the country, as might have satisfied the then received interpretation of
these prophecies, I do not see how the question could ever have been
entertained. Apollos, we read, "mightily convinced the Jews, showing by
the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ;" (Acts xviii. 28.) but unless
Jesus had exhibited some distinction of his person, some proof of
supernatural power, the argument from the old Scriptures could have had
no place. It had nothing to attach upon. A young man calling himself the
Son of God, gathering a crowd about him, and delivering to them lectures
of morality, could not have excited so much as a doubt among the Jews,
whether he was the object in whom a long series of ancient prophecies
terminated, from the completion of which they had formed such
magnificent expectations, and expectations of a nature so opposite to
what appeared; I mean no such doubt could exist when they had the whole
case before them, when they saw him put to death for his officiousness,
and when by his death the evidence concerning him was closed. Again, the
effect of the Messiah's coming, supposing Jesus to have been he, upon
Jews, upon Gentiles, upon their relation to each other, upon their
acceptance with God, upon their duties and their expectations; his
nature, authority, office, and agency; were likely to become subjects of
much consideration with the early votaries of the religion, and to
occupy their attention and writings. I should not however expect, that
in these disquisitions, whether preserved in the form of letters,
speeches, or set treatises, frequent or very direct mention of his
miracles would occur. Still, miraculous evidence lay at the bottom of
the argument. In the primary question, miraculous pretensions and
miraculous pretensions alone, were what they had to rely upon.

That the original story was miraculous, is very fairly also inferred
from the miraculous powers which were laid claim to by the Christians of
succeeding ages. If the accounts of these miracles be true, it was a