into the number under threescore years old"? We also find, from the Acts, that provision was made, from the first, for the indigent widows who belonged to the Christian church. Does he say to Timothy that, from a child, he had known the Holy Scriptures? The Acts tell us that his mother was a Jewess. Do we hear him exhorting the Corinthians not to despise Timothy? We hear him saying to Timothy himself, "Let no man despise thy youth;" and again, "Flee also youthful lusts." Does Paul, in the Epistle to Timothy, refer particularly to the afflictions which came unto him at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra? We find from the history, in the most indirect way imaginable, that Timothy must have lived at one of those cities, and have been converted at the time of those persecutions. Does Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans, ask their prayers that he might be delivered from them that did not believe, in Judea? We hear him saying, in the Acts, with reference to the same journey, "And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there; save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me." Do we hear him, in the Epistle to the Romans, commending to them Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchrea? We find, from the history, that Paul had been at Cenchrea, only from the following passage -"Having shorn his head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow." Of such coincidences Paley has pointed out, perhaps, a hundred, and he has by no means exhausted the subject.* And not only do we find epistles directed to churches, -the last species of composition that an

* Horæ Paulinæ, passim.

original impostor, whether we suppose that the church did or did not exist at the time, could have thought of fabricating, but we have, in more than one instance, two letters addressed to the same church, the last having all that reference to the first that we should expect. We find it also directed that the letter to one church should be read in another; we find it implied that one of the churches had written to the apostle, and his letter is partly in reply to theirs; we find such points discussed as would naturally have arisen in societies constituted as Christian churches must then have been; and, finally, we find a strength of personal feeling, a depth of tenderness and interest, a promptness in bestowing deserved censure, a tone of authority, and a fulness of commendation, which could have sprung only from the transactions of actual life. Am I not, then, even from this view of their internal evidence, so briefly and imperfectly presented, justified in the assertion that no impostor either would, or could, have fabricated these books?

And now, whether we look at the relations which Christianity must have sustained either to the Jews or to the Gentiles; at the course pursued either by Christ himself or by the apostles; at the connection between the Christian and the Jewish system; or at the impossibility of fabricating the books of the New Testament, I think we may reasonably conclude that this religion, and these books, did not originate with man.

LECTURE VIII.

THE CONDITION, CHARACTER, AND CLAIMS OF CHRIST.

THUS far, we have attended to the system of Christianity, to its marvellous adaptations, and to the impossibility that it should have come from man. We now turn from the system to its Author. Who was the author of this system? What were his condition, his claims, and his character? We have already seen that the object he proposed, and the system he taught, are worthy of God, and correspond perfectly with the nature of man. But, were his condition in life, the claims he preferred, and the character he sustained, such as we can now see ought to have belonged to one who claimed the spiritual headship of the race? Is it possible that he should have been an impostor? Do we not find, meeting in him alone, so many things that are extraordinary, as to forbid that supposition? These questions it will be the object of the present lecture to answer.

And if there is any subject to which we can apply, not only the tests of logic, but the decisions of intuitive reason, and of all the higher instincts of our common humanity, it is the condition in life, and teachings, and proposed object, and character, of one

who presents himself with the claims put forth by Jesus Christ. We have an intuitive insight into character. We have, in the history of the world, large experience of it in all its combinations. We are all capable, when our moral nature is quickened, of judging whether the character of one who claims the homage both of the understanding and of the heart is in accordance with such a claim. "I know men," said Napoleon Bonaparte," and I tell you that Jesus Christ was not a man." We also know men; and, presented as Christ is to us by the evangelists, not by description or eulogy, but standing before us in his actions and discourses, so that he seems to live and to speak, we feel that we can judge whether he bore the true insignia of his office or the marks of an impostor. If his claim had been to any thing else, it would be different. A claim to property, or to external homage, or to belief in a particular case, may be substantiated by external testimony; but when any being claims that I should believe a thing because he says it; when he claims an affection from me greater than that which I owe to father, or mother, or brothers, or sisters, or wife, or children, I not only do not, but I cannot, and I ought not, to yield this confidence and affection on the ground of any external testimony. There must be presented an object of moral affection which shall commend itself as worthy, to my immediate perception, before I can do this. We cannot yield our affections except to perceived excellence; and, since no man becomes a Christian who does not make Christ himself an object of affection, it is plain that his character, as well as his teaching, is a point of primary importance.

And here, again, as in every thing else, Christianity stands by itself. If other systems are, to some extent, vulnerable through the character of their authors, no other presents its very heart to be thus pierced. In an abstract system of philosophy, we do not inquire what the character of its author was. The truth of the system of Plato, or of Adam Smith, or of Jeremy Bentham, does not depend on the question whether they were good or bad men; but if it could be shown that Christ was a bad man,- nay, if we were simply to withdraw his character and acts, -the whole system would collapse at once. His character stands as the central orb of the system, and without it there would be no effectual light and no heat. This arises from two causes. The first is the very striking peculiarity,

which, in considering the evidences, has not been enough noticed, that the Author of Christianity claims, not merely belief, but affection. What would have been thought of Socrates, or Plato, if they had not merely taught mankind, but if they and their disciples had set up a claim that they should be loved by the whole human race with an affection exceeding that of kindred? This affection Christ claimed, and his disciples claimed it for him. Paul says, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha," making the mere absence of the love a crime. But if he is to be thus loved by all men, he must first place himself in the relation to them of a personal benefactor, and then, by the very laws of affection, he must present a character which ought to call forth their love. The second cause why the character of Christ is so essential is, that in the moral and spiritual world power is manifested, and move