as facts. Generally speaking, authenticated copies of written laws, or other public instruments of a foreign government, are expected to be produced. The usual modes of authenticating foreign laws, as of foreign judgments, are by an exemplification of a copy under the great seal of a state, or by a copy proved to be a true copy, or by the certificate of an officer authorized by law, which certificate must itself be duly authenticated.

Foreign unwritten laws, customs, and usages, may be proved, and indeed must ordinarily be proved by parol evidence. The usual course is, to make such proof by the testimony of competent witnesses, instructed in the law, under oath; sometimes, however, certificates of persons in high authority have been allowed as evidence. The public seal of a foreign sovereign proves itself; the seal of a foreign court (except courts of admiralty) must be established by competent testimony.

The mode by which the laws, records, and judgments of the different states of the Union are to be verified, has been prescribed by Congress under the Constitution.

The author thus concludes his work:

"It will occur to the learned reader, upon a general survey of the subject, that many questions are still left in a distressing state of uncertainty, as to the true principles which ought to regulate and decide them. Different nations entertain different doctrines and different usages in regard to them. The jurists of different countries hold opinions opposite to each other, as to some of the fundamental prin. ciples which ought to have a universal operation; and the jurists of the same nation are sometimes as ill agreed among themselves. Still, however, with all these deductions, it is manifest, that many approximations have been already made towards the establishment of a general system of international jurisprudence, which shall elevate the policy, subserve the interests, and promote the common convenience of all nations. We may thus indulge the hope, that at no distant period, the comity of nations will be but another name for the justice of nations; and that the noble boast of the great Roman orator may be in some measure realized. Non erit alia lex Romæ, alia Athenis, alia nunc, alia posthae; sed et omnes gentes et omni tempore una lex et sempiterna et immortalis continebit."

In a work involving such a multiplicity of subjects, it has been thought more useful to state the result upon the principal points, than to enter into any reasoning or discussion upon disputed matters. This abstract will give an idea of the various and important topics treated of, but will not supersede the necessity of resorting to the work itself of Judge Story, in which all the necessary explanations are given to render the subjects perfectly intelligible. A perusal of the work, too, will show the great number of authors whose books have been examined, and the endeavours to reconcile conflicting opinions, when it was possible to do so. The work on the Conflict of Laws will have a decided influence in realizing Cicero's wish, and in bringing about a consummation so much desired-a uniformity of laws among the different nations of the world.

ART. IV-A Sermon preached in St. Michael's Church, Charleston, February 13th, 1833, before the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of South Carolina, by the Rev. J. ADAMS, D. D., President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina, and (ex officio) Horry Professor of Moral and Political Philosophy. Published at the request of the Bishop and Clergy of the Protestant Episcopal Church of South Carolina.

THE author of this sermon is well known throughout South Carolina, as an accomplished scholar, a learned divine, and a gentleman of exemplary purity of life. We have occasionally heard him lecture on moral philosophy-and never without pleasure. His extensive literary attainments, his clear and simple style, his mild demeanour, and the respect which his character commands, qualify him peculiarly for the instruction of youth.

We have heard him also with pleasure in the pulpit. His discourses are generally argumentative, and abound with manly sentiments and moral reflections. But in the sermon now before us, Mr. Adams has aimed a blow at the Constitution of the United States. With a rash hand, he has endeavoured to overturn one of the main pillars of our liberty. He has invaded, and attempted to destroy freedom of conscience, and on its ruins to erect intolerance and odious discriminations for religion's sake.

We are aware that Mr. Adams would unhesitatingly deny that he had any such intention. But such is the inevitable tendency of the doctrines he advocates.

Before we proceed any further we would remark, that we are humble believers in the truth of the Christian Scriptures. The argument of Mr. Hume against the belief of miracles is not, in our opinion, entitled to much consideration. It is more probable, he contends, that human testimony is false, or that men are mistaken, than that the miracles should be true.

