ing it all, and admitting only the New Testament. Thus we have to receive as a divine revelation what is in great measure based on the Old Testament, and a sequel to it;—a sequel, that is, to a string of childish and worthless legends. This is a greater difficulty. To escape this, let us explain away the New Testament also, and speak of the whole Bible as 'one great Parable." That is, we are to receive as a divine revelation, what, in fact, reveals nothing; and indeed, less than nothing; since it was understood-and was sure to be understood-for many ages, in a sense quite remote from the truth. It does not merely leave us in the dark, but misleads us by a false light. This is a still greater difficulty. Let us then adopt the hypothesis that Jesus was merely a wise philosopher, like Socrates and Confucius, and was no otherwise sent from Heaven than they were. Thousands, we are to suppose, eagerly listened to, and admired, the moral discourses of the reputed 'carpenter's Son;' though the tone of his morality was quite opposite to what they had been trained from their youth to adopt and reverence. Their admiration was so great that they attributed to Him miracles, though He wrought none, and judged Him to be their long-expected Messiah, though his whole character and that of his kingdom were far remote from all their expectations and wishes. And so it came to pass that a Galilean peasant overthrew the religions of the world, and established his own, throughout all the most civilized nations!

As was justly remarked many ages ago, the establishing of Christianity without miracles—of a religion based on an appeal to miracles, which were never wrought-would be a far greater wonder than all the Scripture-miracles put together.

At every escape from one difficulty, there is a plunge into

another.

Such theorists remind one of the story that is told, of a gentleman who was about to pull down an old family mansion, and build a new one, and was at a loss how to get rid of the rubbish, the cast-off materials of the old house. His bailiff suggested to him to dig a pit and bury them. 'But what shall I then do with the earth that comes out of the pit?' 'Oh,' said the other, 'make the pit big enough to hold all!'

1 As some of the Tract-school have done.

Vain are the endeavors to make a pit that will hold not only all the difficulties of the Bible, but also all the difficulties of every hypothesis on which it is rejected.

W

CHAPTER IV.

Rejection of Christianity.

E acknowledge that the christian religion, although it converted great numbers, did not produce an universal or even a general conviction in the minds of men, of the age and countries in which it appeared. And this want of a more complete and extensive success, is called the rejection of the christian history and miracles; and has been thought, by some, to form a strong objection to the reality of the facts which the history contains.

The matter of the objection divides itself into two parts, as it relates to the Jews, and as it relates to Heathen nations; because the minds of these two descriptions of men may have been, with respect to Christianity, under the influence of very different causes. The case of the Jews, inasmuch as our Savior's ministry was originally adressed to them, offers itself first to our consideration.

Now, upon the subject of the truth of the christian religion, with us there is but one question, viz., whether the miracles were actually wrought? From acknowledging the miracles we pass instantaneously to the acknowledgment of the whole. No doubt lies between the premises and the conclusion. If we believe the works, or any one of them, we believe in Jesus. And this order of reasoning is become so universal and familiar, that we do not readily apprehend how it could ever have been otherwise. Yet it appears to me perfectly certain, that the state of thought, in the mind of a Jew of our Saviour's age, was totally different from this. After allowing the reality of the miracle, he had a great deal to do to persuade himself that Jesus was the Messiah. This is clearly intimated by various passages of the gospel history. It appears that, in the apprehension of the writers of the New Testament, the miracles did

not irresistibly carry, even those who saw them, to the conclusion intended to be drawn from them; or so compel assent as to leave no room for suspense, for the exercise of candor, or the effects of prejudice. And to this point, at least, the evangelists may be allowed to be good witnesses; because it is a point, in which exaggeration or disguise would have been the other way. Their accounts, if they could be suspected of falsehood, would rather have magnified, than diminished, the effects of the miracles.

John vii. 21-31: Jesus answered, and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel—If a man on the Sabbath-day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken, are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath-day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he whom they seek to kill? but lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing to him; do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man, whence he is; but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not; but I know him, for I am from him, and he hath sent me. Then they sought to take him, but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come; and many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than those which this man hath done?'

This passage is very observable. It exhibits the reasoning of different sorts of persons upon the occasion of a miracle, which persons of all sorts are represented to have acknowledged as real. One sort of men thought, that there was something very extraordinary in all this; but that still Jesus could not be the Christ, because there was a circumstance in his appearance, which militated with an opinion concerning Christ, in which they had been brought up, and of the truth of which, it is probable, they had never entertained a particle of doubt, viz. that 'when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.' Another sort were inclined to believe him to be the Messiah. But even these did not argue as we should; did not

consider the miracle as of itself decisive of the question, as what, if once allowed, excluded all further debate upon the subject, but founded their opinion upon a kind of comparative reasoning, 'When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than those which this man hath done?'

Another passage in the same evangelist, and observable for the same purpose, is that in which he relates the resurrection of Lazarus: 'Jesus,' he tells us [xi. 43, 44], 'when he had thus spoken, cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth; and he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave clothes, and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him and let him go.' One might have expected, that at least all those who stood by the sepulchre, when Lazarus was raised, would have believed in Jesus. Yet the evangelist does not so represent it. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him; but some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.' We cannot suppose that the evangelist meant, by this account, to leave his readers to imagine that any of the spectators doubted about the truth of the miracle. Far from it. Unquestionably, he states the miracle to have been fully allowed: yet the persons who allowed it were, according to his representation, capable of retaining hostile sentiments towards Jesus. Believing in Jesus' was not only to believe that he wrought miracles, but that he was the Messiah. With us there is no difference between these two things; with them there was the greatest. And the difference is apparent in this transaction. If St. John has represented the conduct of the Jews upon this occasion truly (and why he should not I cannot tell, for it rather makes against him than for him), it shows clearly the principles upon which their judgment proceeded. Whether he has related the matter truly or not, the relation itself discovers the writer's own opinion of those principles, and that alone possesses considerable authority. In the next chapter, we have a reflection of the evangelist, entirely suited to this state of the case; 'but though he had done so many miracles before them, yet believed they not on him.' The evangelist

6

1 Ch. xii. 37.

does not mean to impute the defect of their belief to any doubt about the miracles, but to their not perceiving, what all now sufficiently perceive, and what they would have perceived had not their understandings been governed by strong prejudices, the infallible attestation which the works of Jesus bore to the truth of his pretensions.

The ninth chapter of St. John's gospel contains a very cir cumstantial account of the cure of a blind man; a miracle submitted to all the scrutiny and examination which a skeptic could propose. If a modern unbeliever had drawn up the interrogatories, they could hardly have been more critical or searching. The account contains also a very curious conference between the Jewish rulers and the patient, in which the point for our present notice, is their resistance of the force of the miracle, and of the conclusion to which it led, after they had failed in discrediting its evidence. We know that God spake unto Moses, but as for this fellow, we know not whence he is.' That was the answer which set their minds at rest. And by the help of much prejudice, and great unwillingness to yield, it might do so. In the mind of the poor man restored to sight, which was under no such bias, felt no such reluctance, the miracle had its natural operation. Herein [says he] is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began was it not heard, that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.' We do not find that the Jewish rulers had any other reply to make to this defence, than that which authority is sometimes apt to make to argument,'Dost thou teach us?'

If it shall be inquired how a turn of thought, so different from what prevails at present, should obtain currency with the ancient Jews, the answer is found in two opinions, which are proved to have subsisted in that age and country. The one was, their expectation of a Messiah of a kind totally contrary to what the appearance of Jesus bespoke him to be; the other, their persuasion of the agency of demons in the production of supernatural effects. These opinions are not supposed by us for the purpose of argument, but are evidently recognized in