supported fable, they would surely have kept out of sight this part of their leader's history. Or, if it were too notorious to be omitted in the narrative, we should find them always on the watch to cover the disgrace, and remove the impression which it was naturally calculated to raise. Yet this precaution was neglected, or very imperfectly used by any of the Evangelists. They record the crucifixion as faithfully as they record many other things which might be likely to create a prejudice against the religion but the explication is left for the more complete developement of the doctrines which was to follow. Neither did the Apostles, in their subsequent ministry, ever conceal this revolting fact, or cloak the disgrace of their Lord under the general dignity of a divine teacher, whose zeal had made him a sacrifice to popular fury. St. Paul is constantly repeating, "I preach Christ, and him crucified"—" I glory in the cross of Christ :" though he was well aware, at the same time, that this very reproach of the cross made his religion " a stumbling-block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks." He

acknowledges the "offence" taken at the cross; and speaks of "enemies of the cross of Christ:" confessing, that in the doctrines which he proclaimed there was much to contradict the notions of human wisdom, and which human wisdom would reluctantly receive 49.

All this has very little the appearance of fabrication. No one has ever shown what could induce men to impose a religion on the world, when, by doing so, they risked every thing and could gain nothing. If they were led by interest, where was their profit? If they were hurried along by enthusiasm, whence came their sobriety? why was there so much method in their madness? But if this argument is set aside; if it is thought that the anomalies of human nature make it impossible always to determine, from any ordinary rules of conduct, what enterprise men may or may not take in hand: then I look to another test, to the religion itself, instead of the persons who intro

49 1 Cor. 1. from v. 17 to the end of the chapter.

duced it. And I argue, that the main doctrines of Christianity-the condemnation of mankind as corrupt in the sight of God, and the atonement made upon the cross by Jesus as a Mediator between the offenders and their Judge,are doctrines which we cannot, on any rational or probable grounds, attribute to imposture. Taking them as maintained by the Apostles, with all their attending circumstances of the resurrection of the dead, the future judgment, the final punishment of the wicked, and the eternal happiness of the redeemed, we cannot trace their origin to any known or accessible source in the belief of those times and countries. Neither can we account for their reception. There was nothing in the doctrines themselves to allure or conciliate; and the minds, both of Jews and Gentiles, were utterly unprepared to embrace a religion which had nothing in common with their former opinions, and directly opposed some of their strongest prejudices.

103

CHAPTER IV.

Connexion of Christianity with the Jewish History and Scriptures.

THE inquiry of the preceding chapter came to this result: that the Christian religion sets out upon a view of the state of mankind which was original, and proclaims a method of recovery from that state, which was also original: the expectation of such an event, to be so accomplished, having never entered into the minds of Jews or Gentiles.

But is it not a possible case, that the followers of Jesus, being disappointed by his death, and required to account for it, or to give up their purpose, and confess themselves deluded; should have struck out the idea of atonement, and affirmed that he died a sacrifice? Then having hit upon this explanation, they supported it as they could out of the institutions of their law, and the facts related in their history.

There certainly are points in the law, and circumstances in the history, of the Jews, to which the death of Jesus appears to bear a more or less direct relation.

1. In a very early part of their history, the father of the nation, Abraham, is represented as receiving a command from God to offer his only son, Isaac, as a victim to be sacrificed on the altar by his own hand. Abraham obeyed the extraordinary command; and to the full extent of purpose and intention the sacrifice was consummated; being only restrained at the very crisis of accomplishment, by divine interposition'. Do we see here the germ of the doctrine that "God so loved the world as to send his only begotten son," to make "a propitiation for

their sins ?"

2. Again, in the journey through the wilderness, we find it related, that when the camp of the Israelites was infested with venomous serpents, sent as a judicial chastisement for their

1 Gen. ch. xxii.