of this religion were the guardians of the symbols and implements of war. Jesus taught his disciples to beat their swords into plough-shares, and suffered them not to return evil for evil. The religion of Numa was a religion of state and of ceremony, and was intimately connected with the kingdoms of the world. That of Jesus was the religion of the heart and of the life, and separate from worldly power. How absurd therefore to place either Numa or his system upon a level with Jesus and his religion!

6

The like inconsistency is manifested by the unbeliever, when he compares Jesus with Mahomet. Both Mahomet and his system were grossly sensual and worldly: whereas Jesus was a perfect pattern of purity; and his religion was calculated to make his followers like unto himself, holy, harmless; and undefiled.' The pretensions of Mahomet to a divine commission rested upon his own testimony? Jesus appealed to his works, the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.' Mahomet appealed to the passions, Jesus to the understandings, of men. Mahomet repaired to the rich and the influential, and finally had recourse to the sword. He first gained one powerful ally, and then another; until what with them and their adherents,-what with the deep stakes of the rich, and the extravagant hopes of the poor, he found himself in a condition to try the fortune of a battle; and, having gained it, his success was no longer problematical. But the lowly prophet of Nazareth chose no such associates, adopted no such means, appealed to no such powers;-that

man.

the work might be, manifestly, of God and not of In fact, humanly speaking, no one ever took more effectual means to defeat his own object than Jesus did. The men of his nation looked for a splendid prince and a triumphant conqueror: but Jesus came despising pomp, condemning pride, and exhorting to universal charity and peace. The men of his nation expected that their Messiah would associate with the great and the honourable of the earth; that princes would be his companions, and nobles his ambassadors; but Jesus chose men of no esteem to be his friends, and the poor and lowly to be his Apostles. The men of his nation expected that their prophet and chief would associate with the reputable scribe, and the self-righteous pharisees but Jesus sat down with those that were branded as publicans and sinners. So that no just comparison can be instituted between either the systems or the actions of the lowly prophet of Nazareth, and those of the men with whom the unbeliever rashly compares him. And, as it seems to me, the tran scendent excellence of both the character and the religion of Jesus, while it places all such compa rison out of the question, as manifestly unjust and absurd, furnishes also a strong presumption in favour of the truth of Christianity.*

Inasmuch as Mahomedanism has attacked and overthrown, throughout vast regions of the East and South, the grosser superstitions and abominations of idolatrous nations, and introduced more rational ideas of the Divine attributes and government, it has so far benefited mankind. In fact, we know not but that the religion of the Arabian prophet has been suffered to flourish and spread, as a courterbalance to the gross corruptions of Christianity. It, at least,

Before quitting this part of our subject, I would point out a peculiarity in the case of Jesus which, considering his excellent character, makes it next to impossible that he could have been a deceiver. Jesus was taught to reverence the Mosaical institution as divine, and was brought up in the observance of its rites and ceremonies. If the pretending to a divine commission be, under any circumstances, a thing to be condemned by every wise and good man, how much more sinful must it be in the case of Jesus, who, according to the hypothesis of the unbeliever, set up this claim in order to abrogate an institution, for which he always professed to entertain the highest respect, and which, he, in common with his countrymen, asserted, and doubtless,, believed, to have been established by the Deity himself.

Among the qualities by which Jesus is so particularly distinguished, there is none which more attracts our observation, and commands our applause, than a vigorous and fervent spirit of piety; an entire resignation to the will of God; an implicit submission to his pleasure. Nor is there any principle which he inculcates more earnestly and more frequently upon his disciples than the necessity and propriety of having recourse to God

inculcates, in its strict and simple form, the fundamental doctrine of all true religion, the absolute Unity of God. The time may not be far distant, when, the blessings of knowledge having been more freely diffused over these extensive countries, the doctrines of the false prophet shall give place to the divine precepts of Jesus, and the countless millions who inhabit these countries, shall call Jesus Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

G g

in prayer, of absolute dependence upon him, of the most ardent love and filial awe towards him, of the most anxious and incessant endeavour to obey his will and promote his glory... The Being whom he thus professed to honour, and whom he enjoined his followers to adore, was undoubtedly the Jehovah of Israel, the source to which Moses referred his authority, the founder of the civil and religious polity established among the Jews.* To suppose that Jesus assumed a fictitious commission and forged imaginary credentials, from this Supreme Being; that he poured forth his soul in prayer to him, whose name he was daily prostituting to his own vain and selfish purposes; that he continually exhorted his followers to reverence and obey him, whom he himself was dishonouring by a system of fraud; that he acknowledged him as the Almighty Author of a dispensation which he himself was endeavouring to abrogate-the omniscient framer of laws for which he intended to substitute the fruits of his own invention;-this surely is to suppose him guilty of the blackest hypocrisy, as well as impiety. Yet this charge is directly levelled against the blessed Jesus, by all who maintain that the gospel rests upon no foundation but fertility of genius and boldness of enterprize. This charge, however, as well as all the others which tend to impeach the integrity of his principles, or the purity of his motives, is directly contradicted by the whole tenour of his life,of a life spent in the exercise of his duties

* John viii, 54.

to God and man, of a life which, according to the concessions of the very men who urge the charge, itself repels and confutes it.'*..

But having spoken of the transcendent excellence of the character of Jesus, and of its incompatibility with fraud and imposture; and of the strong presumption arising hence in favour of the Christian religion;-I come, now, briefly, to remark' upon some peculiarities in the characters of those to whom the work of human regeneration was confided, after that Jesus had accomplished his earthly ministry.

6

It is a fact, that Christianity, except in the instance of the Apostle Paul, who was miraculously called to his office sometime after the ascension of Jesus, derived no aid from any extraordinary learning or eloquence in its first preachers. Nevertheless 'the word mightily grew and prevailed." This, as it seems to me, is a strong internal evidence of the truth of our Lord's declaration; The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." Unless all power, necessary for the accomplishment of the purposes of his great undertaking, were bestowed upon Jesus from on high, and that he communicated of this power to whomsoever he would, the success of the men whom he commanded to go into all nations and preach the gospel, is inexplicable. The unbeliever attempts to account for this success, by adducing the 'firmness with which his disciples

* See Maltby's Illustrations.