mus was acting the part of a coward, when he came to Jesus by night, is just and true. And if so, are we not bound to suppose, that he was influenced by such motives as God would approve?

Again, we have no right to suppose that Nicodemus was influenced by an unholy fear of man, from the fact that Christ, in His discourse, which appears to have been a protracted one, makes no allusion to such a motive. He could read the most secret motives of men, and he was not in the habit of permitting sin to go unrebuked. When there were many who expressed a desire to follow Him, and He knew that they had mistaken views of the nature of His kingdom and service, He began to preach to them on the subject of self-denial; and to dash all their expectations of earthly ease and honor, He declared that foxes have holes, and the birds of the air, nests, but the Son of man had not where to lay his head. When the rich young man manifested his sorrow at the answer which our Lord returned to his question, He promptly remarked to His disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches, enter into the kingdom of heaven! He needed not that any should testify to Him of man, for He knew what was in man. He knew whether Nicodemus selected the night to have an interview with Him, from an unworthy fear or shame, to be known as His disciple; and if He had discerned such a spirit, can it be presumed that He would have omitted to make some allusion to it, in the discourse which He addressed to him? He dwelt on the nature and necessity of regeneration-on His own authority to teach-on the atonement to be made for sin, by His being lifted up-on the promise of eternal life, to as many as believe-on God's unspeakable love to man, and on the deplorable condition of all who reject the salvation of the gospel; but in a discourse extending over such a variety of topics, we do not meet with a single expression, or hint, implying that the heart-knowing Saviour perceived any unworthy reason, why the individual to whom His discourse was addressed, came to Him by night.

We have still another argument to justify the supposition of the most creditable, instead of evil motives, in the case of Nicodemus-derived from the particular object the Evangelist had in view, in introducing the narrative of his interview with our Lord. The design of John in writing this gospel, was to show that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. And he introduces this narrative, not only to prove His omniscience, but to show how He was regarded by a learned Jewish Rabbi. Now can it be presumed that He would instance the convictions of Nicodemus, as to the claims of Jesus of Nazareth, if the whole case were liable to the objection and serious abatement that he did not manifest sufficient confidence in Him, to be willing to come openly to Him? On the contrary, it is obvious that in the estimation of John,

there was something of peculiar interest in the case of Nicodemus. He mentions this individual on three separate occasions, and seems to regard his belief in Christ as affording important evidence, that He was the true Messiah. In addition to his high renown for learning, he might have enjoyed a reputation for candor and purity of character, which gave peculiar weight to his opinions. It is inexplicable that he should have made so particular mention of his case in such a connection, if he was to stand in all future time, as a sort of representative of half-hearted, time-serving disciples. How could it be adduced as a proof of the Messiahship and Divinity of Christ, that such a man gave such questionable signs of attachment to Him.

Thus is it manifest, how, by a slight expression, conclusions, very false and unjust, may be formed in respect to others. The expression, "by night," thrown in as showing the special reverence which Nicodemus had for our Lord, has been interpreted, over and over again, as a proof of his timidity. That it marked his reverence, is clear from the consideration that he was a learned man, and a Pharisee, and regarded his contemplated interview with that degree of interest and devotion, that he resolved to conform punctiliously to the tradition that the night was the proper season to inquire into the most sacred mysteries of religion..

But, even if we admit, that the expression, "by night," is to be interpreted, as it most commonly has been, to the discredit of Nicodemus, the sequel of his history shows, that it is doing him great injustice to make him stand as the representative of the fearful, and the time-serving in the church. To say that those who betray a want of courage and decision in the cause of Christ, possess a Nicodemian spirit, is a reflection which the full account the Evangelist gives of him, will not justify. If we were to admit, that when he first came to Christ, he was not wholly free from that snare, which the fear of man bringeth, he subsequently manifested a courage and firmness, worthy of all commendation, and of universal imitation.

If we pass on to the seventh chapter of this same gospel, we find Nicodemus again mentioned, under circumstances which utterly preclude the idea of his being destitute of moral firmness, or decision of character. It appears that the discourses and miracles of our Saviour, led to the strong conviction, with many, that He was truly the Christ. Many of the people believed on Him. So strong was the impression, He was evidently making, that the Pharisees and chief-priest, sent officers to take Him. But, although there was a party among the people that took sides against Him, the officers did not dare to arrest Him; and all they could say, at their return, in their own vindication was, 66 never man spake like this man." This was too much. That

