero, breathing revenge and destroying the innocent! Yet noble and useful as this virtue is, before the appearance of this religion, it was not only unpracticed, but decried in principle as mean and ignominious, though so obvious a remedy for most of the miseries of this life, and so necessary a qualification for the happiness of another." pp. 39-42.

      After specifying other virtues never before promulged, such as what he calls faith, repentance, humility, and universal benevolence, he concludes with these remarks, pp. 51-55:

      "It cannot be denied that the Great Author of the Christian Institution, first and singly ventured to oppose all the chief principles of pagan virtue, and to introduce a religion directly opposite to those erroneous, though long established opinions, both in its duties and in its object. The most celebrated virtues of the ancients were, high spirit, intrepid courage, and implacable resentment.

      "Impiger, iracundus, inerorabilis, acer, was the portrait of the most illustrious hero, drawn by one of the first poets of antiquity. To all these admired qualities, those of a true Christian are an exact contrast; for this religion constantly enjoins poorness of spirit, meekness, patience, and forgiveness of injuries. 'But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.' The favorite characters among the Pagans, were the turbulent, ambitious, and intrepid, who through toils and dangers, acquired wealth and spent it in luxury, magnificence, and corruption; but both these are equally adverse to the Christian system which forbids all extraordinary efforts to obtain wealth, care to secure, or thought concerning the enjoyment of it. 'Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth,' etc. 'Take no thought, saying. What shall we eat, what shall we drink, or wherewithal shall we be clothed? [412] for after all these thing do the Gentiles seek.' The chief object of the Pagans was immortal fame: for this their poets sang, their heroes fought, and their patriots died; and this was hung out by their philosophers and legislators, as the great incitement to all noble and virtuous deeds. But what says the Christian legislator to his disciples on this subject? 'Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake; rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven.' So widely different is the genius of the pagan and Christian morality that I will venture to affirm that the most celebrated virtues of the former are more opposite to the spirit, and more inconsistent with the end of the latter, than even their most infamous vices; and that Brutus wrenching vengeance out of his hands to whom alone it belongs, by murdering the oppressor of his country, or a Cato murdering himself from an impatience of control, leaves the world more unqualified for, and more inadmissible into the kingdom of heaven, than even a Messalina, or a Heliogabalus, with all their profligacy about them.

      "Nothing, I believe, has so much contributed to corrupt the true spirit of the Christian institution, as that partiality which we contract from our earliest education for the manners of pagan antiquity; from whence we learn to adopt every moral idea, which is repugnant to it; to applaud false virtues which that disavows; to be guided by laws of honor, which that abhors; to imitate characters which that detests; and to behold heroes, patriots, conquerors, and suicides, with admiration, whose conduct that utterly condemns. From a coalition of these opposite principles was generated that monstrous system of cruelty and benevolence, of barbarism and civility, of rapine and justice, of fighting and devotion, of revenge and generosity, which harassed the world for several centuries with crusades, holy wars, knight-errantry, and single combats, and even still retains influence enough, under the name of honor, to defeat the most beneficent ends of this holy institution. I mean not by this to pass any censure on the principles of valor, patriotism, or honor; they may be useful, and perhaps necessary, in the commerce and business of the present turbulent and imperfect state; and those who are actuated by them may be virtuous, honest, and even religious men; all that I assert is, that they cannot be Christians. A profligate may be a Christian, though a bad one, because he may be overpowered by passions and temptations, and his actions may contradict his principles; but a man whose ruling principle is honor, however virtuous he may be, cannot be a Christian, because he erects a standard of duty, and deliberately adhers to it, diametrically opposite to the whole tenor of that religion." [413]

      To conclude, the direct tendency of the Christian religion is to purify the heart, and to make men everything which the perfect happiness of society requires. After Paul had gone into long detail of Christian virtues, he concludes in his sweeping style, which suffers not one virtue to escape: "Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are venerable, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are amiable, whatever things are of good fame; if there be any virtue, and if any praise be due, think on, and practice these things."

      One miracle there is, which Mr. Owen must believe at all events, on the whole premises before us. He must believe that a set of vile impostors, deceivers of the basest stamp, the greatest cheats and liars that ever lived, did give birth to the purest system of morality the world ever saw--did recommend the practice of every virtue which human reason in the most cultivated state of society can admire and approve. He must believe that all the true religion and genuine virtue now existing depends upon the forgeries of a pack of charlatans, who went about from place to place declaring that they had heard what they never did hear, and that they had seen what they never saw. This miracle Mr. Owen must believe, which is a miracle of a more incredible character than any one in the volume, especially when we take into view the circumstances attendant on the progress and sufferings of these wicked impostors.

      "If weak thy faith, why choose the harder side?"

      But still I have not made sufficiently emphatic the tendency of Christianity upon every one who embraces it. This I will again lay before you. It becomes the more necessary to call this up again, because our opponent execrates Christianity more because of its "idle fears and terrors" than on any other account. To me, from childhood, it has seemed strange why mankind should more fear the threats than hope for the promises of Jesus Christ. If not to a consciousness of the just desert of all that is threatened, perhaps anterior to any notice of the threats, I know not to what other cause this is to be attributed. For certain it is that threats and promises are equally credible or incredible. They both rest upon the same testimony. Now, Christianity, if rationally regarded, can never fill but one class of mankind with fears. If it be regarded as a fraud or imposition, its hopes and fears are equally disannulled. If it be regarded as true, what is its truth save pardon and peace to every one who submits to the government of Jesus Christ? No person can, then, be filled with any fears or terrors from the New Testament, but he that believes and will not obey. The infidel cannot; the Christian cannot. To the infidel it is all a romance; [414] to the Christian it is all peace, hope, and joy, real as life itself. Who, then, does Christianity make unhappy? The very persons, and none but the persons, it ought to make unhappy, viz: those who believe, and will not obey Jesus Christ. And if it did not make such unhappy, it would be unworthy of its Author and its object. And the man who labors to divest the guilty of his fears is a misanthrope, and not a philanthropist.

      But there is a species of corrupt Christianity which has made suicides through the false alarms which it creates about things unknown and unknowable. I have nothing to do with it more than with the Alcoran. It is enough for my purpose to show that Christianity promises pardon to every human being who voluntarily submits to the government of Jesus Christ; and this pardon is tendered to them the very instant they bow to the authority of Jesus Christ or enter his kingdom. Hence the first Christians always rejoiced, because the moment they were baptized into Jesus Christ, they had put him on as their Savior; or, in other words, had put themselves under the constitution of favor, and sin could no longer lord it over them, for they were not under law. Now all who, like Saul of Tarsus, believed in Jesus Christ, and were baptized for the remission of their sins, as he was, or as the three thousand on Pentecost, could, like the eunuch, after baptism, go on their way rejoicing. So that the first Christians addressed one another as having their sins forgiven; and, consequently, all guilt, and shame, and fear were removed from their consciences. They did not cease--they could not cease--always to rejoice, with joy unspeakable and full of glory. 'Tis monks and friars and monasteries that have invented the gloomy religion of the times. The first Christians were commanded to rejoice always. So that the legitimate tendency of the religion of Jesus Christ is to fill all who submit to his government with peace, and joy, and good hope; and to cause them finally to exclaim, "O Death, where now thy sting! O Hades, where now thy victory!"

