we both stand. We are not opposing speculations to facts. For the facts as they are represented, we stand up (need we say it?) as stoutly as others. The question is between one theory of the facts and another. We beg leave, also, to ask the advocates of the popular theory to prove what they assert, that the spirit of Lazarus had passed irrevocably out of the reach of the voice of Jesus. It will be replied, that no such event has ever occurred before or since as the restoration of a man four days dead at the sound of a human voice, and this is proof sufficient and in point. But we ask again, with no disposition to evade the difficulty, has such a man as Jesus of Nazareth ever appeared? Our idea is, that he was an original creation, a new and exalted son of God, whose being not only harmonized with all the familiar laws of Nature, but also revealed new laws, new modes of Divine Power, which we are capable of tracing so far as to perceive that they do not interrupt, but agree with all the ways of God in creation and in the soul of man, that they are, in deed and in truth, divine, natural laws, instances, modes of Nature's working,-not breaking in upon the wholeness of nature, but crowning it with surpassing splendor, unfolding its perfection and order.

There is especial fervor in the gratitude which Jesus expressed for the opportunity of raising Lazarus. On no other occasion did he utter himself in the same way. But for what did he thank God? Not, certainly, for the bare opportunity of raising a dead man. Lazarus was not the only individual who had died in the course of his ministry. And had he merely desired an opportunity of restoring a dead man to life, it might easily have been obtained. No; it was not merely for such an opportunity that the divine joy of his heart broke forth, as he lifted up those eyes, just before streaming with tears, and exclaimed, "Father! I thank thee that thou hast heard me." A personal friend, a believer had.died; one, between whom and himself had been formed the indestructible tie of faith, and that condition existed, which the elevation of his spirit rendered necessary to the exercise of his miraculous power. He could not raise the dead merely to prove his power, to convince the doubting. The dignity, the divinity of his purpose would not permit it. The relation in which Lazarus had stood to him opened the way for the miracle he was about to perform. He could now exert his authority singly, out of pure affection for Lazarus, and for the sisters of

Lazarus. There was room for a simple and true act of his inspired will. And on account of those who stood by, he thanked God for the opportunity, now accorded him in the gracious providence of Heaven, not merely of displaying a physical wonder, but of exhibiting that power of faith, which is the most decisive token and the brightest revelation of the spirit of God. Herein was the rare glory of his character, that, in the presence of the very multitudes whom he wished to influence, he could do such things as no man had ever done before, not only without the slightest shadow of display, but with as perfect singleness of mind and simplicity of manner, as if there were not one human eye to see what he was doing.

The two others whom he restored to life were young persons; one was quite a 'child. Remember what he said of the young; "Of such is the kingdom of Heaven." There is something more here than a mere figure of speech. Faith is the peculiar trait of childhood and youth. So congenial to a child's nature is it to cherish trust, to bestow confidence, so ready is he to listen to all sounds as to true voices, that, if we supposed he had come into this world from a preexistent state, we should infer that he had lived in a world of perfect truth. "Heaven lies about us in our infancy." The mind of the very young child appears to live and move and have its being all unconsciously in those truths, which the man is toiling almost hopelessly to find. They brood over it "like the Day." And although the chilling and corrupting illusions of sense fast, very fast, close us round, and the heavy yoke of custom bows us down, and we daily travel farther from the East, yet something of the child's heart stays with us to the end, amidst the thickening clouds of pride and sin.

"O joy! that in our embers
Is something that doth live,
That nature yet remembers
What was so fugitive!"

Had the deep, articulate meaning of the immortal ode, from which I quote, reached our inner sense, were it something more to us than the faint music of a distant angel, we should be prepared to perceive the full significance of the hallowed words of Jesus. Between him and children there was a peculiar sympathy. He took them in his arms and blessed them. He placed a child before his disciples and pointed to him as a

model. In declaring, as he did with so much solemnity, that the guardian angels of children stand always around the Eternal Throne, he intimated that God is very near to the young. It was because he felt himself bound by spiritual, living ties to little children, that he said of the little girl, "She is not dead, but sleepeth." To him her spirit was so visibly within call of his, it was so perfectly easy to summon her back, that she seemed not to be dead.

These remarks must suffice to disclose to those, who are disposed to perceive, the probable correspondence between the restoration of the girl and the young man, and the deepest laws of Nature, the order of that spiritual world of which faith is the ruling principle. To such, we say, as are disposed to perceive it. Without this disposition, 'words, reasonings are vain. "Murmur not among yourselves," said Jesus, no man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him." God forbid we should adduce these words in an arrogant, assuming spirit! Most deeply do we feel that our own vision is but dim, our own faith, faint. And if he, who sees men only as trees walking, is disposed to boast of his sight, he only proves himself among the blindest. There are many, whom we regard with cordial deference, far better qualified to expound these views, would they only throw aside that prejudice of novelty, which, by the way, there is so much to justify. We invoke their hearty candor.

