ordinary, so is the end; and if the Mediator is a great and glorious person, his interposition brings about the highest, the most benevolent, extensive, and lasting effects in the government of the universe. There may be other ends answered by it of which we are ignorant; some, perhaps, with which man has as yet no immediate concern; and others of which we cannot see the reason in a present state, and which it was therefore unnecessary for God to make known to us now.

It must be allowed to be in favour of this doctrine, that it is agreeable to the analogy both of the natural and the moral world. In how many instances is one person made the instru ment of good to another; and benefits which we could not acquire for ourselves, are acquired for us, and bestowed on us, by the interposition of others. If, therefore, the book which contains such a doctrine have sufficient evidence that it is from God, this can be no solid argument against it.

It is worthy of particular remark, that the doctrine of a Mediator gives a peculiarity to the gospel, which distinguishes it from every system originating in man. The ancient pagan religions, as retaining some traces of the original revelation, had a faint shadow of it. The Jewish dispensation held it up continually to view; and its extensive ritual was little else than a multiform type of a Mediator, and redemption through him, in various parts and effects. But when men wished to frame a system for themselves, by mending an old religion, or inventing a new one, they could not perceive the necessity and utility of the doctrine. Mohammed's understanding could not reach so high; and one of the things which he left untouched in the New Testament, while he purloined from other parts of it, was redemption by a Mediator. How ill the tenets which he put into its place are adapted to bear the weight laid upon them, every enlightened reader of the koran will easily discern. The want renders the Mohammedan a gloomy system, void of the cheerful light of the gospel; as it must leave the anxious mind of the devout Mussulman always in doubt whether his quantity of penitence, of prayers, of fasting, of alms-deeds, and of pilgrimage, be sufficient to cancel his guilt, and open to him the gates of paradise. The ancient philosophers, many of whom wished to have the credit of a new system of religion, do not appear to have discovered the necessity of a Mediator. Nor have the modern deists, though their natural religion be stolen from the New Testament, felt the need of redemption, or transferred any part of it into their writings. That man's sins must be pardoned, and that he must be reconciled to God,

and made good, before he can be happy, the most rational deists grant. But the means of accomplishing these in a way honourable to God, and safe to men, in a way that furnishes powerful encouragement, and lays a firm foundation for lively hope, they have left out, because they have left out a Mediator. Will not distracting uncertainties, perplexing doubts and fears, be the certain consequence with every serious man of that persuasion?

Whence had the Apostles this knowledge? They have given us a full view of human nature; and have exposed, in the clearest light, the depravity, guilt, and misery of man. They have, at the same time, pointed out a method of deliverance from all these evils. Their system is wonderfully ingenious: it is original: it is adapted to the condition of human nature; it is a remedy perfect and complete. They say they had all their knowledge of religion from Jesus Christ. But whence did Jesus Christ derive it? Those who deny his divine mission will find it difficult to account for his knowledge. There is something in his scheme unspeakably superior to every other. It takes in the rights of God, as well as the necessities of man; and renders God glorious in all his perfections, as well as man completely happy. Who besides, in ancient or modern times, ever conccived so vast an idea? But Jesus had no literary education. Perhaps the Old Testament was the only book he ever read. He never associated with the philosophers; his companions were not the chief priests, and elders, and scribes. Let the deists sit down and assign a satisfactory reason for the vast superiority of the gospel. The Christian is free from difficulty; for he reads in the sacred page, and he believes, that "Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, and hath declared him unto us.”—John i. 18.

SECTION V.

The moral Precepts of the Gospel.

By those who have been accustomed from their childhood to the reading of the New Testament, so that every part of it is familiar to their minds, it is scarcely possible to form an idea of the difficulty of ascertaining the various relations among mankind with such precision, as to delineate exactly what is due to each. The writings of the evangelists and apostles have shed so clear

a light on the subject, that some are apt to consider the knowledge of relative duties (which all the inhabitants of Christendom have, through various channels, derived from this source) as originating in the reflections of their own minds, and as the spontaneous growth of the human heart, without labour, and without cultivation But read the institutes of Menu, or peruse the books of the ancient sages of pagan antiquity in the west, and the fallacy will soon be detected. That some things there are good and well said, must be obvious to all. But how defective are they in many points, how unjust in others, how superstitious in more! Some duties are mis-stated; some mutilated; some are entirely omitted; and many things are strenuously enjoined as duties, which are not. Their code of

morals, even in what is due from man to man, wants many leaves. As to the most important part of the system, namely, man's obligation to God, and the duties resulting thence, there is a still more dreadful deficiency. Instead of moral duties, we find little else but a hideous mass of superstitious rites, and unmeaning ceremonies.

