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]