subsequent part of the history, or play any conspicuous part in the affairs of the church, as gathered from the Acts and Epistles. The author of the Gospel of Nicodemus, which appeared at the end of the third century, has endeavoured to remedy the omission by making the centurion, the blind men, &c., give evidence before Pilate; but this forgery only renders the absence of any historical testimony to the same effect the more striking.

XI. None of the miracles produce any effect upon indisputable historical facts; but events go on in a natural course without the slightest symptom of supernatural disturbance. The Romans keep possession of Judea; Jesus is put to death as an innovator; his followers increase like other sects, by means of proselytism. All the miraculous consists of mere accessory incidents, which may be shaken off without hurt to the integrity of profane history, or even to the chief features of the gospel history itself. The career of Jesus is intelligible enough, although none of the cures were really supernatural, although no water were turned into wine, nor any loaves multiplied. The earthquakes and darkness leave not the slightest vestiges in history.* The utmost political effect

the hypothesis of a Holy Spirit as the communicator of historical facts. Paley quietly rests the question on the credibility and means of knowledge of the narrators. The doctrine of plenary inspiration would have rendered the greater part of his work unnecessary.

The elder Pliny and Seneca have each left a work recording all the great phenomena of nature, earthquakes, comets, eclipses, &c., which they could collect. Seneca Quæst. Natur., 1. i. 15; vi. 1; vii. 17. Plin. His. Nat., 1. ii. But there is nothing applicable to the narrative of Matthew. Pliny describes a singular paleness of the sun in the year following the death of Cæsar.

Phlegon of Tralles (about A.D. 141), in a passage quoted by Eusebius, said that "in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (the 18th or 19th year of Tiberius, 32 or 33 A.D. according to common computation), there was an eclipse of the sun, the greatest of any known before. And it was night at the sixth hour of the day, so that the stars appeared in the heavens. And there was a great earthquake in Bithynia, which overturned many

attributed by the Evangelists themselves to the miracles of Jesus, is frequent alarm among the Pharisees, which if not overstated for the sake of dramatic interest, might very well proceed from other causes. It has been shown that the adherence of some followers by no means requires the admission of a real supernatural power.

A miracle producing some effect which must have been noticed in the history of Judea,-the sudden dispersion of a legion, the removal of a procurator, the subversion of buildings, for instance-would have appeared to obtain some collateral support; although in such a case also we must have weighed the greater probability of natural or supernatural causes. But all the parts of the Gospel history confirmed by cotemporary writers, the government of Pilate, the death of John the Baptist, the features of the Jewish sects, &c., are simply natural. Follow the vein of supernatural throughout, and it either shuns or breaks itself upon the historical strata. When the narrative brings Jesus into connexion with Herod the tetrarch, the former does not convert him by a miracle, or brave his power as an invulnerable prophet, but retires with his followers. At Jerusalem, nothing occurs beyond a temporary enthusiasm of the multitude. The declaration attributed to him on his apprehension, that he could have obtained twelve legions of angels by prayer, only reminds us more forcibly of the absence of any collision of miraculous power with the powers of the world.

houses in Nice." But Lardner, after a careful review of all that had been said on this passage, concludes both that Phlegon had no intention of alluding to the events accompanying Christ's passion, and that his passage cannot apply to them. Indeed the oldest objection is decisive, that an eclipse of the sun could not happen at the time of the passover, i. e. of the new moon. Heath. Test., ch. xiii. According to the calculations of some able astronomers referred to by Lardner (Dr. Sykes' Dissertation on the Eclipse of Phlegon), there was a great eclipse of the sun in November A.D. 29, in the first year of the 202nd Olympiad.

It is certainly not inconceivable that a divine power should have exerted itself only in such a manner, and on such occasions, as to avoid all contact with the political history of the time; but this mode of exertion leaves the evidence destitute of a very important kind of proof.

