He had walked on

Then of what value

no other support than his own power.
water, and could of course float on air.
to him were "all the kingdoms of the world," supposing it
possible that from the top of any mountain he could have been
shown them, all round the globe, "in a moment of time," as
stated? As a devotee, in his mere human capacity, earthly
glory would present no attraction to him, and, as God, it is a
mere mockery to suppose that he could have the offer of such
an evanescent object seriously made to him. And the return
expected was no less than that he should overthrow the whole
course of his own constitution, and rule, and worship the arch-
enemy, he, as God, knowing him well to be such! Then there
are the same passages of a human body, spirit-borne, through
the air, first to a pinnacle of the temple, and then to the top
of "an exceeding high mountain," as occurred to Ezekiel in
vision. Are we to take such a statement as this as founded
on actual fact? The writer appears to me throughout to have
been drawing upon his imagination, and to have presented us
after all with an unreal, or only mock temptation.

Can you tell me what lesson was inculcated by the cursing Cursing the fig tree. of the fig tree? I cannot understand how any man could expect to find figs fit to satisfy his hunger on at the wrong season for the fruit; much less how a man, who was God, could fall into such a mistake; and the act of cursing an unconscious plant, whether it was the time for figs or not, seems to me so petty, and so silly, as to be ascribable only to a lunatic.

S. The cursing the fig tree appears to have been merely an occasion taken by Jesus to display his power. When his disciples were surprised at the operation, he observed to them, "Verily I say unto you, if ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea, it shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."

P.-I wonder at the disciples being struck with surprise at so insignificant an act of power as scorching up a plant, an event of daily occurrence arising from natural causes, when they had seen their master overthrow all the laws of nature in turning water into wine, feeding multitudes upon nothing, walking on the water, and raising the dead, besides curing

Speaking in foreign tongues.

Curing sicknesses.

blindness, dumbness, and every manner of infirmity with a word. I say to myself, can he have done these wonderful things, and yet have created no faith in his power in the spectators? or have we another instance of the inconsistencies into which a writer is apt to fall when framing a fictitious narrative? To pass, however, from withering a plant, to moving a huge mountain with a thought, is certainly a great stride. Did Jesus, or any believer in him, at any time do such a thing?

S.-I cannot say I have heard even of a pebble being moved by the power of faith.

P.-There was the knowledge of foreign languages, to any extent, conferred miraculously on the disciples at the feast of Pentecost. Has that power been kept up? I presume the knowledge, as then imparted, was very perfect of its kind.

S.-No; the power has not been perpetuated. Christians have to acquire languages by study, just as others do; and the Greek of the New Testament is a "barbarous idiom." "The apostles," observes Jerome, "own themselves rude in speech," referring to what Paul has said of his own diction in 2 Cor. xi. 6. Origen makes a similar observation. And Erasmus notices" that the language of the apostles is not only rough and unpolished, but imperfect; also confused, and sometimes even plainly solecising and absurd."1

P.-I understand you to say that the gift of tongues came in fulfilment of the promise of Jesus to send the Holy Ghost. Has the Holy Ghost then been withdrawn?

S. No. He is considered ever to be with believers, though there is now no such sensible proof of his presence.

P. That is, we are to believe in a thing without the evidence attaching to the existence of the thing! I must say I see declaration, without reality, everywhere in these state

ments.

We pass to a new class of action, that of removing infirmities and sicknesses. Under the old dispensation, I observe but one such instance, namely the curing Naaman of his leprosy. How is it that in the new this sort of manifestation was of daily occurrence? Why should maladies be left to take their course under one rule, and be removed miraculously, whenever met with, under the other?

"Hennell's Inquiry into Origin of Christianity," 237, 238.

S.-There is a passage in Isaiah which probably led to the idea that the power of miraculous healing was to be exercised by the Messiah, and thus occasioned the ascription of such power to Jesus. It is said, "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing" (xxxv. 5, 6). The time is that of the restoration of Israel, and the language apparently figurative, the blind who were to be made to see, and the deaf who were to be made to hear, being such spiritually.

P. Then we have, probably, in these miracles of healing, merely a fresh instance of the inventive faculties of the writers. And what was to be the end of these miraculous cures ? Were the persons delivered never to fall again under the power of illness, or to die? The course of the world, wherein infirmities and decay are the lot of man, and inherent to the composition of his frame in the circumstances surrounding him, to my mind contradicts the whole action as proceeding from divine interposition.

