earth should be bound in heaven, and vice versa, he adds-" If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." (Matth. xviii. 19.) But, unquestionably, this has been falsified in innumerable instances. In thousands of cases have two Christians-as sincere Christians as ever livedsolemnly agreed to pray, and have fervently prayed for the same thing; and yet that thing was not given to them. How often have two or more true Christians, when in imminent danger of their lives-such as from shipwrecks, fires, floods, and other physical causes-been found to pray in the most ardent manner for deliverance; and yet no deliverance came ;-no violation or suspension of the laws of nature was caused, in order to save their lives. When a ship, owing to a hurricane or the springing of a plank, founders and buries its human freight in the bottom of the sea, the most pious Christians-amongst whom may be a number of holy missionaries going to evangelise the heathen-are drowned like the most reprobate characters on board, notwithstanding their previously united and most fervid supplications for an escape from the awful death which every moment threatens them. Have not Christians frequently united in prayer for fair weather when, owing to a long duration of rain, their corn was likely to

beginning of the fourth century—that Christians began to have any thing like churches; and these, as yet, were only monasteries. (Sozom. lib. iii. c. 14, 24. Hier. Vit. Hilar. c. 11. Pachom. Regul. c. 3.) From these habitations of the monks churches became to be called monasteria, and in our language munsters or minsters, which words are retained to this day in the names of such places. Eusebius (lib. ii. c. 17.) calls the churches of the Therapeuts—a class of monks who he expressly says were Christians by the name μοναστηρια. He also, on the authority of Philo, not only identifies these Therapeuts with the monks of a later period, but assures us that they were Christians. A great mass of evidence might be collected to show that the cells of the monks, and after them their monasteries, were the places where Christians worshipped in ancient times. Indeed, the word ɛxxλŋoia—a number of people called out-derived from EKKαλεw, to call out or from-appears to have been applied to a Christian assembly owing to the ancient practice of calling the monks out of their respective cells, which were within the monastery, into that part used by them for united devotion, or for a chapel. The manner of calling them out of their cells varied in different countries. In Egypt and Palestine this was done by sounding a trumpet; in other parts by knocking with a hammer at the door of each cell, and in others by crying out "Hallelujah."(Pachom. Reg. c. 3. Cassian. Inst. c. 17. Hieron. ep. 27. Clem. Scala. et al.) These various modes of calling were ultimately superseded by bells, which mode continues to this day. The early Christian monks were thus called out of their cells for divine worship in some monasteries as often as six times in the day, while in others only twice.— Hence, a Christian assembly probably had the name Ekkλnoia-called out; just as an assembly of Greeks-called out by the authority of a civil magistrate to discharge public duties-acquired the same name. It is in the time of Constantine that we find buildings beginning to be set apart for Christian worship, and denominated EKKλŋσiaι; namely, after he had turned all the heathen temples, within his dominions, into Christian churches-just as Hen. VIII. turned the Roman Catholic churches over to the Protestants-and after he had built several new ones. Then, we find them called εκκλησίαι, and one in particular, at Constantinople, called after his own name-Ecclesia Constantiniana. (Euseb. Vit. Const. lib. iii. c. 48-58; iv. 50, 58.) Indeed, it is from Constantine that the Christian church can really date its existence. Before his time it does not appear to have had any other edifices than monasteries, or any other assemblies than monks and holy virgins. And possibly, if he had never existed, or at least, if the pagan priest, Sopater, had not refused him absolution of his murderous crimes, and rendered him under the necessity of turning to the Christians of Egypt-the worshippers of the god Serapis -he would not have been the means of affording it state patronage; and it would, long ago, like many other Egyptian superstitions, have sunk into oblivion.

be spoiled? Yet so far was their prayer from being answered that their crops rotted on their fields. Have not Christians many times-when, according to fixed laws of nature, long droughts impeded the growth of vegetation-devoutly prayed for rain? Yet no rain came-no miracle, in violation of natural laws, was performed-in order to answer their prayer. Have not pious parents often agreed to pray, and have most earnestly prayed for the conversion of a prodigal son; and yet this son was allowed to pursue his sinful career, and died in his iniquity? Indeed, we have daily proofs that, when two or more Christians agree to ask in prayer a particular thing, their request is not granted. And fortunate it is in many instances that this is the case. What awful calamities would often befall mankind, if the Governor of the universe were to act according to the request and directions of short-sighted and ignorant men! Not to enter here, however, into the folly involved in the supposition that an infinitely wise and benevolent God does any thing because one or more of his comparatively ignorant creatures asks him in prayer, let it rather be particularly noticed that there are thousands of cases which disprove the truth of Jesus's words "If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." It is of no avail to urge that this promise, prophecy, or whatever it be called, is confined to the twelve disciples of Jesus; for the word church is here used, showing that it was intended that the privilege of receiving what they asked in prayer should belong to the whole Christian community, so long as a church existed. His words, however, have proved untrue in countless instances.

