who had known the blind man.

They are at a loss what to think, and are divided in their opinions. They bring him into the presence of the doctors, who question him, and ask him, how he came to receive his sight? He answers, He put clay upon my eyes, and I washed, and I do see.

The doctors are not yet convinced of the fact; they doubt and reason among themselves; they wish to fix their doubts; and, suspecting that the man was not born blind, they send for his father and mother.-Is this your son, whom ye say was born blind? How then does he now see? His parents answered them, and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but by what means he now seeth, we know not, or who hath opened his eyes, we know, not: he is of age, ask him, he shall speak, for himself. The doctors therefore question him again this man who had been blind from his birth; they again call him a second time before them, and say, Give God the praise; we know that this man who hath opened thine eyes is a sinner. He answered, and said, Whether he be a sinner or no

I know not; one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see. On this ingenuous answer the doctors recur again to their first question-What did he do? They again ask him-How opened he thine eyes?—I have told you already, he answers with the same firmness and candour-wherefore would you hear it again? Will ye also be his disciples? This answer irritates the doctors-They revile him—As for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.-Why! herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, again replies this man, full of candour and good sense, and yet he hath opened my eyes, &c. What ingenuousness, what simplicity, what precision, what well-connected reasoning! If such as these are not the characteristics of truth, by what marks shall we ever discover it?

CH A P. VI.

Ο

THE RESURRECTION.

F all the proceedings contained in this book, there are none assuredly of greater importance than that one which concerns the person of the divine messenger; and on that very account it is also the most circumstantial, the most frequently repeated, and that to which the witnesses most directly and most frequently allude. It is always the centre of their testimony. I find it in the chief parts of the narrative; and on a fair comparison of the passages which respect this important point, they appear to me to be perfectly harmonious.

The divine teacher is taken, examined, and questioned by the judges of his nation; they call upon him to declare who he is; he declares himself; his answer is deemed blas

phemy; false witnesses are produced against him, who exhibit a misconstruction of his words. He is condemned, and led before a supreme and foreign tribunal. There he is again questioned, and makes nearly the same reply. The judge, conscious of his innocence, wishes to release him. The magistrates, who have condemned him, persevere in requiring his death: they intimidate the chief judge, who delivers him up to them. He is crucified and buried. The magistrates seal the stone of the sepulchre, and set a watch over it; and, a short time after, the witnesses attest in the capital, and in the presence of the magistrates themselves, that he who was crucified is risen from the dead.

I have brought together the most essential facts: I compare, I analyse them, and I can form only two hypotheses which can possibly account for the conclusion of this affair-either the witnesses have carried off the body, or Jesus is really risen. I must decide between these two hypotheses, for I cannot make out a third. And first, I weigh the particular opinions, the prejudi

N

ces, the character of the witnesses: I observe their conduct, their circumstances, the situation of their mind and heart, pre. vious to and since the death of their master.

I afterwards examine the prejudices, the character, the conduct, and the allegations, of their adversaries.

It is only requisite that I should know the country which the witnesses inhabit, to be acquainted, in general, with their opinions and prejudices. I well know that their nation professes to wait for a temporal deliverer, and that he is the ardent object of the prayers and expectations of that nation: the witnesses, therefore, are also in expectation of this deliverer. And in their writings I find a multitude of passages confirming this, which convince me that they are persuaded that he, whom they call their master, must be that temporal deliverer. In vain does this Master attempt to spiritualize their ideas; they cannot discard that national prejudice, which they have so strongly imbibed-We trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel.*

*Luke xxiv. 21.