We readily admit that men are often mistaken, and that they sometimes lie "for the lie's sake," as Lord Bacon truly, though coarsely expresses it. We should therefore examine their testimony in favour of miracles with the most scrupulous care, and, if there be a reasonable room for doubt, reject it. But we must not shut our eyes against the light. We must not reject as wholly insufficient that evidence which would satisfy us in the most important transactions of life. In fact, human testimony is the only kind of evidence we can have in the case. Let that which appears miraculous occur every day, and it will soon cease to be considered a miracle; it will be regarded as the natural operation of fixed laws. No one will deny, we presume, that God can perform a miracle-that he can, if he think fit, suspend the ordinary operation of natural laws; for to deny this, is to limit his power. If a

miracle occur then, and we ourselves do not witness it, we can only learn it from evidence.

Now, what evidence have we that the miracles mentioned in the New Testament were performed?

1. It is proved by the testimony of eye-witnesses; of persons who actually saw them performed, and who had no interest in deceiving us.

2. These witnesses suffered persecution, and even laid down their lives in support of what they said.

3. The miracles were not denied for centuries after by the opponents of Christianity, who, on the contrary, admitted that they were performed, but attributed them to the power of evil spirits.

We consider this evidence as strong as the nature of the case will admit. But if a shadow of doubt as to the truth of the Christian Scriptures were left by the external evidence, that is removed by the internal evidence of their Divine authority. The wonderful and exact fulfilment of the prophecies, cannot otherwise be accounted for. That in pretending to foretell events, an individual might occasionally hit upon a truth, we have no doubt. But that so many predictions, such precise prophecies, should be so exactly fulfilled, can only be accounted for on the supposition of a Divine inspiration. Mr. Channing delivered, some years ago in Boston, an admirable essay on the internal evidence of Christianity. It is written in a glowing style, and with much force of argument. In it he urges, that if there were no other proof of the truth of Christianity, this would be sufficient, viz. the fact that twelve ignorant, uneducated men, without any extraordinary advantages of mind, had prescribed a code of morals infinitely superior to any that the wisest and most learned men of antiquity framed: a code of morals not only adapted to the then situation of the world, but to all the various changes and modifications that have since taken place -and which, the more man improves in civilization, seems better and better adapted to the high purposes for which it was framed. This argument is entitled to greater consideration, from the reflection that time, which is thus continually developing the excellence of Christianity, exhibits defects in all human institutions.

We will not fatigue our readers by dwelling longer on arguments in favour of Christianity, arguments with which they are sufficiently familiar, and to which we have nothing new to add. Our object was rather to express our belief, than to “give a reason for the faith that is in us.'

While, however, we are believers and followers of Christ, we must declare ourselves decidedly opposed to any connexion between church and state. Such a connexion will necessarily create a marked distinction between those who believe, and those who do not believe the religion upheld and protected by law. Hence a discrimination in civil rights will gradually arise. One set, or

rather one sect of men, will be protected and rewarded, while another will be proscribed and persecuted. Freedom of conscience will be invaded. With freedom of opinion freedom of speech must fall-and liberty will soon expire.

This is not a picture drawn by an over-excited imagination; it is the truth, as portrayed by the pencil of history. Yet Mr. Adams has the boldness to hazard the following assertion,—

"If the Roman emperors had been satisfied to receive the new religion without distinction of sects, as the broad ground of all the great institutions of the empire, it is impossible to show or to believe, that such a measure would not have been both wise and salutary. The misfortune was, that there soon came to be a legal preference of one form of Christianity over all others." Page 5.

Now, Christianity may be considered but as one of the larger sects into which mankind is divided. Any argument that would prove the wisdom of making one particular form of religion the ground of all the great institutions of an empire, would prove the wisdom of making one form of Christianity the ground of those institutions. Let us take a case, and apply the argument.

