deep knowledge of its tenets rendered him so competent to dispute them? In a word, who more exactly knew the abominable rites and shocking idolatry of Canaan than Moses himself? Yet the learning of those great men only incited them to seek other sources of truth, piety, and virtue, than those in which they had long been immersed. There is no shadow then of a foundation for an opinion, that Moses borrowed the first nine or ten chapters of Genesis from the literature of Egypt; still less can the adamantine pillars of our Christian faith be moved by the result of any debates on the comparative antiquity of the Hindoos and Egyptians, or of any enquiries into the Indian Theology. Very respectable natives have assured me, that one or two missionaries have been absurd enough, in their zeal for the conversion of the Gentiles, to urge that the Hindoos were even now almost Christians, because their BRAHMA, VISHNU, and MAHESA, were no other than the Christian Trinity;' a sentence, in which we can only doubt, whether folly, ignorance, or impiety predominates. The three powers, Creative, Preservative, and Destructive, which the Hindoos express by the triliterial word O'm, were grossly ascribed by the first idolaters to the heat, light, and flame of their mistaken divinity, the Sun; and their wiser successors in the East, who perceived that the sun was only a created thing, applied those powers to its creator; but the Indian Triad, and that of Plato, which he calls the Supreme Good, the Reason, and the Soul, are infinitely removed from the holiness and sublimity of the doctrine, which pious Christians have deduced from texts in the Gospel, though other Christians, as pious, openly profess their dissent from them. Each sect must be justified by its own faith and good intentions; this only I mean to inculcate, that the tenet of our church cannot without profaneness be compared with that of the Hindoos, which has only an apparent resemblance to it, but a very different meaning. One singular fact, however, must not be suffered to pass unnoticed. That the name of CRISHNA, and the general outline of his story, were long anterior to the birth of our Saviour, and probably to the time of Homer, we know very certainly; yet the celebrated poem, entitled Bhagavat, which contains a prolix account of his life, is filled with narratives of a most extraordinary kind, but strangely variegated and intermixed with poetical decorations; the incarnate deity of the Sanscrit romance was cradled, as it informs us, among herdsmen ; but it adds, that he was educated among them, and passed his youth in playing with a party of milkmaids. A tyrant, at the time of his birth, ordered all new born males to be slain; yet this wonderful babe was

preserved by biting the breast, instead of sucking the poisoned nipple, of a nurse commissioned to kill him; he performed amazing, but ridiculous, miracles in his infancy, and, at the age of seven years, held up a mountain on the tip of his little finger; he saved multitudes, partly by his arms and partly by his miraculous powers; he raised the dead by descending for that purpose to the lowest regions; he was the meekest and best tempered of beings, washed the feet of the Brahmans, and preached very nobly, indeed, and sublimely, but always in their favor; he was pure and chaste in reality, but exhibited an appearance of excessive libertinism, and had wives or mistresses too numerous to be counted; lastly, he was benevolent and tender, yet fomented and conducted a terrible war. This motley story must induce an opinion that the spurious gospels, which abounded in the first age of Christianity, had been brought to India, and the wildest parts of them repeated to the Hindoos, who ingrafted them on the old fable of CESAVA, the APOLLO of Greece."*

Sir W. Jones was a firm believer in the truth and divine authority of the sacred Scriptures. But, such was his candor and love of truth that, if in the course of his researches into the history, antiquities, sciences, literature, and religion of the Asiatic nations, he, or any of his fellow-laborers in the same important undertaking, had made any discoveries unfavorable to the claims of the Scriptures as a Revelation from God, they would most certainly have been published to the world. This is evident from a number of passages in his writings. In the dissertation just quoted from, he holds the following language; "I who cannot help believing the divinity of the Messiah from the undisputed antiquity, and manifest completion of many prophecies, especially those of Isaiah, in the only person recorded by history, to whom they are applicable, am obliged, of course, to believe the sanctity of the venerable books, to which that sacred person refers, as genuine; but it is not the truth of our national religion, as such, that I have at heart; it is TRUTH itself; and if any cool unbiased reader will clearly convince me, that Moses drew his narrative through Egyptian conduits, from the primeval fountains of Indian literature, I shall esteem him as a friend, for having weeded my mind from a capital error, and promise to stand among the foremost in assisting to circulate the truth which he has ascertained."

In an address to the Asiatic Society, whose researches have just

Asiatic Researches, vol. i. pp. 374-378; or see Jones' Works, vol. iii. pp. 391-395.

been mentioned, treating of the result of their labors, he says: "We cannot surely deem it an inconsiderable advantage, that all our historical researches have confirmed the Mosaic account of the primitive world; and our testimony on that subject ought to have the greater weight, because if the result of our observations had been totally different, we should nevertheless have published them." *

So far, however, from making such discoveries, the labors of this wonderful man, probably the most learned of modern times, have most illustriously confirmed the truth of the Scriptures. He did not discover an identity betwixt Jesus Christ and the Hindoo idol Crishna; but as has been seen, he identifies that idol with the Grecian Apollo.