      That such are the inseparable results of a cordial reception of the gospel, or of a sincere submission to the authority of Jesus Christ, all the New Testament might be appealed to in proof. I will only allude to a few cases. Three thousand, pierced to the heart by Peter's discourse in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, so soon as he announces reformation and remission of sins, were baptized for the remission of their sins, and straightway they were filled with joy and peace; for they eat their food with gladness, praising God. When many of the Samaritans heard Philip proclaiming the Reign of Favor, they believed and were baptized, both men and women, and then, we learn from Luke, "there was much joy in that city." So it was in all the cities [415] where Christianity was embraced. The Apostles taught the Christians that God "had forgiven them all trespasses." Of their joy, Peter says: "Whom having not seen you love, but on whom not now looking, but believing, you rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." The forgiveness of sins, the removal of guilt, and the consequent termination of all fear that has torment, were, in all cases, simultaneous blessings enjoyed by all Christians on their putting themselves under the guidance of Jesus Christ. The same cause will produce the same effect, and wherever the ancient gospel is proclaimed, believed, and obeyed, the same effects will uniformly follow.

      Now when we add to these blessings the well-founded hope of a glorious immortality, at the resurrection of the just, we have elevated man to a rank worthy of himself, and made his existence worthy of the GREAT FIRST CAUSE. So that the direct tendency of Christianity is to glorify God in the highest degree; to produce peace of mind, joy, and hope in the believers; and to diffuse good-will among men. The golden paradoxes of Paul speak more in praise of Christianity than all the encomiums ever pronounced upon it. To hear men persecuted, reproached, and destitute of almost every earthly comfort, say, "We are sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; we are poor, yet making many rich; we have nothing, yet possessing all things," transcends all the encomiums from all the orators of Greece, Rome, and England, pronounced upon virtue, the gods, and religion.

      Fancy to yourselves, my friends, a society in which such characters shall have the rule, and then you want no poet to describe the millennium to you. Peace, harmony, love, and universal good-will, must be the order of the day. There wants nothing--believe me, my friends, there wants nothing--but a restoration of ancient Christianity, and a cordial reception of it, to fill the world with all the happiness, physical, intellectual, and moral, which beings like us in this state of trial could endure--shall I say?--yes, endure, and enjoy.

      But even yet, were we to close our remarks upon the tendencies of Christianity, upon the subject of it, and upon society at large, we should fail in doing justice to this item. We must not only speak in general terms of its influences upon the human family; we must look at it in detail. We must ask, What has it done for WOMAN? Yes--for woman--created to be the helpmate of man? In all pagan lands, and even among the Jews, she has been made little else than a slave to the passion and to the tyranny of man. The Jews rather exile her from the synagogue, as altogether animal in her nature; and the rude savage makes her more a beast of burden than a companion for man; doomed to incessant toils, to all the real drudgeries of life. [416] Paganism, in its most improved forms, leaves her without a taste for rational enjoyment, and without a taste of it. The Jews and Pagans, for ages back, have scarce recognized that she has any claims upon man, more than for food and raiment, and these, indeed, are often dispensed to her without a smile. But some half dozen of female names have come down to us in the annals of Grecian and Roman story, as having attracted much attention from their cotemporaries, or as deserving much admiration from posterity. Natural affection, in defiance of pagan darkness, superstition, and cruelty, did, in some few instances, snatch some individual females from the empire of night, and gave them a place among the reputable characters of antiquity. But the sex, as such, were almost universally neglected. But from the time that Gabriel visited the cottage of Mary, the mother of our Lord, down to the present, wherever Christianity has found its way, the female sex has been emancipated from ignorance, bondage, and obscurity. It has been the aim and the glory of Christianity, my female friends, to elevate your sex from the degradation of Paganism, and to make you the rational, the useful, and the amiable companion of man. To it you are indebted for that influence which you now possess, and ought to possess, in forming the character of man. While Christianity had made you not the inferior, but the companion and the equal of man, it has taught you that you are to pay the impost which, for this honor, it has laid you under. That is that you are to bring up your offspring in the discipline and education which the Lord enjoins; that you are to use all your influence in casting the minds of those under your control, into the mould of the Apostle's doctrine. This is the way you can perpetuate the blessings which you enjoy, and leave behind you sons and daughters, who will feel themselves equals, and mutually love, honor, and esteem, one another. Let me remind you that there are more individuals of your sex, honored in the New Testament, more of them named, more of them applauded, and more true courtesy shown them, than is to be found in all the other works of the Augustan age; and let all the world know that in the New Testament, it is a maxim that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, but that both sexes are one in all moral, religious, and social privileges and enjoyments of which either sex is susceptible.

      Christianity would not have commended itself to every man's conscience had it not paid a due respect to all the natural and unavoidable relations existing in society. Hence there is not a natural relation to which it does not allude. Husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants, are all addressed in a way corresponding with [417] the nature of these relations, well designed to sanctify and render them all useful, comfortable, and happy.

      Here I am informed, by a note handed me, that I have omitted to say anything upon the subject of regeneration. Some persons think as most preachers speak. If you will observe, scarce a preacher takes a text, or makes a sermon, but he must give you his whole system of theology. No matter where the text be found, the system must come out. Hence some of this audience think, that, in defending Christianity, I must defend or exhibit all the tenets of a sect, or all the essential points of some system; and so I am told that I have omitted the article of regeneration. Strange, indeed! when I have been discoursing at length upon the purifying influences of the Christian religion, and its tendencies upon the hearts and lives of men, I should be told that I have neglected the article of regeneration! Perhaps my informant expected to hear from me a disquisition upon the quaint theories of modern systems. In not gratifying him with such a discussion, for the time being, I hope he will have the goodness to excuse me.