The Roman Catholic religion is deemed by many a system of idolatry, of bigotry, and of superstition. We have heard several intelligent and well educated persons contend that it is opposed to civil liberty-that its fundamental doctrines interfere with the right of free judgment-impose an unnatural and tyrannical restraint on the mind, and inculcate a slavish submission to persons in authority. We have heard the same individuals contend that Unitarians are not, in the strict sense of the term, Christians-because, say they, the Unitarians deny the divine nature of Jesus, which is of the essence of Christianity; teach the most shocking and blasphemous doctrine on the nature of the Godhead; and are gradually introducing a culpable carelessness about religious concerns, infidelity, and even atheism.

A person entertaining these views, may be supposed to argue in the following manner:

"The Unitarian sect, by introducing carelessness concerning the duties of religion, are gradually, though perhaps unconsciously, undermining the only sure foundation of public morals. Their influence on society must therefore be baleful. So too with the Roman Catholics. By dispensations and indulgences, by absolution and an absurd belief in purgatory, their religion gives a sanction to immorality and licentiousness, and destroys the sense of moral responsibility. Thus do extremes meet. The superstition of the Catholic is not less pernicious that the irreligion of the Unitarian. In vain do we look to monkish records for the mild spirit and beneficial effects of Christianity. For them we must look to THE REFORMATION. The REFORMATION has done much for individuals. It has inculcated charity, peace, and good-will among men. It has destroyed superstition, introduced purity of morals, and taught us that the path of virtue is the road to God.-It has done much for nations. It has taught them to do good to one another. It has taught them that the prosperity and happiness of neighbouring nations, is a source of mutual comfort and enjoyment. It has diminished the horrors of war, by softening the lot of captives, abolishing the odious practices of the dark and gothic ages, and in a word, by teaching that the rights of humanity should never be disregarded. Why should not then VOL. XVII. NO. 34. 41

Christianity, as established at the reformation, be incorporated in our laws? Why should not a religion so pure, so beneficial, be connected with, and protected by our laws and constitutions?"

How would Mr. Adams answer this, if it were urged by one expressing the opinions of a large majority of the people? He is precluded from arguing that civil government can not rightly interfere with religion. We have heard him already assert that it would have been both "wise and salutary" to connect one form of religion with all the great institutions of government. If “one form of religion," why not "one form of Christianity?"—especially when that is the only true form.

There is, and there can be, no middle ground between perfect liberty and tyranny on this subject. Give government the right to interfere, to pass laws for the protection of Christianity, and it will necessarily have to determine what is Christianity, and what laws are necessary for the protection of Christianity. In other words, it will have an unlimited power on the subject.

In page nineteenth, the author, addressing himself to this point, says:

"No power less efficacious than Christianity, can permanently maintain the public tranquillity of the country, and the authority of law. We must be a Christian nation, if we wish to continue a free nation."

And, that he may not be misunderstood, he adds in a note:

"With a view of illustrating this subject, by uniting high authority with great clearness of argument, the author subjoins a part of the opinion of the late Chief Justice Parsons, of Massachusetts, in the case of Barnes vs. First Parish in Falmouth, contained 6 Mass. Reports, p. 404, &c. In this case, the Court had occasion to vindicate Art. 3. Part I. of the Constitution of that State (p. 29.) So far as the Massachusetts' Constitution and the argument vindicating it make a discrimination between Christian denominations, they do not meet the concurrence of the author, but he considers the main positions of the Chief Justice incontrovertible, and his course of reasoning highly instructive and convincing."

The reasoning of the late Chief Justice Parsons of Massachusetts, is to the following effect: There are moral duties flowing from the disposition of the heart, and not subject to the control of human legislation. Secret offences cannot be prevented unless civil government derive assistance from some superior power, whose laws extend to the temper and disposition of the human heart. Legislators have, therefore, in all ages, had recourse to religion. It is not against freedom of conscience to establish a particular form of religion by law, and to compel persons to pay a tax for its support, although they may think the established religion false. It is simply a call on the citizen for money for the public use, and is in no sense a matter of conscience. The public has a right to levy taxes, and make appropriations; and no individual is at liberty to withhold the tax, because he dislikes the appropriation. Otherwise, there will soon be an end of all, government. The