insomuch that all the knowledge the world ever had without it, may well be considered as nothing.

4. In regard to the resurrection of the dead. The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead does not rest upon such evidences as sustain the belief in the existence of God and the soul's immortality. For the support of these, reason discovered many substantial and convincing arguments, and the human mind has always been profoundly exercised upon them. Much more sparing are the notices of the other. The resurrection of the body is a fact which can be settled only by a distinct revelation. The heathen world furnishes some speculations on this subject, but hardly anything more. Though some learned men have assumed that it was a fixed article of belief under the Jewish dispensation, the evidence of the Old Testament together with the information gathered from the discussions which arose during the ministry of Jesus Christ, lead us rather to conclude, that the resurrection of the dead was maintained by some, while it was denied by others. It is highly probable, that those who had any ideas upon this subject, did not advance beyond an undefined, perhaps a conjectural, opinion. It seems rather to have been a probability resting upon insufficient proof, than a settled faith.

5. If we compare the moral knowledge abroad in the pagan world, the notions so beautifully expressed by poets, and uttered so eloquently by orators and wise men, with the teachings of the Bible, we shall find a very remarkable correspondence between them. It has been said, and perhaps with truth, that almost every social duty, almost every moral sentiment, and even every Christian virtue which adorns the Holy Scriptures, can be found in the literature of the heathen world. To so great an extent is this true, that we can hardly claim for the Bible any great preeminence in the inculcation of a pure morality. It is not to the point, to say, that these acknowledgments among the heathen of the excellence of virtue, were only verbal, and lacked the force of those practical illustrations which are the highest teachings of morality. As moral truths they were largely admitted; as practical rules they were almost universally neglected. They wanted a Divine sanction, an authoritative enunciation; but the propriety of the conduct which they demanded, was in harmony with the best exercises of the moral sense of mankind. The elements out of which an admirable

life might have been formed, were certainly not wanting in the heathen world. But they were elements uncombined and unex. emplified. They were not reduced to a code. They were never uttered with the voice of authority. No tables of stone had come down from the thunders and flames of Sinai, engraven with the finger of the Omnipotent. No Ebal, appointed of God as the mount of the curse, raised its frowning brow to warn the disobedient; no Gerizim, alluring with the blessings of the same God, confirmed the faith of the righteous. In the Bible, "thus saith the Lord," gives weight and impressiveness to every commandment or prohibition. Conscience is stimulated by the thought of the Sovereign who is jealous for his law. A sense of right, with no one to punish wrong, is a feeble restraint. A perception of virtue, with no rewarder of righteousness, is an insufficient allurement. And, therefore, the heathen world, notwithstanding its sound maxims, its wise precepts, its luminous and beautiful sentiments, the energy with which wrong was denounced, the glowing pictures of innocence and virtue with which it abounded, was still deeply sunk in the filth and wretchedness of debauched manners and allowed vices. Seldom were the virtues exhibited in life as the fruit of the eloquent teachings of their wise men. The tone of society was constantly lowered, and wickedness progressed with but little restraint from the theories of morals or the requirements of religion. They needed a distinct knowledge of God upon the throne, both lawgiver and executor. The moral sense needed to be confirmed in its dictates by the sentence of a coming judgment; and all the passions and propensities of the heart, to be held in check by the prospect of a final retribution. And because the theories of morals in the heathen world were separated from these sanctions and supports, they were practically powerless.

In this brief and limited inspection of a field so extensive and so full of interest, it will be seen that the elements of religious knowledge, the germs of the highest and most important truths, are discoverable where a written revelation is unknown. But in most respects they are only elements and germs. The world had notions, undefined ideas on many subjects relating to God and duty, which were of value. But the principles of morality, as well as higher speculative truths, existed only in a fragmen. tary condition. They were scattered in various productions of different minds. They were mixed with the crude devices, the

wild fancies, the absurd theories, the gross mistakes, and the ignorant conclusions of a dark age. And, although by careful selection over a wide field one might bring together many choice specimens of wisdom, and collect much excellent instruction which might serve for the direction of mankind, yet no one heathen mind ever digested the principles of morals into a system, or arranged religious truth so as to present it in a simple homogeneous form. So that, notwithstanding glimpses here and there, thoughts which seem to have glowed with a celestial fire, principles which are admitted even under a Christian dispensation to be sound and satisfactory rules of life, yet men really had no repository of truth to which to resort, no standard by which to try themselves. Everything was loose, unsystematized, disjointed. Even the knowledge of God, the relations we hold to Him, the immortal life of the soul and its conditions of misery or happiness, and the resurrection of the body, these great truths were never, independently of a revelation, so understood and received, as fully to impress and control the human mind. Revelation, in its enunciation of truths common to it with pagan systems, does present them with a fulness and decisive utterance, which not only makes them a substantial part of knowledge, but invests them with imperative claims upon the conscience and the heart.