      Having paid some attention to the genius, design, and tendency of Christianity, I will now approach the social system again. Mr. Owen relies upon his twelve facts, and especially upon the sixth fact, or law, to demolish all the religions in the world. Yes, indeed, if his sixth law be a truism, he conceives that all the religions of the world are as prostrate as Dagon before the ark. If it be so, that we can neither make ourselves nor our wills, that circumstances control us by a necessity as unchangeable as fate itself, then he has proved, by merely asserting these laws, that all the religions of the world are founded upon the ignorance of mankind. He does not seem to have noticed that there is a very learned and respectable body of Christians who attribute as much to necessity, only under different names, as he does himself. Every action of every human being, is, with them, foreknown, and predetermined from all eternity; or, in brief, "that God has foreordained whatever comes to pass." Yet these are all firm and rational and argumentative believers in the Divine authority of these records. How, then, in the name of reason, can Mr. Owen think, that, in proving his doctrine of fate or necessity, he has proved all the religions in the world to be founded upon the ignorance of mankind, when he will find myriads of Christians, philosophic or systematic necessarians, admitting his premises in all the prominent items, and yet dissenting from his conclusions?

      It will not then follow, as a necessary consequence, in the mind of a thorough Calvinist, that if our volitions have no power over our belief, that if all things are unchangeably fixed, there is no truth in [418] religion. Mr. Owen has taken for granted that which will not be granted by myriads of learned, acute, and talented men, that his propositions proved and Christianity is slain. I hope he will not turn his thoughts thitherward. He may say that they are inconsistent, and self-condemned; but still it proves that his system may be true--myriads being judges.

      But this only on the way to another peep into his theory. I do think, as Mr. Owen has paid so little attention to the objections offered to his system, that I am logically excused from paying any further attention to it. But as he still reiterates his fundamentals with undismayed confidence that the repetition of them is, like a charm, to effect a cure of our mental maladies; and as he has repeatedly affirmed that if one of his principles can be proved erroneous, he will give up the whole, I will call upon other witness in the case.

      If consciousness be any sort of evidence of the powers with which we are endowed, I make the following appeal to it on the subject of his sixth law:

      Objects are thrown in our way, or we go in quest of them. These excite our reasoning powers, or call them into action. We reason upon them and form judgments. These judgments or conclusions either call for some activity upon our part, or they do not. If they do not, we do not act. But if they do, we act. Now what is the cause of these actions? Not the mere presentation of the object, but our reasonings upon it. From the first examination of the object to the last, there is a continual determination of the mind to the object, or when we have finished the first examination of the object we will to examine it a second time; and so on to the third or fourth examination. Mr. Owen, for example, had heard that the Mexican government had much territory to dispose of--his previous desire for territory to test his theory upon, prompts him to think upon some plan for obtaining a part of it. He reasons upon the object, and examines it in many independent points of view. On every separate view of the subject, he decides to examine it again. There are as many determinations as examinations. Finally, his ultimate conclusion is formed. Now, every one of these examinations is begun, prosecuted, and carried out from the consciousness which he possesses of his power to accomplish the object so soon as it shall be decided which is the better course. He would never examine the subject a moment if he was not conscious that he has the power of examining it, and the power of acting agreeably to his last decision. Now this consciousness of the power of examination, deciding, and acting, I summon as proof that such a controlling power the mind possesses over its own acts. It is the nearest witness which can [419] be summoned in this case, and its testimony is the most creditable. It knows most, and is the best judge, of all our intellectual and moral powers--and it avers, as every man can hear in the court of his own understanding, that nothing could be examined, contemplated, or reasoned upon, were we destitute of a controlling power, or a power of acting conformable to our own decisions. Consciousness is often the ultimate arbiter in all questions concerning our intellectual and moral powers. How often do we see persons either abandon or refuse to undertake a profession, or cause, because conscious their powers are not equal to it. We make consciousness a witness in all cases within its jurisdiction.

      Again: in walking down street, Mr. Owen hears that his cotton factory at New Harmony is consumed by fire! he does not at first know whether the report is credible. He goes to the river to interrogate the passengers or captain of a steamboat just arrived from the vicinity. He interrogates them, and from their unanimous testimony he believes the fact, and doubts no more. Now, would Mr. Owen have gone one step in this examination if he had not been conscious that he had the power of believing upon testimony, and that there was a certain amount of evidence which would produce certainty? His ultimate belief is evidently a consequence of the existence of this controlling power; and his determination to examine the matter proves that his volition had some influence upon his belief. For, had he not examined, he would not have believed; and had he not determined or willed to examine, he might not have obtained the evidence: so that his belief is, in this case, dependent upon his will.

      Were I to ask him now to believe that his factory was not burned, he could not do it; not because his will determined anything about it, but because he wants evidence. Pretty much the same power which the will exercises over our eyes in examining objects of sense, does it exercise over our mental eye; we open or shut the eye in obedience to our wills. But we cannot will to see without light. An eye and light, and a will to see, are all necessary to vision. He that affirms that a man believes by necessity, may as well say that man sees by necessity. There is no person more blind than the man who will not see.

      But we have still greater objections to the social system pleaded by Mr. Owen. It is only in its best possible state founded upon the half of man, and only promises to make him a happy animal. For the sake of illustration, we will admit that Mr. Owen has consummated all his plans, and all his wishes, in erecting his parallelogram communities; and that he has got a whole territory, nay, the whole earth, covered with them--everything just to his mind. Man, at his zenith, is a [420] stall-fed ox. Mr. Owen has mistaken the capacity of man as much as the vintner did the capacity of a vessel who strove to fill it with two gallons when it held four. Nothing but experiment could convince him; he thought his measure of two gallons was equal to the capacity of the vessel, until he poured in its contents: he then saw that it was but half full. So with Mr. Owen's system. Men would sigh, and groan, and long for greater bliss than Mr. Owen has to bestow. His wheat, his oil, and his wine; his amusements, pastimes, and all his fanciful inventions, would not fill the immeasurable blank yet remaining in the true enjoyment of rational beings, doomed by him only to riot like a worm upon the damask cheek of a deceased stripling.⁶

      Man has taste, desires, aspirations after bliss higher than the earth can minister to him. Now if Mr. Owen contemplates man as other skeptics have done, not as a privileged being; if he would give him that latitude of licentious intercourse which prevails among the brutes in the gratification of every propensity, until his capacity for sensual enjoyments is filled to overflowing; if his artificial wants have been multiplied to the utmost conceivable extent; and if he have surrounded him with the most refined circumstances imaginable; what does it all amount to? Has he made him happy? Far from it. His capacity for happiness is as far from being filled as ever it was. It is only like subtracting a few miles from infinite space; the remainder is no less. So man's desires are as eager and as unsatisfied still. Like Alexander the Great when he had conquered the whole world, he wept, forsooth, because his arm was hampered, and had not room enough to do its work. "What a misfortune! Have I, indeed, no other world to conquer!"

