that they had "no continuing city*" here, but that his true disciples must look for a dwelling "not made with hands, eternal in the heavens +;" it was not, I repeat, at all surprising, that He who inspired his Apostles with a doctrine so contrary to that of these Sadducees, whose first principle was to deny any resurrection, should be mocked and reviled by them. Again, is it to be wondered at, that he was hated and rejected by the proud Pharisees, whose hypocrisies he exposed? The Jew may with justice scandalize many of the professing members of the Christian church, who, like the Pharisees of old, neglect the "weightier matters of the law;" he may blame the followers of the peaceful Jesus for their divisions among themselves; for the contempt which is shewn to true piety and holiness by many who name the name of Christ; he may behold with disgust their worldly-mindedness; he may cry shame on their disregard of their Sabbath. All this we most readily admit; and we are not intending in the slightest degree to offer any justification for such characters; God forbid that we should but we say, that nothing can fairly be alleged against Christianity in consequence of the lives of some of its professors. It would be quite as reasonable to say, that there is not a word of

:

Heb. xiii. 14. + 2 Cor. v. 1.

M

Matt. xxiii. 23.

truth in the Old Testament, because some wicked and disobedient Israelites rebelled against God. What disorders and idolatries were they not guilty of time after time, even while the denunciations of the Prophets sounded in their ears! What would the Jews reply, were we to draw inferences against the Law of Moses in consequence of the conduct of some of its professors even at this day? Let them be careful, then, how they attack the Gospel on the ground of the vices of some followers, as they are called, of Christianity. To be able to draw fair conclusions respecting any religion from the lives of its professors, it is necessary first to examine the rules of that religion, and then see how far they act according to them.

The Jews make an objection to our belief of the Trinity: and most unjust it is; since the Christian acknowledges one only God; since the true worshiper of Jesus sincerely joins with the follower of Moses, in charging those with idolatry who adore a plurality of gods. Why should it be strange that in this unity we admit Three Persons, without pretending to comprehend or explain that mystery, when they allow of the same association in the name of their God? Is it that they will admit the name of God to be more incomprehensible than his essence? Is this the reason, that he who worships Three Persons in one only adorable God is more of an idolater than he who worships

the Triune Jehovah, though he does not in so many words distinctly name Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

The Jew cannot, with any degree of fairness or appearance of reason, make objections to the mystery of the incarnation, since the union of the Godhead with human nature does not imply any contradiction, and is not impossible: besides, many of the Prophecies very fully predict this. The Deliverer we are first taught is to be the seed of the woman*; and after many other prophecies respecting Him, Isaiah tells us that he shall be called "Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peacet." Can any one reject the force of evidence in favour of the incarnation which these two prophecies contain? The seed of the woman, He who is to be born of a daughter of Eve, is to be called, the mighty God, the everlasting Father; He is to bruise the serpent's head. It appears to me, that this is saying at once, our God shall release man from those chains which he has bound himself with by his disobedience, and he will do it in his own wonderful manner.

These two mysteries then, of the Trinity and the Incarnation, being no just obstacles to the reception of the Gospel; the books of the New Testa

ment having as many arguments in their favour as the Old; and every one of them, when applied to the writings of the Apostles, acquiring double force; to acknowledge the truth of the one, while we deny the authenticity of the other, appears to me to be holding the balance unequally; which every principle of natural equity condemns, and which the law of Moses positively forbids.

Having thus attacked the most considerable prejudices of the Jews, we must, in the next chapter, begin an enumeration of our proofs in favour of the Gospel.

CHAPTER II.

ON THE EXCELLENCY OF THE CHRISTIAN

RELIGION.

ONE of the most considerable proofs, in favour of the inspiration of the sacred authors, consists in the essential qualities of that religion which they have taught to mankind. If we allow that there is nothing more indispensible and better founded than the duty of a reasonable being towards his Creator, we must admit that duty to be the proper Occupation of this life: we must acknowledge that our whole conduct should be guided by its rules; and we cannot do other than believe, that religion to be true which teaches us to worship the God of all power in a manner suited to his majesty.

We have already proved that Moses was the only author of antiquity who knew God as the Creator of all things, and who taught men just ideas of His Providence and of the worship due to Him: and it has been admitted, that Moses excelled all other men in the nature of the religion which he produced; that his was a service worthy