more splendid. Thus far their opposition is not to be wondered at; and had the claims of Jesus been authenticated by the works of his hands alone, it could not have been expected of the Jewish teachers to acknowledge his right to offer a substitute for the Mosaic institutions. The claims of Moses and of Jesus, if each reposed on miracles alone, and at the same time appeared in absolute opposition, could be no otherwise decided than by the comparative splendour of their miracles: and here, during the lifetime of Jesus, Moses had undoubtedly the most weighty claim. If Jesus had, in three instances, restored the dead to life, Moses had, by stretching his hand towards heaven, brought plague and famine over all the land of Egypt, and death into every house. If Jesus had been seen to tread the waves at midnight, Moses had led the multitudes of his people through the sea as on dry land. If the followers of Jesus, to the number of five thousand, were miraculously fed with a single meal in the wilderness, the nation under Moses was provided for forty years with bread from heaven. These comparisons were no doubt made in the minds of the Scribes and Pharisees, who rejected Jesus at the very moment when they were witnessing displays of power which they could not deny to be supernatural. To them the Law was everything, and its sanctions were known to be Divine: and assuming that Jesus desired to change the Law, they therefore rejected him; while the common people accepted the assurance of Jesus that he came to fulfill the Law, and could not but admit his claims. This is evident in the case of one miracle which was particularly offensive to the teachers of the people. As Jesus passed out of the temple one Sabbath-day, followed by the maledictions of some who misapprehended his doctrine, he saw at the gate a man who had been blind from his birth, and who was well known, as his custom was to sit as a beggar in the most public place he could choose. The disciples of Jesus, who had not learned to separate temporal sufferings from the guilt of which they had hitherto been the judgements, inquired if the sin for which this man was punished was his own sin or that of his parents. Jesus replied that the blindness was not the punishment of sin, but the means by which the power of God might be manifested in this man. He immediately explained his meaning by giving sight to the beggar. The bystanders brought the beggar to the Pharisees, who after declaring that no one who wrought on the Sabbath could be from God, and that a sinner could effect no such miracle, refused to believe what had been done. The testimony of the blind man's parents, however, was too strong to be gainsaid, and the fact was admitted by all: but, by a singular inconsistency, while they ascribed the glory to God, they denied the claim of Jesus to be his messenger, saying, "We are the disciples of Moses: we know that God spoke to Moses; but we know not whence this man is."—The beggar, in his simplicity, pointed out this inconsistency, though he had not yet been informed that Jesus was the Messiah. The Pharisees silencedhis wise though unlearned remonstrance, and cast him out of their synagogue: thus, like bigots of every age, seeking to subdue by persecution the truth which they could not overthrow by fairer means*. On occasion of the resurrection of Lazarus, in the sight of many, "the chief priests and the Pharisees assembled a council, and said, What shall we do? for this man doeth many miracles. If we suffer him to go on thus, all men will believe in him and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation." From that day they took counsel to kill him; and not him only, but Lazarus also, because on account of him many believed in Jesus. This virulent opposition to works which were all the time admitted to be miraculous may be explained by the reasons before given, and can be explained in no other way. The mistake of these learned men lay in their failing to perceive that Christ came to consummate the Mosaic dispensation; and however insufficient the testimony of miracle may be ad * John ix. mitted to be to them, nothing can justify their blindness to the other testimony with which that of miracles was connected. But for this blindness, fatal to themselves and the whole unbelieving portion of the nation, they would have allowed that, however irreconcilable the two systems might appear on a first view, that of Christ was in reality advocated and protected by that of Moses. It could not be expected of any contemporaries of Jesus that they should discern, as we can, how the whole system of Judaism was a preparation for Christianity. It was necessary that Christianity should have long become a subject of observation and knowledge, before the value of this species of evidence could be perceived; and it could not be fully appreciated, till the first covenant was abrogated, the city and temple destroyed, and the Israelitish state overthrown. But though this store of evidence was yet undisclosed, the testimony of prophecy,-that species of testimony which was appointed for the sake of the Israelites, and specially adapted to their peculiar position,—was weighty enough to