Having considered the character of the knowledge of Divine things in the two conditions, with and without a written revelation, we proceed to inquire into what is distinct in the New Testament as compared with the Old. Religion, so far as it may be considered as determining the moral character of an individual, is the same thing under both dispensations. We have the same God and Father, to whom is due the supreme love of the heart; we are to approach him with penitence and faith, and to serve him with all the mind and strength. The same moral elements constitute goodness, the nature of holiness is the same, and righteousness is predicated of substantially the same life. Whatever belongs to the state of the heart in order to a reconciliation with God, the same subjective feelings, wrought in us by the Word and the Spirit, are common to both. The same moral law is the guide of conduct. Sin is the wilful transgression of the law. Many formal acts are required in the older system which are discontinued in the later. The form in which truth is presented, is adapted to a lower state

of intellectual development. The elementary ideas which are common to the two, are not brought out with equal distinctness. The relations of truth to conduct, the development of the spiritual life, and the symmetry of the character of a man of God, are by no means exhibited with equal clearness and fulness. Love to God is the basis of religion in the Old Testament. It is equally the basis of religion in the New. But, in the former, the objective truth concerning God is presented under severer outlines. For the sake of impressiveness, the most intense and glowing descriptions are given of the terrible attributes of Jehovah, those competent to alarm and startle hearts which are under the influence of the sterner and rougher passions of our nature. Interpositions of God are made with striking boldness and nakedness. The power before which men tremble, power applied to the production of physical results, is exhibited, to reach minds which are unspiritual and sensualized. It was a necessity of the case. The revelation of the old dispensation was given to men of the same intellectual and moral natures as in after times; of the same inherent susceptibilities, alike free in their wills and accountable for conduct. No principle was involved in God's requirement which is not eternally binding upon his moral subjects. But being then sensual in heart, with but sparing intellectual culture, and having strong tendencies to materialism, unchecked by abstract views of truth, the manner in which God and duty were presented necessarily conformed to the existing conditions of the human mind. The later dispensation is placed upon a higher level. It throws off the material form. God retires more from the direct and palpable connection with events. He is represented in the refined spirituality of his nature, and in the more tender and attractive attributes of his character. His worship is withdrawn from the symbolic and ritual modes, to the higher exercise of communion and heartfelt adoration. Without an altar, without gifts and sacrifices and a priesthood, the incense of a loving soul is presented as the most acceptable service. But the character of God, in the Old Testament and in the New, is really the same. There is no discord or contrariety in the two views; and, although a lower spirituality than is now expected, gave efficacy to the formal service, yet the offering of the heart to God in pure and holy affections really constituted the inherent worth of both. The New Testament meets the wants of humanity as they exist in all their variety, and

adapts itself to the human race in all the possible progress it can make in intellectual development. It retires from the formal, and expresses, in the simplest mode, the spiritual elements of the religion which God requires. Without a change in its nature, the manner in which it is presented and the motives which are pressed, are in many respects different.

The same comparison holds true in regard to the relations of men to each other. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, was the basis of the required intercourse between men. In the New Testament we have the same fundamental principle. We do not find any new doctrine. And if, under the practical requirements of the one system, there are acts tolerated which the other seems to discard, the inconsistency will be harmonized, by referring to some more general principle which involves both. Thus certain retaliatory acts which Christ disallows, were admitted into the Mosaic code. In the teachings of Christ, the directions are given as consistent exemplifications of the universal law of kindness. The permission was granted of old, under the necessary law of self-defence and of just punishment, which were indispensable in a rude and unformed state of society. Injuries affecting persons and lives must be restrained. Under governments with but feeble and imperfect organizations, the power which otherwise is entirely delegated to rulers, resides partially with the people. They are to an extent the necessary executive. The order, the peace and happiness of the community is the great end to be attained. The better way of securing it is by mutual forbearance, the forgiveness of injuries, and returning of good for evil. The execution of penalties is most wisely lodged in the hands of the executive. But when there is neither energy in the government nor the self-restraints of moral culture in the community, the primitive laws which are essential to protection and safety, are needfully in force. And hence the Mosaic code, instituted in a rude age, for a passionate and sensual people, exposed to all the vicious examples of insolent barbarity and unrestrained violence of surrounding ferocious tribes, almost of necessity embraced rules of cogent and severe application. But none of these rules can be construed into the admission of radi cally different principles in the required conduct of men. They do not refute the idea, that morality and religion in their elements were the same thing in both systems; that God delighted in substantially the same feelings and affections in the hearts of