than that of those who lived in those days. They required ocular demonstration; but we are to be satisfied with such evidence as we can pick up among the ruins of the ages, that such things were. I insist that it is as necessary for preachers of Christianity to work miracles now, as at any former period. The Catholic and the Mormon have seen the importance of this. Hence, I believe, they claim to be in possession of that power, and at times to perform miracles each in evidence of the divinity of his own faith.

If a miracle settles anything in regard to the truth of Christianity, how much and what does it prove? Does it prove that those who have wrought miracles could never err, because they were infallible? This will not be pretended in the face of the record itself. If they were mistaken in one thing, why might they not be in another? Even the immediate disciples of Jesus were notoriously ignorant in regard to the nature of the truths taught, and were for a time utterly at fault with reference to the mission he was sent to accomplish; while the very arch traitor of them all, Judas Iscariot, for aught that appears to the contrary, wrought miracles as well as the rest.

If the power to work miracles does not prove infallibility on the part of those who have it, it is certainly desirable to know precisely what it does prove, and what subjects are placed beyond the reach of question by its exhibition; so that on those subjects the understanding and the conscience may go to sleep, for to me there can be in so far no sort of use for their exercise. But the truth is, a miracle proves nothing whatever beyond itself. It testifies of itself, and the power requisite to its performance, and nothing else.

If

One argument, however, in favor of the miracles recorded in the Bible, and one which may be worthy of a passing notice, is, that the people were so ignorant and sensual when its writers lived, that they required some such supernatural exhibitions to induce them to reflect upon the truths which were uttered. miracles were ever needed for this purpose, they are now. For men were never more confined to sense than at the present day. Universal skepticism prevails. It would seem, then, that we need as signal an exhibition of divine power to-day as ever. But what effect can such exhibitions as are recorded in the Scriptures have on men, but to foreclose the judgment, and shut out the reason? Truth cannot be viewed with that searching glance which is essential to its perfect understanding, when its enunciation is accompanied by "signs and wonders which no one can comprehend. I love truth for itself, and not because he who utters it is able to perform acts which elude the grasp of reason, and therefore produce nothing in the witness but stupid wonder. Besides, all these things transpired so long

14

ago, and in such a dark age of the world, that there must ever hang a doubt upon them; and the proof of their reality can never be given to the satisfaction of unbiassed, reflecting minds. Thus the real value of the Gospel is in a great measure lost, by coupling it with acts and events to which the understanding can never give credence, and which, if true, could not add one particle of value to the great truths upon which it is based.

These old traditions, which have come down to us amid the ruins of the past, were probably founded on some fact; but it is difficult, if not impossible, at the present time, to ascertain what the primitive fact was. Neither is it of the slightest consequence to the progress of the race that we should ever know. The great conservative and renovating principle of the universe, Love, yet abides. This shall suffice for all the purposes of redemption and salvation.

It seems to be supposed by those who tax our credulity to the enormous extent, requisite for belief in the literal miracles of Hebrew and Christian Scripture, that there were as great facilities for the detection of error, and for the apprehension and preservation of truth, as at the present day; and that, all the evidence taken into the account, there is no hazard in giving implicit faith to these ancient records. But, in the first place, these things were performed in the darkest ages of the world, among a people addicted to the grossest superstition, and ignorant of the most common rules of science. In the second place, passing by this fact, we find it hard to get at the exact truth in relation to any important subject in our day, with all our multiplied means of detecting error; much more surely must this be the case in dealing with events which have been mingled with, and modified by, the changes and revolutions of whole thousands of years.

We should always receive with great allowance, if not with absolute unbelief, records which contradict the present experience of the entire race; and which therefore rest wholly upon external testimony for their support. It is doubted whether the miracles recorded in the Bible are any better authenticated than the Salem witchcraft; or, at least, than the miracles said to have been wrought by Ann Lee, the female Jesus of the Shakers. Few have now any sort of faith in the witchcraft in the one case, or in the miraculous power of the Shaker Jesus in the other.

If, therefore, Christianity does indeed rest on such a foundation as these historical miracles, if it have not absolute, living truth, which will commend itself to the understanding and conscience of every man, independent of, and totally aside from, the supposed miracles of its authors; then indeed it must pass away, and be superseded by clearer and brighter light, as it has supplanted the grosser and darker superstitions of the past.

Taking this view of the nature of miracles and their influence, the only valid and indestructible argument for Christianity must be some such one as that of Soame Jenyns, in his work, called, "A View of the Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion." He very wisely sets aside the whole question of miracles, including the miraculous birth of Jesus, and rests his cause upon the intrinsic nature of the doctrines which Christianity inculcates. This is right. Many of the sayings and acts of "Jesus of Nazareth" are all over radiant with the Divine Spirit from which they emanated; and will continue to pour an ever-increasing flood of light upon the great problem of man's nature and destiny, when the thousand dogmas, that have been professedly elaborated from them, shall have crumbled beneath the touch of "time's effacing fingers," and be remembered, if at all, but as way-marks to indicate the weary and painful steps of human progress. Well would it be, if they were suffered to complete their work of regeneration, unobstructed by the creeds, and forms, and claims to exclusive divin ity, with which they have been environed and fettered, and which have been the parent of so much superstition, cruelty,

and death.

