the Jews rejected Christ, and clamoured for his death; and then, a few days after, were converted by thousands, and adored him as their Lord and their God; did they thus act in obedience to the Apostles? and did a few Galilean fishermen thus dispose at will of the sanhedrim, of the Jewish people, of Pilate, and of the Roman empire? Apply the same hypothesis to the history of our own time, and you will then feel how utterly insupportable it is. Suppose a manuscript should be discovered, bearing the date of the twelfth century, in which it should be predicted, that in the course of six hundred years a man should be born at Ajaccio, in Corsica, whom a terrible revolution would make master of France; who would carry his victorious arms from the Rhine to the Nile, and fill the whole world with his fame; who would conquer united Europe at Marengo, Austerlitz, and Jena; who would be suddenly arrested in the midst of his career; who would find his power annihilated in an expedition against a great northern Monarch; and who, lastly, after a brief exile, would re-ascend the throne, again be driven from it, and be sent to die in a remote and desolate island. Suppose, farther, that certain persons should thence conclude, that the author of this manuscript possessed the gift of prophecy.

after his death, though there might be no truth in either of these assertions. What hindered them from inventing?

"The Abbé.-What! Everything. History, which, at an age so well known as that of Jesus Christ-the age of Augustus, Tiberius, Tacitus, Suetonius

would never have accredited so flagrant a lie; while nowhere do we find the statement of the Apostles contradicted; nowhere do we find the slightest trace of the real facts, supposing your The Jews, espehypothesis to be true.

cially, in the midst of whom Jesus Christ had lived, in whose presence the Apostles first began to preach, (Acts ii.,) and who were as much opposed to the disciples as they had been to the Master; would they, I ask, have allowed them to ascribe to Jesus Christ, not only certain actions, but a complete history, without protesting against so shameless an imposture? And while they sought every opportunity against them, (Acts iv., v.,) would they have neglected so easy a means of confounding them before all the people? Sir, excuse my frankness: these are thoughts which may, indeed, suggest themselves to the mind of a man who looks out for a new hypothesis, the moment his former one fails him, but which cannot stand before a quarter of an hour's calm reflection.

ment ?

To

to the imagined prophecy of Napoleon: Would you not consider that man a fool, who affirmed that the whole history of this distinguished personage was arranged expressly for its fulfilBut should you have a more favourable opinion of him, who would wave the difficulty, by saying, that this history was merely a fiction, composed by writers whose interest it was to verify the prophecy; and that Napoleon never existed; or, that he had never performed the actions which have been ascribed to him? Yet this assertion would not be more tenable than that of the infidel, who accuses the Apostles of having inIn some vented the life of their Master. respects, I affirm that it would be even less so. For, besides the fact, that no one would be so deeply interested in contradicting the false historians of Napoleon, as would have been the Jews in contradicting those of Jesus Christ; the life of Christ occupies a far different place in the annals of the world than What! does even that of Napoleon.

"* See the witty pamphlet of M. Pérès, in which he proves the non-existence of Napoleon, by the same arguments which are used by Dupuy, against the personal existence of Jesus Christ."

ancient and modern history, which unite in bearing testimony to Jesus Christ, would they unite in bearing testimony to an imaginary being? and would they both rest upon a tissue of falsehoods, owing to the inconceivable audacity of the Apostles, and the still more inconceivable silence of their adversaries? Leave such hypotheses to a Dupuy, or a Volney; and be satisfied with the scepticism of Rousseau. He, at least, never fell so low; and you cannot have forgotten this beautiful passage: 'Shall we say that the history of the Gospel was invented at will? My friend, it is not thus that men invent; and the deeds of Socrates, of which no one doubts, are less authentic than those of Jesus Christ. In fact, you evade the difficulty, without removing it. It would be more inconceivable that several men should agree to fabricate this book, than that a single one should be found who could furnish its subject.'" (Pages 68-73.)

The suggestion, that the prophe

cies of the Old Testament were inserted after the death and resurrection of our Lord, and are therefore interpolations, made by Christians, is well met.

"You forget, Sir, the place occupied by the prophecies in the Old Testament. They are found in so great a number, they form so connected a whole, they are so involved in the contemporaneous history, that it would have been easier to re-make the entire book, than to insert them after the event. Besides, there was one circumstance which greatly increased the difficulty. When the ten tribes which formed the kingdom of Israel separated from that of Judah, they carried with them the five books of Moses, the only part of the Old Testament then collected. These books have been preserved to the present day, by the Samaritans, who are descended from the Israelites. The Apostles, not content with changing the Hebrew Old Testament, must also have falsified the five books of Moses, as possessed by the Samaritans, the declared enemies of the Jews. But this is my least difficulty.

