Illustration.

The Phosphorus.

future events foretold, in attestation of its divine origin, and the founder was restored to life after being crucified by his enemies. These, with the various circumstances connected with them, constitute the historical evidence of Christianity.

2. If now we examine the book itself, its truths, its doctrines, its spirit, we find that it is exactly such in its nature and tendency as we should expect a message from Jehovah to such beings as we, would be. This is the internal evidence.

3. And if we look upon the effects which the Bible produces all around us upon the guilt and misery of society, wherever it is faithfully and properly applied, we find it efficient for the purposes for which it was sent. It comes to cure the diseases of sin-and it does cure them. It is intended to lead men to abandon vice and crime, and to bring them to God-and it does bring them by hundreds and thousands. If we make the experiment with it, we find that it succeeds in accomplishing its objects. This we may call the experimental evidence.

These three kinds of evidence are so entirely distinct in their nature, that they apply to other subjects. You have a substance which you suppose is phosphorus. For what reason? Why, in the first place, a boy in whom you place confidence brought it for you from the chemist's, who said it was phosphorus. This is the historical evidence: it relates to the history of the article before it came into your possession. In the second place, you examine it, and it looks like phosphorus. Its color, consistence and form all agree. This is internal evidence it results from internal examination. In the third place, you try it. It burns with a most bright and vivid flame. This last may be called experimental evidence; and it ought to be noticed that this last is the best of the three. No matter what grounds of doubt and hesitation there may be in regard to the first and second kinds of

Historical Evidence.

The Seal.

evidence, if the article simply proves its properties on trial. If any one should say to you, "I have some reason to suspect that your messenger was not honest; he may have brought something else;" or "This does not look exactly like real phosphorus; it is too dark or too hard;" your reply would be, “Sir, there can be no possible doubt of it. Just see how it burns!"

Just so with the evidences of Christianity. It is interesting to look into the historical evidences that it is a revelation from heaven, and to contemplate also the internal indications of its origin; but after all, the great evidence on which it is best for Christians, especially young Christians, to rely for the divine authority of the Bible, is its present universal and irresistible power in changing character, and saving from suffering and sin.

1. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.

If the Creator should intend to send a communication of his will to his creatures, we might have supposed that he would, at the time of his making it, accompany the revelation with something or other which should be a proof that it really came from him. Monarchs have always had some way of authenticating their communications with their subjects, or with distant officers. This is the origin of the use of seals. The monarch at home possesses a seal of a peculiar character. When he sends any communication to a distance, he impresses this seal upon the wax connected with the parchment upon which the letter is written. This gives it authority. No one else possessing such a seal, it is plain that no one can give the impression of it, and a seal of this kind is very difficult to be counterfeited. Various other devices have been resorted to by persons in authority to authenticate their communications.

In the same manner we must have expected that Jeho

Miracles.

Examining witnesses.

vah, when he sends a message to men, will have some way of convincing us that it really comes from him. There are so many bad men in the world who are willing to deceive mankind, that we could not possibly tell, when a pretended revelation comes to us, whether it was really a revelation from heaven or a design of wicked men, unless God should set some marks upon it, or accompany it with some indications which bad men could not imitate.

The Bible professes to have been accompanied by such marks. They are the power of working miracles and foretelling future events, possessed by those who brought the various messages it contains. It is plain that man, without divine assistance, could have had no such power. If this power then really accompanied those who were the instruments of introducing the Christian religion into the world, we may safely conclude that it was given them by God, and as he would never give this power to sanction imposture, the message brought must be from

him.

The way then to ascertain whether these miracles were actually performed, is like that of ascertaining all other matters of fact, by calling upon those who witnessed them for their testimony.

The manner in which these witnesses are to be examined, is similar to that pursued in ordinary courts of justice. It is similar, I mean, in its principles, not in its forms. I know of nothing which shows more convincingly the satisfactory nature of this evidence, than a comparison of it with that usually relied on in courts of justice. In order to exhibit the former then distinctly, I shall minutely describe the course pursued, and to make my description more definite, I shall select a particular case.

I was once walking in the streets of a large city, in which I was a stranger, looking around for some striking exhibitions of human character or efforts, when I saw se

The court.

The court room.

The prisoner.

As courts

veral persons, of apparently low rank in life, standing before the door of what was apparently some public building. I thought it was probably a court-house, and that these were the men who had been called as witnesses, and that they were waiting for their turn to testify. are always open to the public, I concluded to go in and hear some of the causes. I walked up the steps and en tered a spacious hall, and at the foot of a flight of stairs saw a little painted sign, saying that the court-room was above. I passed up and pushed open the light baize door, which admitted me to the room itself.

At the end at which I entered there were two rows of seats, one row on each side of an aisle which led up through the centre. These seats seemed to be for spectators; for those on one side were nearly filled with women, and those on the other by men. I advanced up the aisle until I nearly reached the centre of the room, and then took my seat among the spectators, where I could distinctly hear and see all that passed. Before me, at the farther end of the room, sat the judge, in a sort of desk on an elevated platform, and in front of him was another desk, lower, which was occupied by the clerk, whose business it was to make a record of all the causes that were tried. There was an area in front of the judge, in which were seats for the various lawyers; and in boxes at the sides were seats for the jury, who were to hear the evidence, and decide what facts were proved. On one side of the room was a door made of iron grating, with sharp points upon the top, which led, I supposed, to an apartment where the prisoners were kept.

Not long after I had taken my seat, the clerk said that the next cause was the trial of O. B. for housebreaking. The judge commanded an officer to bring the prisoner into court. The officer went to the iron door I have described, unlocked it, and brought out of the room into which it opened, a prisoner; he looked guilty

His accusation and trial.

Testimony of the owner.

and ashamed; his face was pale-not as though he was afraid, but as if his constitution had been impaired by vice. They brought him into the middle of the room, and placed him in a sort of pew with high sides, and shut him in. He leaned against the front of it, looked at the judge, and began to listen to his trial.

The clerk read the accusation. It was, that he had broken open an unoccupied house once or twice, and taken from it articles belonging to the owner of the house. The judge asked him if he pleaded guilty, or not guilty. He said, not guilty. The judge then asked the jury at the side to listen to the evidence, so that they might be prepared to decide whether this man did break open the house or not.

Men, not accustomed to speak in public assemblies, could not easily give their testimony in such a case, so that it would be fully understood on all the important points. In fact, very few know fully what the important points are. Hence it is proper that there should be lawyers present, who can ask questions, and thus examine the witnesses in such a manner as to bring out fully all the facts in the case. There is one lawyer appointed by the government, whose business it is to bring to view all the facts which indicate the prisoner's guilt; and another appointed by the prisoner, who takes care that no thing is omitted or lost sight of which tends to show his innocence. When the prisoner has not appointed any counsel, the judge appoints some one for him; this was done in the case before us.

The first witness called was the owner of the house. It is necessary that each witness should be a man of good character, and that he should testify only to what he saw or heard. No one is permitted to tell what some one else told him; for stories are very likely to be altered in repetition; so that, even in a complicated case, each man goes only so far as his own personal knowledge ex