XII. The supposed miracles had no effect on many of those who lived in the time of Jesus, and were most capable of appreciating them. John vii. 5, "For neither did his brethren believe in him." xii. 37, "But though he had done so many miracles before them (the people), yet they believed not on him." Matt. xi. 20, "Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not." Mark vi. 52, "For they (the disciples) considered not the miracle of the loaves, for their heart was hardened." By comparing this with Mark xvi. 14, it is plain that the hardness of heart meant a backwardness to believe the miracle, although the account purports that it had just been done before them. Now, an imperfect belief immediately after the event, growing into certainty long afterwards, is just contrary to the process one would expect to see if a miracle had really been done. Then the conviction would be most vivid on the first sight of it. At first the senses declare unequivocally and impartially the impressions made upon them; but the memory seldom preserves long those impressions distinct and unmixed. Passion, prejudice, and interest, gradually diminish, add to, or confuse the image; till, at last, the view remaining in the mind, instead of being a faithful picture of the real event, is one formed by the joint contributions of the memory, the imagination, and the feelings. Thus, from the instance referred to, it appears that even the disciples had some difficulty in believing the miracles at first; and since the disbelief of them came to be stigmatized as hardness of heart, we may infer that their more confident

assertion of them in later times was owing to a persuasion that scepticism on this point was a betrayal of the cause of their Master.*

The object of this work being chiefly an examination of historical evidence, it does not enter into the arguments arising from general considerations concerning the nature of miracles, and their agreement or disagreement with the rest of the divine government. But lately some thoughts of this kind have been suggested to me, by an eminent writer of the present day, which deserve much attention.

The improved science of modern times proves that disease and premature death are the penalties annexed to the abuse of men's powers, and are, in reality, a benevolent provision in order to restrict men to those limits which allow of their greatest moral and physical enjoyment. To remove the penalty in any individual case is so far a cancelling of the general divine law; but to impart such knowledge as shall prevent the penalty from being incurred again, is consistent with it.

It may be presumed that the different parts of the divine plans harmo→ nize with each other, and, therefore, that credentials given by the Deity would not consist in infringements of his own laws.

Christ, by raising the widow's son at Nain, removed the natural penalty of the youth's own ill-regulated conduct, or that of his fathers. But if he had taken that occasion to make known the connexion established between imprudence and suffering, by explaining the causes which led to that young man's premature death, he would have acted in accordance with the divine laws, he would have saved many widows' sons from the same fate, and would have given a more permanent and convincing proof of his being a man sent from God.

Most of the miracles attributed to Christ are of the same kind, viz. the removal of natural penalties. If, on opening the book which records his claims as a divine messenger, we were to find, instead of these stories of such difficult verification, declarations of the causes of blindness, fever, and palsy, and warnings to mankind to abstain from the courses which lead to such evils, the book would carry with it an evidence increasing with the lapse of ages; since the possession of such knowledge by a person in the age, country, and circumstances of Christ, would be as miraculous as any of the works referred to: and all readers, on finding that the results of the most advanced stages of human knowledge had been anticipated by the peasant of Galilee, must themselves exclaim, "Whence had this man this knowledge, having never learned?" and, "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher sent by God, for no man could have this wisdom unless God were with him."

It is said that the moral teaching of Christ presents evidence of this kind, which subject will be considered.

CHAPTER X.

REMARKS ON THE MIRACLES IN THE ACTS OF THE

APOSTLES.

Ir the miracles attributed to Jesus himself be false, the same is likely to be the case with those attributed to the apostles, for they professed to derive whatever power they had from him. Nevertheless, it is more satisfactory to examine such direct evidence as there is for these also.

This evidence rests mainly on the testimony of the author of the Acts, who himself intimates that he is the same as the author of the third Gospel, and who has been supposed by all antiquity to be Luke the companion of Paul, a man of more education, as appears by his style, than most of the first disciples. If he be the same as Silas, which there are some grounds for supposing,* it seems that he joined the church previously to the year 52; for Silas is first mentioned, Acts xv. 22, in connexion with Barsabas, as being a chief man among the brethren. Barsabas was one of those who had companied with the apostles in the lifetime of Jesus, Acts i. 21; but it is unlikely that Silas (or Luke) had done so, because in his Gospel he only lays claim to having had his information from those who were eye-witnesses from the beginning, and not to have been an eye-witness himself. Therefore it is probable that neither was he an eye-witness of the transactions immediately after the death of Jesus; nor, indeed, till a short time before the council at Jerusalem,

* See chap. v.