      Whence, then, this insatiable desire for happiness? or whence, as the poet says, "this longing after immortality?" Mr. Owen can boast, he says, that he is free from the fear of death; and he may boast that he is free from any hope in death. And so, like the well-fed calf, he has neither hope nor fear from death. Is this the glorious and rational end of this new philosophy? Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die! But the time for adjournment has arrived.

      Adjourned till 2 o'clock.

      Mr. Campbell continues: Mr. Chairman--We concluded our remarks [421] in the forenoon on the subject of the perfect inadequacy and maladaptation of my friend's scheme to the constitution of human nature--to the extent of our capacity of fruition. We admit, that, were the human family to be regarded as mere animals, whose enjoyments were all of a sensual kind, that Mr. Owen's scheme would not be liable to so much objection. We might conclude with Paul, "If there be no resurrection, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." The short tenure of earthly enjoyments would compel us to make the best use of them, and indulge in them to the greatest extent. We might, then, adopt the Epicurean precept, "Carpe diem," and say with the Epicurean poet, "Vita summa brevis vetat spem longam incohare." But inasmuch as reason and experience prove the inadequacy of all earthly pleasures to satisfy the human mind, we are obliged to declare that my friend's scheme falls infinitely short of providing for our capacity of enjoyment. Who so dead to the charms of the material universe as not to feel himself more refreshed and comforted by the sublime contemplation of the great Creator through his works, than ever he felt from mere sensual enjoyment? A small portion of material good things is sufficient to satisfy all the wants of nature; but the appetite for intellectual enjoyment is insatiable.

      The construction of the material universe is admirably calculated to lead us to the contemplation of the great First Cause who created the heavens and their hosts, and who sustains the immense universe with more ease than we move a finger or an eyelid. To contemplate these things is "to look through nature up to nature's God." Shall this sublime pleasure be annihilated? Must we be forever doomed to look downward, and never raise our eyes to heaven? The splendors of the starry firmament, the glories hung up to human view in the majestic vault of heaven, are the natural types of the Divine Majesty; while the earth presents, in all its magazines of goodness and mercy, the plain drawn characters which interpret all these sublime symbols. Must we never read this volume, nor inquire into the moral character of its great Author? And do we not, my friends, find our only consolation under the toils, anxieties, and vexations of this troubled sea of life, in the anticipation of our one day reaching those mansions of peace, "where the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest?" Will any man's experience authorize him to say that when, like an ox, he has eaten and drank his fill, then he is happy? Certainly this would be to degrade man below the dignity of which he is now conscious. Who has been so successful and prosperous in the voyage of life as to gain the object of his pursuit? Does not almost every man die in the keen pursuit of his favorite object? And does [422] not this teach us that all our acquisitions are but progressions toward objects of distant fruition and hope? Experience teaches us that our capacity of happiness is not to be filled by sublunary pleasures; that earth and sea, with all their treasures, are far too small to fill the soul of man.

      This social system robs the disconsolate of their only support--drives them to the adoption of Mirabaud's seductive cure; and when "weary of conjecture" concerning futurity, to put an end to the debate with a knife, a halter, or a pistol. Were it not for the cheering consolation which the hope of immortality inspires, what numerous suicides should we have to deplore! This hope is not only necessary to fill the measure of our capacity of enjoyment, but it is necessary that we should carefully cherish this bright hope that we may be enabled to sustain the vicissitudes, the disasters, the moral and physical diseases, which attach to our bankrupt circumstances. Experience has proved to us all, that we have derived more pleasure from the pursuit of a favorite object, than we have enjoyed in the attainment of it; that we derive more pleasure from anticipating future gains, than in realizing them. Cut off anticipation from man, and you sever him from the most fruitful source of his happiness. The pursuit, more than the acquisition, all experience says, contributes to please, amuse, and gratify man. To place man, then, in a situation where he has nothing to wish for, nothing to desire, nor to pursue, is to cut him off from this most fruitful source of intellectual pleasure, which all men have found to be paramount to all sensual gratifications. But not only in this instance is the theory contradicted by the universal experience of mankind, but it also involves another mistake in regard to the constitution of human nature.

      Mr. Owen contends that a society can exist without an idea of obligation or responsibility. This is contrary to all the past records of time, and all present experience. A banditti of highway robbers could not exist without the ligament of laws, and the tie of moral obligation. Without them it would be impossible for them to concert a scheme of co-operative plunder.

      No society has ever existed, or ever can exist, without some sense of responsibility and obligation. We talk of a lawless banditti, but this is to be understood sub modo. They are not without laws, and rigorous ones, to, among themselves; they well know that they could not exist without them. [423]

      It is worthy of notice here, that among the rabble of superstitions, professed by the pagan world, not one of them ever pretended to be derived from the First Cause. They derived their religious systems from subordinate persons, from inferior deities, who stood in some special relation to the people that adored them. The ancients ascertained that it was impossible to retain men in order without the influence of religious restraints. The popular religions of the pagan world were all founded upon this principle; and magistrates imposed religions upon the people which they did not believe themselves, because experience had taught them that man was not to be governed without religious restraints. The ancient philosophers saw through the cheat, and were sufficiently inclined to expose it. Some of them denied the existence of future rewards and punishments. They contended that the body must return to the earth, and the spirit to the Universal Spirit, of which it was but an emanation, and that therefore future punishment was impossible. But the magistracy told the philosophers that, although all this might be very true, yet the people were not to be kept in order without the restraints of religion; and the philosophers were strictly enjoined not to propagate their free-thinking notions among the vulgar. From this originated the Eleusinian, and other mysteries of iniquity, the object of which was to preserve among the initiated, just views of the First Cause, and of the gods worshiped by the vulgar, which dare not be divulged among them. If we examine the ancient superstitions of the pagan world, we shall find them all founded upon this politic hypothesis.

      No social compact has as yet existed without the doctrine of responsibility, obligation, or accountability. Mr. Owen's scheme is the most Utopian project in the annals of society. He lays the ax at the root of all obligation and accountability, and yet would have society to hang together without a single attraction, save animal magnetism, if such a thing exists. The doctrine of no praise, no blame, is to be taught from the cradle to the grave; and yet all are to live in accordance with the most virtuous principles. They are to have no principle of responsibility suggested; and yet under the charm of social feeling alone, they are to be more firmly bound than any wedded pair! Among the visions of the wildest enthusiasm, this one appears to be a rarity.

      Children are to be reared without a lesson upon obligation or duty, and yet they are to be most orderly, neither selfish, querulous, peevish, ambitious, nor any way vicious. All these evil propensities are to be eradicated from their nature in consequence of being born in chambers ventilated, heated, or refrigerated in the social way. They are to be models of beauty and rationality, too, by a mere change of [424] circumstances. No irrational faces, no deformed countenances, no disfigured frames can grow in any of Mr. Owen's parallelogram arrangements. The romantic genius of Mr. Owen gives these babes all angelic charms, excepting wings; and while there is to be a total destitution of all evil disposition, they are to be perfect giants in literature, virtue, and benevolent enterprise--able in two hours per diem, to provide for all their own happiness and to perpetuate overflowing streams of bliss to posterity!