(Vid. ant. pp. 331, 332.) Another mark of the late origin of the passage under notice, is the supreme authority it attributes to the decrees of the church.-"Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The same inference is to be drawn from the pun which Jesus is shown to have made on the name of Peter, in which the church is both named and its supreme authority asserted "Thou art Peter, (a rock) and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matth. xvi. 18, 19.) Both this passage and that already under consideration, indicate that they had their origin when the church had become powerful, so as to make pretence to infallibility, and even when the Pope claimed to be the infallible head of this church, possessing the keys of the kingdom of heaven-which kingdom had by this time become to denote the regions of bliss-so that whatever he decreed on earth would be ratified in heaven. But it is a well ascertained fact that the Pope was not regarded as the head of the church till about the end of the fourth, or beginning of the fifth century.-(Basnage, vol. i. p. 243. Cyprian. Ep. 55, 73. Bowyer's Hist. of the Popes, vol. i. p. 180, et cet.) Nor was his authority regarded as absolute, and the opinion of the church as infallible, for nearly a century after. These passages further involve the idea of church penances and absolutions.-They imply that whatever penalties the church on earth imposed were imposed in heaven, and that whatever absolution or remission of sins it gave, the same was given in heaven. All this shows that they cannot be dated earlier than the commencement of the fourth century.

SECTION V.

-MANY OF JESUS'S PRECEPTS AND DOCTRINES CONTRADICTORY TO ONE ANOTHER.

Jesus, as we have just seen, having made many statements at variance with truth, it is only to be expected that many of his precepts and doctrines contradicted one another. Truth is always consistent; and just as the orthodox and reverend Jeremiah Jones, in his standard work on the Canonical Authority of the New Testament, very justly says that a book is apocryphal which contains any contradictions, so it may be said of the teaching of Jesus-that precepts and doctrines which contradict one another cannot be all true, and may be all false. Although two contradictory expressions or assertions may be both false, yet they cannot be both true, in the same sense; and consequently many of Jesus's expressions that will now be noticed are of the same character as those pointed out in the foregoing section; namely untrue. Contradictory statements abound more in his doctrines than in those of any other public teacher of whom we have any account; and these, chiefly, have given rise to the numerous antagonistic Christian sects of both modern and ancient times, the tenets of all of which, however conflicting to those of others, are borne out by certain expressions attributed to Jesus. One would imagine that in the present age, at least, the minds of all thinking and disinterested men would shrink from receiving as truths-especially divine truths-the doctrines of a public teacher whose words were self-contradictory. This, doubtless, would inevitably be the case, were it not for the thousands of expositors and harmonisers of the words of Jesus, who write voluminous commentaries, and almost daily deliver long discourses, in order to clear up the discrepancies which common sense perceives in the moral lessons that he has bequeathed us. These, when any glaring contradiction is pointed out to them, have recourse either to a new translation, a figurative rendering, or a fresh interpretation of the contradictory passages. By thus playing fast and loose, and forgetting that words are the vehicles of ideas, they, necessarily, in all their commentaries and explanations, imply against Jesus a charge either of inability to express himself so as to be understood by his hearers and by those who now read what he said, or of an intention to mislead them. Their very commentaries on his words, are, of themselves, evidence that they think they are able to use more lucid language than Jesus either wished or was able to use. If, however, any one wishes to ascertain what Jesus really taught, let him lay aside these bewildering commentaries, and read the Gospels as he would read some other book, judging for himself whether he can find in them attributed to Jesus, doctribes and precepts which-according to the obvious meaning of the words in which they are conveyed, and the whole drift on the context are at utter variance with others said to have been delivered by him.

Let us notice a few of these contradictions. Jesus, in defending himself from the charge of Sabbath-breaking, brought against him by the

