We demand: "Are miracles possible?" and we receive the reply that bonâ fide miracles, i.e., such as are breaches of the laws of nature, are impossible; for a breach of them would imply that such a breach or suspension of nature's laws is advantageous, that these laws are improvable, and that, consequently, they are imperfect, and that God's providence and prescience is at fault. This is blasphemous, and we, therefore, assume that miracles in this sense are impossible. Then again: "Are miracles possible?" If we understand by miracle an act, which, though in accordance with God's laws, seem not to be so, through our ignorance of such laws, then we must receive an affirmative reply; this is namely the sort of wonders, which every one of us can perform before such people, as are more ignorant than ourselves.

The Jews were adepts in the art of healing, and their fame as physicians went far and wide; they might have possessed some practical knowledge, lost to their posterity, of animal magnetism, about which even we are still in such a haze. Then there is mesmerism, the application of animal magnetism, to produce sleep, trance, somnambulism, and even clairvoyance, by which means the raising from the dead of Lazarus and Jairus' daughter might be explained. The The death-like sleep produced by the magnetizer became neutralised by his touch. The ancients did, and the orientals do now, apply animal magnetism to a large extent; and although they may not possess the theoretical knowledge, they apply this law by unconscious practice. It is well possible, that Jesus acquired such medical knowledge, as was available, during the years of his obscure youth; and then, how many miracles, said to have been wrought by him, if stript of their exaggeration by the narrator, might thus be explained naturally. If he were an especially powerful innervator, and if magnetism were one of the chief means by which he effected cures, then the reproach of subornation might be withdrawn to some extent, if not entirely. The constitution, appearance, and procedure of Jesus favors this hypothesis considerably. Many prodigies we read of, may be ascribed to the nervous state of the frame, the powerful imagination and visionary disposition of Jesus, and the superstitious proclivities of the subject. If he was a Cagliostro, he was also a Mohamed, whose self-delusions, combined with his real powers, dazzled the eyes of his immediate followers, and prevented them from exercising a healthy and sound judgment.

One word more before we close. Supposing all our reasoning to have been wrong, supposing that miracles in one sense or the other really took place as described, there is one objection still to be raised, before we can accept them, which is the want of object in them. Joshua's command for the sun to stand still, the obedience to which would have convulsed the whole planetary system, and broken up the earth into fragments, this breach of the wellknown laws of gravitation and of the vis inertia what was its object? Joshua's desire to go on slaughtering his enemies a little longer, that is, contravening God's law of love. Again, the turning back of the sun's shade on the Dial of Ahaz, which was of a like revolu

tionary character, what was it permitted for, but to satisfy an unbelieving mortal, a very worm of the earth? Think of the object, and the effect of the earthquakes, the tearing of the curtain in the temple, the resurrection and wandering about of such as had died long ago; consider these alleged unnatural occurrences at the death of Jesus, and tell us what were they meant for, and what did they effect. The same remark applies to the alleged prodigies at Jesus' birth, such as the appearance of a host of angels to a few shepherds, the walking star, so different in its habits from all other known stars, the appearances of visions and dreams, and angels, what did they all effect? Is it possible that God should make such efforts simply for a mere show that has not the slightest significance and not the least result? Where is God's motive for these, and most of the other alleged miracles? Where is His wisdom? Where is His wisdom? Where is the application of the best means to the best ends? The want of object and effect alone, the disproportion between the means and the ends, brands them as brazen impositions and blasphemies against the Almighty. But God is wise, and consequently these miracles are lies, poetical inventions, pious frauds, self-delusions. Where such bold impositions pass muster, it is hardly worth while investigating the nature of the trumpery miracles ascribed to Jesus and his disciples. And as we are commanded by the saintly brotherhood to believe every tittle of the Bible, or nothing, we eagerly avail ourselves of the choice, and elect to accept rather the consequences of entire disbelief, than believe what they demand.

