who opponent, who had denied its necessity, either to retract in view the existence of such an evil among those heathen sages, or to defend the evil itself. He seemed desirous to evade the subject, by passing it over in silence, still insisting that revelation was unnecessary. What less could I do, under such circumstances, than to draw him out? He had indeed told me in common conversation, before three or four other individuals, that he did not disapprove of suicide under certain circumstances; and this made me still more desirous to draw from him a public avowal to that effect; not for the sake of exposing him to prejudice, but for the sake of exhibiting infidelity to the public as it now is, in all its horrid features, thereby enabling them to be duly on their guard. Thank heaven! I have succeeded; and now the community are given to understand, that the infidel leader of the day does not disapprove of self-murder, in itself considered, but only as circumstances may happen to render it inexpedient-just what might be expected from one believes in no future retribution. This doctrine annihilates moral obligation at once, and all sense of moral evil. And though he has accompanied his admission with many modifications, it involves a sentiment truly diabolical, and one which takes a wider range than at first sight meets the eye. Every man knows his own sorrows better than another; and if the taking of one's own life, at any rate, were to be considered allowable, he would be his own judge, whether his sufferings were sufficient to justify him in the commission of the fatal deed. He might very easily argue himself into the belief, that it would be a greater evil to him to live, than it would be to others a benefit. Seeing that many widows and orphans get along very well in the world, he would naturally conclude, that his own might do the same. And should he deem his life too burthensome to be endured, and suicide no intrinsic crime, quickly indeed would the ties of conjugality and consanguinity be sundered, and the purple stream be made to flow. And, indeed, if at death it will be all the same with the pirate, the murderer, the self-murderer, and the virtuous man; if vice and crime are of so little consequence; it makes but little difference what men do. And especially, if the taking of life, in itself considered, is not wrong, the heathen do well in destroying their deformed and sickly infants and decrepid old people, and thus ridding society of its burthensome members. And now, sir, do not evade this question, but have the moral courage to answer it, for it has a concern with our discussion: Do the heathen do well or ill in thus relieving themselves of their burthen? If utility is the test, most assuredly such a state of things would be right. If murder, in itself considered, is not wrong, the good in such cases would vastly overbalance the evil. This is not irrelevant to our discussion. I have heretofore brought up these heathen customs as evidence of the necessity of revelation. My opponent must therefore defend them, or admit the necessity One of that which alone and invariably abolishes the same. word before I quit this point, and that is, that it must be obvious to all, that the foregoing sentiment relative to the taking of life, must tend greatly to promote murder as well as suicide, making, as it does, the killing of a man and a beast intrinsically the same. And, to be sure, why not intrinsically the same, if man has no soul? The heaven which my opponent would choose, is precisely what might be expected from the depraved heart of man, viz., a sensual one. And his Gods, too, he would have correspond with his heaven-Gods possessed of "human frailties and human passions" "Gods partial, vengeful, passionate, unjust, Yes, he would really prefer the darkness of old heathenism, to the glorious light of Christianity-the paltry, grovelling, wallowing sensuality of a mythological Elysium, to the purity and holiness of heaven-the infamous Gods of the heathen, to the adorable and infinite creator. Who could believe, that an individual could be found in all Christendom that would advance a sentiment like this? And how evident it is, that a man possessed of such feelings with regard to the spiritual world, must be eternally excluded from the kingdom of God from incapacity to participate in its sacred enjoyments, if for no other reason. We see nothing as yet of the passage of Scripture which says, that Moses wrote an account of his own death, nor of that which says the Bible was lost and found. Neither have we yet been shown what branch of modern knowledge proves witchcraft to be impossible. Indeed, my opponent seems in a fair way to prove, not only that it is not impossible, but that it once actually existed at Salem. All that he has done thus far relative to the subject, goes to prove, not to disprove, witchcraft. And the same may be observed in relation to popish miracles. Instead of directly clearing away the mass of rubbish contained in my opponent's last letter relative to the interpolations, misrepresentations, and historical evidences of the Bible, I shall present direct evidence of the genuineness, authenticity, and uncorrupted preservation of that book; in doing which, I shall make a few brief extracts from several writers on those subjects, as contained in Watson's Theological Institutes. These extracts I make the rather, because much of what is contained therein is mere history, though blended with argument. I shall begin with Watson himself. The first step in this inquiry is, to ascertain the existence, age, and actions of the leading persons mentioned in Scripture as the instruments by whom, it is professed, the revelations they contain were made known. With respect to these PERSONS, it is not necessary that our attention should be directed to more than two, MOSES and CHRIST,-one the reputed agent of the Mosaic, the other the author of the Christian Revelation; because the evidence which establishes their existence and actions, and the period of both, will also establish all that is stated in the same records as to the Subordinate and succeeding agents. "To the existence and the respective antiquity ascribed in the scriptures to Moses and Jesus Christ, the founders of the Jewish and Christian religion, many ancient writers give ample testimony who, being neither of the Jewish nor Christian religion, cannot be suspected of having any design to furnish evidence of the truth of either. Among these writers are Manetho, Cheremon, Apollonius, Lysimachus, Strabo, Justin, Pliny, Tacitus, Juvenal, Longinus, the ORPHIC verses, and Diodorus Siculus. Justin Martyr expressly says, that most of the historians, poets, lawgivers, and philosophers of the Greeks, mention Moses as the leader and prince of the Jewish nation. "As to CHRIST, it is only necessary to give the testimony of two historians, whose antiquity no one ever thought of disputing. SUETONIUS mentions him by name, and says, that Claudius expelled from Rome those who adhered to his cause. TACITUS records the progress which the Christian religion had