seats of promotion, and even disputing with each other on that subject? Was not Peter detected in "roundly affirming as true” what "was evidently false," to "serve a turn," when he repeatedly denied that he ever knew Jesus? Was he not guilty in one remarkable instance, of "dissimulation,"-insomuch that Paul "withstood him to the face"? Others of the disciples were sometimes hasty in forming their judgment of a case, and on one occasion a little vindictive.§

Now if the credulity, superstition and peccability of the Christian Fathers who have been referred to, invalidate their testimony concerning miracles which they tell us were actually performed in their presence, ought not the same characteristics of the apostles to shake our faith in what they allege, when they ascribe miraculous works to Jesus?

In strict justice to both sides of this question, it should here be particularly observed that while we have the unqualified and repeated testimony of nine of the Fathers, (among whom was the pious and learned Origen,) who expressly claim that in most if not all cases concerning which they testify, they themselves were eye-witnesses; we have, at best, (if we reject the Apocryphal New Testament) only five vouchers for Christ's miracles, and two of those make no pretence of having been present, even in a single instance, when he is said to have wrought them!

*See Mark, xiv. 66-71. † Galatians, ii. 11-13. + Mark, ix. 38, 39. x. 13-16. § Luke, ix. 54.

I appeal to every one who is possessed of the least candor, to know if we have not as much reason to doubt the testimony of the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, as to question that of the Fathers.

The principal defect in Origen, of which modern ecclesiastic historians speak, is an alleged deficiency of sound judgment. In other respects they highly commend him-some laud him to the skies. He is the boast of Universalists;-they often triumphantly refer to him, to prove that there was, among the ancient Christians, at least one man, of acknowledged learning and piety, who zealously advocated universal salvation. Now this Origen repeatedly and positively declares that he saw miracles performed, in his day. And if we are to set aside his testimony, because he was visionary and lacking in judgment, when tried by the standard of those who differ from him in opinion, why may we not also invalidate the testimony of Matthew and John,-the only evangelists personally acquainted with Jesus, who say anything about his miracles? Were they never deficient in judgment? Were they absolutely infallible and impeccable? If they erred,-as they certainly did, unless the Gospels belie them,-in regard to so important a matter as the nature of Christ's kingdom, might they not be as liable as the Christian Fathers, to misunderstand the subject of miracles,-mistaking a purely natural operation for one super-natural, and, deluded by superstious awe and veneration, exaggerating a little? Why will not the believers in supernaturalism

give to the Fathers as much credence as they are willing to allow the Evangelists,-especially when the former are so much more numerous than the latter, and declare that they have seen and heard those things concerning which they testify; which is not the case with, at least, Mark and Luke, nor in some instances with even Matthew and John?

It is sometimes contended that if any portions of the Gospels may be rightfully considered as either intentionally false or honestly mistaken, the whole evangelical record is so vitiated that the entire biography of Christ is reduced to the level of a mere romance, and cannot reasonably be depended upon in any respect whatever. It is thought, by some preachers, that if we admit any material portions of the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, to be erroneous, we virtually pronounce them false witnesses. They who think thus will not admit that the evangelists could have been honestly mistaken. They laugh this idea to scorn, and say there is but one alternative, viz: we must either believe all they say, or regard them as intentional falsifiers.

Now let us apply the rule of this logic to the testimony of the Christian Fathers. If we reject what they so positively assert and reiterate concerning miracles, which they tell us were performed in their presence, do we not, in effect, (reasoning after the manner

*I understood this to be the gist of Mr. Cobb's argument, in his Dedication Sermon, at Beverly.

of some) entirely repudiate their claims to credibility? And regarding them thus, how can we place confidence in any of their statements? How do we know that the history of the early Church, which history we derive from their writings, is not all a romance? What reason have we to rely upon what they say concerning the antiquity of the books composing the New Testament? Perhaps you are disposed to inquire, If it be true that they were mistaken, or that they purposely falsified in regard to miracles, "shall we not receive from them what they have said that is true?" I trust I shall not be blamed by a certain preacher, to whom I have referred in this lecture, if I reply by saying, "No, not from them. We will apply for truth to better authority than false witnesses!"

JOSEPHUS, the celebrated Jewish historian, who was born A. D. 37, relates that miracles were frequently performed, in his day, in the name of Solomon. says:

He

"I saw one of my countrymen, Eleazer, casting out devils, in the presence of Vespasian, his sons and officers, and a multitude of soldiers. His method was this: he applied to the nose of a person possessed, a ring, which had a certain drug or root under the seal of it, which Solomon had prescribed; and so, by the smell of the ring, he drew out the devil, through the nostrils of the patient, who fell presently to the ground; upon which, he adjured the devil never to return, rehearsing the

name of Solomon, with certain charms, which he had composed and left behind him; and being desirous to convince the company that he was really indued with this power, to which he pretended, he placed a certain cup or vessel filled with water, at a little distance from the person possessed, and commanded the devil, as he was going out of him, to overturn the cup, so as to give the spectators a manifest proof, that he had quitted the body of the man."*

This is about as wonderful as the miracle of sending devils into a herd of swine.

If, as the old Testament relates, the power of heal ing the sick, raising the dead, and miraculously dividing the waters of a river, was bestowed upon Elijah and Elisha,†-and if devils were cast out, malignant dis eases cured, and even the dead brought to life, in the time of some of the early Fathers, (of which we have far more historical evidence than we have for the mira cles of Jesus)-how can the power to perform such works be the "SEAL of Christ's Messiahship,"-his distinguishing prerogative, and the ground of his a thority, as the highest of all teachers? If, in this re spect, he has been fully equalled both before and since his time, how can this alone prove his superiority over all others? I propose these questions, because there are some who pride themselves upon their logical acumen, who contend that miracle-working formed the * Jewish Antiquities.

+ Kings, xvii. 17-24. 2 do. iv. 32-35. See also Josh. iii. 14-17.