And having thus proved the unreliability of the "inspired" historians in one instance, they become useless to us as historical referees; and other original sources do not exist. We may, therefore, without any fear, reject as merely mythical legends, such tales as of the walking star, of the wise man from the East, such as the prodigies advertizing Jesus' death; such narratives as that of the temptation of Jesus by the devil, apparitions, visions, unearthly voices, et hoc genus omne, we may ascribe to invention pure and simple, or to a powerful fancy, intensified by fasting; such stories as that of the feeding of the 4,000 and 5,000 men respectively with a few loaves and fishes, such as the resurrection, and so forth, we may regard as based upon some clever trick, which the multitude could not look through, but which a few detectives would soon have exposed; and finally such wonders, as the healing of the sick by Jesus, the raising of those two persons from the dead, if these occurrences could be proved incontestably by history, we may ascribe to having been accomplished through the means of certain laws of nature, that we are incompletely or not at all cognizant of.

*

It is the object of the priesthood and their adherents, to keep these things enveloped in a cloak of mystery; a solemn semiobscurity; a mystical glamour; and this very fact goes far to prove that they will not bear the light of reasonable investigation. Truth covets daylight; it has nothing to be ashamed or afraid of; and

* Here the figures especially should be taken “cum grano salis.”

reasoning inversely, everything that seeks and delights in, darkness, is untrue in proportion to the darkness sought. So don't let us shrink from the anathemata of the monopolizers of divine favor, but enter boldly into their obscure cave, when we require it, and light it up with the never failing torch, analyzing reason.

CHAPTER XV.

REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.

THESE expressions are frequently not clearly defined, nay, they are often confounded with each other, though they differ in so far, that the one is objective and the other subjective. Revelation is the act of God, while inspiration signifies the state of the individual to whom anything has been revealed, or also the subject matter of revelation. Revelation is the operation of God, by which He communicates to men, certain things, unknown to them hitherto, and which they could not have acquired by themselves; and this information consists in such truths, commands and instructions, as He regards necessary for their spiritual and physical welfare (2 Tim. iii., 16), and whatever revelation does not fulfil this condition, is no revelation from God, but a vagary of the imagination.

In this light revelation was regarded by the whole antiquity, though the ideas as to its instruments, extent, object and nature varied and diverged considerably; for, while the classical nations accepted revelation in its widest meaning, as to everything freshly acquired by humanity on the fields of the good, the true, and the beautiful, the Semitic nations applied it principally to acquisitions in religious matters. The former regarded their seers, sages, artists and poets equally participaters of inspiration, while the latter ascribed this gift to their prophets and seers only. In either case God is regarded as employing various modes to make his truths known to humanity. Sometimes his spirit influences the human spirit directly; sometimes He is represented as appearing under different shapes, and as employing the human language; and sometimes again He is supposed to have communicated with men by means of visions and dreams. Such inspirations are ascribed by the Jews to the Patriarchs, to Moses and the prophets, and to nearly all persons eminent in their history; by the Christians to the above, to Jesus and his immediate followers; by the Moslem to Mohamed, and by the heathen to all such men as made inventions and discoveries that had the object of promoting human happiness; for they reasoned, that such things, as are not acquired by experience, could have their source only in divine interposition; or that such truths, as they had not possessed previously, must have necessarily come from the fountain head of knowledge, that is God. The inspired man became thus an organum, a medium of instruction in divine lore, and the test to judge between real and pretended

inspiration, was the intrinsic value of either, that is, its influence for good. There was thus judgment exercised to discriminate between genuine communications from God and illegitimate pretensions, but this judgment unfortunately only operated with regard to moral, scientific and artistic acquirements, and was abandoned in the much more important matter of religious truth. Here the enquirer found himself face to face with such unfathomable mystery; here he felt himself so completely incompetent to decide on the merits of a case, that he accepted in good, i.e. blind, faith, the statements of the inspired seer, who enforced credence for his utterances by brilliant promises and frightful threats, who insisted on the acceptance of his discoveries as infallible words of God, without test or examination. Regarding the utterances of the inspired individual in the light of a reproduction of dictation, men were taught to go so far, as to ascribe the same infallibility, not only to the substance of the divine communication, but even to every word, syllable, and letter. This demand naturally led to many difficulties, and is the principal cause of the discredit thrown by criticism and skepticism on inspiration altogether, and of the stereotyped character of quasi-revealed doctrines. For what are we to do with inspired writings, if, in the different copies of the original, different and contending expressions, words, syllables, and letters are used? And how can we alter or modify, the holy word of God, even if it be proved contradictory to His character, and to well-known facts, or to common sense? How can we reconcile with each other, revelations distinctly in opposition to each other, and which interpretation of the will of God shall we accept when both diverge so much?

