there was often a fixed stair leading to it from the outside, or where that was wanting, a short ladder was occasionally applied. Supposing then, the house mentioned by Mark to have been built after this common fashion; the court before it so full, that it was not possible to get near the door of the house; the people so throng, and so earnest in listening, that it was vain to think of their giving place to any one; in this situation, the four persons who carried the palsied man upon a little couch, xvidiov, think of going round to another part of the house, at which by a stair or ladder they easily reach the roof. They find the door laying flat, and the word guares implies that some force was necessary to break it open. That force might have disturbed the family had they been quiet. But at present they are too much engaged to attend to it, or their knowledge of the purpose for which the force was used, prevents them from giving any interruption. The door being made to allow persons to come out upon the roof, and the couch being a xvidiov,* it would not be difficult for four men to let down the couch by the stair on the inside, two of them going before to receive it out of the hands of the others. After the couch is thus brought into the room where Jesus was, in the only method by which access could be found to him, he rewards the faith of the sick man by performing, in presence of his enemies, several of whom appear to have mingled with the multitude, an instantaneous and wonderful cure. The palsy is a disease seldom completely, never suddenly removed. The extreme degree in which it affected this man was known to the four who carried him, to the multitude in the midst of whom he was laid, to all the inhabitants of Capernaum. Yet by a word from the mouth of Jesus, he is enabled to rise up and carry his couch. Judge from this simple exposition, whether the narrative of Mark deserves to be called monstrously absurd and incredible.

The turning of water into wine is recorded in the second chapter of John. The only objection to this miracle which merits consideration, is the offence conceived by Mr. Woolston at the expression which our Lord uses to his mother. And I doubt not that it sounds harsh in the ears of every English reader. "When they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, they have no wine; Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. Here an analysis of the words in the original appears to me to afford a satisfying answer to the objection. I need scarcely remark, that yun is the word by which women of the highest rank were addressed in ancient times by men of the most polished manners, when they wished to show them every mark of respect. It is used by Jesus, when with filial affection, in his dying moments, he provides every soothing attention for his mother. The phrase i suoi xai oo occurs in some place of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, and also in the New Testament. It is uniformly rendered "What have I to do with thee?" and seems to mark a check, a slight reprimand, a degree of displeasure. It was not unnatural for our translators to give the Greek phrase the same sense here; and many commentators understand our Lord as checking his mother for directing him in the exercise of his divine power. I do not think that such a check would have

• Luke v. 19, 24.

been inconsistent with that tender concern for his mother which our Lord showed upon the cross. It became him who was endowed with the Spirit without measure, to be led by that Spirit in the discharge of his public office, and not to commit himself to the narrow conceptions of any of the children of men. I do not therefore find fault with those who understand Jesus as saying, the time of attesting my commission by miracles is not come, and I cannot receive directions from you when it should begin. This may be the meaning of the words. But as they will easily bear another translation, perfectly consistent with the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I am inclined to prefer it. "What is that to thee and me? The want of wine is a matter that concerns the master of the feast. But it need not distress you; and my friends cannot accuse me of unkindness in withholding an exercise of my power, that may be convenient for them, for I have yet done no miracle, the season of my public manifestation not being come." We know that Jesus did not enter upon his ministry till after John was cast into prison. We find John, in the next chapter, baptizing near Salim, and this is called the beginning of miracles. According to this translation, every appearance of harshness is avoided, and the whole story hangs perfectly together. You will observe, Mary was so far from being offended at the supposed harshness of the answer, or conceiving it to be a refusal, that she says to the servants, "Whatever he saith unto you, do it :" and our Lord's doing the miracle after this answer, is a beautiful instance of his attention to his mother. Although his friends had no reason to expect an interposition of his power, because his hour was not come, yet, in compliance with her desire, he supplies plentifully what is wanting.

To the resurrection of Lazarus, in the eleventh chapter of John, Mr. Woolston objects, that the person raised was not a man of eminence sufficient to draw attention-that he gives no account of what he saw in the separate state-that it was absurd in Jesus to call with a loud voice to a dead man that Lazarus having his head bound is suspicious-and that the whole is a romantic story. Now the answer to all this is to be drawn from the contexture of the narrative, in which, beautiful, simple, and tender as it is, there are interwoven such circumstances as can leave no doubt upon the mind of any person who admits the authenticity of this book, that the greatest of miracles was here really performed. Instead, therefore, of following the frivolous objections of Mr. Woolston one by one, I shall present you with a connected view of these circumstances, as a specimen of the manner in which the credibility of other miracles may be illustrated.

Jesus lingered in the place where he was, when he received the message from the sisters, till the time when, by the divine knowledge that he possessed, he said to the apostles, "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth." After this, he had a long journey to Bethany; and it does not appear that he performed it hastily, for he learned, as he approached the village, that Lazarus had lain four days in the grave. He delayed so long, that the divine power, which he was to exert in the resurrection of Lazarus, might be magnified in the eyes of the spectators; and, at the same time, he provided an unquestionable testimony for the truth of the miracle, by arriving before the days of mourning were

