to Christ and to hide themselves. This allegation is confuted by every authentic account of primitive Christianity. We might on this point ask many questions; such as, When did the Christians of Judea adopt this course? When did they again emerge from this concealment? But it is not necessary. We know that the Christians were not wholly driven from Jerusalem until the reign of Vespasian, when, taught by the signs of the times, agreeably to their Saviour's prophecy, they fled in a body to the city of Pella beyond Jordan, and thus escaped the miseries of the terrible siege of Jerusalem. (Eusebius's History, b. iii, ch. v.) But it may be objected, that the persecution which arose in the case of Stephen did certainly drive many of the Christians from the Hebrew capital. This is admitted; but the inspired account of this circumstance refutes the hypothesis which we combat. On that occasion they did not go together to live as a community in a remote district; they "were scattered abroad." Nor did they say, according to our author, "Let there be darkness; let us muffle ourselves in thick clouds which no human eye can penetrate:" on the contrary, they "went everywhere preaching the word." Other particulars might be referred to in detail; but we must content ourselves with saying that the despising of riches, early worship, neglect of wedlock, eminent fidelity, and length of life, are not distinguishing elements of Christian faith and practice: on these principles it would be easy to prove the identity of some of the Hindoo sects and Christians. If we had heard of faith in the Redeemer, pardon of sin obtained, communion with God through his Spirit, a glorious hope of heaven, there would have been some show of reason in the argument.

Upon the whole, then, the evidence in favor of the existence of the Essenes as a Jewish sect seems sufficient to place the fact beyond doubt; while the prevalence of Christianity throughout the empire, and the undoubted tenacity with which its disciples clung to the name of, and proclaimed their faith in, the crucified Saviour, prove that they could not have been described under this title.

NOTE 118, page 591.—The Divine Intention in Prophecy defeated by Tradition. No candid and serious reader of the Old-Testament Scriptures can retain any doubt that the purpose of God in the dispensation of prophecy was to afford the elect people an agency adapted to the development of the great scheme of redemption. That which was obscurely symbolized by the types and figures of the law, was intended to be fully revealed, and completely carried into effect. A perfect sacrifice, a glorious high priesthood, an actual, personal entrance into the spiritual presence of Deity, a real cleansing from moral pollution,—these and other inestimable religious privileges were intended to be conferred, through the development of those germs of living truth contained in the Mosaic Scriptures. But by what means was this to be effected? By prophecy. Men, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, were led to direct the public mind from external semblance to internal reality, and thus to prepare the way for the glorious establishment of the kingdom of God in the earth. The Divine purpose in respect of Israel was, therefore, progress. It was intended that they should, by successive revelations, be raised from a temporal to a spiritual kingdom. We can now scarcely survey the wonderful adaptation of the means to the end, without amazement at the display which is thus afforded of Divine goodness and wisdom. But all these purposes were defeated, this hope was cut off, by the unjust and extravagant authority with which tradition was invested. Of this abundant proof may be given.

A first step in this process was to invest the oral law with an authority equal to the Scriptures: this was fully asserted by Maimonides. One feature of the case is curious: it was maintained "that what Joshua and Phineas collected from their

thirteen rules, in order to the explaining of the meaning of any law, was not done by the Spirit of prophecy." By means of this tenet they attached the same import ance and authority to late as to early traditions, and thus established a human interpreter of Divine law. But while it was admitted that these traditions were not compiled under prophetic inspiration, they were nevertheless held to be superior to the declaration of any prophet: "Since these received traditions are supposed to be interpretations made by Moses, and, consequently, of equal value with the written law itself, a prophet had no more authority over the one than he had over the other." This statement is not a casual or incidental remark; Maimonides expands and explains his meaning: "As to matters of disquisition and reasoning, and skill in the law, by which we come to understand the meaning of it, prophets are upon the same level with other wise men of the same rank and judgment with themselves as to the study of the law, who have not the gift of prophecy. So that if a thousand prophets, all equal to Elijah or Elisha, should offer to give an interpretation of any law, and a thousand and one wise men should give a sufficient interpretation which is different from theirs of the same law, the majority ought to be attended to."

It must be observable that this teaching neutralized all the power of prophetic inspiration: and the whole range of Mishnaic literature shows that this was the great object aimed at. For instance, in the case of the woman condemned by the law to lose her hands, (Deut. xxv, 12,) this the traditions interpret putting her to open shame; upon which it is declared "that if a prophet should affirm that this law ought to be literally understood, he ought to be strangled as a liar." By this means tradition reigned supreme, and the benign object of prophecy was lost.