name of "Christian," simply because of their honest disavowal of a belief in some other narrative portions of the New Testament! The hypothesis of Christ's miraculous birth is discordant with the theory of his lineal descent from David, as detailed in Matt. i. 1-17. Joseph's genealogy is therein traced back to king David, and beyond, even to Abraham. Why this enumeration of ancestry, if Jesus were in no real sense the son of Joseph, but was begotten supernaturally? How could a record of Joseph's lineal parentage prove Jesus to have descended from David, unless Joseph were the natural father of Jesus? To obviate the difficulty thus suggested, it has been contended that Mary, the bona fide mother of Christ, was probably a direct descendant from David. But this is sheer assumption. There is not one particle of evidence to sustain it. Mary's lineage, anterior to her immediate parents, is entirely unknown. The Bible gives us no information on this point. Bishop Watson* conjectures that it is Mary's genealogy, instead of Joseph's, which Luke gives in his Gospel.† Not the least proof, however, does he adduce in behalf of his supposition. Heli, whose genealogy is given by Luke, was, as we are expressly told, the father of Joseph. If he was also the father of Mary, then Joseph must have married his own sister! This is hardly probable; so I conclude that Christ's genealogy cannot, by any Biblical statistics, A celebrated English prelate, Lord Bishop of Landaff, &c. be traced to David, unless Joseph were his natural parent. THE MIRACLES SAID TO HAVE BEEN WROUGHT BY JESUS.* What was the alleged ulterior object of their performance? To convince those whose understandings could not otherwise be reached by conviction, that Jesus was a divinely commissioned Teacher. In the case of all those who readily believed Jesus, on the strength of what he himself said, being satisfied of the truth of his principles from his clearness of illustration and cogency of reasoning, no miracles were called for. The evangelists speak of these wonderful works as performed to produce conviction in the minds of those who stood out against the force of intellectual, argumentative demonstration. Can a morally upright man, who, after the most candid investigation of the whole subject, finds himself unable to accept the miraculous relations as literal, matterof-fact narratives, be properly identified by the Christian name? Who is a Christian? A good man, who believes in Christianity. What is Christianity? The moral and religious truth taught by Christ. This truth *About thirty are recorded in detail. See Matt. viii. 5-13. 14, 15, 28-34. ix. 1-8, 18-33. xii. 9-21, 22—50. xiv. 15-27. xv. 21-28, 32-37. xvii. 14-21. xx. 29-34. xxi. 18, 19. Marx, i. 30, 31, 40-42, 23-26. ii. 3-12. iii. 1—5. viii. 22-26. Luke, v. 1-11. vii. 11-17. xxxiii. 10-22. xvii. 11-19. John, ii. 1-11. iv. 45-56. xi. 1—46,and corresponding passages. Other reputed miracles are alluded to, without distinct specification of the particulars. Jesus is spoken of as "healing all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease among the people." See Matt. iv. 23, 24. xv. 29-31; and corresponding passages, (although he did not so formally announce it, perhaps) is a consolidated system of principles, of diversified bearings and relations. When analyzed, what are some of its component parts? The following, viz. The existence, omnipotence, omnipresence, and universal paternity of God; the universal brotherhood of man,-which is con sequent of the last-named proposition; the morality in culcated in a preceptive manner and practically exemplified by Jesus, making him a pattern of goodness, and which is comprehended in this injunction, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye even so to them"; and lastly, the sentient immortality of the whole human race. If a person is thoroughly satis fied that all these principles are true, what need is there that a miracle should be performed to convince him? None at all. A miraculous work, wrought as an argument to make him a believer, would be superfluous-labor thrown away. Now suppose that, for this very rea son, the performance of miracles were waived, in his case; and he, having never witnessed but only heard or read of such wonders, found himself unable to believe in their reality-could he, if his life were morally blame less, be with propriety termed a Christian? There are those who assume the responsibility of saying, No. With all due deference to their superior discernment, I say, Yes-i. e. defining "Christian" to mean, a believer in and follower of Christ. The earliest and some of the most steadfast of his disciples were convinced that he was a teacher of truth, and left all to follow him, from the impression made upon their minds by his preaching, and his preaching only. When, on a certain occasion, he "entered into the synagogue and taught,” some of those who listened "were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority and not as the scribes." The instruction of Jesus was so consonant with reason, in such perfect harmony with all that was pure and noble in their souls, that they at once felt its authority, for they were simpled-minded, honest men, who had no interest at stake in any false creed or institution, and they were no doubt measurably free from sectarian bias. To such, Truth always appears clothed in simplicity and beauty, and speaks in a sweet voice of winning, persuasive authority. The scribes did not teach with the authority of Christ. They had "authority," be sure-i. e. of a certain kind; but it was not the authority of truth. They had the authority of law, both civil and ecclesiastical. They were the authorized expounders of the Law and the Prophets, and carried about with them, attached to their garments, the insig nia of their authoritative station. I think it probable that their "authority" was somewhat like that which is relied upon now by some professedly (and doubtless, in their way, sincere) Christian teachers. They probably said, authoritatively, to those they addressed, Believe what we say, because we say it ;-not, Hear us with candor, exercise the reasoning faculties God has given you in relation to what we say, and when convinced by * Mark, i. 21, 22. the power of truth, confess it, and submit to the authority of deep-felt conviction. There is no necessary connexion or analogy between a physical miracle and a spiritual truth. Of itself alone, aside from all other considerations, the one cannot demonstrate the other, or yield to it any support whatever. If an individual should perform a wonderful work in the presence of hundreds who should look on in amazement, being utterly unable to discern any natural mode by which it could be done, what would it prove? Why, simply this: that he were endowed with superior power, or that he had fortuitously obtained possession of some secret, which if known to the others would enable them to perform the same wonder wrought by him. It certainly could not, in and of itself alone, prove him to be a good man, nor demonstrate that he taught the truth when he inculcated sentiments entirely disconnected with his wonder-working. The apparent miracle must be taken in connection with something else, before it could have any moral bearing, or afford any sustaining influence to the claims of a professedly divine teacher. The nature of the miracle, whether it bear evidence of being dictated by love or hatred, is an important consideration. If a seeming miracle upon insensate matter were verily wrought in our presence, we should find it necessary to exercise our reason in relation to it before we could admit that it really added weight to the character and corroborative strength to the teachings of the individual who performed it. An act which to our vision wears the |