lament that argument alone has not, in every instance, been adopted by the Christian advocate. Like the presumptuous Israelite who dared to support the tottering ark, and, with unhallowed hands, to give his impious assistance to the triumph of omnipotence, Christians have occasionally been found, who, under the specious plea of protecting the ignorant from the sophistry of the infidel, have recommended the adoption of unjustifiable means to prevent his opinions from being known, and would readily call in the civil power to assist, with the arm of the flesh, in oppressing those who should be attacked alone by the sword of the spirit. Such conduct affords a triumph to the unbeliever; and every Christian, who would have recourse either to wealth or power, the allurements of reward, or the threatenings of terror, to promote his cause, should have this deeply infixed in his mind, that it is his own cause alone he is hereby endeavouring to promote-his own ignorant and unhallowed opinions, and not those of the meek and humble Jesus; that he is actuated by spiritual pride, and, so far from promoting, is betraying the cause of his master. It is, on the contrary, with the utmost pleasure we at any time perceive learning and genius employed in sifting the arguments advanced in opposition to Christianity, in examining every objection with candour, in, bringing each to the test of sound reasoning, and in acknowledging merit, even in an antagonist,-in defending the truth with zeal, and contrasting the solidity and splendor of inspiration with the comparatively weak and fluctuating effusions of the most enlightened among ancient or modern unbelievers.

This praise is due to the author of the work before us. We have often had occasion to refer to his distinguished merit in the office which he occupies under the bishop of Lincoln. To his talents as a scholar, the university of Cambridge have had frequent opportunities of bearing testimony; and in the exercise of his duty as domestic chaplain, the attention he has paid to the qualifications of the candidates for the sacred ministry, and the anxiety with which he has laboured to prevent the intrusion of ignorance and indolence into the church, have created enemies among those only who look with worldly views to the church, as an easy way to provide for a boy unable to stand behind the compter, or to perform the duties of an active or erudite profession. From one so assiduously engaged in an office of the highest ecclesiastic importance, perpetual meditation on the holy scriptures is naturally to be expected; and the fruits of his labours have been esteemed worthy of the patronage of the university of Cambridge. They are proofs of extensive learning, profound crudition, and a mind fraught with the treasures of sacred and profane literature.

The subject is divided into the following heads: The inter

nal evidence; The genuineness and authenticity of the books of the New Testament; The proof arising from the nature and strength of the prejudices of the Jews; The conduct of the disciples; The miracles wrought by the disciples during the life of our Saviour; The scheme of the Gospel; The character of Jesus; Mr. Godwin's misrepresentations; and, The defects of evidence in favour of the Mahometan religion.

Under each of these heads are given sufficient and decisive proofs of the matter in controversy, and illustrated with remarks which cannot fail of affording instruction and satisfaction to the inquiring mind. Thus, beneath the first division, after' a critical examination of the style and idiom of the New Testament, and other important topics tending to prove its genuineness and authenticity, it is compared with the apocryphal books and spurious gospels, which the infidel is not unfrequently desirous of advancing to an equality with, if not above, the canonical writings and we must boldly aver with our author, that there are some criteria of truth which neither 'dullness of apprehen-, sion nor obstinacy of opinion can elude,' and that these criteria are as evident in the sacred scriptures as they are manifestly wanting in the pretended revelations of impostors. If the mere comparison of the writings of the apostles with those of perhaps well-meaning but ignorant Christians in the early ages afford a conviction of the authenticity of the former and the spuriousness of the latter, an impartial examination of the prejudices of the Jews, with respect to the appearance of a Saviour, must equally convince every one that an impostor would have conducted himself in a manner totally different from that of the author of our religion, and that, instead of opposing, he would have gratified their prejudices to the utmost. It is well known, however, and is here pertinently exemplified, that in every respect he disappointed their gross and carnal notions; that, while they expected a conqueror, he made his appearance in one of the humblest walks of life; that, while they desired to be elevated above all other nations, he called upon those who were ambitious of being the greatest of his disciples, to manifest their greatness by becoming the servants of all the rest; that, while he placed happiness in obedience to God, they placed it in temporal and exterior appearances.

