be errors, refer to the higher theoretical principles, and are too far removed from practice to be immediately injurious; but they constitute, from their very generality, the foundation, out of which the people who adopt them has drawn its system of morals and social life and hence to this portion of the human race are accidentally become of great importance.

Openly to contest such principles, because they appear to us prejudices, is, without supporting the structure, to dig a pit under it, in order to examine whether it be firm and secure.

He who cares more for the happiness of men than his own fame, will withhold his opinion concerning prejudices of this description, beware of attacking them directly, and without the greatest caution, that he may not destroy a doubtful principle of morals, before his fellows are fit to receive a true one. I can therefore, consistently with my principles, believe I perceive natural prejudices and false religious notions, and yet feel myself bound to be silent, when these errors do not immediately destroy natural religion, or the natural law, and much more when they are accidentally connected with the promotion of what is good. It is true the morality of our actions scarcely deserves that name when it is grounded on error, and the good can always be more securely and better preserved by truth, when it recognised, than by prejudice. But as long as it is not recognised, so long as it is not become national, so that it cannot operate on the multitude so powerfully as deep rooted prejudice, so long must even prejudice to every friend of virtue be almost sacred.

This modesty is still more incumbent on me, when the nation which one believes to be in such errors, has, in other points, made itself venerable by wisdom and virtue, and counts amongst it a number of great men, who deserve to be considered as benefactors of the species. So noble a portion of the human race must, when met by any one, himself human, be indulged. Who should be so rash as to lose sight of the excellencies of such a nation, to attack it where he believes he has found a weakness? These are the motives which my religion and my philanthropy furnish, and induce me carefully to avoid religious disputes: add the domestic situation in which I live amongst my fellow men, and you will think me fully justified. I am the member of an oppressed people, who

!

must implore shelter and protection from the ruling nation; and even this it obtains not every where, and no where without limitation. My brethren in faith are willing to renounce liberties which are granted to all other classes of men, and are contented if they are tolerated and protected. They esteem it no small act of beneficence in the nation which receives them only on tolerable conditions, since, in many states, even residence is refused them. Is your circumcised friend allowed, by the laws, to pay you a visit at Zurich? What obligations, then, do we not owe to the nation which receives us with general philanthropy, and allows us, unhindered, to worship the Almighty according to the manner of our forefathers? We enjoy in the state in which I live, the most becoming liberty, and ought we not to avoid contesting the religion of the governing party, that is attacking our protectors on the side of which men of virtue are the most sensible.

According to these principles it was my resolution always to act; and, consequently, to shun all religious disputes, if not compelled by some extraordinary incident to alter my resolution.

Private challenges from men of respectibility I have dared to pass over in silence. The intrusion of little minds, who thought themselves authorized publicity to attack me for my religion, I have thought myself authorized to despise. But the solemn appeal of a Lavater compels me, at least, openly to declare my mode of thinking-that no one may interpret a silence, too long preserved, into confession or contempt. Yours, &c.

Lavater instantly published a letter to Mendlesohn, vindicating the purity of his intentions, but confessing that his conduct had been censured by his friends, particularly by Bonnet. "I therefore," says he, "retract my unconditional challenge, as a thing I am not entitled to make, and before the public honestly beg pardon for what was faulty and intrusive in my dedications."

He also states the qualification with which Mendlesohn had prais ed the character of Jesus ... "The expression of your esteem for the founder of my religion, was asserted with the following great qualification: 'If he had not arrogated to himself the worship that is due to Jehovah alone.'"

This letter is full of strong expressions of veneration for Mendlesohn, of astonishment that he should be a Jew, of his zeal for

......ianity, and of his wish that his friend would re-examine the historical facts only on which ......ianity is founded.

Mendlesohn answered this letter, asserting the same sentiments, and breathing the same mild spirit: he corrects the contemptuous opinion he had expressed of Bonnet; and, without entering into the argument at large, contents himself with urging one point.

On the subject of miracles he says, that those of Jesus may be allowed, and yet he may in the eyes of Jews be a false Messiah: according to the Jewish faith, a partial evidence or miracle, nothing short of a "public legislation," a manifestation of the Deity before the whole assembled nation, is adequate evidence of the true Messiah.

ABRAHAM'S LETTERS.

To the REV. TRUMAN MARSH, Vice President of the "Auxiliary Society at Litchfield for Meliorating the Condition of the Jews." (Continued from page 165.)

