We hope this may prove an opening for great and extensive usefulness among the Indians in this quarter, where is a wide field for missionary labours, already occupied, in part, by the synod of Pittsburgh. THE SENECA PROPHET, Communicated for the Panoplist by a Missionary who visited him and his people. A FEW years since, an Indian at the Alleghany river, half brother to the noted Cornplanter, gave out that he had communications from the Great Spirit, which he was commanded to make known to the different tribes of Indians. He was formerly a great drunkard, and despised by the Indians themselves, as an ignorant, idle, worthless fellow. Since his reformation, he appears meek, honest and inoffensive. By those best acquainted with him, he is considered as deficient in intellect. He converses but little. His countenance does not indicate much thoughtfulness. When questioned, however, his answers are pertinent, and his public speeches are sensible. He inculcates on his followers, that they sell not their lands; that they refrain from the use of ardent spirits; that they put not away their wives; that they cultivate their lands; live industrious lives; and maintain the religious customs of their ancestors. To one, who expressed his doubts of his having such communications, and used some arguments to show him he had not, he replied with his usual simplicity, "I think I have had such communications made to me." At the meeting of commissioners with the Senecas, for the purpose of purchasing a tract of land at the Black-rock, this Indian was present, and opposed the sale of their lands. He related the communications, which he said he had received from the Great Spirit. Some of the communications he could not recollect, and asked his brother Cornplanter. When asked how he could forget such communications, he said at the time the Great Spirit told him these things, he related them to his brother; and that he was told so many things, he did not remember all. Since this Prophet, as he is styled, arose, there has been a great reform among the pagans of the Six Nations, The settlement at the Alleghany riv er, containing about 450 souls, a few years since, were a poor, idle, drunken, contemptible people; they are now become temperate, industrious, and comparatively wealthy. A mission from the Friends near Philadelphia, has much aided this reform, by counsels and example; but whether one would have succeeded without the other, it is probably impossible to determine. This prophet says, he has had repeated visions, in which he sees three spirits or angels, who make communications to him. Sometimes in dreams or visions, he pretends to have seen devils flying, and hovering over their new town, Canadesago, seeking some place to light, but could find none, bes cause the people were now orderly, temperate, and industrious; he then saw them fly to Buffaloe Creek, and light among the whisky casks. Some. times, he says, he has seen idle, and drunken Indians, clothed in rags filth, in old worn out canoes, on lakes at a distance from shore, clouds gath ering thick and black, with awful thunder, lightning and tempest. Sometimes sick persons send a shirt or some other article of clothing, to the prophet, that he may prescribe a cure. In such a case, he takes two handfuls of tobacco, puts their ends to the fire on the hearth, lies down and covers himself with a blanket, after he has arisen he prescribes for the disease. He has stated to the Indians, that great judgments would follow them, if they disobeyed the commands of the Great Spirit, such as floods, drought, &c. The principal of the Friends' mission near these Indians, observed, that a missionary who lately visited them, had spoken much in the same way to them respecting the judgments of God, following the wicked, and that they had been visited, as their prophet had declared, es pecially, with a remarkable flood in the Alleghany river. The fame of this prophet is great among the western Indians. He has once visited the Wyandots, and by particular desire expected soon to visit them again. He is deeply ime testify that, before they slept, the body was there; and that, when they awoke, it was missing; but this is not telling how it was missing; whether through the stealth of the disciples, or miraculously, or any other mode of escape. But I will not waste time in examining the evidence of facts, which were witnessed by persons asleep. Admitting again that the soldiers were asleep, how happened it, that the disciples knew that fact? We cannot suppose that they were watching such an event, an event the most improbable, and beyond the power of the imagination itself to fancy. Besides, what reason had they, or any body else, to suppose that the body could be conveyed away without giving alarm to the soldiers, when it is considered, especially, that many hands would be required to move the stone from the mouth of the sepulchre, and that this could not be performed without producing a very considerable noise! Would it, furthermore, be natural for the disciples, in their haste, to be so particular, as to strip the body of its winding sheet, and the head of its napkin; and, wrapping them up in separate parcels, to lay them carefully in the tomb? Would it not have been more natural, to take the body with its clothes about it, and make all possible dispatch, to avoid detection? Why did they choose the latter part of the night, as it must seem they did, on the supposition made, for