Jews, says " If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." (John v. 31.) But in answer to the accusation of praising himself, brought against him by these people, he says-" Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true." (John viii. 14.) It should be observed that it is the same word, in the Greek, which stands for witness in the former passage as that translated record in the latter, so that there is no difference on this point.* Expressions contradicting each other more flatly than these were never uttered. It is impossible for both to be true,-as impossible as it is for a particular thing to exist and not to exist at the same time. If Jesus was right in saying that, if he bore testimony of himself, his testimony was not true, there is nothing plainer than that he was wrong in saying that, although he bore testimony of himself, yet his testimony was true. Very numerous and ingenious theories have been advanced by different writers,† in attempting to harmonise these expressions. The most plausible, perhaps, is that set up by the Rev. John Hayter Cox, in a course of lectures on the Harmony of Scripture,-which are expressly designed to meet the arguments of sceptics,-namely, that Jesus stated merely the opinion of his enemies-the Jews, when he said-"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true," meaning that, in the estimation of his enemies, it was not true; but that when he said-"Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true," he stated a fact. In other words, that in the former passage he stated the opinion of others, but in the latter his own opinion. (Lect. x. p. 134.) That Jesus, in the former passage, spoke the opinion he thought the Jews held of him is, however, a gratuitous supposition, not only unsupported, but even directly contradicted by the whole drift of the discourse in which the expression occurs.Having, on the Sabbath day, cured an infirm man, the Jews accused him of Sabbath-breaking. In justification of his act, he says to them-“ My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." From this expression the Jews inferred that Jesus considered himself " equal to God," and became the more enraged against him. Jesus, with an evident design to pacify them, qualifies his expression and says "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." He proceeds in his explanation of the power by which he wrought his mighty works, and says-"I can of my own self do nothing: as I hear I judge; and my judgment is just; because

* In both passages we find Eyw paprvpw as the verb-I bear witness, or testify; and papropia as the noun-witness, or testimony. It is difficult to conceive what made the translators employ witness in the one place and record in the other, unless it was to hide this contradiction, which they must have perceived. Record is a word which they very ill applied in several places where they used it.

That Christians are fully sensible that there are in the Bible gross contradictions is proved by the fact that some hundreds, if not thousands of volumes, by different authors, in different ages, and different languages, have been written as Harmonies of such contradictions. Of these Harmonies there are now extant upwards of a hundred, in different languages, while a much larger number have sunk into oblivion. Never were so many Harmonies written on any book, and never was a book which so much required them.Thomas Mann, in the seventeenth century, publishes a Harmony in the title of which he states there are in it 3,000 Scriptural contradictions reconciled.-London, 1662, fol. See a list of such works in Walchii Bibliotheca Selecta, vol. iv. pp. 834-900; Fabricii Bibliotheca Græca, vol. iv. pp. 882-889; Pilkinton's Evangelical History and Harmony, pref. pp. 18-20. Michaelis's Introduction to the New Test. vol. iii. part i. pp. 31-36. part ii. pp. 29–49.

I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true;" meaning here, by another, evidently his Father. He then tells them that they had sent to John who, certainly, had borne witness to the truth. But although John was a burning and shining light, in which the Jews for a while were willing to rejoice, yet he had a greater witness than John. Besides: he did not receive testimony from man. "And," he adds, "the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me." (ver. 17-37.) Such is the tenor of the discourse in which the expression occurs. There is here not the shadow of ground for supposing that Jesus in saying "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true," spoke the opinion which the Jews entertained of him. What he means, and what he says is, that he did not bear witness of himself,—that it was the Father who bore witness of him; and that if he bore witness of himself, that would be a proof that such a testimony was not true. What occasioned him to utter the expression which contradicts the foregoing was this. After he had dismissed the woman caught in adultery, as already described, he said to the Pharisees who had brought this woman to him, "I am the light of the world;" whereupon the Pharisees being offended because Jesus thus praised himself, said to him-"Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true." The Pharisees seem to have thought that-as Jesus himself on another occasion had stated-what a man said in praise of himself was not true. Jesus sets about showing them that, in his case, his testimony of himself was reliable, telling them that he knew whence he came and whither he went,-that he was not alone, but accompanied by the Father who had sent him,—that according to their own law, the testimony of two men was true,-and that, as he himself was one who bore witness, and the Father who had sent him was another, these made two, and therefore their testimony was sufficient. This is the train of argument which Jesus-in reply to the Pharisees-employs to show that although he bore record of himself, yet his record was true. Still the two expressions under notice are utterly at variance. No ingenuity-no amount of sophistry can really reconcile them. They are uttered-irrespectively of consistency-at two different times, to serve two different purposes,-the one to show that Jesus performed all his miracles by his Father's power, and the other to prove that, although he bore testimony to his own greatness, yet his testimony was true. Both assertions, however, CANNOT be in accordance with truth,one may be true, but the other must be false.

When Jesus preached on the mount, he told his disciples-"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you"; but when he sent his disciples to preach the Gospel, he told them to shake off the dust from their feet as they departed from any house or city which refused to receive them; and added that it should be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, in the day of judgment, than for that city; meaning, of course, the inhabitants of that city. (Matth. v. 44; x. 14, 15.) Now, these two moral precepts are quite at variance with each other. The one