In conclusion, we would briefly remind those who insist that Jesus referred his miracles to the power of God, that it has been the main purpose of the foregoing pages to justify this reference, to show that his miracles were wrought by the spirit, that they bear the impress of the finger of Him, of whom and to whom are all things. Let the language of Jesus be carefully studied, and nothing will appear more plainly than that he ascribed all events, even those we deem natural, to the immediate agency of Heaven. When Peter avowed his faith in him as the Christ, his language, taken to the letter, implies, that Peter had been the subject of an immediate revelation. "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in Heaven." But no enlightened interpreter so understands it.

It has been our aim to show that the wonderful works of Jesus are in perfect harmony with nature's highest laws. Do they still appear to violate the order of the physical universe?

Let it be considered whether that reveals anything more clearly than the natural, essential sovereignty of the mind.

W. H. F.

ART. III. The Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels. By ANDREWS NORTON. Vol I. Boston: 1837. pp. 248, ccxc.

THE merits of this book may, very probably, for a time at least, be underrated. This is an age of superficial and rapid reading, and not the most favorable to the success of a work, which appeals to none of the morbid sensibilities of our nature, and is connected with none of the exciting topics of the day. Those who read it carelessly and superficially will of necessity fail of forming a just estimate of its character, for they will not penetrate the spirit and views of the writer. For a different reason, readers of another class, though they may be impressed with its great excellence, can yet hardly be expected to do full justice to the author, because, not being acquainted with the state of the evidence to be derived from the writings of Christian antiquity, and with the vexed questions of theologians and critics of modern times, they cannot be aware of the difficulties which have been surmounted, nor will they perceive the need of that careful elaboration, which certain portions of the argument, attended, as they have all along supposed, with no embarrassment, have received. The lovers of novelty and paradox may possibly find the work too sober for their taste. But this we cannot consider as a defect in it. Novelty, certainly, is no criterion of truth, and a propensity to adopt new and fanciful opinions, and strike out extravagant and startling hypotheses, constitutes, to say the least, a very doubtful qualification for the execution of a work of this sort. We like a

little sobriety now and then; there is too little of it in these days, and on subjects like that treated of in the present volume, it is not, as we think, misplaced.

One great merit of the volume, regarded as a treatise on the evidences of the genuineness of the Gospels, or rather, a particular branch of them, is, that its statements are entitled to VOL. XXII. -3D S. VOL. IV. NO. III.

41

implicit confidence. It contains, as we believe, no assertions, which are not strictly warranted by fact. There is no overstating of the evidence, no exaggeration, no appeal to spurious or doubtful authorities, and no injudicious use of such as are genuine. From a portion of these charges we cannot except even the "fair-minded" Paley, and the "accurate" Lardner. The former made no pretensions to original learning. The latter, though laboriously minute, and always to be spoken of with respect, appears to have possessed little talent for generalization, and, by his mental tastes and habits, was not qualified to present the essence of his authorities with the reasoning founded on them, in an impressive and attracting form. Besides, the ground of the controversy has somewhat changed since the time of Lardner, and the question presents itself under new aspects. New difficulties have been started, and new fields of inquiry opened, or those before trodden, more fully explored. A multitude of hypotheses have been framed by theologians, some of them crude and ephemeral, but some, from the celebrity and learning of their authors, and the ingenuity exhibited in their defence, entitled to examination. The result of all has been to embarrass and perplex the subject, without furnishing a satisfactory solution of the phenomena to be explained.

It was time the subject should be taken up by one qualified to correct the inaccuracies of former statements, to expose the fa acies of some leading theories, particularly of German critics and theologians, and present the true state of the evidence in a clear and intelligible form. For this task Mr. Norton is preeminently fitted, and he has executed it with singular fidelity. The work embodies the result of thorough research, and mature reflection, and contains, either in the text or notes, (we must not be too fastidious about the form,) a great mass of severe and compact reasoning, which forms a striking contrast with the loose way of thinking and writing too prevalent at the present day.

Mr. Norton is certainly no visionary. Though some may think that he has his theory, he cannot be called a systembuilder, and when his speculations are pushed to a point most remote from the ordinary apprehensions of Christians, it will always be found, upon examination, that he has some ground to stand upon, and, many will think, firm and tenable too. Those who are fond of the dreamy mood, may possibly think