      I am yet at a loss to know what Mr. Owen means by society. A society without a social compact, to me is unintelligible. Society is not a number of persons covering a certain piece of ground like the trees in our forests. They must congregate upon some stipulations, express or implied. These stipulations are to be performed, and, consequently responsibility and accountability force themselves upon Mr. Owen in defiance of the powers of his imagination. In all other societies, except Mr. Owen's imaginary one, the people and the magistracy, whether elective or hereditary, are mutually accountable to each other. The people owe allegiance, which they promise in electing their rulers; and the magistracy owe protection, which they promised in being elected. In entering into society man surrenders a part of his natural liberty for other benefits, which he could not enjoy as a hermit. This surrender he must never recall, nor those benefits must they withhold: they are, therefore, under continual obligations to each other. Whenever any person feels himself absolved from these obligations, he is either dangerous to, or unfit for, society. And certainly Mr. Owen's system of training children would naturally lead them to feel themselves absolved from all such obligations. His system directly unfits them for society. I would ask you, my friends, or I would ask him, in what light he could contemplate that society which taught every child that entered its schools, that the child which would kill its own father was not to be blamed or disliked any more than the child which loved, caressed, and reverenced its father?

      But, to be a little more plain and pointed, I must again remind you that Mr. Owen's system, as far as it has any peculiar benevolence proposed in it, or stamped upon it, is a plagiarism from Christian society; in other words, all the benevolence about it was derived from models furnished by Christian enterprise and Christian sympathy, and the crude notions of materialism and philosophic necessity, have been superadded from the atheistical schools of France and Epicurus. The influence of parents over their offspring, and the influence of circumstances, were popular doctrines in the reign of King Solomon; nay, in the days of Moses. Moses laid as much emphasis upon the necessity [425] of bringing up children under the best moral influences as any man in ancient or modern times. And so great an adept was Solomon in this science, that he affirmed: "Train up a child in the way it should live, and when old it will not depart from it." Mr. Owen, indeed, has confessed that he was indebted to Christian society for his first ideas of the co-operative system in producing the greatest amount of human enjoyment, as far as our temporal wants are concerned. Mr. Owen may have had the merit of amplifying somewhat upon the data furnished by the excellent preacher, Mr. Dale. The advantages accruing from the experiments of Mr. Dale were sufficient to convince any person of Mr. Owen's discernment, that much might be done by benevolent co-operation in a population like that in Scotland; to diminish the evils under which a large class groan from poverty, and its handmaid, ignorance. This was the start of the benevolent part of the scheme.

      About forty years ago, when my friend was just about entering manhood's prime, the French revolution broke out, and all the covert deism, atheism, and skepticism, which the vices of popery had generated like worms in a putrid carcass, exhibited themselves. Kingcraft and priestcraft became odious all at once, and infidelity, rising in the greatness of its feebleness, or strength, shook itself clean of both crafts, and ignorantly and impiously attempted to deify matter, and dethrone the legitimate sovereign of the universe. The ravages of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, began to appear in all their horrors. Priests were now everywhere execrated, caricatured, and every printer's shop was filled with infidel and atheistical tracts. In this awful crisis, when atheism became philosophy, and skepticism was called reason, every raw and undisciplined mind who came into contact with these spirits or their works, caught the contagion: and the desire of being reputed a philosopher, or a man of reason, impelled them to laugh at religion, as if it deserved no better treatment than the Puritans once thought was due to witches and necromancers. The contagion spread into England, and the woeful circumstances which then surrounded my friend furnished him with the first impulses or data for the infidel part of his scheme. Since then he has been laboring to amalgamate the good ideas received by the better part of his circumstances with the bad ideas derived from the worse part of them; and it is owing to the superiority of his natural organization that he has been so moral, or that his atheism has not led him into the usual and legitimate results which have, in ninety-nine instances in every hundred, been its attendants.

      But beside the models furnished him in Scotland, the Moravian and other societies, either preaching or practicing some sort of a religious [426] community of interests and feelings, either strengthened the convictions or enlarged the views of my benevolent friend. But the misfortune was, and is (and I fear will be), that he persists in attempting to unite the lights of Christianity with the darkness of skepticism. But the greatest error which I have to attribute to Mr. Owen is, his not discriminating what Dr. Franklin failed to teach Thomas Paine. This political philosopher, who was, like many other reasoners, sane in politics, but insane in religion, submitted his "Age of Reason" to the revision or inspection of the greatest American philosopher. He read it, and agreeably to Mr. Paine's request, he wrote him his advice about its publication. After telling the skeptic what risks he would incur, and how little good his work would do, he gravely reminds him how much he was indebted for those principles of morality and benevolence which he possessed, to the influence and genius of the religion he was about to attack. He tells him that he calculates too largely upon the natural virtues of man. This advice of the American sage applies with still additional force to Mr. Owen. He possesses a most benevolent temperament. In early life, too, he went regularly to church; and from these sources, as from the "good books" which he told you he had read, he imbibed all these moralities and benevolent views which his skepticism has not in forty years been able to obliterate. But his fault (for I believe that men may be guilty of faults) has been not to discriminate, not to assign to its proper cause the influences which he feels, and which he sees in himself and in the world.

      His ideas concerning matrimony, and many of his views, detailed in this discussion, were all detailed with much ability by Godwin in his Political Justice, though he feared some of those conclusions from his own premises, which Mr. Owen has had the moral courage to avow. I do not say that Mr. Owen directly and literally borrowed all his ideas from these fountains; but as these were not only the fashionable books, but the common topics of the epoch of his social system; and as he has told us that he has read five hours per day for nearly thirty years of his life, it would be doing him injustice to suppose that these works had not occupied a due share of his attention.

      I am not so skeptical in skepticism as Mr. Owen is in Christianity, or, as to think that mankind may not be improved in their condition. "Fas est ab hoste discere." It is lawful to learn from an enemy. I do not doubt but that Mr. Owen has asserted many truths, and some useful truths. But not one good idea has he submitted, which has not been derived, or which is not derivable from Christianity. There was a society in the New Testament which had all things in common; but their happiness was not derived from a community of goods, but [427] from that principle which issued, in their circumstances, in a community of goods. I most sanguinely anticipate a restoration of the ancient order of things, and a state of society far superior to anything yet exhibited on earth. I believe that there will be what is commonly believed by all Christians, a Millennium; a period, a long period of general or universal peace, happiness, and political and religious prosperity. And that some of the views of Mr. Owen may then be realized as the legitimate fruits of Christianity, I would not deny.

