might reply, in his own language, and say-" Thou fool, Paul, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die not.' It may be scen, I think, from this passage, who affects to be a naturalist, to be acquainted with the microscopical discoveries of modern times; which were probably neither known to Paul, nor to the Corinthians; and which, had they been known to them both, would have been of little use in the illustration of the subject of the resurrection. Paul said that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die every husbandman in Corinth, though unable perhaps to define the term death, would understand the apostle's phrase in a popular sense, and agree with him that a grain of wheat must become rotten in the ground before it could sprout; and that, as God raised from a rotten grain of wheat, the roots, the stem, the leaves, the ear of a new plant, he might also cause a new body to spring up from the rotten carcase in the grave.-Doctor Clarke observes, "In like manner as in every grain of corn there is contained a minute insensible seminal principle, which is itself the entire future blade and ear, and in due season, when all the rest of the grain is corrupted, evolves and unfolds itself visibly to the eye; so our present mortal and corruptible body may be but the cruvia, as it were, of some hidden and at present insensible principle (possibly the present seat of the soul), which at the resurrection shall discover itself in its proper form." I do not agree with this great man (for such I esteem him in this philosophical conjecture); but the quotation may serve to show you, that the germ does not evolve and unfold itself visibly to the eye, till all the rest of the grain is corrupted; that is, in the language and meaning of St. Paul, till it dies.-Though the authority of Jesus may have as little weight with you as that of Paul, yet it may not be improper to quote to you our Saviour's expression, when he foretels the numerous disciples which his death would produce-" Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground, and die, it

abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit."-You perceive from this, that the Jews thought the death of the grain was necessary to its reproduction:-hence every one may see what little reason you had to object to the apostle's popular illustration of the possibility of a resurrection. Had he known as much as any naturalist in Europe does, of the progress of an animal from one state to another, as from a worm to a butterfly (which you think applies to the case), I am of opinion he would not have used that illustration in preference to what he has used, which is obvious and satisfactory.

Whether the fourteen epistles ascribed to Paul were written by him or not, is, in your judgement, a matter of indifference. So far from being a matter of indifferénce, I consider the genuineness of St. Paul's Epistles to be a matter of the greatest importance; for if the epistles ascribed to Paul, were written by him (and there is unquestionable proof that they were), it will be difficult for you, or for any man, upon fair principles of sound reasoning, to deny that the Christian religion is true. The argument is a short one, and obvious to every capacity. It stands thus:-St. Paul wrote several letters to those whom, in different countries, he had converted to the Christian faith; in these letters be affirms two things; first, that he had wrought miracles in their presence,-secondly, that many of themselves had received the gift of tongues, and other miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. The persons to whom these letters were addressed must, on reading them, have certainly known whether Paul affirmed what was true, or told a plain lie; they must have known, whether they had seen him work miracles; they must have been conscious, whether they themselves did or did not possess any miraculous giftsNow can you, or can any man, believe, for a moment, that Paul (a man certainly of great abilities) would have written public letters, full of lies, and which could not fail of being discovered to be lies, 26

66

soon as his letters were read?-Paul could not be guilty of falsehood in these two points, or in either of them; and if either of them be true, the Christian religion is true. References to these two points are frequent in St. Paul's Epistles: I will mention only a few. In his Epistle to the Galatians, he says (chapter iii. 2. 5.), This only would I learn of you, received ye the Spirit (gifts of the Spirit) by the works of the law? He ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you."-To the Thessalonians he says (1 Thess. chapter i. 5.), "Our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost."-To the Corinthians he thus expresses himself: (1 Cor. ii. 4.) "My preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power;"—and he adds the reason for his working miracles- That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."-With what alacrity would the faction: at Corinth, which opposed the apostle, have laid hold of this and many similar declarations in the letter, had they been able to have detected any falsehood in them! There is no need to multiply words on so clear a point-the genuineness of Paul's Epistles proves their authenticity, independently of every other proof; for it is absurd in the extreme to suppose him, under circumstances of obvious detection, capable of advancing what was not true; and if Paul's Epistles be both genuine and authentic, the Christian religion is true.Think of this argument.

You close your observations in the following manner: "Should the Bible (meaning, as I have before remarked, the Old Testament) and Testament hereafter fall, it is not I that have been the occasion." You look, I think, upon your production with a parent's partial eye, when you speak of it in such a style of self-complacency. The Bible, Sir, has withstood the learning of Porphyry, and the power of Julian, to say nothing of the Manichean Faustus-it has

resisted the genius of Bolingbroke, and the wit of Voltaire, to say nothing of a numerous herd of inferior assailants and it will not fall by your force. You have barbed anew the blunted arrows of former adversaries; you have feathered them with blasphemy and ridicule; dipped them in your deadliest poison; aimed them with your utmost skill; shot them against the shield of faith, with your utmost vigour; but, like the feeble javelin of aged Priam, they will scarcely reach the mark, will fall to the ground without a

stroke.

LETTER X.

THE remaining part of your work can hardly be made the subject of animadversion. It principally consists of unsupported assertions, abusive appellations, illiberal sarcasms," strifes of words, profane babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." I am hurt at being, in mere justice to the subject, under the necessity of using such harsh language; and am sincerely sorry that, from what cause I know not, your mind has received a wrong bias in every point respecting revealed religion.-You are capable of better things; for there is a philosophical sublimity in some of your ideas, when you speak of the Supreme Being, as the Creator of the universe.-That you may not accuse me of disrespect, in passing over any part of your work without bestowing proper attention upon it, I will wait upon you through what you call yourconclusion.

You refer your reader to the former part of the Age of Reason; in which you have spoken of what you esteem three frauds-mystery, miracle, and prophecy. I have not at hand the book to which you refer, and know not what you have said on these subjects; they are subjects of great importance, and we, proba

bly, should differ essentially in our opinion concerning them; but, I confess, I am not sorry to be excused from examining what you have said on these points. The specimen of your reasoning which is now before me, has taken from me every inclination to trouble either my reader or myself, with any observations on your former book.

You admit the possibility of God's revealing his will to man; yet the thing so revealed," you say,

is revelation to the person only to whom it is made; his account of it to another is not revelation."-This is true; his account is simple testimony. You add, there is no "possible criterion to judge of the truth of what he says." This I positively deny; and contend, that a real miracle, performed in attestation of a revcaled truth, is a certain criterion by which we may judge of the truth of that attestation. I am perfectly aware of the objections which may be made to this position ; I have examined them with care; I acknowledge them to be of weight; but I do not speak unadvisedly, or as wishing to dictate to other men, when I say, that I am persuaded the position is true. So thought Moses; when, in the matter of Korah, he said to the Israelites" If these men die the common death of all men, then the Lord hath not sent me."-So thought Elijah, when he said" Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day, that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant;"—and the people, before whom he spake, were of the same opinion; for, when the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, they said— "The Lord, he is the God."-So thought our Saviour, when he said, "The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me ;" and, "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not." What reason have we to believe Jesus speaking in the Gospel, and to disbelieve Mahomet speaking in the Koran ? Both of them lay claim to a divine commission; and yet we receive the words of the one as a revelation from