"Do you not think, Sir, that if the Apostles had composed the prophecies after the event, they would have made them clearer ? You complain, that they are not sufficiently precise. Believe me, an impostor would have taken care to avoid this reproach. You must not take it ill if I turn your own weapons

against you. culty.

This is my second diffi

"Here is the third. If the prophecies of the Old Testament were made after the event, how is it that the Jews understood them before? Where had they read that a Messiah was promised them; that he would appear at an appointed time; that he would be born in Bethlehem; that he would descend from David, &c. ? Had they read these things in predictions which did not exist, and which were forged many centuries later? You seem embarrassed by this reflection : let us leave it, and proceed to my last difficulty, which I am impatient to submit to you.

"The Apostles,' say you, 'have greatly altered the text of the Old Testament. Paper is discreet, and does not complain.' But you forget that this paper might fall into the hands of indiscreet men, disposed to complain. Who were the natural guardians of the Old Testament? The Jews, the Priests, the

Scribes, the Rulers of the synagogues; that is to say, the murderers of Jesus Christ. It is well known, that the Jews carried their respect for their sacred books even to superstition; so much so, that if, in copying the Scriptures, they met with a letter larger or smaller than the rest, they carefully preserved these differences, which are still to be found in our Hebrew text, and in which their Doctors saw singular mysteries. According to your account, they now, for the first time, lay aside this excessive veneration, and, without scruple, consent to the most barefaced interpolations. And in whose favour do they make this enormous exception? In favour of Christ's disciples, who attempt to prove, by this lie, that He whom these same Jews have just crucified is the Messiah, and the Son of God!

"But granting that the Apostles had gained with what? We know that the Apostles had neither money nor credit; but, however, granting that they had gained the guardians of the Old Testament in Jerusalem; granting that they had bought the silence, the concurrence of the sanhedrim, of the priesthood in this city, from the first to the last of its members; the opportunity, doubtless, was favourable; they took advantage of the time when these furious enemies of Christ were discharging the remains of their wrath on his disciples, were dispersing them on every side, were stoning St. Stephen, were persuading Herod to decapitate St. James. I grant that the Old Testament was altered at Jerusa

lem, to suit the Christians. I concede much; but still you are not more advanced than you were before.

"There existed other manuscripts of the Old Testament. There was one, at least, in every synagogue; that is, in every city of Judea. But what do I say? The Jews had been scattered throughout the world for the space of two hundred years. Every where they had synagogues, and every where they read the Scriptures on the Sabbath-day. Not only must the Apostles have gained the Jewish Priests at Jerusalem, but also the Scribes and Elders of every city in Judea, with those of Antioch, of Rome, of Athens, of Corinth, of Philippi, of Babylon, of Thessalonica, those of the whole world.

"Finally, this universal alteration of the sacred books of the Jews, brought about through the co-operation of all the Jewish Priests, Scribes, and Elders in the world, was made with such profound secresy, that no one has discovered it to the present day; that no remembrance of the authentic text has been preserved in any manuscript; and the deluded Jews, from century to century, confidently present us with the same text which the Christians have altered, while the Jews still retained them in their own hands; and altered on purpose to condemn the Jews; while it was only necessary to preserve the text as it was, for the purpose of sustaining their own hopes, and of annihilating those of the Christians. Are you still of opinion, that the prophecy was written after the event?"

(Pages 75-79.)

The following remarks on the prophecies relative to the subversion of the Jewish nation, as contained Deut. xxviii. and xxix. 22, 28; Lev. xxvi. 32-39; Jer. xxiv. 9; Amos ix. 9; are very striking :

"What say you, Sir, to this prediction? You will not accuse it of obscurity. The language is almost as clear as that of history. And has it not been verified? Is it not still verified before our eyes? trait for trait? I see you are struck by this. You will be more so, if you consider each article separately. Could the Romans be better described than they are here? A nation coming from afar, like the eagle;' speaking a language unknown to the Jews; whilst every other nation that had made war upon them came from climes less distant, and spoke languages very analogous to VOL. XXI. Third Series.