Jesus Christ at length appeared to assume the title, and exccute the office, of the long-expected Messiah. He was born in a part of the country, the most dishonoured and despised: his reputed parents were mean and obscure in their circumstances, though really of royal extraction. He set at nought that rigid adherence to the ceremonial law, in which indeed the religion of the Jews at that time almost entirely consisted, and from which alone they assumed to themselves so much merit. He associated with.publicans and

sinners: and chose, for the confidential ministers of his high office, the most obscure and illiterate of his countrymen. He inculcated submission to the Romans: he expressly asserted the rejection of the obstinate Jews, and the admission of the believing Gentiles to the privileges of his kingdom: he led the life of a poor destitute, not having where to lay his head: he expressed the most honest indignation against the rich, and the powerful; the interpreters of the law, and the leaders of the sects. He repeatedly incurred the charge of violating the sabbath, and of profaning the dignity of that proud object of their implicit reverence, the temple at Jerusalem. And finally, what is still more extraordinary, as he excited the displeasure of the Jews, by appearing in a manner inferior to what they imagined beforehand, so he roused their indignation, by assuming pretensions superior to what they expected. They expected the Messiah to be a prophet indeed, but not "The Holy One of God:" and therefore, when they heard the extent of his claims, they cried out, our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." So that in the eyes of this blind people, he seemed to add the ou trage of insult to the bitterness of disappointment: though he seemed not to equal in dignity the meanest of the prophets, he asserted his superiority over Abraham; and though he failed to realise their gross conceptions of the character of the Christ, he assumed the still more extraordinary and more dignified title of the Son of God.

By

If any one, after viewing the deep root which national pride and prejudice had taken in the minds of the Jews, after examining the nature of the expectations they had formed, and the manner in which they were disappointed, can still consider the rejection of Jesus by the Jews as a matter incredible or unaccountable, he must have accustomed himself to view the relation of cause and effect with no very accurate eye. Certainly, it was impossible for him to appear in a way more contradictory to their expectations, and to propagate doctrines more distasteful to their wishes. An enthusiast could not conceive such a scheme; an impostor could not adopt it; consequently, the Gospel, if preached by a Jew among the Jews, could not originate in human artifice or error, but must have had its source in the unsearchable wisdom, and comprehensive benevolence, of the Almighty Governor of the universe.' P. 109.

The conduct of the disciples is a confirmation that our religion could not arise from an impostor. Their own views of the character of a Messiah very much resembled those of their countrymen: they could not, it is true, fail of imbibing some better sentiments from a daily intercourse with their master; but his death destroyed all their hopes and expectations; while the confidence which they afterwards evinced on his resurrection could not have resulted from any thing but a complete conviction of the fact. Had there been a confederacy among them to invent or support a falsehood, the remains of their ancient prejudices, the almost total want of temporal success in all their measures, and the persecutions which they daily experienced,

must have completely baffled their projects. To which we may add, that the extensive propagation of the Gospel was owing to one' called out of due time,' and whose doctrine was viewed at first with an unfavourable eye, even by the companions of our Saviour themselves. Instead of a confederacy then of evil men formed on temporal views, we cannot hesitate to affirm that such a conviction was produced in the minds of the apostles by the miracles which they saw, and which they themselves were enabled to perform; that they became willing witnesses to the truth, and, in spite of every thing which worldly malice could suggest, bore their testimony fairly and impartially to every nation under the Roman government. The scheme of the Gospel itself is well urged as a proof that there could not be any imposture in the case: it was intended from the be ginning for all mankind, but for wise purposes was originally proposed to the Jewish nation. The apostles, seduced by their prejudices, confined themselves at first to their own countrymen; and, had they been actuated by vulgar motives, would, doubtless have limited their preaching to a very narrow sphere of their countrymen, and expected importance where there was the only chance of obtaining it: but their own contracted views were overpowered by superior information; and, with very little concert of action, they soon dispersed themselves over all the world, to bless mankind with the light of the Gospel.-Could such a scheme have been the result of worldlyminded men?