To draw the conclusion from a few and distant resemblances, in the midst of a chaos of acts, and qualities the most opposite, that there is a conformity in history and character, is highly unreasonable. And still more so would it be to believe the identity betwixt Jesus Christ and this heathen idol, which is affirmed by the Infidel Taylor. Had this man even stated the truth concerning the spelling of the word Crishna, no reliance could hav been placed on this as a means of establishing the identity he affirms. This is evident from the following remarks of Sir W. Jones, and on such a subject no one could be better prepared to judge. "Etymology," says he, " has, no doubt, some use in historical researches ; but it is a medium of proof so very fallacious, that, where it elucidates one fact, it obscures a thousand; and more frequently borders on the ridiculous, than leads to any solid conclusion; it rarely carries with it any internal power of conviction from a resemblance of sounds or similarity of letters." But when not only the names are dissimilar, both in their orthography and meaning, but also the characters and actions are so diametrically opposite, what can be thought of that man, who, with unblushing impudence, attempts to identify with Jesus Christ, an imaginary being whose principal exploits were those of licentiousness and destruction, who had several wives, and thousands of concubines, who destroyed his own numerous progeny, and who was at last killed by an arrow?

* Sir W. Jones, vol. iii. pp. 208, 209.

Ibid. vol. iii. p. 25.

SECTION III.

HAVING in the most satisfactory manner established the great truth that Jesus Christ did exist, and, at the period assigned by the writers of the New Testament; also that the leading facts in his history did occur, the Infidel is bound to maintain one of two hypotheses, either that Jesus Christ, though a good man, was an enthusiast, or, that he was a wicked impostor. Accordingly, there are two classes of Infidels, who (unable to resist the overwhelming testimony by which his existence, and at the time specified in the sacred writings, is supported,) maintain, the one the first, and the other the last of these positions. We will now attend to each of these classes of Infidels.

Among American Infidels, who hold that Jesus Christ was a good man, but an enthusiast, are Mr. Jefferson and Mr. English. The latter wrote a book, entitled "The Grounds of Christianity Examined," in which he holds the following language: "Far be it from me to reproach the meek and compassionate, the amiable Jesus; or to attribute to him, the mischiefs occasioned by his followers. No, I look upon his character with the respect which every man should pay to purity of morals, though mingled with something like sentiments, which we naturally feel for the mistaken enthusiast." Again he says: "There was nothing which gave the author so much uneasiness, as the apprehension of being supposed to entertain disrespectful sentiments of the Founder of the Christian religion. I would most earnestly entreat the reader to believe my most solemn assurances, that by nothing I have said, or shall be under the necessity of saying, do I think, or mean to intimate the slightest disparagement to the moral character of one, whose purity of morals, and good intentions, deserve anything else but reproach. That he was an enthusiast I do not doubt; that he was a willful impostor I never will believe."

The same author further says: "Jesus of Nazareth appears to have been a man of irreproachable purity, of great piety, and of great mildness of disposition. Though the world has never beheld a character exactly parallel with his, yet it has seen many greatly similar, contemplative and melancholy: it is said of him by his followers, 'he was often seen to weep, but never to laugh.' He retired to solitary places, and there prayed; he went into the wilderness to sustain and there vanquish the devil. In a word, he appears by such means,

to have persuaded himself, as hundreds have done since, that he was the chosen servant of God, raised up to preach righteousness to the hypocrites and sinners of his day. It is remarkable that he never claimed to be the Messiah, till encouraged to assume that character by Peter's declaration. And it is observable, that, in assuming that name, he could not assume the characteristics of the august personage to whom it belonged; but infused into the character all that softness, meekness, humility and passive fortitude which were so eminently his own. The natural disposition, and character of Jesus, would not permit him to attempt the character of a princely Messiah, a mighty monarch, the Saviour of an oppressed people, and the benefactor of the human race. He could not do this; but he could act as much of the character as was consistent with his own. He could not indeed bring himself to attempt to be the Saviour of his countrymen from the Romans, their fleshly foes; but he undertook to save them from the tyranny of their spiritual enemies. He could not undertake to set up his kingdom upon earth; but he told them that he had a kingdom. in another world. He could not pretend to give unto his followers the splendid rewards of an earthly monarch; but he promised them instead thereof, forgiveness of sins, and spiritual remuneration."

Having fully and fairly stated the position of Mr. English, it behooves us now to show that Jesus Christ was not a mistaken enthusiast. Before we proceed, however, it may be necessary to notice the statement, "that he (Jesus) never claimed to be the Messiah, till encouraged to assume that character by Peter's declaration." To this it is replied, that so far from Jesus Christ being influenced by Peter's declaration publicly to assume the character of the Messiah; upon its being made, he charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ or the Messiah.*

How did Mr. English arrive at the conclusion that Jesus Christ was an enthusiast? The only process by which he could have formed this judgment must have been by an examination of his words and actions. By the same process it is maintained the candid and honest enquirer must come to the opposite conclusion.

In the sense in which the term is here used, an enthusiast signifies a person, who through an impression on the fancy, or an agitation of the passions, of which he can give no rational account, is led to suppose that he has some remarkable intercourse with the Deity.

*Matt. xvi. 20. By referring to Dr. Clarke's comment on the passage, the reader will see that the word Jesus, which appears in our version, should have been omitted.