Do

the Hebrew. The siege of Jerusalem by the Romans, is it not drawn to the very life? These high and fenced walls, on which they trusted throughout the land; this dreadful famine, these families disputing for a morsel of food, these children devoured by their own mothers; could we not imagine that, instead of a prophecy, we were reading the recital of the siege by the historian Josephus ? The calamities which have fallen upon the Jews, have they not been wonderful,' and of long continuance ? ' they not still continue? And have they not lasted nearly eighteen centuries? Have not the vanquished Jews, contrary to the general policy of their conquerors, been torn from their native soil, and forbidden to return to it on pain of death? And more: they might, at least, have been transported to one common retreat, where they might have formed a colony; but, instead of that, have they not been dispersed on every side? And even in the remotest corners of the world, are we not sure to find a remnant of this scattered people? And yet, wonderful to relate! have they not invariably remained distinct from every other nation? how striking is the image of the Prophet Amos, who compares them to corn sifted in a sieve, while not a single grain falls to the earth! And can we fail to recognise in these traits the condition of the Jews among foreign nations; ease ever flying from them, their hearts trembling, their lives in jeopardy? Have you not read in Josephus, that the Jewish prisoners were led by thousands into Egypt, at two different times, under Titus, and under Adrian? and that these unhappy slaves were estimated at so low a price, that eleven thousand were allowed to perish from hunger? Have not the Jews literally been an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword' among men? and that not in Christian countries only, but among Mohammedans, and even among Pagans ? * And have not their calamities been the wonder of the whole world? Has not their condition been considered, in all ages, as something out of the ordinary course of nature, and as the effect of a direct curse from God?

And

"Try to explain this prophecy by Rousseau's three hypotheses. Accidental coincidence! How can we admit this,

Ꮓ

when the prophecy is so explicit, and when it refers to circumstances so special, to a history unique in the annals of the world? Interpolation! But when could it have been made, to meet the exigency of events which have lasted eighteen centuries, and which still continue? The invention or the arrangement of history! How can this be possible in reference to facts which take place at this present time, and under our own eyes? Here you have what Rousseau demands. You are witness of the event. If you are not witness of the prophecy, at any rate you are witness that there has been no interpolation; and this suffices. In short: you may affirm, that accidental coincidence is impossible, unless you admit that it is possible in every case; which is contrary to common sense, and to Rousseau himself. Thus, Sir, if one must be credulous, not to believe the prophecies concerning the Messiah, one must be still more so, not to believe those respecting the Jews. It would require a degree of credulity, of which neither you nor I are capable.'

(Pages 87-90.)

The author's reasoning in the second part, on the supremacy of St. Peter, the infallibility of the Church, the apostolical succession, the aid of the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of Scripture, the right of private judgment, and other subjects of a similar nature, are equally just and striking; but we have not room for extracts. The following is Lucilla's last letter to the retired officer, who had sent her the New Testament, and succeeded in convincing her that she ought to read it with humility and prayer:

"What will you have thought, Sir, of my long silence? Perhaps you will have despaired of me. But, no; you could never have thought that God would abandon me. The bitterness caused by my delays can alone have suggested such an idea; but I felt that this bitterness was all charity, and your charity has overcome me. The letter I received from you a month ago, affected me more than any of the others; and its last lines almost broke my heart.

"When I had finished them, I immediately took up your New Testament, which I received at the same time. seemed sent from God. I opened it at the first page. I knelt down, and offered

It

up this prayer to God: Lord, this book is thy word. If it be true that thou hast commanded thy children to read it, deign to enlighten me by thy Spirit. If I have received evil counsels, withdraw me from error, and never allow me to forsake thee.' Then I immediately began to read; but I resolved to write no more, either to you, Sir, or to the Abbé, and to live a whole month without any other guide than God himself. Had the result been contrary to your expectations; had the reading of the Bible proved a source of perplexity and offence to my soul; you would never more have heard of me but how different has been the effect! This perusal possessed such an interest, such a charm, that I sometimes devoted to it a part of the night. In less than a fortnight I had read the New Testament through. I immediately began it again; and I have just finished it a second time.

"What a book, Sir! It, indeed, produces all the feelings you describe. It terrifies and consoles me, it disturbs and rejoices me, by turns. During the last few days I begin to understand it. What you have found in the Bible, I also find there; and this is a fresh proof of the unity of feeling which the Holy Ghost produces in those who read it with faith. My short experience convinces me even better than your letters; and you will not be jealous, if I say to you what the Samaritans said to the woman who had announced Christ to them:

Now we believe, not because of thy saying for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.' (John iv. 42.) I have learned to see myself as I really am, a poor sinner, who has never yet known her own heart; and who imagined herself without reproach, while trampling on the holy law of God. But I have learned, at the same time, to see in Jesus Christ a Saviour full of mercy, dying to reconcile me to God. I hardly dare speak of my hope, it is so new; but, new as it is, I feel that it is firm; and I admire the suddenness with which it has been developed. Doubtless, there has been a preparatory work of God in my heart. You cannot imagine, Sir, how much I was struck by that part of your letter, in which you express your surprise at my being so anxiously desirous to obtain salvation, without acknowledg ing that the Bible had any share in producing this deep interest: you are not aware that the serious impressions which first induced me to write to the Abbé, were called forth by some extracts

from the Bible, which I read in my Manual.