But the character of Jesus itself is an evident security against the suspicion of fraud and imposture; and the testimonies to it, with great judgement introduced into this work from Vanini, Chubb, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, Voltaire, Paine, Gibbon, and Léquinio, are sufficient refutations of their scepticism or infidelity. If he really possessed the virtues they ascribe to him, how could he be the impostor they would endeavour to make him appear? The vulgar cry which is perpetually excited concerning priestcraft cannot here serve their purpose in the least; since not only priests, but they who are or have been persecuted by priests, bear testimony to the truth of the same doc

trine.

The vulgar consideration,' says our author, that the writers in defence of Christianity were priests, and therefore interested in drawing the conclusions for which they have contended, detract from the weight of their observations, or the soundness of their arguments. If, as priests, they be supposed to lean towards the cause of a profession, which is sometimes attended with emolument or distinction; yet the mere wish to serve a particular cause would not enable them to establish a position, which must look for support to a series of historical testimony. It would not enable them to wrest

facts to their purpose, which are inscribed in the unvarying records of past ages; it would not enable them to suppress or distort evidence, which is interspersed in the writings of men of every party and of every country; it would not enable them to produce those internal marks of truth and nature, to which they have appealed in confirmation of their opinions. Nothing but conviction could have impelled so many writers to handle the same subject, to place it in so many different lights, to support it with such unaffected zeal, and such overpowering argument. We may moreover remark, that not merely priests of an established church, whose situation sometimes leads to wealth and consequence; but priests of every sect-priests who have nothing to expect but opposition, if they are known; or poverty, if they are not known-nay, priests who have altogether abandoned their profession-men in short of the most discordant views, and hostile sentiments, have still supported with uniform conviction, and maintained with unvarying ardour, the truth of the Christian dispensation. In this latter description of writers, we may remark the names of Priestley, Wakefield, and Evanson; of men, who differing from each other, as much as they dissent from the national church, yet upon the same general grounds of historical truth, admit the divine origin of Christianity. Nor must we fail to reply, if the objection should still be urged pertinaciously, that laymen of the most distinguished abilities, and of the most enlarged views, have in all ages vied with churchmen in the pious and useful labour of fixing, upon the solid basis of reason and of truth, the credibility of the Gospel history. So far then as their statements are built upon facts, and their conclusions logically deduced, there is no pretence for withholding assent to the arguments in favour of the character of Jesus, though they chance to fall from the pen of a priest or a prelate. With the reservation therefore of my right to avail myself of the labours of such men upon this interesting topic, yet I hold it needless to appeal to them: though I anxiously wish the impartial reader to weigh, coolly and dispassionately, the result of their investigations. Such has been in this instance the force of truth, that no material difference is observable in the judgement, which has been passed upon the character of our Saviour by his friends and his foes: at least by so many of the latter, that it appears totally unnecessary to enter at large into the reasons, why that character is entitled to the genuine approbation of all, who have a moral taste, or a virtuous sentiment. Where parties, differing so widely in the general question at issue, yet agree so cordially in a particular instance; we must either conclude that the case excepted is immaterial to the event of the cause, or that the force of truth is there too strong to render it possible to be controverted. The tes timony given in favour of Jesus by professed unbelievers is too opposite to their wishes, and too prejudicial to their efforts, to have originated in any thing but the strength of evidence. They, who can trace in the Gospel any marks of fraud or error, cannot be blinded by any prejudice for the reputation of its author, or entertain any prepossession for the veracity of his historians. In these concurring statements at least we may presume to expect genuine, unsophisti cated truth.' P. 243.