now proceed to the questions,- By what power were the works wrought? and to what purpose? in the same manner as if we had been original eye witnesses. We must necessarily lack something of their vividness of impression from personally witnessing the wonders; but we must henceforth judge of them and of the purpose intended by them, upon the same general principles, which would be brought into operation by an eye witness. And by the same mental process we come to the same conclusion, namely, The works were wrought by the power of God to establish the authority of his Son as a messenger from heaven, whatever other or ulterior purposes they may have also embraced, or are yet to answer. To be sure the miracles are not now, and never were, evidence of the truth of the historical records. As facts they are to be evinced in the same manner in which other facts are proved, only requiring, as extraordinary facts, more strong and abundant proof and testimony. But the entire history, in which they are contained, being first shown to be true, then the miracles show what the character of the true history is, namely, that it is a history of a revelation made by God to men, just as they showed to the original eye witnesses and auditors, that he who spake to them came from God, was commissioned as God's messenger, and spake God's truth.

The present value of the miracles as evidence, as modifying the result in "the last analysis," and giving character to one's faith, may perhaps be rendered still more conspicuous, by supposing all accounts of the miracles and all allusions to them to be blotted from the records, or rather never to have been in the records. Suppose then every account of every miracle and all allusions to miracles, including of course the resurrection of Jesus and all reasoning from it to the resurrection and future life of man, to be out of the record. Suppose the rest remaining, just as we find it, or, (to make the supposition as favorable as possible to the adverse side of the question,) with the periods finished and rounded so that no unseemly chasm should meet the reader's eye. Suppose the New Testament to be this, and to have been precisely this from the beginning. Where would Christianity upon this hypothesis be at this time? and where would it have been for many ages past? I will not presume to say positively; but I will frankly state my apprehensions. I apprehend that as an authoritative and practically efficacious system, it would have been slumbering in the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

But some one may start and say, You surely forget yourself. By the very hypothesis, the records of the parables and of much more which is exceedingly, nay supereminently valuable, would be still extant, and what it is now. True, and how would it be regarded? What would be thought and said of it, by the wise men of the present age? I think it possible some of them might say as follows, Socrates was one lovely incarnation of the Divinity, Plato another, and there seem to have been many others in ancient times; and, among them all, none more lovely, nor in some respects so much so, as Jesus, the low born Nazarene. But the obscurity of his birth and family, his want of education and efficient helpers, the melancholy temperament or distemperament of his mind, and the gloomy forebodings of his soul, prevented him from effecting any extensive reform during the little time he lived. His premature and infamous death, though marked throughout with injustice and cruelty on the part of his slayers, soon put an end to whatever hopes might have been entertained of him in his life time. The records of him which are extant, are more than rare curiosities of antiquity. They contain the loveliest and some of the sublimest views of God, which have ever been uttered by man. They inculcate a morality singularly, nay exquisitely pure, so pure, that whoever pays sufficient attention to it to understand it, cannot fail to regret that he lives in a world in which it is, for the most part, impracticable. Long after he has closed the volume, so seldom read and so little regarded at the present day, he will detect himself in wishing that the itinerant prophet of Palestine had been placed in a situation to bring his schemes for the reformation and improvement of mankind to the sure test of experiment. Is this altogether a fancy sketch? Be it so. I am confident it was other persons' fancies, which first suggested its lineaments to my fancy. I take no pleasure in viewing it, now it is drawn out, and the coloring laid on. I relish it as little as any of you can. But I will be true to my undertaking. I will speak my fears as well as my faith.

I come, now, in conclusion, to the only consideration which could have fully determined me to agitate this subject, at this time. I am persuaded that the most prevalent unbelief concerning the Christian miracles is unbelief of the facts; and that the manner in which they have recently been objected