"Am I a Catholic or a Protestant? I hardly know. I feel that I am become a Christian, and that suffices me: God will do the rest. On Him alone do I depend. I know my own weakness; and it is with respect, with submission, that I should receive the counsels of a pious Pastor; but I will place no man between God and me. I say this with you; and I now say it with a full understanding of the whole force of your meaning.

"Can you imagine, Sir, with what emotion, with what gratitude, I think of you, to whom God himself directed me; of you, who have so patiently borne with me; who have so kindly instructed me; of you, in short, who have led me to take the first step in a path, at the end of which I can perceive eternal life?

"But, no; gratitude must not render me ungrateful. If you have led me to take the decisive step, it was, nevertheless, but the second: the first I owe to the Abbé Favien. This good Abbé! I must tell you of my last conversation with him; but once more remember, that all I say of him is strictly confidential. As to myself, my new sentiments will soon be known; but I should indeed be sorry to compromise this worthy Ecclesiastic, who is already not on the best terms with his Bishop.

"My intention was to write to him, giving him an account of my correspondence with you; but I would not do this until I had completed my month of retirement. He did not wait for my letter. Passing, the day before yesterday, at some little distance from the castle, he came to pay us a visit.

"As soon as we were alone, he mildly complained that I had not informed him of my decision. Then, without giving me time to reply, he said, 'Do you read the Bible, Madam ? Yes, Sir.' 'Just as I had foreseen: I see you abandon us.' I was, I confess, rather embarrassed by this abrupt address; but my firm. ness gradually returned. 'Surely, to attach myself to the word of God is not to abandon you.' 'You read the Bible, then; and in what version, if you please?' 'In that of Sacy.' That may do yet; and your Bible, at least, is it complete ?' 'I have hitherto only read the New Testament; but I have a great desire to procure the Old.' 'Yes, the Old Testament, mutilated by the Reformers!'

"During this short conversation, he spoke with a certain irritability which I had never before seen. He recovered

himself, however, and, as if he reproached himself with this emotion, said, 'Do not think that I wish to disturb your mind; but, my child,' added he, very seriously, are you reconciled with God?' 'I hope so, Sir.' 'You have, then, resolved to confess?' 'No.' And how can you know that you are received in grace?' God has told me so.' 'God has told you! and how?' In his word.' 'Explain yourself, I beg.' 'It is written in the Gospel, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. I have believed in him, Sir. yes, in him alone! How, then, should I not be saved! What God has promised, will he not perform?'

"The Abbé listened to me with agitation, but without anger. A double feeling seemed to animate him; a fear that I should wander from the right way; and, perhaps, a desire of being himself enlightened, if I may say so without presumption. Madam, your language surprises me to the last degree. Tell me all that has happened to you; tell me all. I conjure you to conceal nothing from me.' I then gave him an abridged recital of our correspondence, and of the conflicts to which it had given rise in my mind. I offered to show him your letters, whenever he liked. You will not be displeased at this? It would be impossible for me to describe the expression of his countenance during this recital. He appeared absorbed in some profound reflection. When I had finished, he remained several minutes in a kind of reverie; when, suddenly, 'Madam,' said he, with a look which seemed desirous of piercing my very heart, 'have you peace?' 'Yes, Sir, I have peace with God; thanks be to him for it.' "If that is the case, I have nothing more to say. You know how to pray: pray.' He immediately arose, and left

me.

"Do you not think, Sir, that this good Abbé will have said to himself, that the way in which I walk may indeed be the right one? If he dare not encourage me in it, at least he has not sought to turn me aside; and who knows? he would, perhaps, have succeeded; I am still so weak. But God has spared me; and this visit, which I dreaded a little, has only served to strengthen me in my new sentiments. Immediately after, I bought the whole Bible of a Colporteur, and began to read the Old Testament. I find more difficulties than in the New; but, doubtless, they will diminish at a second reading. At all events, I am in the Lord's school. He will teach me,