their own officers should seem to be infected with the growing esteem for Jesus of Nazareth, produced great excitement in the Sanhedrim. The members broke out in contemptuous language respecting Him, and all who professed any inclination to regard Him as the Messiah. "Have any of the rulers" they asked, "or of the Pharisees, believed on Him?" It was at this thrilling point that the voice of Nicodemus was heard. Let the scene be imagined; let the violence of the haughty and enraged Pharisees, foiled in their attempt to arrest Christ, be brought before the mind. Listen to their confused and angry voices, venting their denunciations against Him, and their curses on the people, or the rabble, as they were disposed to esteem them. Was this the time for a fearful and time-serving disciple of Christ to raise his voice, above the confused clamor, in defence of Jesus? Hear him: "Doth our law judge any man before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" The effect of this inquiry was like an electric shock. The members turned fiercely on their colleague, stigmatized him as a Galilean, and broke up, as is evident, in confusion; for it is added, "Every man went unto his own house." If this be the Nicodemian spirit, would that there were more of it among those entrusted with authority and office, and among men in every station in life! Even decidedly good. men would be sometimes overawed, or, if not overawed, would reason that prudence dictated silence, when the tide was setting so strong, among the great and powerful, against truth and justice. But Nicodemus was not overawed; nor did he thus reason he stood firm as a rock, whilst the waves of confusion and wrath broke harmless around him. Even if his coming to Christ at first, by night, must be interpreted as making so strongly against him, he fully redeemed his character for courage and firmness, as a disciple of Christ, on this trying occasion. He rebuked the injustice of condemning Christ, before an investigation had been had, and he had been heard in self-defence.

Nicodemus is mentioned but once more in the New Testament. It is by this same Evangelist, in the account which he gives of the burial of Christ's body. In the part which he took on that occasion, Nicodemus displayed his decided and strong attachment to Christ. It was not when a numerous party, among the common people, were expressing their convictions, that Jesus must be the true Messiah, or were ready to hail Him as their king. The tide had now set in the opposite direction, and those who had been ready to shout "Hosanna," were now prepared to do the bidding of His enemies and murderers, and had recently cried out, "Crucify Him." It was after Christ had endured the ignominy of the cross. He came and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pounds weight, and in company with another rich man, they took the body of Jesus and gave

He thus gave

it an interment, due to a great and good man. evidence that he had no sympathy with his colleagues, and no sympathy with the fickle multitude in the part they had borne, in proccuring the crucifixion of Christ. Like an affectionate friend-a bereaved mourner-a sincere disciple, his love attended his Master to the tomb. This could not have been a private transaction. But by it he publicly professed his faith in the crucified One. He well knew that all he would get from his colleagues of the Sanhedrim, would be contempt and obloquy. But he cheerfully took up the cross.

Such is our vindication of Nicodemus. He was doubtless an imperfect man, and like the immediate disciples of Christ, had an imperfect knowledge of the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom. But his name, instead of being mentioned with any special reproach, is worthy of being mentioned with honor, and his virtues are worthy of imitation.

We may thank God, as Lady Huntingdon is said to have done, for the letter m in the word many, in that passage of Paul, that "not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are cailed." But religion depends not for its credit on the rank and station of its professed disciples. Distinguished men, who have embraced it could give it none, but by it they gained much, and it is because religion comes into collision with every high thing that exalteth itself against God, that the great majority of its disciples have been found in the humbler walks of life. Instead of this being a reproach, it is the glory of religion; because by this very arrangement, God has purposed to destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. The Jews required a sign-some imposing display of kingly power, and because Christ came in so humble a form, even that of a servant, they rejected Him. And the Greeks sought after wisdom, some higher flight of philosophy, than any to which they had been carried by their own sages; when therefore Paul preached Christ crucified, and the resurrection of the body, they laughed at his doctrines as puerile conceits. But notwithstanding the contempt of the Jew, and the scorn of the Greek," unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God."

ARTICTE VII.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE.

By REV. JAMES ROWLAND, Circleville, Ohio.

THE truths which the Bible discloses, relative to the nature, attributes and government of God; the creation of man and his immortality, are such as evince it to be the production of "Holy men of God," who "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost!" In maintaining this position, it is of primary importance to show, that such a system of truth never could have been discovered by the unaided operations of the mind itself; and also, that when once revealed, no process of human reasoning can disprove it, or break up the chain of argument by which these truths are supported.

The Bible deals largely in primary truths, which are not wrought out by a tedious process of reasoning, like the abstractions of the human mind, but which are stated as absolute truths, and, as such, impose upon us the duty of yielding them obedience, or of showing them to be false. Some of these truths are of such a nature that they cannot be harmonized, and their true relations to each other discovered, except by the most thorough and accurate course of metaphysical investigation; but when they are thus systematized and woven together, they present a connected and consolidated fabric, which cannot be torn asunder.

There are extant, the productions of three classes of metaphysical writers: first, those who with a single hint of the truthobtained by tradition or otherwise-have honestly followed this ray of light, until they have lost themselves in the dense fog of heathen mythology, where we leave them, in vain attempting to grope their way out. The second are those, who, with the glare of truth shining upon their course, have attempted to shroud their own minds and the world, from its influence. And the third, such as have sought, by sound reasoning, to establish the doctrines revealed in the Scriptures.

Now, it is evident, that but one of these systems can be true, and the question to be decided by the mind, before it embraces one and rejects the other, is, which is most accurate in its reasoning and safe in its conclusions ?-which harmonizes with existing known facts, and the consciousness of the mind itself, and which violates both? And we are to determine whether, considering the education and circumstances of these different writers, we can suppose, that, by the unaided efforts of their own minds, they