      But I must speak plainly and say, taking the whole of Mr. Owen's theory in the mass, it is the most visionary theory which has ever been pronounced. It is, too, all theory, for Mr. Owen has not made a single proof of it. He cannot point to any society, on earth, as a practical proof of its practicability, or of its excellency. Tell me nothing about New Lanark, for there it has never been tested; and tell me nothing about New Harmony, for there Mr. Owen will not appeal himself. He has given us a beautiful theory of his social system. But Paul Brown's "twelve months' residence in New Harmony" will show the thing in practice ['Tis all a lie, says Mr. Owen]. And although much has been said about New Lanark, I must, if testimony be a proper source of information, believe that no social system, no co-operative system, was ever tried there. That many persons may there have been improved in their circumstances is not denied. But how has that come to pass? Not on the principles which Mr. Owen now teaches. I will tell you how some of them have been reformed and improved in their circumstances in that establishment. If, for example, a drunkard was received into the New Lanark manufactories, he was not permitted to draw any money from this company, for his work, so long as he continued in the employment of the company. All his necessary demands for food, raiment, lodging, etc., were promptly paid in the articles wanted; and the surplus, if any there was, was not paid him in money during his continuance in the establishment; but when he removed, the last farthing was paid him. Thus he became sober from necessity; and temperate, because he could not get anything to intoxicate him. The prodigal, and those destitute of economy, were improved in their finances by this same system--and there was a good school for educating the youth, for which, I believe, Mr. Owen deserves some praise. But this is about the net proceeds of the social system in New Lanark. The people of New Lanark, too, were, in the aggregate, a religious people. There is one Presbyterian church in New Lanark, well frequented; also for the benefit of the Independents, who dissented from the establishment, a meeting-house was built, to which Mr. Owen himself was the principal contributor. For, to his credit, it must be [428] told, that while he has been declaiming against priests and their impositions, he has been liberal in building meeting-houses. The people of New Lanark are a religious people. I have learned, from those who visited that place, that not only on the first day of the week, but on Thursdays, and other stated meetings during the week, they meet for social worship in some of the large rooms of the establishment.

      Mr. Owen's theory, then, is without proof, unknown, and incredible. Forty years' reading, studying, traveling, and all the funds expended, have produced nothing as yet visible, except the "Twelve fundamental Divine laws of human nature." "Like quicksilver, the rhetoric he displays, shines as it runs, but grasped at, slips away." New Harmony was once the land of promise. Bankrupt and broken fortunes were to be repaired there. Thither came the lame, the halt, the blind, in fortune and in fame. The philosopher's stone, or the elixir of immortal youth, were not more eagerly sought than the city of Mental Independence. But soon the charm dissolved, and all the awful realities of nature, reason, and religion, disbanded the social builders, and like those in the plains of Shinar, when one called for a brick, his attendant handed him a stone, or a blow, and utter dispersion and confusion on their banners waited. As many of those folks as had been brought to their sense, and had ever read Horace, as they returned, admitted the truth of the old maxim and now and then lisped it out:

      The trinity of evils was the text for months at New Harmony. But soon they found a treble trinity of other evils than artificial ones. Next to religion, marriage was accursed. Marriage, the oldest institution in the world, founded in nature, reason, and religion, must be banished the dominions of the social system. It enabled parents to recognize their children, and children their parents; and natural affection could run in these channels, and mine and thine, in spite of the twelve categories would be heard, and this was perfect discord in the music of New Harmony. Marriage, then, must, for these reasons, be banished, that a thorough social system may succeed.

      This attempt to dissolve, violate, or impugn the marriage contract, I think, ruined the project on the Wabash. It is hard to fight against "the trinity of nature, reason, and religion." God said, it is not good for man to be alone! He then created a helpmate for him. Even in paradise, man alone was but half blessed:

Polygamy was denounced in the creation of but one woman for man, and the equal distribution of the sexes since has shown, that every man ought to have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. All that adorns, animates, and exalts, as respects the finer feelings of human nature, spring from this institution in its primitive appointment. On the altar of matrimony are woven all the cords of affection, all the ligaments and bands that cement society. All natural relations are but the names of the silken cords which bind society in all the social relations which give a zest to all enjoyments, and extract the sting from the thousand griefs and sorrows of human life. He that would abolish this institution, or violate its sacred obligations, is anything but a philanthropist. Destroy this institution, and not only the happiness of man, as a social being, but the safety of the race, would be endangered. Parental affection is the strongest passion of the human soul, which not even the deformity of person or mind, or filial ingratitude, disobedience, or impiety, can wholly obliterate. Our greatest gratifications, on earth, arise from this institution, and the relations to which it gives birth. And it is just as necessary for the safety, as for the happiness of the race.⁷

      But to meet the exigencies of the new state of existence, when marriage is to be no more, a band of nurses are to be trained who are to have in charge the infants of the communities. This is to save time and labor, and to economize the productive energies of the communities. Mothers are thus to be happily exempted from many of the toils incident to parturition; and in this arrangement Mr. Owen supposes he is promoting the happiness of mothers. This is a lame and blind philosophy. A mother feels incomparably more pleasure in having the care of her own offspring, than. in being exempt from it. The smiles of her infant, the opening dawn of reason, the indications of future greatness or goodness, as they exhibit themselves to her sanguine expectations, open to her sources of enjoyment incomparably overpaying the solicitudes and gentle toils of nursing. In exempting her from the natural concern and care due to her offspring, Mr. Owen debars her from the largest portions of maternal enjoyments, for which he can substitute nothing like an equivalent. But, perhaps, when marriage is abolished, all maternal solicitudes and enjoyments will expire with it. Indeed, all the finer and more tender sensibilities of our nature appear to share the same fate in the desolating prospects of the new order of things, for the luxury of eating and drinking. The most [430] powerful⁸ of all natural affections is to be waylaid in the cradle; and, if possible, slaughtered as soon as born--the affection of parents for children flowing from the sacred institution of marriage. In every point of view in which we regard it, this system is at war with human nature, as well as with religion, matrimony, and private property. It aims a mortal blow at all our ideas of social order and social happiness. But Mr. Owen has not yet found, and I am confident he will never find, human nature and human passions so plastic as to be cast into any artificial mould he may imagine; sooner will he cause the rivers to flow backward to their sources; sooner can he reverse the decrees of gravitation, than abolish religion, marriage, or even private property. I doubt not, either, that were men as religious as Christianity is designed to make them, they could co-operate in societies greatly to diminish the evils of life, to facilitate the education of their children, and to augment their social enjoyments. But to attempt this without the aids, the principles, motives, and inspirations of Christianity, would be only to attempt to make a globe, a new earth, without the principles of gravitation or attraction. Mr. Owen's system always appears to me to resemble the efforts of some pagan god to build a world upon the single principle of repulsion.

