defect of their belief to any doubt about the miracles, but to their not perceiving the infallible attestation which the works of Jesus bore to the truth of his pre tensions.

Q. What is the point of our present notice in the miracle of the cure of a blind man, submitted to all the scrutiny which a sceptic could propose ?

A. The resistance of the Jewish rulers to the force of the miracle, and of the conclusion to which it led, after they had failed in discrediting its evidence. In the mind of the poor man, under no bias, the miracle had its natural operation.

Q. How should a turn of thought so different from what prevails at present, obtain currency among the ancient Jews?

A. The answer is found in two opinions, subsisting in that age and country. One was the expectation of a Messiah of a kind contrary to the appearance of Jesus; the other, their persuasion of the agency of demons in producing supernatural effects.

Q. Do these opinions conjointly afford an explanation of their conduct?

A. Yes; the first put them upon seeking out some excuse for not receiving Jesus as the Messiah; the second supplied it. Whatever miracles he performed, their ready answer attributed them to the assistance of Beelzebub.

Q. Does this state of mind afford a reason why the Jews should reject visible miracles, and yet rely so much upon those of their own history.

A. It does; the authority of Moses and the prophets was established; nor does it appear that any of their contemporaries ever thought of ascribing their miracles to the agency of evil beings.

Q. Into what is the infidelity of the Gentile world, and especially of men of rank and learning in it, resolvable?

A. Contempt of prior examination; and this principle, in my opinion, will account for the inefficacy of any argument or any evidence. Besides Christianity had nothing in its character which engaged their notice. It mixed with no politics; produced no fine writers; contained no curious speculations: it was made up of points they had never thought of; of terms of which they had never heard?

Q. Did not its connexion with Judaism also entail disadvantages upon it in the eyes of the heathens ?

A. It shared in the obloquy with which that people and religion were treated by the Greeks and Romans. When they heard of Christianity, they heard of it as a quarrel among the Jews, about some articles of their own superstition.

Q. Would not these considerations operate alike upon the philosopher, as well as upon the libertine?

A. Yes; more particularly upon that class of men who thought all they had to do was, to practise moral duties, and worship the Deity more patrio, a mode of thinking which shuts out every argument for a new religion. Therefore, the actual success of

Christianity against all these prejudications is more to be wondered at, than that it should not have been uniformly triumphant.

Q. Does this strong antecedent contempt among the learned, account for their silence concerning Christianity?

A. Very satisfactorily; if they had rejected it upon examination, they would have written about it; but what men repudiate from some prefixed persuasion, they do not naturally write books about, or notice it much in their other writings. From Pliny's correspondence we know that Christianity prevailed in his province, yet the silence of his letters allows us to infer, that he only inquired into it just so much as a Roman magistrate might be expected to inquire.

Q. Does not the character of Christianity," exitiabilis superstitio," given to it by Tacitus, afford a strong proof how little he knew or concerned himself about the matter?

A. It does; since no modern unbeliever would apply this epithet to Christianity, or would not allow that it was entirely unmerited; as may be gathered from Paul's instructions, given only a few years previous, to those very Roman converts, of whom Tacitus speaks. (Rom. xii. ix.—13. 13.)

Q. But in contending with heathen authorities, we may not be allowed to produce our books.

A. Pliny will answer this objection, who could find nothing to blame when he inquired into the "pernicious superstition." The Christians assembled to sing

hymns to Christ as a God, and bound themselves by an oath against the commission of wickedness, and to the performance of righteousness.

Q. What observations may we build upon the words of Tacitus ?

A. 1st, That we may call the view of Christianity by the learned of those days, an obscure and distant view. 2nd, We learn how little reliance is to be placed upon the most acute judgment in matters which they despise. 3rd, That this prior contempt is an intellectual vice, from which the greatest minds are not free. 4th, We need not be surprised that many writers of the age did not mention Christianity, since it was so entirely misconceived by those who did write about it. Q. How did the greatest part of the learned come to the knowledge of Christianity?

A. Only by report; their books probably they had never seen; the settled habit of their minds had long been an indiscriminate rejection of all reports of the kind. With these sweeping conclusions truth has no chance.

Q. How do you divide the heathens, especially those of rank and education?

A. Into two classes; those who despised Christianity beforehand, and those who received it. In correspondency with this, the writers of that age would also be of two classes, those who were silent about Christianity, and those who were Christians.

Q. Is it not sufficiently proved, that the notion of magic was resorted to by the heathen adversaries of Christianity?

A. I think so; yet I wonder that another adequate cause has been assigned for their infidelity. It is probable, that in many cases the two could co-ope

rate.

CHAPTER V.

Q. WHAT objection is the subject of this chapter? A. That the Christian miracles are not recited or appealed to by early Christian writers themselves, so fully or frequently as might have been expected. Q. How will you consider this objection?

A. First, as applied to the apostles' letters; secondly, as it applies to the writings of other early Christians.

Q. How do the first reply to the objection?

A. The Epistles are either hortatory or argumentative. In the first case there appears to be no place or occasion for more of those references than we actually find. So far as they are argumentative, the nature of the argument accounts for the infrequency of these allusions.

Q. How do the apostolic epistles resemble in this respect the apostolic speeches ?

A. They neither contain many direct or circumstantial recitals of miracles. Out of six speeches of Peter, there are only two in which reference is made to the miracles of Christ, and one to his own, No