settle with abundant satisfaction the claims of Moses and Jesus, if it had been duly considered. Unfortunately, the necessary caution and humility had not been exercised in the interpretation of prophecy previous to its fulfilment. The interpreters formed erroneous notions of the nature of the Messiah's kingdom, and those who rejected Christ could never be induced to relinquish them: and all appeals to ancient and modern prophecy were therefore, fatally for themselves, lost upon them. It is not necessary for our present purpose to enter on any examination of the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures. The subject is too important and extensive to be dismissed after a superficial survey; and a full investigation would lead us wide from our present track of observation. The fruits of the controversies of Christians with Hebrews, of Christians with Christians, and Hebrews with Hebrews, may be gathered elsewhere. It is enough for us that all are agreed on certain points; that the expectation of a Messiah was excited in the whole Israeli tish nation by means of prophecies, at first obscure, but waxing more clear and definite with the progress of events; that the lineage of this Messiah was determined in the expectations of all, as was the time of his appearance; and that though doubts remained respecting the nature of his kingdom, all were agreed that he should exercise supreme power from God in that kingdom; that his coming should be preceded by a messenger, and followed by a remarkable effusion of the spirit. This much, with the historical fact that after an interval of four hundred years the people were anxiously and daily looking for their prince, is enough for our purpose; as our design is to refer, not so much to the extraordinary fulfilment of particular prophecies in the person of Christ, as to the continuance, after a long interval, of the same species of miraculous testimony; by which a clear evidence is afforded of the continuity of the scheme we are contemplating. Whatever difficulty might exist then, and continue to this day, in the application of some particular prophecies,—whatever unbelief might be caused then, and whatever difference of opinion now, by various expectations respecting the nature of the Messiah's kingdom,—the fact that some one came at the expected time, of the expected lineage, preceded by a messenger introduced by miracle, and signalizing his reign by a remarkable effusion of the spirit, is enough to exalt the claims of this person above those of Moses; since it makes Moses himself his advocate, and refers us to the Law for his credentials. In consequence, the obligation to receive Jesus rested not only on the weight of his own visible claims, but on the submission which was due to the ancient prophets, and the allegiance which had been vowed to the Law. The authority of the preceding dispensation was transferred to the present; and Christianity, however apparently designed to degrade Judaism, was necessarily acknowledged to be its appointed consummation. That this evidence was as important to the Hebrews as it appears to us to be, we know from the practice of Jesus and his followers, of appealing to prophecy whenever they address ed hearers of their own nation, especially those whose attachment to the Law was the most exclusive; while with Gentiles an appeal to miracles was found sufficient, though that of prophecy was occasionally added.—If we look through the history for this purpose, we shall find that Jesus not only referred his enemies and his new converts to the ancient prophets, but that on the day of his resurrection he by the same argument quieted the doubts and enlightened the minds of two of his disciples who were dismayed by his death. These men knew him to be "a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people"; and, trusting that it was he who was about to redeem Israel, they were perplexed by his death and the ignominious manner of it; and no less so by the report spread among the disciples that he had that morning been seen alive. While they yet recognised him not, he proceeded side by side with them as they journeyed, “and explained to them from Moses and all the prophets, in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself." The argument was powerful; as they said one to another when he had left them, "Did not our hearts burn within us, while he talked with us on the way, and while he explained to us the Scriptures?" On the day of Pentecost, presently after the ascension of Jesus, multitudes of the people of Jerusalem assembled to witness the effect of the effusion of the spirit; and Peter, in the discourse by which three thousand were immediately converted, referred to the prophecy of Joel concerning this event, and the national calamities which should happen when the gifts of the spirit should at length cease*. Stephen called the whole company of ancient prophets to witness to Jesus, and his opponents "were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake." Paul urged this argument against the Hebrews at Damascus, at Antioch, at Cæsarea, (when he almost persuaded king Agrippa to become a Christian,) and, in short, *Joel ii. 28-32. |