I see saliva used on several occasions as a remedial agent. Use of What is the meaning of this?

S." In the case of magical cures, according to the superstition of the times, saliva was an important ingredient." There is an instance given by Tacitus of the Emperor Vespation employing his saliva to restore sight to a blind man.1

P. It is hard to associate such a device with a divine being, especially when accompanied with the parade of putting the fingers into the ears, touching the tongue, looking up to heaven, and sighing. Perhaps the writers thought they were giving reality to their story by introducing such details.

spittle, &c.

dumb

Then there is what is called a deaf and dumb spirit of a Deaf and formidable kind, tearing the victim whose body he inhabited, spirit. and making him gnash his teeth, foam, and wallow on the ground, whom the disciples had tried to cast out but could not. Jesus however ejects him, and then explains, "This kind can come forth by nothing but by prayer and fasting." This looks to me like mere pretentiousness. What could have acted on the other occasions but the power of God,-a power of course invoked? and how came it that there was one sort of

1 Strauss' New Life of Jesus, I. 369; II. 155.

Devils in swine.

Raising the dead.

evil spirit not amenable to such power, in the simplicity of its fulness, but requiring that the operator should be aided, furthermore, with his own exercises of praying and fasting?

There is a still more formidable possession, that of the maniacs who haunted the tombs, the devils in whom were sufficiently numerous to occupy the bodies of two thousand swine, into which they were ejected. I am at a loss to understand how, as a physical fact, such a phenomenon could possibly have occurred, or what satisfaction it could be to the devils to enter into the swine, especially as the latter were so soon to destroy themselves.

S.-I am sorry I am unable to assist you in comprehending this story. All I can say is that it is so told, except that Mark and Luke deepen the difficulty by saying that this multitude of evil spirits were all in one man, not in two as stated by Matthew.

P.-Perhaps the whole is put forward as a mere wonderment, and is due to no other source than the imagination of the writer. The discrepancy as to whether there was one maniac, or two, is in itself enough to lead to the reality of the story being called in question.

In the power of raising the dead, I observe, Jesus did not stand alone, otherwise I should have taken this attribute of creating, or re-creating life, as a peculiar demonstration of his divinity. Elijah and Elisha exercised it, as did Peter and Paul; and even Elisha's dry bones had this power inherent in them. And I observe that in the mission conferred on the twelve apostles this office of raising the dead was comprehended. Twelve men sent abroad to go about restoring the dead to life must have caused intense commotion everywhere. The reign of death would, in fact, be abolished. What was the result of this amazing procedure?

S.

None that I can tell you of. No results are recorded. P. Then I must conclude the whole to have been unreal, and that the twelve did not go out on such an errand. The writer has again exhibited extravagant power out of the copiousness of his imagination. And after all, would it be an act of beneficence to comfort the survivors thus at the expense of the departed? The dead have gone through the painful struggle of grappling with death. The soul has passed away

to a higher and happier state. Why call it back again to re-occupy the cast off, and probably infirm body, in order to undergo the same painful process of disruption again? And can it be any comfort to the relatives that the poor creature has to die twice? This is not an effort of power that I can ascribe to God. He would not trifle with his creatures thus, calling away their souls and then sending them back again. This sort of resurrection seems to me just what the human mind might conceive when looking about for demonstrations of divine power manifested in the miraculous.

Did Jesus rely on these exhibitions as evidence of his The appeal divine mission ?

S.-He did so. When John sent to know whether he was the expected personage, meaning the Messiah, he appealed to the miracles he was working in evidence of who he was. He sent a similar message to Herod. "Go ye," he said, "and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to-day and to-morrow." When the Jews asked him to tell them plainly if he were the Christ, he replied, "I told you, and ye believed not the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me." And this appeal he repeatedly made. "I have greater witness than John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness that the Father hath sent me." "Many good works have I showed you from my Father.-If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that

I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works sake." "If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you."

P.-I see that everything depends on the acceptance of this testimony of the miracles. If they prevail, then the mission of Jesus, as of God, is established. If otherwise, then he was not of God. This appears to me a very riskful issue to put so great a question upon. The miracles are presented to us as the works of God," but in point of fact they contradict all we know of as the indubitable works of the Creator. These latter are works in nature, regulated by a system of refined,

to miracles.