entitle them to peculiar rewards. This might reasonably be expected by the followers of an earthly leader. But the object of this parable was to teach them that the future recompense of men would not be affected by their becoming his followers early or late, if they became such as soon as invited. It would depend only on their moral excellence. In this respect many of those who became converts at a later period might be superior to others who earlier professed themselves his disciples. The last might be first, and the first last.

In explaining the passages which we have gone over, we are obliged to suppose much that is nowhere expressly stated by the Evangelist. But what we suppose, follows from what he has related, when we view his history in connection with our knowledge derived from other sources. It is of this remarkable, unobtruded, apparently unstudied consistency, that he who denies the truth of the history is called upon to furnish some other solution.*

[For further illustration of the passages remarked upon in this chapter, see the author's Notes on the Gospels.]

CHAPTER II.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE CONSISTENCY OF THE NARRATIVE CONSIDERED.

We have been endeavoring to prove the truth of the Gospel history from the consistency of its different parts with each other, with the whole, and with all our knowledge bearing upon the subject in numberless dependences and relations. This consistency, when viewed in connection with the inartificial style of narration, gives the history an air of truth which human skill and genius seem scarcely more capable of counterfeiting, than they are of counterfeiting one of the living productions of nature. But it may be said that there is an important point in which the argument fails, and may be turned against us. It may be urged that the effect produced by the ministry of Christ upon the great body of the Jewish nation was wholly inconsistent with what we might reasonably expect, supposing his history to be true. Though performing the most astonish

ing miracles in attestation of his divine authority, he was unable to subdue the incredulity of his countrymen. It is impossible, it may be said, that men's minds should not have yielded to such proofs as he is related to have given.

Certainly, if the Gospel history be true, Jesus Christ did give the most unquestionable proofs of his divine mission. But it is an error to suppose that men will always believe and act as it is in the highest degree reasonable that they should believe and act. Our passions and prejudices have power to trample the strongest evidence under foot. The Pharisees and the common people whose leaders they were, refused to acknowledge the divine authority of our Saviour. One, at first thought, may be ready to say that nothing can be imagined more unreasonable. Yet no form which their opinions concerning Christ might assume, could involve so gross an absurdity as the doctrine of transubstantiation. In whatever they might believe, there was, to say the least, no greater dereliction of reason, than in the belief of this article of faith. They persecuted Christ and his followers in defence of their opinions; but those who have held that doctrine have persecuted as madly in its support. They may appear to

have rushed upon destruction, struggling against evidence which should have produced conviction. It is an awful and revolting phenomenon. But it is one which has been exhibited since their times. The voice of reason and religion and conscience has been often distinctly uttered to men without being heard and obeyed. The truth is, that when we suppose an extraordinary difficulty in the case of the unbelieving Jews, we regard nothing but the abstract force of the evidence for the divinity of our Saviour's mission, supposing it to be such as is represented in the Gospels. We do not consider those circumstances which may have produced in their minds a very false estimate of the weight of this evidence; nor take into view the strength of those prejudices, passions, and vices, that whole constitution of character, by which it was resisted.

If it be proved that Christ performed real miracles, no reasonable man, at the present day, will doubt that he was a messenger from God. But in the time of Christ, this conclusion did not necessarily follow in the mind of a Jew. That the power of performing miracles, that is, of producing effects which cannot be referred to the laws of nature, must in all cases, when viewed

alone, be sufficient evidence that he in whom it resides has received some commission from God, is a proposition which, perhaps, admits of satisfactory proof. This proof, however, is derived from various and complex considerations; and the truth of the proposition, whether in this abstract form it may be established or not, was certainly not generally admitted by the Jews contemporary with Christ. They were an ignorant and superstitious people. The prevalent belief in the reality of false miracles existed among them equally as among the Heathens. Some narratives in their Scriptures might easily be understood as proving the doctrine, that the power of performing miracles was not confined to the messengers of God, or to those on whom he looked with favor. They believed in the agency of evil spirits as interfering with the course of nature and inflicting diseases of body and mind. There were persons among them who were regarded as able to cure such diseases by casting out dæmons. They believed in magic, and consequently had no doubt that miracles might be effected through means and agents condemned by God, and which exposed those who employed them to his displeasure. But, holding such false opinions, they were fully prepared to resist the