The great error of such advocates of Christianity, as Jenyns, consists in the assumption that, "from the Bible may be abstracted a system of religion entirely new, both with regard to the object and the doctrines, not only infinitely superior to, but unlike, everything which had ever before entered into the mind of man." The truths which Jesus shadowed forth have their foundation deep within the human soul. They have flashed across the world, more or less distinctly and emphatically, all down the history of the race. They have ever been mirrored, feebly and dimly perhaps, but yet surely and divinely, by all of human faith and human hope. All religions are, in some respects identical, have a common foundation; to wit, the nature of man. The forms which they assume may vary,the result of accidental circumstances as they are; but they all have some truth. They could not live without. No man can subsist on chaff alone. There must be some grain mixed with it. So of religion, of whatsoever name. It cannot be wholly false. If it were, it could not be. When, therefore, these men take the ground that the Christian religion is unlike everything which had previously entered into the mind of man, they occupy a false position, which would not only destroy their own religion, but also the religious nature of man.

It is admitted that the old philosohers had some idea of a future state, which was incorporated into their systems of government; but only, we are told, for the purpose of making men live better here, while the object of Christianity is said to be

to prepare men for the kingdom of heaven in another world. If there be, as is contended, a wide difference between these two systems, it is in favor of the ancient religion, so far as that is based upon the absolute good of virtue, in opposition to the doctrine, that its exercise gives rise to suffering in this world, which can only be compensated by a state of felicity in the next. There is in reality, however, little difference, except in the form of words, between the motives held out in the ancient religion, and those presented by the advocates of Christianity. They both stand upon the position, that virtue is a sacrifice, instead of a positive and permanent good; requiring the external motives of future rewards and punishments to balance the superior attractiveness of vice in this life. In this respect, they are alike false. Man should do right, because that alone is the appropriate food for his mind to feed upon — is alone adapted to the wants of his nature, and can alone produce health, and strength, and happiness. For precisely the same reason that we should take good and wholesome food into the physical stomach, should we live in the exercise of virtue alone. No man can do wrong with impunity, any more than he can take poison into his physical system, without suffering the penalty which is attached to such a violation of the law of his being. He cannot escape. The penalty follows the violation as surely in the one case as the other. He may boast that he does not feel it, that he is conscious of no evil result to himself here from his vicious practice. But, as has been justly remarked, by one of the most beautiful of modern writers, "The brag is on his lips, the conditions are in his soul." It is written in the very constitution of his being, that Good alone is life, and that Evil is death. If it be otherwise if it be true that vice gives life, that virtue produces death, then, indeed, is this world inevitably a "vale of tears." Then the woe of a blighted universe may well ascend to heaven in one loud wail of despair. The sun of hope must be blotted from the human soul, and set forever in the blackness of a starless and endless night.

It must be admitted that the great truth, upon which Christianity is professedly based, is more clearly developed by it than by any other system. But then the grand idea of Jesus, Love, was proclaimed, almost in his identical words, by Confucius, Terence, and others. Jesus, doubtless, more clearly apprehended its nature, and its far-reaching application, than they did; and perhaps this is more clearly seen at the present day than ever he or his disciples saw it. Jesus was unquestionably a great Soul, probably the sublimest Incarnation of the Great Spirit, which has ever appeared in our world, to unlock the dark prison-house, and break the fetters in which humanity has so long been bound. But he was a man- subject to like passions

and infirmities with other men. He lived a glorious life, only for the same reason that other men should ; · because the law

of his being demanded it of him. He was not the Saviour of the world, any more than any one is who, like him, lives a true and genuine life. The truths which he inculcated are a part, perhaps the substance, of the universal law of man. As such, and alone as such, are they interesting and valuable to us, who live so many centuries after his advent.

as

The book from which Christians professedly "extract" their faith, may not inaptly be compared to the Common Law of England and America. This Law consists of precedents and decisions of courts, running through many centuries, and various and diverse in character, as the individuals by whom, and the circumstances under which, they were given. When a question comes before the courts, it is settled not by justice alone, but by an appeal to the authority of precedent. So the Counsel upon the different sides search the old records to find what the courts have done before, which may be made favorable to the cause they have in charge. Thus they respectively quote from my Lord Mansfield, or my Lord Coke, or Sir William Blackstone; and he, who can produce the greatest number of these so called precedents, is considered entitled to judg ment in his behalf. It is of very little consequence what the naked right of the matter is; what do the books say how have questions of this character been decided heretofore? — these are the points of inquiry. Occasionally these tribunals are found giving righteous judgment; but they dare not do it on the simple equity of the case. They search the books and bring up the case of "Hobson versus Snobson," to show that their decision is in accordance with the law, as expounded before, in other courts.

I never knew but one question that was settled in our so called courts of justice, by an appeal solely to the law of God, as written upon the heart of man; and that was in the instance of the Vermont Judge, who refused to give up a fugitive slave, until the pretended owner could bring a bill of sale from the Almighty. He did not search the records to ascertain what my Lord Mansfield or Judge Story said on the subject. He went to the source of all law; and demanded of him who claimed to hold his brother as an article of merchandise, that he should present his title deed, signed and sealed by Him who alone has the right to dispose of the work of His own hands. I do not know, however, but that this is a solitary instance in the history of human jurisprudence. At all events they are not com

mon occurrences.

The Bible, like the Common Law, is a collection of biographies and sayings, running through many ages, and of the most