made; the violent death its founder had suffered; that he flourished under the reign of Tiberius; that Pilate was then procurator of Judea; and that the original author of this profession was Christ. Thus not only the real existence of the founder of Christianity, but the period in which he lived is exactly ascertained from writings, the genuineness of which has never been doubted. "With respect to the scriptures of the Old Testament, the language in which they are written is a strong proof of their antiquity. The Hebrew ceased to be spoken as a living language soon after the Babylonish captivity, and the learned agree that there was no grammar made for the Hebrew till many ages after. The difficulty of a forgery, at any period after the time of that captivity, is therefore apparent. Of these books too, there was a Greek translation made about two hundred and eightyseven years before the Christian era, and laid up in the Alexandrian library. "Josephus gives a catalogue of the sacred books among the Jews, in which he expressly mentions the five books of Moses, thirteen of the prophets, four of hymns and moral precepts; and if, as many critics maintain, Ruth was added to Judges, and the lamentations of Jeremiah to his prophecies, the number agree. with those of the Old Testament as it is received at the presen: day. "The Samaritans, who separated from the Jews, inany hundred years before the birth of Christ, even before the Babylonish captivity, have in their language a Pentateuch, in the main exactly agreeing with the Hebrew; and the pagan writers before cited, with many others, speak of Moses not only as a lawgiver and a prince, but as the author of books esteemed sacred by the Jews." These books could never have been surreptitiously put forth in the name of Moses, as the Argument of LESLIE most fully proves. "Could any man, now at this day, invent a book of statutes or acts of parliament for England, and make it pass upon the nation as the only book of statutes that ever they had known? As impossible was it for the books of Moses (if they were invented in any age after Moses) to have been received for what they declared themselves to be, viz., the statutes and municipal law of the nation of the Jews: and to have persuaded the Jews, that they had owned and acknowledged these books, all along from the days of Moses, to that day in which they were first invented; that is, that they had owned them before they had ever so much as heard of them. "But now let us descend to the utmost degree of supposition, viz. that these things were practised before these books of Moses were forged; and that those books did only impose upon the nation, in making them believe that they had kept these observances in memory of such and such things as were inserted in those books. "For example, suppose I should now forge some romantic story of strange things done a thousand years ago; and, in confirma. tion of this, should endeavour to persuade the Christian world that they had all along, from that day to this, kept the first day of the week in memory of such a hero, an Apollonius, a Barcosbas, or a Mahomet; and had all been baptized in his name; and sworn by his name, and upon that very book (which I had then forged, and which they never saw before) in their public judicatures; that this book was their gospel and law, which they had ever since that time, these thousand years past, universally received and owned, and none other. I would ask any deist, whether he thinks it possible that such a cheat could pass, or such a legend be received as the gospel of Christians and that they could be made to believe that they never had any other gospel?" This able reasoning has never been refuted, nor can be; and if the books of the law must have been written by Moses, it is as easy to prove, that Moses himself could not in the nature of the thing have deceived the people by an imposture, and a pretence of miraculous attestations, in order, like some later lawgivers among the heathens, to bring the people more willingly to submit to his institutions. The very instances of miracles he gives rendered this impossible. Suppose," says the same writer, "any man should pretend, that yesterday he divided the Thames, in presence of all the people of London, and carried the whole city, men, women, and children, over to Southwark on dry land, the waters standing like walls on both sides: I, say, it is morally impossible that he could persuade the people of London that this was true, when every man, woman, and child, could contradict him, and say, that this was a notorious falsehood, for that they had not seen the Thames so divided, nor had gone over on dry land. "As to Moses, I suppose it will be allowed me, that he could not have persuaded six hundred thousand men that he had brought them out of Egypt, through the Red Sea; fed them forty years, without bread, by miraculous manna, and the other matters of fact, recorded in his books, if they had not been true." By these arguments, the genuineness and authenticity of the books of Moses are established; and as to those of the prophets, which, with some predictions in the writings of Moses, comprise the prophetic branch of the evidence of the divine authority of the revelations they contain, it can be proved, both from Jewish tradition, the list of Josephus, the Greek translation, and from their being quoted by ancient writers, that they existed many ages before several of those events occurred. We have seen the manner in which these rules are applied to the books of Moses. The author thus applies them to the Gospel : 66 Baptism and the Lord's Supper were instituted as perpetual memorials of these things; and they were not instituted in afterages, but at the very time when these things were said to be done; and have been observed without interruption, in all ages through the whole Chrisitan world, down all the way from that time to this. And Christ himself did ordain apostles and other ministers of his gospel, to preach and administer the sacraments, and to govern his church, and that always, even unto the end of the world. Accordingly, they have continued by regular succession to this day, and no doubt, ever shall, while the earth shall last. So that the Christian clergy are as notorious a matter of fact, as the tribe of Levi among the Jews. And "The truth of the Gospel history (independent of the question of the inspiration of the sacred writers) rests upon the same basis with the truth of other ancient books, and its pretensions are to be impartially examined by the same rules by which we judge of the credibility of all other historical monuments. if we compare the merit of the sacred writers, as historians, with that of other writers, we shall be convinced that they are inferior to none who ever wrote, either with regard to knowledge of persons, acquaintance with facts, candour of mind, and reverence for truth." No public contradiction of this history was ever put forth by the Jewish rulers to stop the progress of a hateful religion, though they had every motive to contradict it, both in justifica |