In that very beautiful piece of pagan morality, the oration of Isocrates to Demonicus, we find the most anti-christian sentiment, "Be not surpassed by your friends in doing them good; or by your enemies, in doing them injuries." A similar precept is found among the Memorabilia of Socrates. I lay no stress on that charge of extreme impurity, which has been brought against this philosopher, by several authors of high reputation. The probability, if one may be permitted to give an opinion on a superficial view of evidence, is, that the accusation is groundless. But there is another charge of no inconsiderable nature, which rests on the authority of Xenophon, who was both his disciple and panegyrist : it is that of giving such advice, in presence of two of his disciples, to Theodota, a profligate woman of Athens, as must be severely condemned by every person, who is even slightly imbued with Christian philosophy.

The subject before us might easily be treated at much greater length. We might here notice that remarkable passage from Cicero, which was quoted in the last lecture. Those who desire further information, may obtain it by consulting Stanley's Lives of the Philosophers, or Enfield's Abridgment of Brucker's History of Philosophy. Enough has been said, it is hoped, to show that the dark cloud of ignorance and error, which lowered over the nations, was not likely to be dispelled by human means. It has been shown, that the philosophers had no sufficient knowledge on the subjects of morality and religion, to direct mankind in the way of truth and salvation; and that even the light, which they did acquire by their superior talents and application, they took no pains to communicate; but by their own example, confirmed the common people in their belief of the current superstitions. But had the philosophers been much less deficient than they were, both in knowledge and moral purity, they would still have been incompetent guides, as they could not have spoken with sufficient authority. Mankind were not in a condition to attend to a long train of reasoning, in support of a new religious theory. Their slavish subordination to their vices and their passions, disqualified them for impartial in

They needed eviThey needed to hear

quiry, and rendered them averse from it.
dence, addressed directly to their senses.
the dumb speak, to see the lame walk, and the dead rise.

What would it be reasonable to expect, as to the contents of a revelation, made under such circumstances, and to such a world? Could it represent mankind, as fond of truth, and observant of moral rectitude? Or must it say, that they are dead in trespasses and sins? Could it represent them, as in need only of some improvement in virtue, such as might naturally result from importunate persuasion? Or must it plainly tell them of passing "from death unto life-from the power of sin and Satan unto God;" of being raised from the dead by the energy of Almighty grace? Would it think, that enough were done, when the beauty and proportion of virtue were represented, and the deformity of vice portrayed? Or would it not rather speak of indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, to every soul of man that worketh evil; but glory, honor, and peace to him that worketh good?

LECTURE XVIII.

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

FROM the sentiments and morals of those who have not enjoyed supernatural light, it has been made, we conceive, sufficiently evident, that such light was to be exceedingly desired by mankind.

If Christianity is in fact, a message from on high, we may be perfectly assured, that proofs are not wanting to show its divine origin. God, who has given to man intellectual powers, must desire that these powers should be exercised. If they are duly exercised, that cannot be considered as truth, in favor of which there is not a preponderancy of evidence. Therefore, should it be found, on examination, that the evidence in favor of the Christian Religion, is less than the evidence against it, the receiving of it would be inconsistent with the duty which we owe to him, by whom our intellectual powers were bestowed. The Gospel does not ask to be believed, as a matter of favor; it professes to give such evidence, that no person, without abusing his rational powers, can refuse belief. Our assent is not begged, but demanded. The Author of Christianity rested his claims to the character of a divine Instructor, entirely on the evidence, which he gave to support them: IfI do not the works of my Father, ye believe me not. Again: These things have I spoken before they come to pass, that when they have come to pass, ye might believe that I am he.

In discussing the subject in hand, I shall take for granted, what no one calls in question, viz. that Christianity now exists. It will be conceded, with almost the same readiness, that Christianity did not always exist. Both believers and infidels allow, that the time has been, when no such religion was known. Were the origin of the gospel uncertain; could no person tell the time when, the place where, nor the circumstances under which the gospel first made its appearance, the question of its truth would be of much more difficult solution, than it is on the supposition that all these circumstances may be known. Frauds may, under some circumstances, be practised with great facility; under different circumstances they cannot pass without detection. If the time and place, in which the Christian religion made its appearance, were uncertain, it must, by consequence, be uncertain whether circumstances were favorable or unfavorable to the ushering in of a fraud. But happily, on this subject, no doubt can with shadow of reason, be pretended. Not only does the Gospel mention, with great particularity, events, dates, the names of emperors, procurators, high priests, etc., but profane writers, such as had no belief in Christianity, unite with its disciples, as to the time, at which this religion took its rise. To an event which is represented as having occurred a very short time before Jesus of Nazareth entered on his public ministry, the following dates are assigned, viz. "The 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being high priests." Pontius Pilate, it is well known, is named in the New Testament as the Roman magistrate, presiding in Judea, when Jesus was crucified.

In the time of the Emperor Trajan, about seventy years from the date assigned by the evangelists to the crucifixion, Pliny was governor of Bithynia, a Roman province, at a great distance from Judea. In this province, Christians had at that time become very numerous, so that the pagan temples were deserted,

and few victims were purchased. This does not directly prove that Christianity originated at the time which the evangelists assign to its origin; but is precisely what might well have taken place on supposition that it did. Suetonius, in his life of Nero (S. 16), enumerating several acts of this emperor, very briefly notices his punishing the Christians, as a sect attached to "a new and pernicious superstition." It is evident, therefore, that there were Christians at Rome, so early as the time of Nero, whose reign commenced about twenty years after the time, at which, according to the report of Christians, their Master suffered. Tacitus speaks of Christianity as existing at Rome in the time of Nero; but he goes further than this, telling his readers, not only the place where, the person from whom, but the time when the new religion made its appearance. "The founder of the denomination, saith he, was Christ, who suffered death in the reign of Tiberius, under his procurator Pontius Pilate. Though checked for a while, it broke out again, and spread not only over Judea, where it originated, but at Rome also." (Tac. Annales.)

Hence appear two facts of considerable importance. First, as to the origin of Christianity, it is not obscure. Friends and enemies agree as to the date ;-the reign of Tiberius and the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate; as to the place, viz. Judea; and as to the person from whom it was received, viz. Christ; who by the further agreement of both, died on the cross. The other fact is, that so far the evangelists must be acknowledged by the enemies of the Gospel, not only to have told the truth, but to have been accurate in the statement of facts.

Having ascertained these general, but highly important points, as to the origin of the Gospel, it is fit that we make some inquiry into the state of things which then existed. We shall hence learn, whether the professions of those among whom the Gospel was preached, were for or against it. This question ought first to be considered, as it relates to the Jews, and then as it relates to the Gentiles.

1. As to the Jews. They were, it is true, in expectation of a