Christianity was not divine; that its laws were only so many arbitrary infractions of human liberty; that its restraints were injurious, and its promises delusive:-yes, in such a case, it were well to discard, as fabulous and untrue, a system manifestly opposed to human well-being, and, consequently, to the gracious purposes of the Author of our nature. But no charge of this kind can be justly brought against Christianity. It does not lead to gloomy mortification, but to rational enjoyment; is teaches men to use, and not abuse, the blessings of God. It does not deny men pleasure, but it exhorts them to act throughout life, so as to have the best enjoyment of life upon the whole. It exhorts men to live as men, and to abstain from those excesses which sink them to the level of the brute. In all its precepts, it aims at the disciplining and instructing of the rational nature, by setting before us our duty to God, to ourselves, and to our fellow-men. The character of the Founder of Christianity, as well as that of the men whom he sent into the world to 'preach the gospel to every creature,' was suitable to the doctrines they taught. If Jesus was a 'man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,' it was not because he was of a gloomy and forbidding disposition-for there are innumerable traits in his character exhibiting a quite contrary temperament but it was because he was opposed, and reviled, and shamefully treated. If his Apostles lived lives of weariness and painfulness-in watchings often-in hunger and thirst-in fastings often -in cold and nakedness,-it was not that they

preferred this kind of life, or refused the innocent gratifications of their nature,-but because their fellow-men, the persecutors of their day, inflicted upon them stripes, and imprisonments, and wrongs. Mere misanthropists, and mysticks, could not have published such commands as these 'Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches,-but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy-Charge them that are rich in this world, that they do good-that they be rich in good works; that they be ready to distribute-willing to communicate-laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.' Mere narrowminded bigots, in recounting the duties of a chief officer of the church of Christ, could not have set forth, as one of his leading characteristics,— that he be a lover of hospitality.' Mere superstitious devotees could not thus have spoken of the blessings of life—' every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused; if it be received with thanksgiving.' Men with hearts insensible to the grace and beauty of life, would not have spoken of the future life of the righteous in terms like these, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.'

These precepts, feelings, hopes and exulting anticipations bespeak minds alive to the real blessings of existence; they were the first fruits, as. it were, of a system which is profitable for doc

6

trine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; whereby the rational creatures of God may become perfect and thoroughly furnished unto all good works.' Therefore it cannot be said that Christianity or its inspired teachers encourage practices, dispositions, or views, tending in any way to interfere with human welfare and happiness; but, on the contrary, its design and tendency, evidently, are, to lead man to the true enjoyment of existence, to draw forth the excellences of his nature, to promote his best interests in the life that now is, and to prepare him for entering, with honour, into that which is to come. And these facts do by themselves afford a strong presumption of the divinity of Christianity.

To prove the justice of these remarks, I confine not myself to the testimony of the Christian: I appeal to the unbeliever. The life of Jesus,' says he, was a beautiful picture of human nature, when in its native purity and simplicity; and showed at once what excellent creatures men would be when under the influence and power of that gospel he preached to them.'* Voltaire, in endeavouring to account upon natural principles, for the success of Christianity, is obliged to presume that the disciples were attached to the person and virtues of Jesus, and that they preached his doctrines with firmness. If men are known by the systems they support—by their friendships-by the character of those with whom they associate,

See Mr. Chubb's opinion of Jesus.

we naturally conclude, that the disciples were no discredit to Christianity or its Founder; therefore are our remarks upon Christianity and its inspired teachers confirmed by the representations of the unbeliever. Could these men, so noble, so excellent, who, according to the objector's own, showing, exhibited a beautiful picture of human nature, when in its native purity and simplicity, be justly charged with imposture? Yes, says the unbeliever, even Jesus, their master, the spring and fountain of all this excellence, purity, and simplicity, 'lied in order to teach virtue.' How absurd a charge! What is virtue, but purity, sincerity, consistency of words and actions in the cause of righteousness and truth? Let the unbeliever explain this anomaly in morals-this alleged teaching of virtue and truth, by a series of imposture and lies!

In our last discourse, we endeavoured to show, first, that the character, views, and actions of Jesus, afforded strong internal evidence of a divine mission. And, secondly, that the opposition of the unbeliever was inconsistent with his concessions respecting the transcendent excellence of both the character of Jesus, and of his religion. We return, again to this branch of our subject.

We observe that, besides the inconsistency of attributing a series of frauds to one so eminently virtuous as Jesus, such a charge does, moreover, place him upon a level with men, in every respect, of inferior character, who have imposed systems of religion upon mankind. The unbeliever of modern times has not hesitated to compare the

Lord Jesus with Numa, and with Mahomet,* which is manifestly unjust. The characters, views, and systems of these men are essentially different from the character, views, and religion of Jesus.

Numa, who flourished nearly 700 years before Jesus, was undoubtedly, a great reformer. He endeavoured to inculcate in the minds of his semibarbarous countrymen a reverence for the Deity; of whom, he seems to have entertained comparatively pure notions. He abolished the use of images in the worship of the Divine Being; and, from his example, no graven image nor painted representations of any object of worship appeared in the temples of Rome, for upwards of 160 years. Nevertheless, he deceived the people by encouraging the report which was spread of his paying regular visits to the fabled goddess Egeria; and he made use of her name to give sanction to the laws and institutions which he had introduced. It does not appear, moreover, that in the perception of what was right, and in his general conduct, he surpassed many other sages of antiquity. How infinitely inferior therefore in comparison with Jesus, were both the character of Numa and the means which he adopted to gain credit to his system! How infinitely inferior was the system itself to that which Jesus founded! Numa multiplied the national gods. Jesus forbad the worship of national gods, and revealed One only living and true God, the universal Father. The religion of Numa fostered the spirit of war, and the ministers

See Maltby's Illustrations.