The Sun.
London, England, 1827-10-25 00:00:00

ers of the Christian Religion, admits of the dearest demon-
stration of rational argument. Christianity itself was not
established, and
,never could have been, by that sort of
preaching in which one speaker only is exalted like a Deity
above the listening crowd, and invested with the stupen-
dous prerogative of delivering dogmas which no man
may question, and putting questions which no man may
answer. He who appeared on earth with at least as good
a right, as any of his followers to claim authority and dic-
tation, yet suffered himself to be answered again, and stood
before the people, not as. the sole speaker, but as in, turn
hearing them and asking them questions. His immediate
followers .held public discussions; and to the disputations
which were held for two years in the school of one Tyrau-
nus, the sacred Scriptures ascribe the fact, " that all Asia
heard the Word of God." Nor could any persons have
respected those positive injunctions to " prove all things,"
and to " take heed that no man deceived them," who
should prove nothing, or should allow any man to address
th'em without a liability to be cross-examined, and ques-
tioned as to the validity of his assertions on those things
which, as they concern all men, all men are equally con-
cerned to know. It is from this truth, however, and not
from authority, example, or positive injunction of any sort
(although I have shown that the highest and best that call
be, or be pretended, are all on this side), that I proceed
in the demonstration of the importance of theological dis-
cussions,

" If they who are said to have possessed credentials of
a Divine Mission ',(which certainly none on earth can now
pretend to), if they who, whether they did or (lid not work
miracles, are said to have done so, did yet appeal to men's
reason, and invite and exhort them ,to look for themselves
into the evidence of those things which they propounded to
them, theological discussion must have been the first of
Christian exercises—theological disputation the first of
Christian duties."

Now,.Gentlemen„ let me call your attention to the
evidence, if I must be obliged to give that name to
the incompetent, garbled trash which the witness
has sworn to. That poor man, as you saw it
elicited by the questions proposed .to him, was
hired and suborned to carry back a report of my ora-
tions, in which there must have been something to
give colour to the intended prosecution, or he
would have lost the guerdon of his iniquity; his
testimony was purchased for its cheapness, and put
up with for lack of that of better and honester men,
who would not have acted as this man has acteil
for ten times the price that the crapulous barbarians
in the back .ground hare paid him for it. For,
look ye, gentlemen, are ye to be told that persons of
no better education than the witness would have
entered an assembly of literary men, into the like of
which, in all probability, he had never entered be-
fore, and take notes, forsooth, being a fellow of no
note at all, from spontaneous good intention ? From
persons who had been competent to have reported
my orations, I had nothing to fear. If his Lordship,
—if the gentlemen of the bar, or any of yourselves
had heard the orations quoted in the indictments as
I delivered them, I persuade myself you would be
hugely astonished at the wholly different complexion
which the ignorance and bigotry of the witness
has given to the expressions charged against me.
Without having the whole context before you, it is
impossible that an adverse verdict should be just; and
that context(you will recollect) comprehends not only
every thing that I delivered,but every thing, also, that
was urged by the advocates of Christianity, of which
I was the the virtual author—l having called them to
discussion—l having engaged public attention to
their arguments, and mine standing but as the prole-
gomena and introduction to theirs—as a challenge to,
provoke, or an illustration to adorn them : and I ap-
peal to the sincerest Christians in the world—to
those who have the very highest respect for Chris-
tianity, and the deepest conviction of the sufficiency
of its evidences—whether those evidences could pos-
sibly have come down to us, or would have been so
ample as they esteem them to be, had the inquiries
of sceptics, and the objections of infidels, been an-
swered only as my opponents answer me, with ha-
tred for their persons, with such foul language as that
of " nuisance " applied to them, and " a nest of
vermin " to their friends, and with a severe punish-
ment for their honesty. If you yourselves are Chris-
tians, and believe yourselves to have " a reason for
the *hope which is in you," you owe that reason to
the conduct of persons who acted in every respect as
I have done ; who, objecting to the evidences of your
lirith as I object to them, and as an immediate
Apostle of Christ himself is said to have done, did
not conceal nor suppress their objections, but gave
them the strongest language, the utmost publicity,
and the widest circulation— •

" Unless I shall see in his hands the print of the nails,
and put my anger into the print of the nails, and
thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." John,
xx. 25.

--- ---
Such was the language of an infidel ; but if Chris-
tianity be true, it was the language of Divine in-
spiration. To punish me for using the like—and
stronger no infidel on earth could possibly have used
—would be to return evil for good, and to pay fOr
that which you account your greatest blessing, with
the greatest ingratitude. For you should recollect,
gentlemen, that that which was never called in ques-
tion, could never have been proved; that which no
man had liberty to deny, no man could have reason
to believe. A religion, therefore, which punishes an
infidel hath every mark of imposture upon it that
imposture possibly could have, and must as certainly
and necessarily be false as God is true. To reflect
on Christianity this dishonour by punishing me,
would be to do the very act which Christianity for-
bids, and which its consecrated text denounces, as
" crucifying the Son of God afresh, and putting him
to an open shame." But is it for any strength of
language I have used ? Take the most admired
orations of antiquity—the Olynthiacs of Demos-
thenes, or the Philippics of Cicero, and subject them
to the same temper and criticism as has been arrayed
against mine—let them be garbled, dispersed, and
scattered : and then, too, those illustrious orators
would sink to the level to which my enemies would
reduce me. But surely, gentlemen, it would not be
a monstrous stretch of vanity, Should an orator claim
from such men as the witness, or as the bigotted
fanatics who set him on, the considerations which
Euripides is said to have challenged from an Athen-
ian auditory, when he remonstrated against their in-
competent criticism—" I spake to teach the people,
not to be taught by them." And surely, gentlemen,
I ought not to be made the victim, because persons
who had no right, bat by my allowance, obtruded
themselves on our assemblies—because a barbarous
horde of Goths and Vandals have broken in upon
the sacred seat of science and philosophy. Am I
to be guilty of blasphemy because these men are in-
nocent of reason ? Remember only the specimen
you have had of the ability and disposition of the
street-keeper, Thomas Collins, and ask your own
honourable hearts, if .it became the justice of the
British metropolis, that your Lord Mayor should
have incarcerated me for five days on the felon's
side of the meanest prison in his jurisdiction—re-
fusing to accept hail when offered upon the spot,
and declaring, that be " must see that humanity to
me might not be inhumanity to the public," because
the street-keeper had given him such a report as so
illiterate, so ignorant, so stupid a man, was likely to
give of an hypothetical apostrophe in my oration
which he.did not understand. I will give it you as
it was. [Mr. Taylor here repeated from his oration
the following passage.] But this it was, and of this
hypothetical character have all my orations been—
" Ask the .Jew, the proprietor and the depositary of
what you call the Old Testament. Will he consent
that the invidious name should be applied to what
he calls the lively oracles of God ? Will he consent
to the cashiering and superannuation of that sacred
volume which God gave to Jacob for a law, and to
Israel for an everlasting covenant ?—(Psalm iv. cv.
10.) And of which by his holiness he swore
(Psalm lxxxix. v. 85), that it should be as the sun
before him, and as the faithful witness in heaven.
The Jew will answer, An oath, an oath, I have an
oath in heaven. Shall God lay perjury to his soul
No, not for Jesus ! If, then, your New Testament
be of God, your God himself is perjured, and fie
upon his laws."
-Lord TENTERDEN (mildly).—l wish you would
not utter such things.
Mr. Taylor proceeded--" I answer only for him
as the Son of Israel would answer for himself, and
k in demonstration to you that your Jew-converting