Jesus is either the Redeemer of the world, or he is nothing. That he professed to be. That his supernatural birth, his miraculous power, his peculiar death, his predicted resurrection, were designed to prove him. Unless then he is that, his professions are untrue, and the whole authority of his religion falls to the ground. We cannot distinguish between his doctrines and his precepts. We cannot deny his mysterious divinity, and retain his moral supremacy. Not to insist upon the undoubted fact, that the precepts and the doctrines are connected together, and depend upon one another : why should we practise sobriety; why enforce purity, or humility, or any other characteristic of Christianity, because it is recommended by Jesus of Nazareth, unless Jesus of Nazareth were indeed the Son of God, and requires these graces as a preparation for that future kingdom which he came to reveal, and offers to his followers?

What, therefore, the preceding evidence proves, if it prove any thing, is, that the Gospel

is a message of reconciliation from God to man, proposed by Christ in the character of their Redeemer. And what those reject, who are not living as the disciples of Christ by a vital and practical faith, is the offered means of restoration to the favour of their Creator.

Perhaps it may be thought, that if the responsibility were so awful, the evidence would be more irresistible.

1. But in answer to this, it must be remembered, that if the Christian Scriptures are true, and give a faithful account of the mission of Christ and its design, the evidence of it which we actually possess is the only conceivable evidence by which it could be confirmed to us. Jesus could not have put on human nature, or have suffered the punishment of human transgressions, in every country, and in every age. Yet, unless he had done so, unless he had been personally seen by every individual who might be required to believe in him, the rest of the

world, those who were not witnesses of his incarnation, must have received the revelation on exactly the same evidence as declares it to us now; that is, on human testimony. If the eighteenth century were substituted for the age of Augustus, if any country of the world were substituted for Judea, all but the comparatively few inhabitants of that country which might be chosen for the scene of his appearance, must receive by report what they could not possibly learn from ocular demonstration. So that the assertion sometimes hazarded, that if God made a revelation at all, he would render its truth indisputable to every individual, is to assume the fact in question; to assume that Christianity is not true; since it is impossible that such a revelation as that of the Gospel should be communicated in any other way than that in which we have actually received it.

Will it be argued, that for that very reason Christianity cannot be true? Surely not. Because as the sort of evidence which assures us of

Christ's incarnation is the same evidence as that on which we act in every other concern of life, it may reasonably be taken as the proper evidence of religion. In order to be certain of the existence of America or India, I do not require the countries to be set before my eyes; it is enough if I possess the testimony of those who have visited and seen them. Indeed, there are few affairs of common life in which we are not obliged to shape our course, as best we may, through conflicting testimony. Here there is no conflicting testimony. I am not aware that any counter-evidence can be adduced against the multiplicity of proofs in favour of Christianity. No one is able, no one pretends to be able to deny any one of the facts brought forward in the preceding chapters. Nor can any facts be alleged against them. Nothing can be alleged except the supposed improbability of this or of any other revelation; a ground of argument which we at once perceive it must be extremely dangerous to admit in opposition to positive circumstances, even if

the argument were stronger in itself than it has appeared to be on reasonable consideration 2.

2. But, further, the very fact that the proofs of Christianity are to be sought with pains and ascertained by diligent inquiry, is in favour of its truth, because it is a fact which harmonizes with the general character of the divine government.

This is manifest, on the most superficial view. The truth which forced itself upon the mind of the heathen poet, whilst contemplating the labours of agriculture, and the obstacles which impede their success:

PATER IPSE colendi

Haud facilem esse viam voluit:

Nec torpere gravi passus sua regna veterno 3 ;

is a truth which meets us

our survey of the world.

at every turn in

Without experi

ence, we should doubtless consider it improbable that so large a proportion of life would

2 See ch. ix.

3 Virg. Georg. i. 121.