It is our object to regard this subject from the Christian point of view principally, and we look around for a dogmatic definition of the character of divine revelation. Here it must strike us as curious, that the Roman Church places very little weight on original inspiration. This Church avoids consistently ventilating its views on the subject, and this disinclination is explained by its hierarchical character. As the Church, represented by its councils or its head in Rome, exhibits itself as the only true and faithful expositor of inspired documents, it transfers the claim to infallibility from the revelation to itself. Now, a revelation that is obscure and equivocal to such an extent, as to require inspired interpreters to make its contents accessible to the masses, can hardly be called a revelation, for it revealed nothing; it is the interpreter who reveals. If inspiration utters its sentences in such an oracular manner, as to make them incomprehensible to all but a few inspired persons, then it is an entirely uncalled-for and useless communication. Instead of writing us a letter in Sanscrit, which it requires a savant to explain, our learned Bengalee friend would have done better if he had saved himself the trouble of writing at all. And if the genuineness of the revelation is to be tested by its salutary effect on the human race, then that is no revelation which has an inspiring effect on only a privileged few. If already thus dogmatic faith in revelation, as formulated in the canon, wears a doubtful aspect, its nature becomes

even more undefined and problematical when we examine, in detail, the traditional revelations in our possession.

Collenso and his collaborateurs, true benefactors to humanity, have sufficiently established the totally human character of the sacred writings of the Hebrews, as proved by the ignorance manifested in their statements of statistical, physical, and historical facts. This ignorance is not of God, but of men. It is altogether vain trying to defend their divine character, by pointing to certain spiritual truth they contain, for in this case the Christians would have to accept as inspired also the Vedas, the Puranas, Zendavesta and Koran. It is useless pleading that the books of the Old Tastement contain valuable instruction from an ethical point of view; for its morality is a sickening one. How is God's character depicted? What figures are those of the blood-thirsty, lascivious, dishonest and ignorant "friends of God!" How can we trust to the religious truths presented, when the statements of purely physical facts are entirely ignored? The champions of the divine character of these writings say, that it was not God's object in these revelations to teach historical and physical, but religious and moral, science; and that, therefore, these writings may contain absolute ideal truths, even if abounding in errors of fact; that these books mean to teach wisdom, not science. But independent of the conceit of these expositors, who pretend to know so well what God intended, independent of the sophism upon which their apology rests, it is plain to every impartial reader, that the Christian cannot accept even the moral and religious teaching conveyed, because it is contradictory in its very essence to the religion and morality of Jesus. The God of anger on the one hand, the God of love on the other; a curse on the one hand, salvation on the other. Moses cries: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth; David curses his enemies, the prophets breathe nothing but vengeance, while the gentle Jesus teaches, "Love your enemies!" One system is built in time, the other in eternity; the one is pure, the other reeking with blood and abomination. And then we are to take the one as well as the others as the Word of God, though every neophyte knows that God can never change. He who would instruct us in the highest wisdom should not be ignorant of the elements of truth in every-day things; and above all, a revelation coming from God direct must contain truth and truth only, how small soever the proportion may be, measured out to suit the spiritual age of the world; it can never contain falsehood of whatever description.

We reason, therefore, that when we find the self-imposed teacher of humanity is found at fault in matters merely of ethics and science, when we perceive that his teachings are mischievous and erroneous, we may also state that his statements are open to a skeptical treatment in divine matters. A man who has an altogether mistaken conception of the nature of a gun, how can he theorise on the effects of the projectile? Must not every theory be built primarily upon known facts? And it is not any especial branch of science he attempts to teach, like astronomy or zoology, but it is the essence of science, which embraces every other, for it is the wisdom of