such an expedition? For it should be considered that, after they had stolen *See Mark xvi. 1-4; also xv. 46. ¶ See John xx. 6, 7. the body, it was incumbent upon them also to conceal it. Had the chief priests believed that the body was stolen, why was not an immediate search ordered, to discover where it was deposited? Had search been made, there is every reason for believing that a discovery would have been the result. It is no very easy matter to conceal a dead body for any great length of time, so that no traces of it be observed; and at that time, in Jerusalem and its environs, full of people collected to keep the passover, the difficulty must have been increased. The thing was possible indeed; and that possibility, we allow objectors to employ to their utmost advantage. That the chief priests believed nothing about the stealing of the body, and that they fabricated the story themselves, or connived at the fabrication, is manifest from the fact, that they made no effort to detect the fraud of the disciples, as they would term it. They had the strongest motives to expose to the world the knavery of these men, if any such knavery existed; they had the fullest reason to believe, that by a diligent search the body might be discov ered; if such discovery had been made, Christ would have been proved, at once, to be an impostor; his religion have been overthrown; and themselves not only exonerated from the guilt of putting him to death, but shown to be highly praiseworthy in vindicating the truth of God. These were motives, which could not have failed to influence the minds of such men, as composed the Sanhedrim of the Jews; men covetous of a character for zeal in their religion, and little desirous of being considered, in the eyes of the people, as guilty of the blood of an innocent person. On the soldiers' sleeping, I would finally remark, that of all occasions and of all seasons, that occasion and that season were most unfavourable for sleeping. This same Jesus, whose body they were guarding, not many hours before, had been put to death at the instigation of the Jews, whose king, MESSIAH, and deliverer, he had affirmed himself to be. He had declared himself to be the Son of God; had asserted that, though dead, he should arise again. When he gave up the ghost, nature seemed convulsed; the dead left their graves; the rocks confessed some mighty power, and were rent asunder. The minds of all the people had been occupied, and were still occupied, with the novelty, mysteriousness, and importance of what had taken place. These soldiers knew all, which had been done; they themselves, in all probability, had borne a part in the transactions, which preceded and accompanied the crucifixion; were of the number of those, who had arrayed him with mock ensigns of royalty; had insultingly cried, "Hail, king of the Jews!" had spit upon him; and smitten him with the reed, which, in derision, they compelled him to carry, as a sceptre. Notwithstanding these insults, their own consciences must have testified, as Pilate's did, that he was a blameless person; that what they had done, they performed, not because any thing in his life was worthy of reproach, but in the hard-hearted merriment of a Roman soldiery, to whom executions were pastimes, rather than scenes of pity. The time was now rapidly approaching, when, according to his prediction, he should rise from the dead. It was the stillness of night; apprehension was awake; curiosity was alive-could the soldiers sleep? A few moments would decide, whether the object of their watch were the body of a crucified malefactor, or whether the Lord of glory would arise from the tomb. If even these soldiers, in such a time, could sleep, they were not men, but beings, in whom some of the most distinguishing traits of the human character were wanting. But I affirm that the soldiers never told the Sanhedrim the story of stealing the body; and that for these good reasons. First, the soldiers were awake and on guard; they were therefore witnesses of whatever took place; and, if the body were removed, they must have known, and been consenting to it; the improbability of which, i.e. of their consenting, is sufficiently evident from the fact, that the opposers of the resurrection, who catch at any thing to save their cause, never, I believe, attributed to the soldiers any connivance with the disciples; or, on the other hand, if they were not witnesses of what took place, whereas they were not asleep, they must have been supernaturally influenced, in order to prevent their knowledge of what was transacted. But they, who would admit such a preternatural influence, would, I suppose, concede to us the resurrection. On either supposition then, that the soldiers were witnesses, or were not, it would seem, that they were not the authors of the story. Secondly, the guard had every motive for not publishing such a tale. The publishing of it would have been an acknowledgment of a capital offence, and the soldiers well knew that the Jewish Sanhedrim would be the first men in the world to expose them, in such a case, to the penalty of the law. They would expect to be questioned at once," if the disciples came for the body, why did you not apprehend them?" But, "we were asleep.". "How then do you know the truth of what you assert? the world must be persuaded by another story than this, and we shall see that you reap the full reward of your neglect." Thirdly, had the soldiers been asleep, or