      But Mr. Owen is about to have the animal man improved as the horses and sheep of this country have been improved, upon scientific principles. He has told us of a science, in which he is an adept, and with which all shall be well acquainted in "the new state of existence," for improving man in his animal and mental endowments, even from, if not anterior to, his birth. This is all in accordance with the fine imagination of my friend. He is not, however, the inventor of this part of his scheme; Dr. Graham was before him, and disrobed him of the honor of originating even this part of the new sciences of the social system. We shall give you some short account of this matter.

      James Graham, M.D., born at Edinburgh, 1745, a philanthropic physician, traveled over great part of England and America, administering relief in the most desperate cases, for the benefit of mankind. After returning from America, where he had realized a considerable fortune, he settled in London, about 1775. There, under the titles of a Temple of Hymen and a Temple of Health, he erected one of the most superb institutions that ever was planted, for the gratification of the votaries of pleasure; and, under the pretense of instructing all persons of both sexes who put themselves under his tuition, and were willing to sacrifice to Venus in these sacred domes, he engaged to teach "the art of preventing barrenness, and of propagating a much more strong, beautiful, active, healthy, wise, and virtuous race of human beings, than the present puny, insignificant, foolish, peevish, vicious, and nonsensical race of Christians; who quarrel, fight, bite, devour and cut one another's throats about they know not what." Such is a part of one of his many advertisements which then appeared in the London papers.

      About the end of 1787, he returned to Edinburgh in a new and extraordinary character, viz: that of a teacher sent from God, to announce the millennium, the second coming of Christ, and the final consummation of all things. He styled himself the servant of the Lord, O.W.L., i. e., as he explained it, Oh Wonderful Love. He commenced a new era, dating his bills "1st, 2d, and 3d days of the first month of the New Jerusalem." But before the commencement of the second month he was constrained to confess "he felt the devil, the world, and the flesh too strong for him, and therefore he supposed the Lord must look out for another forerunner of his second coming."

      During a great part of this time, his wife (for he had married in New England) seems to have been neglected, and even forgotten; for, upon becoming acquainted with the celebrated Mrs. Macaulay, the historian, he offered her his hand, which she would have accepted had she not accidentally discovered that he had a wife still living. Upon this discovery, the Doctor, nowise discomfited, protested the ardor of his passion for her had made him forget that circumstance. This singular and benevolent being died in 1794.

      The points of similarity between my friend and the Doctor are so plain, that I need not be at the pains to point them out. Your own recollection of the first and second years of the era of Mental Independence proclaimed at the metropolis of Free Thinkers, and at the head of the army of the "March of Mind," will, with what you have heard and seen on the present occasion, be sufficient data to trace the lineaments of Dr. Graham in my good-natured and benevolent friend.

      I forgot to mention that Dr. Graham was finally placed in a lunatic asylum. But on this side of this extravagance, several miles on this side of these enthusiastic flights, there have been schemes hatched up under the canopy of a peculiar organization, as air-built it is true, and as benevolent as that of Dr. Graham and Mr. Owen, which have lasted a little longer, but have finally proved as empty quite.

      But, my friends, I should not have occupied a minute of your time [432] upon these visions, and dreams, and theories, called philosophic or vulgar, had it not been for the wanton attack made by Mr. Owen on the last, best hope of mortal man. I should have permitted any other experiment to have found its quietus, as thousands such have already done, without observation or regard. But when I see the last hope of a dying world recklessly assaulted, I feel too much interest in the eternal welfare of my fellow-creatures, to remain a mere passive spectator. I feel myself called upon to put on the armor of reason, true philosophy, and religion, and to stand to my post, lest in the midst of such morbid excitements, in this age of extravagant theory and licentious philosophy, many over-ardent minds might be allured by the speciousness and false glare of this tinseled philosophy, which, I trust, we have shown to be anything else but consentaneous with the constitution, experience, and history of the world.

      Behold the cruelty of this scheme! (not that Mr. Owen is cruel), the hard-heartedness of the system! Think of all the labors and toils, the griefs and sorrows through which you have passed. How have you wearied yourselves in pursuit of phantoms! Everything you have gained has only mocked and disappointed you. Like bubbles, they have bursted when you laid your hands upon the glistening objects of your avarice or ambition. All has been fleeting and evanescent. You know; for woeful experience has taught you, that you have been pursuing shadows. What pleased you at seven, you disdained at fourteen; what charmed you at fourteen, was disgusting at twenty; and what you almost adored at twenty, has been long since contemned and despised; and what now fascinates you at forty, will, should you reach seventy, appear as unworthy of your admiration as the toys of childhood now present themselves to you. But when the curtain drops, and the last grand act of the drama of human life closes, you will be mocked still; and, on Mr. Owen's principle, you have been mocked at last. There is nothing real. You desired immortality; you sought it, each in his own way; but with him none have found it. It is deceit and mockery all through. Riches, popularity, wisdom, health, and life itself, have all been deceivers--all was promise--all is disappointment. The promised bliss, the real, substantial, and permanent good which religion has presented to you, is torn from your eyes, and everlasting death, eternal sleep, and utter annihilation, is the only reality he has offered you. Cruel system! Bootless boast!

      Religion--the Bible! What treasures untold reside in that heavenly word! Religion has given meaning, design, to all that is past, and is, as the moral to the fable, the good, the only good of the whole--the earnest now of an abundant harvest of future and eternal good. Now [433] let me ask the living before me, for we cannot yet appeal to the dead, whence has been derived your most rapturous delights on earth? Have not the tears, the dew of religion in the soul, afforded you incomparably more joy than all the fleshly gayeties, than all the splendid vanities, than the loud laugh and the festive song of the sons and daughters of the flesh? Even the alternations of hope and fear, of joy and sorrow, of which the Christian may be conscious, in his ardent race after a glorious immortality, afford more true bliss than ever did the sparkling gems, the radiant crown, or the triumphal arch, bestowed by the gratitude or admiration of a nation, on some favorite child of fortune and of fame.

