LECT. III. been, in connexion with the same limited means of self-advancement. Evidence of the Authen New Testa ment from this source. There is much also in this coincidence, painful ticity of the as it is, bespeaking the certain truth of the communications made to us in Scripture. The state of things which the several writers whose works compose the New Testament have described, and evidently without the least compact or collusion, is proved to be a strictly natural state of things. Human nature, as introduced by them, acts consistently with itself, as demonstrated by its subsequent history in similar circumstances. It is generally confessed, that to view the original and perfect character of the Redeemer as an invention of such men as the evangelists, is to adopt a conclusion fraught with greater difficulty than is involved in the largest claim ever urged in behalf of the Son of God. And the same reasoning is equally applicable to the fact on which I have now remarked. A picture of human nature so varied, so profound, so complete, so true, and withal so simple and veracious in its colouring, could never have been the production of such artists, except as copied from the life, and as they were aided by that power from on high which we know was vouchsafed to them. Nor must we conclude without observing, from the subject of this Lecture, how small a deference is due to Jewish opinions even with respect to the import of Old Testament Scripture. When the creed of this degenerate 66 people happens to be in favour of any heterodox LECT. III. opinion, nothing is more common than the seemingly triumphant appeal: Surely the Jews must have been the best judges as to the meaning of their own Scriptures." Yes, they were, when they conspired as a people to crucify the Lord of life and glory; and when their rulers too faithful a reflection of themselves— commanded the disciples of the promised Deliverer, that they should speak no more in his name! To him bare all the prophets witness; and it is to the men who destroyed him with cruel hatred that we are directed as to the best interpreters of the language of the prophets! We affirm that it is not less unreasonable to look to the opinions of such men as an exposition of pure Judaism, than it would be to take the decrees of councils and conclaves in the tenth century as an exposition of pure Christianity. We dream not of confiding in an Hildebrand, or an Innocent the third, as safe expositors of any thing christian. But it were quite as reasonable so to do as to look to men like Ananias or Caiaphas for the just interpretation of anything pertaining to the creed or the character of such as were Israelites indeed. Better were it that we go to the cells of monasteries in search of genuine Christianity, than to seek after the true indications of Hebrew piety in the walks of pharisaic pride. And much better were it to search for the pure elements of the New LECT. III. Testament in the pages of the most artificial and benighted of the schoolmen, than to look for those of the Old Testament in the works of the most guileless and enlightened of the Rabbis. Nothing therefore can be more disingenuous (I might use a stronger term) than that men should take their stand amid the corruptions of Judaism, and deem it quite enough, in order to effect an admixture of those corruptions with Christianity, that they scornfully repeat the idle saying"Surely the Jews must have known the meaning of their own Scriptures!" No extraordinary influence is required to enable us to judge correctly on this point; nothing beyond the exercise of common discernment and integrity. And when the disputants adverted to shall have shown themselves incapable of distinguishing between such topics as the nature of monarchy and the perverseness of despotism, or between the philanthropy of the most popular principles of legislation, and the excesses of individual selfishness, then, and not till then, may we regard them as faultless, in not perceiving the contrast between the religion delineated in the Psalms and the Prophets, and that of the men who slew the Holy One and the Just! Hence, as we are not much surprised on finding that Protestant Christianity did not at once exhibit the unsullied purity of its divine original,—much of the error which characterized the popish ascendency being still everywhere LECT. III. interwoven with it,-neither should it be matter of wonder if we find converts from the depraved state of Judaism we have been contemplating, betraying a proneness to blend some of their hereditary prepossessions with their profession of the gospel. "With the greater part of the Jewish people," says Neander, "the most serious obstacles to "their capability of receiving the gospel arose "from their carnal disposition, which was anxious "to use the heavenly as a means of obtaining "the earthly, from the want of an heartfelt "thirst for moral and religious things, and from "their reliance on their unalienable birthright, "as the children of Abraham according to the "flesh, and on the merit and sanctifying power "of their ceremonial law. It might easily happen, that where men of this cast, moved by "some momentary impressions, embraced Christianity, they should err again in their faith, "and fall away again from Christianity, because they did not find their carnal expectations "instantly realized. And even if they remained "outwardly Christians, that they should conceive Christianity itself in a carnal manner, mixing 66 "it up with all their Jewish imaginations."* The manner and the extent in which Judaism was allowed, from these causes, to operate as the means of corrupting Christianity, both in the History of the Christian Religion, I. 54. |