had they suffered the body to be stolen; they would, beyond a question, have asserted its resurrection; if asleep, to secure them from punishment; if conniving at the theft, besides the avoiding punishment, to carry on the deception. I am aware of one objection to what has been said concerning the fabrication of the story. It is this; "Had the story been so very improbable, those acute men, who composed the Sanhedrim, would never have published it; but it is certain, that they did publish it, and the Jews to this day give credit to it; the more then you endeavour to show its improbability, the more you establish its probability; that is, your argument defeats itself." I answer; whether the story is probable or not, any man may judge for himself, as well now as eighteen hundred years ago, so far as facts are handed down to us. But remark, these men had but one alternative; either to report that the disciples removed the body, or to admit its resurrection. Let any one reflect as much as he pleases, he will find, it is believed, no other. Now the resurrection is out of the question; a thing in no way to be admitted. The disciples then removed the body, and in so doing acted by stealth, or by permission of the keepers; of the two, the removing of it by stealth, no doubt, is the more probable supposition, improbable as it is; and so, it seems, the Jews considered it. Remark farther, that men always admit with readiness any thing to disprove what they vehemently wish to be untrue, or that others should believe to be false. No great wonder, therefore, that the Sanhedrim, in their trying dilemma, fabricated even this improbable tale, to screen themselves from the imputed guilt of having put to death the MESSIAH of their nation. Arguments to prove the resur rection of Jesus might be greatly multiplied. multiplied. I know of no fact in history, which I would sooner undertake to evince, with the hope of success, were men as willing to believe things of everlasting, as they are of temporary moment. The stealing of the body of Christ was incomparably the most probable story, which the sagacity of the most sagacious among the Jews could invent, in order to convince mankind; and it is the only one, on which to this hour the whole people of the Jews, scattered throughout the world, found their disbelief of the resurrection. The absurdity of the story I have endeavoured to expose in a short and perspicuous manner, by laying hold of some of the most prominent circumstances, which present themselves to an inquirer. If Christ Jesus arose from the dead, the Christian religion is true; if this religion is true, it behoves all men to embrace it; for it assures us, that salvation can be hoped for from no other. Whether we admit the evidence of the resurrection, therefore, or not, is no trifling matter; our interest is to know and obey the truth, whatever it is, and the truth alone will make us free. B. C. REPLY OF LUTHER TO J. C. DEAR SIR, IT is no small satisfaction to observe the traits of an ingenious, inquisitive, and candid mind, which your communications display. Such a mind is suited to understand and receive the truth. The additional remarks, which I have to suggest, shall be as concise as possible. For such controversies, when carried to a great length, seldom fail to become unprofitable and irksome to readers. 1. It cannot be unobserved, that you have changed your ground, In your first communication you took the ground of objection against the doctrine of the saints' perseverance. Your arguments were expressed in such decisive terms and urged with so much energy, and such a cast was given to the whole performance, that it was natural for readers to consider you, as not fully believing the doctrine. At least, it is certain, that all you wrote was against it. But now, without any notice, you take ground entirely different. Your remarks, you tell us, 66 are by no means intended directly or indirectly to operate against the doctrine of the saints' perseverance." The difficulties, which your first paper unfolded, seem all to have vanished. In short, your first appearance was wholly in the dress and manners of an Arminian. Your second exhibits you an old Calvinist. This change, which is not by any means censured, must be kept in mind in order to a proper treatment of the subject. Before, my business was to remove objections against the doctrine of perseverance. Now it is quite different. 2. Your concessions deserve notice. You acknowledge the can‐ dour of Luther's observations; and, if you view his arguments as intended to defend the doctrine of perseverance upon the ancient Calvinistic ground, you concede that many of them have ingenuity and force. You speak in another place of their being clear and forcible in themselves, Now if Luther's arguments have a spirit of candour; if they are clear and forcible in themselves, and forcible too on that Calvinistic ground, which you now choose to occupy; they are, one would think, just what you desired, and certainly answer the purpose, for which they were written. Why then are they not satisfactory? Because you have suspicions as to Luther's design. It may be proper, therefore, to remark, 3. On the sentiments, which you are pleased to charge against Luther. Although you do not directly call in question the strength of his arguments; yet there is something, which leads you to suspect, that he did not mean to defend the doctrine on Calvinistic ground. Still you |