expired. You will be sensible of the effect of this circumstance, if you attend for a moment to the manners of the Jews respecting funerals. One of the greatest calamities in human life, is the death of those persons whose society had been our comfort and joy. It has been the practice of all countries to testify the sense of this calamity by honours paid to the dead, and by expressions of grief on the part of the living. In eastern countries, where all the passions are strong, and agitate the frame more than in our northern climates, these expressions of grief were often exceedingly violent; and notwithstanding some wise prohibitions of the law of Moses, the mourning in the land of Judea was more expressive of anguish than that which we commonly see. The dead body was carried out to burial not long after the death. But the house in which the person had died, the furniture of the house, and all who had been in it at that time, became in the eye of the law unclean for seven days. During that time, the near relations of the deceased remained constantly in the house, unless when they went to the grave or sepulchre to mourn over the dead. They did not perform any of the ordinary business of life; they were not considered as in a proper condition for attending the service of the temple, and their neighbours and acquaintances, for these seven days, came to condole with them, bringing bread and wine and other victuals, as there was nothing in the house which could lawfully be used. Upon this charitable errand, a number of Jews, inhabitants of Jerusalem, had come out to Bethany, which was within two miles of the city, upon the day when Jesus arrived there; and thus, as we found the sisters brought out to the sepulchre one after another, by the most natural display of character, so here, without any appearance of a divine interposition, but merely by their following the dictates of good neighbourhood or of decency, the enemies of Jesus are gathered together to be the witnesses of this work. When the Jews saw Mary rise hastily and go out, after the private message which Martha brought her, knowing that she could not go any where but to the sepulchre, they naturally arose to follow her, that they might restrain the extravagance of her grief, and assist in composing her spirit and bringing her home. They found Jesus in the highway where Martha had first met him, groaning in spirit at the distress of the family, and soothing Mary's complaint by this kindly question, "Where have ye laid him?" a question which showed his readiness to take part in her sorrow by going with her to the house of the dead. The Jews answered his question, "Lord, come and see ;" and Jesus suffers himself to be led by them, that they might see there was no preparation for the work he was about to perform, when he stepped out of the highway along with them, and allowed them to reach the sepulchre before him. His tears draw the attention of the crowd as he approaches the place; and the Evangelist has presented to us, in their different remarks, that variety of character which we discover in every multitude. The candid and feeling admired this testimony of his affection for Lazarus, "Behold how he loved him!" Others, who pretended to more sagacity, argued from the grief of Jesus, that, in the death of Lazarus, he had met with a disappointment which he would have prevented if he could. Jesus, without making any reply to either remark, arrives at the grave. John, who wrote his Gospel

sible that any who saw them could remain in unbelief? Many, we are told, did believe; and here is a view of the motives which indisposed others for attending to the evidence which was exhibited to them, and even determined them to reject it. You cannot be surprised at the influence which such motives exerted at that time, because the like influence of similar motives is a matter of daily observation. The evidence upon which we embrace Christianity is not the same which the Jews had; but it is sufficient. All the parts of it have been fully illustrated; every objection has received an apposite answer; the gainsayers have been driven out of every hold which they have tried to occupy; the wisest and most enlightened men in every age have admitted the evidence, and "set to their seal that God is true." Yet it is rejected by many. Pride, false hopes, or evil passions, detain them in infidelity. They ask for more evidence. They say they suspect collusion, enthusiasm, credulity. But the example of those Jews, who went their ways to the Pharisees, may satisfy you that there is no defect in the evidence, and that there is the most literal truth in our Lord's declaration, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

The different effects which the same religious truths and the same religious advantages produce upon different persons, afford one instance of a state of trial. God is now proving the hearts of the children of men, drawing them to himself by persuasion, by that moral evidence which is enough to satisfy, not to overpower. Faith in this way becomes a moral virtue. A trial is taken of the goodness and honesty of the heart. "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light; but if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" The same seed of the word is scattered by the blessed sower in various soils, and the quality of the soil is left to appear by the produce.

Pierce's Commentary.

CHAPTER VI.

EXTERNAL EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY-PROPHECY.

HAD Jesus appeared only as a messenger of heaven, the points already considered might have finished the defence of Christianity, because we should have been entitled to say that miracles such as those recorded in the Gospel, transmitted upon so unexceptionable a testimony, and wrought in support of a doctrine so worthy of God, are the complete credentials of a divine mission. But the nature of that claim which is made in the Gospel requires a further defence: for it is not barely said that Jesus was a messenger from heaven, but it is said that he was the Messiah of the Jews, "the prophet that should come into the world."* John, his forerunner, marked him out as the Christ. He himself, in his discourses with the Jews, often referred to their books, which he said wrote of him. Before his ascension, he expounded to his disciples in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself.§ They went forth after his death declaring that they said none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come ;|| and in all their discourses and writings they held forth the Gospel as the end of the law, the fulfilment of the covenant with Abraham, the performance of the mercy promised to the fathers.

If the Gospel be a divine revelation, these allegations must be true; for it is impossible that a messenger from heaven can advance a false claim. Although, therefore, the nature of the doctrine, and the confirmation which it receives from miracles, might have been sufficient to establish our faith, had no such claim been made; yet, as Jesus has chosen to call himself the Messiah of the Jews, it is incumbent upon Christians to examine the correspondence between that system contained in the books of the Jews, and that contained in the New Testament; and their faith does not rest upon a solid foundation, unless they can satisfy their minds that the characters of the Jewish Messiah belong to Jesus. It is to be presumed that he had wise reasons for taking to himself this name, and that the faith of his disciples will be very much strengthened by tracing the connection between the two dispensations. But the nature and force of the argument from prophecy will unfold itself in the progress of the investigation; and it is better to begin with attending to the facts upon which the