Ir it is rellay your intention, and the purpose of your associates, to make proselytes to your faith from among our people,* it is to be presumed you only expect to do this by convincing them that its founder was the True Messiah, foretold by the prophets.† In order to do this successfully, you must show that Jesus of Nazareth, whom you assert to have been that great personage, was a lineal descendant of the House of David, and possessed all the characteristics and qualifications which our sacred books inform us he was to possess, and without which we are solemnly enjoined by Jehovah to reject every pretender as an impostor.

As to the descent of that person whom you call the Messiah, in a direct line from David, the account given of his conception in your gospels, proves to a demonstration that the writers of these books believed him to have been produced, not by a descendant of the royal line, but by supernatural agency. The power of the Highest, it is said, overshadowed Mary, and that which was begot

* Israel's Advocate, No. IV. p. 54.

+ Israel's Advocate, No. IV. p. 63. St. Matthew, c. i. Luke, c. iii. v. 23.

ten of her was called the "Son of God.'

In no part of our law, nor of the prophets is it affirmed that the Messiah, who was to redeem Israel, was to come into the world in this extraordinary manner. He was to be, literally, and in the true sense of the word, a true descendant of David, according to the flesh, in the same manner as his son Solomon, or any other of his children. Here then, in the very outset of the investigation, the conformity, so essential to the true character of the Messiah, fails. Instead of Jesus being a man, partaking of the same nature as other men, he is held up as a divinity, who, like the celebrated personages, among the pagan nations, sprang from another divinity, and therefore could have no pretensions to being a descendant of David, who was a mere mortal.

An awkward attempt is no doubt made in your evangelists, to introduce a genealogy† from David, in order to make it appear that Jesus was of royal extraction. But supposing that genealogy to be correct, it refers to Joseph only, who was merely the supposed or reputed father, and was no way concerned in the production of the child brought forth by Mary. Nor can it be pretended that it is meant for the mother, because in that case it would fail altogether to answer the purpose intended by bringing it forward, Mary not being a descendant of David, who was of the tribe of Judah, but the cousin of Elizabeth, one of the daughters of Aaron, and consequently of the tribe of Levi.

However fatal this objection may be to all your schemes of conversion, there are others equally strong and conclusive as to the character of the Messiah, which you will require to get over before you can calculate on convincing our nation that Jesus of Nazareth ought to be considered in that light. All the prophets, from Moses downwards, agree in representing the Messiah to be a mighty prince; a leader who was to govern Israel; a royal deliverer and You tell us Moses speaks of him as a prophet, who would resemble himself, and whom the children of Israel would hear and obey in all things. Daniels describes him as a king, who was to reign over the whole earth; and Isaiah says, that at that glorious period there would be but one religion and one law throughout the + St. Matthew, c. i. St. Luke, c. iii. v. 23. Daniel, c. xvi.

restorer.

St. Matthew, c. i. v. 20.

St. Luke, c. xiii.

world. All the prophets, indeed, concur in this, as well as in foretelling that in the times of the Messiah there would be no more sin or crime; that universal peace would prevail; that all calamities, afflictions and lamentations should for ever cease; and so perfect would be the harmony, that the most savage beasts of the forest would be rendered altogether harmless.

It is in vain to seek for these characteristics in the person or history of Jesus. So far from appearing as a mighty prince, his origin was the most obscure that can be imagined. During the earliest and most active part of his life, he was employed in low mechanical pursuits, incapable of attracting the notice of any one; and when he at last showed himself, his retinue was composed of the poorest and most illiterate of the multitude, who depended for subsistence on their manual labour. Instead of the Jews, to whom he preached, hearing and obeying him in all things, as you tell us was foretold by Moses, it is proved by your gospels, that they heard him only to contemn him; and although he is said to have performed numerous miracles in their presence, they still persisted in rejecting him, and accused him of working wonders by the power of magic. They could discover nothing of the monarch or the hero in one who avowed that he had no place to lay his head; who on all occasions was fearful of the priests, and sought safety in flight whenever he considered himself in danger; and who at last was accused of exciting sedition among the people, dragged before a Roman governor, sentenced to suffer a most ignominious death, and actually expired lamenting his fate, without, in the whole course of his miserable and unfortunate career, one effort having been made to succour him, or one circumstance occuring by which he could be distinguished from the common herd of mortals.

The people of his day, who were eye-witnesses of all this, pronounced him an impostor. Can it then be expected of us their descendants, who saw none of the wonderful things he is said to have operated, to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, after the lapse of eighteen hundred years, during which nothing has taken place to make good his title to that character, but every thing on the contrary, to justify our ancestors in the opinion they had formed of, and in the course which they are said to have pursued respecting

Isiah, Ixiii. v. 19.