against, as evidence, has contributed, and does contribute, to the prevailing unbelief. Those whom I have quoted, and some others alluded to, believe the facts. I rejoice that they do. They also avow a firm belief in Christianity as a divine revelation. I cordially give them full credit for sincerity in their professions. But there are others who entertain and express different views. They either doubt or altogether deny the facts. Their opinion is that no such things were actually done that the accounts of them were invented and interwoven with the other accounts in the New Testament, of which last mentioned some are probably true. Others think the wonders related had some foundation in fact; but were greatly exaggerated and distorted in the records of a wonder-loving age and people. I honestly think many of these unbelievers and skeptics are much confirmed in their unbelief by the manner in which they find the miracles regarded and spoken of by those who receive them as facts, but deny their character as real miracles, or their value as evidences of Christianity, or perhaps both. They do not comprehend, (is it wonderful that they do not?) how a man can believe the facts, according to the plain record, and still estimate them at no more value. One of the clearest minded unbelievers in Christianity as a divine revelation whom I ever chanced to meet contended with me, that it was alike impossible for human testimony to render a miracle credible, or to resist the evidence of a miracle actually witnessed. "I contend," said he, "that the Jews never saw the works recorded to have been done, for if they had seen them they certainly would have believed." I believe, therefore, that mischief is doing, in the manner which I have pointed out, however little it may be intended. I think so not merely in consequence of my reasoning upon the tendencies of what I consider a wrong theory and estimate of the facts in question, but from what I read, from what I hear others say, from what I have heard unbelievers avow. Now the tendency of unbelief in the Christian miracles as facts, I need state in no other words than one of the writers before quoted has furnished to my use. "The miracles of the New Testament are so interwoven with the texture of the narrative, and make up so essential a part of it, that I cannot deny them without casting suspicion on the whole narrative itself."*

VOL. XXIX.

* Charles Elwood, p. 236. 3D S. VOL. XI. NO. I.

3

I shall not be expected on this occasion, to bring forward the proofs with which my limited intercourse with society has furnished me, that there is much prevailing skepticism respecting the actual occurrence of the miraculous facts recorded in the New Testament. Let a few quotations from certain writers stand instead. Speaking of the Christian miracles, one of these writers says, "By some they are rejected as essentially inincredible. By others, who recognise the divinity of the words and character of Jesus, they are neither acknowledged nor denied."* There is then, in the opinion of this writer, himself a believer in Christianity and in the miraculous facts, the kind of skepticism which I have also found, and whose tendency, according to another writer just quoted, is so threatening to the whole New Testament narrative. The writer of a letter recently published, addressed to Andrews Norton, says, "it is impossible for us to know, except by the mere declaration of the apparent performer, whether an alleged miracle be a miracle or not." + Again, speaking of the testimony we have as to the actual performance of the wonderful works recorded in the gospels, he says, "there are many serious and weighty objections to be urged as to that matter, the quarter part of which never yet have been urged, much less answered." In another recent pamphlet, a parade is made of the several difficulties, which, as the writer supposes, hinder us from proving the reality of particular miracles. One of these difficulties is, "The authority of the Evangelists is not quite satisfactory." § The same writer thinks "it would be difficult to prove in a court of justice the reality of any one of the miracles ascribed to Jesus in the gospels, with the exception of his resurrection." Depend upon it, Brethren, the unbelief which is most rife and most to be dreaded is unbelief of the miraculous facts. I would ask, with all seriousness and deference whether this unbelief or its mischievousness is likely to be diminished by reducing the marvellousness, denying the current value, or posing the unsophisticated mind concerning the design of the facts themselves.

But what shall we do?" say those who take the other

* Jesus and his Biographers, p. 236.

+ Letter to Andrews Norton, p. 35. Idem. p. 39.

Levi Blodgett on the previous Question.

"We

side of the question which has now been agitated. believe the glorious Gospel of the blessed God. We wish others to believe. We cannot receive the Christian miracles as evidence ourselves. We find others cannot; and we find some who doubt or even deny the miraculous facts. But we would persuade all to embrace the faith of the Gospel and abide in it. What shall we do?" I say, urge other evidence, such as you do receive and can urge -urge it as strongly as you please, as strongly as you can. You can do this without any the least reference to miracles certainly without anything which shall tend to undermine others' faith, or to excite others' fears. "But," say they,

we cannot acquiesce in what is to us a false theory and estimate of miracles. We must speak out our own views freely." So be it then. Others also have spoken, and may continue to speak freely their views. We will all speak our views of truth, and of error and its consequences likewise, when we feel it to be our duty so to do. We may all have our fears as well as our hopes of consequences; but we need not turn alarmists and be overwhelmed by our fears. God's truth is not to be prostrated by the efforts and imaginations and impotent strivings of men. Only let us speak what we believe to be the truth in love, and the God of truth will no doubt cause error gradually to vanish away, and the truth to prevail forever.

ART. II. 1. The Metropolitan Pulpit: or Sketches of the most popular Preachers in London. By the author of "Random Recollections," &c. London.

2. "The Pulpit worth more than it costs." By T. S. CLARK. Stockbridge, Mass. American National Preacher, No. 155.

WE name these publications at the head of our article on account of their titles, and not for the purpose of lengthened criticism. The first is superficial and flippant, without graphic portraiture or discriminating observation; the second supports a sound principle by very low or very doubtful arguments. One