      Whatever comes from religion, comes from God. The greatest joys derivable to mortal man come from this source. I cannot speak for all who wear the Christian name; but for myself I must say, that worlds piled on worlds to fill the universal scope of my imagination, would be a miserable per contra, against the annihilation of the idea of God the Supreme. And the paradox of paradoxes, the miracle of miracles, and the mystery of mysteries with me now, was, and evermore shall be, is, how any good man could wish there was no God! With the idea of God the Almighty departs from this earth not only the idea of virtue, or moral excellence, but of all rational enjoyment. What is height without top; depth without bottom; length and breadth without limitation? What is the sublimity of the universe without the idea of Him who created, balances, sustains, and fills the whole with goodness? The hope of one day seeing this Wonderful One, of beholding Him that made my body, and is the Father of my spirit; the anticipation of being introduced into the palace of the universe, the sanctuary of the heavens, transcends all comparison with all sublunary things. Our powers of conception, of imagination, and our powers of computation and expression, are alike baffled and prostrated in such an attempt.

      Take away this hope from me, and teach me to think that I am the creature of mere chance, and to it alone indebted for all that I am, was, and ever will be, and I see nothing in the universe but mortification and disappointment; death is as desirable as life; and no one creature or thing is more deserving of my attention or consideration than another. But if so much pleasure be derived from surveying the face of nature--from contemplating the heavens and the systems of astronomy; if there be so much exquisite enjoyment from peeping into the great laboratory of nature, and in looking into the delicate touches, the great art, the wonderful design even in the smaller works, in the kingdom which the microscope opens to our view, what will be the pleasure, the exquisite joy, in seeing and beholding him who is the [434] Fountain of Life, the Author and Artificer of the whole universe! But the natural and physical excellencies, and material glories of this fabric, are but, as it were, the substratum, from which shine all the moral glories of the Author of Eternal Life, and the august scheme which gives immortality to man!

      No unrestrained freedom to explore the penetralia of voluptuousness, to revel in all the luxury of worms, to bask in the ephemeral glories of a sunbeam, can compensate for the immense robbery of the idea of God and the hope of deathless bliss. Dreadful adventure! hazardous experiment! most ruinous project! to blast the idea of God! The worst thing in such a scheme which could happen, or even appear to happen, would be success. But as well might Mr. Owen attempt to fetter the sea, to lock up the winds, to prevent the rising of the sun, as to exile this idea from the human race. For although man has not, circumstanced as he now is, unaided by revelation, the power to originate such an idea; yet when it is once suggested to a child, it never can be forgotten. As soon could a child annihilate the earth, as to annihilate the idea of God once suggested. The proofs of his existence become as numerous as the drops of dew from the womb of the morning--as innumerable as the blades of grass produced by the renovating influences of spring; everything within us and everything without, from the nails upon the ends of our fingers, to the sun, moon, and stars, confirm the idea of his existence and adorable excellencies. To call upon a rational being to prove the being and perfections of God, is like asking a man to prove that he exists himself. What! shall a man be called upon to prove a priori, or a posteriori, that there is one great Fountain of Life! a Universal Creator! If the millions of millions of witnesses which speak for him in heaven, earth, and sea, will not be heard, the feeble voice of man will be heard in vain.

      Some questions have been handed me today which do not come within the lawful purview of this discussion. They are of a sectarian character, and, therefore, we cannot attend to them at this time, however agreeable it might be for us on some other occasion to attend to them.

      The question, What is the Word of God? has already been anticipated in my remarks upon what constitutes revelation. In the Bible, we have seen, are the revelations of God; but, beside these, much of the history of the world. The discriminations already laid down on this subject are, we presume, sufficiently plain to enable all to form a correct decision upon this subject.

      That which is emphatically called the Word of God, the Word of the Lord, or the Word, in the New Testament, is generally, if not [435] exclusively, the Gospel, or Good News concerning Jesus Christ. Of the many proofs of this, I will give you but one at present, and then conclude: Peter had the honor of making the first clear, explicit, and correct confession of the faith ever made upon earth. When all the Apostles were interrogated by the Lord in his own person concerning their views of himself, Peter thus spoke: "We believe and are sure that THOU ART THE MESSIAH, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD." This drew the blessing of the Savior upon the head of Peter, and obtained him the honor of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. By this figure was meant, that Peter should have the honor of opening the gates of the kingdom of heaven, or the new reign announced by John the Baptist, the Savior, the twelve Apostles, and the seventy disciples, as near at hand, or as approaching. These keys have been long a bone of contention among the clergy. The Pope says he wears them at his girdle; the archbishops of York and Canterbury think they have them in joint keeping; the good old Kirk of Scotland thinks she has them in the archives of her General Assembly; and Independents think each congregation, or an association of congregations have them in charge. But, as we have no account of them in the last will and testament of the Apostle Peter, we have no good reason to conclude that he made any, or all, of these good ecclesiastics the keepers of the keys. Beside, I do not know that we have any use for them. Peter opened that kingdom of which they were the keys to the Jews and proselytes in Jerusalem upon the ever-memorable Pentecost. And some years afterward, when God designed to call the Gentiles into the kingdom, much pains were taken to obtain Peter. He was sent for to Joppa, and came to Cesarea, and opened the kingdom to the Gentiles. The gates of this kingdom have never since been locked against Jew or Gentile--against none but the impenitent and unbelieving; and Peter declared once already that he could not open the kingdom to such. But having once opened the kingdom, and never having locked it, he took the keys with him; and so it is all an idle controversy about the keys: none of them, none of us, have them.

      But my special object in introducing this occurrence is to show how Peter, when opening the reign of favor in Jerusalem and Cesarea, defined the Word of God, or THE WORD. In opening the kingdom of heaven, or that new state of society and privilege, of which the Savior spoke to Nicodemus, when he told him, "Except a man were born of water and the Spirit, into the kingdom of God he could not enter," Peter narrated the deeds, and mission, and death, and resurrection of Jesus; and showed the Jews how they might be born of water and the Spirit, and thus enter the kingdom. He did so also in Cesarea. He [436] defined the message, or proclamation, in this way: "That word, or message, which God sent by Jesus Christ, you have, no doubt, heard the report of; how it was proclaimed by John concerning the mission of Jesus, who did so and so. To him," said he, "did all the prophets testify, that whosoever believeth in him might obtain remission of sins." They were born of the Spirit and of water too; and, moreover, received the miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit. Thus Peter defined the Word of God. And this is now emphatically the Word of the Lord, or the Word of God, to which, my friends, we ought, one and all, to pay supreme regard.

      We rejoice that the Word of God is well defined in this volume, and most easily distinguished, not only from all former communications of the Almighty, but from all other information found in the sacred records. They who presumed to make criticism upon the terms and phrases found in the Bible, ought first to ascertain well whether they are biblical critics.

      I should now proceed to give you a concentrated view of the whole argument, but I must give place to my friend, that he may make his objections to my long speech.

      [The above speech commenced on Friday at three o'clock, and, in all, occupied twelve hours.]

[COD 279-437]