Jews. When did the dispersion take place; on which this argument ought to proceed?

Rev. Dr. Bennett.-It took place about 70 years, I think, after the crucifixion of Christ. You will recollect that in speaking in this impromptu way, and not being able to foresee what questions might be put to me," , I cannot be expected to be accurate to a year in chronology. I can only give you a general idea, which I am perfectly conscious is true; but I can be more accurate still. I have Tacitus in my pocket-the same writer I have quoted, and it would be easy to read his account. It is in the fifth book of his Annals, that he gives a description of the war, and it was from the date of that war that their dispersion took place, and they were scattered all over the world.

Mr. Taylor.—And that dispersion was a fulfilment of prophecy-the dispersion was a visitation from God upon them for rejecting their Messiah? That is the position which it is necessary I should bring you to, in order to the great demonstration at which I aim; namely, that the Jews never did exist as a nation, but the term Jew was a general name for a pious and devout man of any nation whatever.

Rev. Dr. Bennett.-All the history of the Greeks and Romans will deny that position. Josephus himself was a Jew, and he speaks of his nation the Jews, and not of a sect. Tacitus speaks of the Jews as he speaks of any other nation against whom Vespasian made war, and there is no way of proving any name to be the name of a nation, if the name

of Jew does not. We might be told, perhaps, that the name of Englishmen, is the name of a religious sect, because in some countries it may have that application. Where Englishmen are only known as missionaries where they have gone and propagated the gospel, the name of Englishmen and the name of Christian are almost identified in the people's minds. This is their mode. If a man be an Englishman, he is considered a Christian, and if a Christian, he is considered an Englishman; except in countries where intercourse with foreigners and navigators has taught them that those names are not synonymous.

Mr. Taylor. I am sorry to find the authority of Tacitus, and pagan authors, little acquainted with the peculiarities of the Jewish religion, should be set up to overthrow the explicit declarations of the Jewish Scriptures themselves. The dispersion which you speak of, from pagan authors, as having taking place subsequently to the crucifixion of Christ, at the destruction of Jerusalem under Vespasian, 70 years after that epocha, I find is stated in the book of Esther, and which is a book received as a divine communication, to have taken place 520 years before the birth of Christ. You will there read that Ahasuerus reigned from India and Ethiopia over an 127 provinces. In this book we have one of the first accounts of the Jews, "And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, there is a certain people scattered abroad, and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom." Those were the Jews, and therefore they were certainly not a national but

I

a religious people. I read in the Acts of the Apostles

Rev. Dr. Bennett.-I would beg to suggest to Mr. Taylor, that it would be better to divide his questions.

Mr. Taylor.—I am sure these are important truths, it would raise infidelity in your estimation if I could contrive to put them in the form of a question. In the Acts of the Apostles it is said, "There were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven." Is not that an indication that a Jew pointed out a religious character? I have a hundred texts like this; in the second chapter of the Romans we read, "He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly;" indicating that the character of a Jew was synonymous with what in common parlance would be called a pious man.

Rev. Dr. Bennett.-It must be obvious to the audience that here is quite enough to occupy a man for two hours in answering, and though the questioner has his notes, I have none. It is utterly impossible for me to give him an answer, unless he will be so kind as to go over his questions again, reducing them to sections, and will give me portion by portion, and thus let me answer them portion by portion. I really cannot recollect all the questioner has said, and I doubt whether he himself can.

Mr. Taylor. Yes, yes.

Rev. Dr. Bennett.-With regard, however, to one part of his statement in which he expressed his sorrow that I quoted from pagan authors, I should

have been ashamed to quote from them if I supposed that I was addressing a Christian audience. With those who profess to receive the Scriptures as a divine communication, these are my law and my testimony, and I say if we speak not according to these words, it is because there is no light in us. But is it wrong to quote profane authors when arguing with a person who, I presume, does not admit the truth of the Scriptures? I should have thought then, it would have been in vain to appeal to these -books-though the questioner himself now appeals to them as if they were true. Well, but if you admit them true, there is no more controversy between us, and I rejoice in your conversion, and bless God for it. (Applause.)

Mr. Taylor.—I assure you it is not for argumentative victory-it is not for a display of talent, that I speak here, but to convey a knowledge of the objections to Christianity on which my public character is founded, and the private sentiments of one hundred thousand persons in this metropolis. The object I aim at is, if not to carry conviction to your minds, at least to produce a benevolent impression on your hearts, that you may know that infidels are not those monstrous, those absurd and irrational beings which it is convenient in some assemblies, where one side only is heard, to represent them. My objection was this, I regretted that when it served the purpose in hand, you should have set up what I hold to be conflicting testimony to the Scriptures themselves. Now the Scriptures themselves do not speak of the Jews as a nation.

The

Rev. Dr. Bennett.-On this subject there really needs no discussion between two individuals. Bible is open to every man, let him go home and read it. I appeal to the common sense of every person come to the years of maturity, whether both the Old Testament and the New do not speak of these people as a nation.

Mr. Taylor. Certainly not.

Rev. Dr. Bennett.-And whether I have not given a good reason for the passing away of the name of Israelites, and the adoption of the name of Jews instead. We have a parallel case in this country. If a man were to say we are Englishmen, and therefore we are not inhabitants of the island of Great Britain, we are a mere sect in that island, if we were the pure bona fide population we should be called Britons, he would be laughed at.

Now it

Mr. Taylor. An illustration is very dangerous and delusive when substituted in the place of an argument, for you have evaded the terms. The parallel term to that of Jew on my argument would be such an one as Quaker or Methodist. would not follow that if a man were a Quaker or a Methodist, he was not an Englishman, for every body knows that that is a religious, not a political distinction. That is my argument with respect to the Jews. I read in the fifth chapter of St. John's Gospel, that, "No man spake openly of Him for fear of the Jews," in which it is evident that the multitude of the people—if we take the work as a history-were not Jews, but the Jews were a religious sect existing among them.