In the New Testament there is a perfect system of moral precepts. What is due from man to himself, is delineated without defect, and without redundancy. What he owes to his fellow-creatures in all their different relations, is clearly defined, and authoritatively enjoined. None can say, "It is unjust to require me to act thus to my father, to my master, to my servant, to my child." Man's duty to God (a subject still more difficult, and where heathens failed the most) is laid down with equal clearness, and equal fulness. Nothing can be conceived to be a duty which is not here enjoined; nor any thing enjoined as a duty, which we can say is unreasonable, and ought not to be performed. The world may be challenged to mention one duty to God, or man, which the New Testament does not enjoin; or to prove any one thing it enjoins as a duty to be destitute of reason, and void of obligation. The simplicity, the conciseness, the perspicuity, and the authority with which they are delivered, give force to truth, and scope to reason in the application of general duties to particular circumstances.

The morality of the writers of the New Testament is their own. They borrowed it from none. It begins at the source, and gives laws to the thoughts. Its precepts reach to the first workings of the heart; it enjoins purity of soul, and brings into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ."

2 Cor. x. 5. Not a vain imagination can be indulged, not an unhallowed desire rise up, without polluting the soul, and contracting guilt.

How different is this system from what was written and taught by the sages of Greece and Rome. Regard for a person's own fame and reputation, how exalted a place does it occupy among pagan moralists; and an equal anxiety is discovered for the good opinion of others, and the approbation of the public. The following line of one of their poets expresses both :

66

Est pulchrum digito monstrari, et dicier, Hic est."

While they thought it a fine thing to be pointed at with the finger, and have it said, That is he, the Pharisees were practising similar morals. Their desire was to "be seen of men; and they loved the praise of man more than the praise of God." These the gospel utterly excludes; it authoritatively inculcates self-denial on all its votaries. It enjoins a supreme regard to what God approves; but to man, no further than their approbation accords with God's, and is founded on it. The disciples of Jesus are commanded to make their light shine before men; but the aim must be, not that they may admired and praised, but that those who see their good works "may glorify their Father who is in heaven."

be

The morality of the gospel is uncontaminated with the impure mixtures which have defiled every human system, published before or since. It admits no licentiousness; it enjoins no austerities; it contains no superstition; it will be satisfied with no partial regards. In the religion of heathens and Mohammedans, how many licentious practices are tolerated and approved! not one will the gospel allow, even in thought. What a multitude of superstitious observances do we perceive in every heathen code, in the koran, and in the talmud-which is the bible of the latter Jews. But let the bitterest enemy of Christ, who is best versed in the New Testament, take up the book, and point out one. Austerities, or practices consisting in a privation of comfort, how congenial have they always been to hnman nature; and how exalted a niche have they occupied in the religions of men in ancient days, and at the present hour, among pagans, Mohammedans, Jews, and even among some who have assumed the Christian name! But where will a sanction for austerities be found in the gospel? Never is the idea even hinted at that such things render a man more acceptable to God, or advance him to a state of

higher perfection. In perusing histories of religion, how often do we find reason to remark, that ritual observances have been made to supply the place of moral duties; and even zeal for, and abundance in one duty, to compensate for the neglect of another. But no partial regards will the gospel allow; it insists on universal obedience, and loudly declares "that he who offends in one point is guilty of all."

How the writers of this book should be able to draw up a system of morals, which the world, after the lapse of eighteen centuries, cannot improve, while it perceives numberless faults and suggests numberless corrections in those of the philosophers of India, Greece, and Rome, the deist is concerned to account for, in a rational way. The Christian is able to do it with ease. The evangelists and the apostles of Christ "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

SECTION VI.

The manner in which a future State is represented in the New Testament.

WHEN an author chooses a theme which is level to the human capacity, and of which all can judge from observation, experience, or reflection, he has greatly the advantage. A future state of rewards and punishments requires the pen of a master to write upon it with but tolerable propriety. A review of what has been published on the subject will evince the truth of this remark.

The Greek and Roman poets, who were the retailers of the pagan theology among the most civilized nations of antiquity, describe the happiness of the good, and the misery of the wicked, after death. But how mean the happiness! It consists in talking over their battles, in rehearsing poems, and in receiving adulation. A person acquainted with the ordinary pursuits of men on earth, if he have but a poetic fancy, may easily, as to ideas at least, rival the description. Their state of misery is better conceived, but it is minute and low.

Mohammed, who knew something of the New Testament, thinking perhaps to improve upon it, and to give a more affecting view, has presented us with his ideas of a future world. He, indeed, gratifies curiosity; but his minute descriptions are disgusting in the extreme. His state of rewards allures every sense, and every appetite: it is the happiness of an epicure and