nature of legal enactments to produce, not belief, but merely outward conformity and submission, it was the inevitable result of this state of things that the ideas of religion and of truth,—of pious demeanour, and of sincere belief,—should come to be completely disjoined in men's minds; and that they should even be somewhat startled at the very pretension to truth as resting on evidence, in any religion, and at the requisition of faith in it, on the ground of its truth. It was what they had never been used to. Philosophers of the most discordant tenets, poets of all descriptions, politicians and other men of business, amidst all the variety of their views and conduct, had always concurred in maintaining the popular religions, and in maintaining them on any other ground than that of truth: "The worship of the gods is an institution of our country;---these rites are venerable from their antiquity;---the neglect of them would argue disrespect for our ancestors, and contempt for the laws;---a respect for religion is useful for maintaining due subordination among the people :-These, and such as these, were their arguments; and the conclusion accordingly drawn was, that every man ought to

worship the gods according to the established institutions: truth, and belief in the truth, seem, in this matter, to have scarcely entered their minds.

Pilate accordingly seems to have been perplexed by our Lord's reply, stating that He had come into the world for the purpose of bearing "witness to the truth." His inquiry, "What is truth?" does not seem (as an eminent writer imagines) to have been made in jest; the Roman Governor was evidently in no jesting mood, nor at all disposed to treat Jesus with contempt; but (for whatever reason) was very seriously intent on investigating his case, and procuring his acquittal. Whether there be sufficient ground or not, for the conjecture of some, that he was in expectation of Jesus assuming the temporal sovereignty, by the employment of those miraculous powers of which no one could have been ignorant, and was disposed from views of personal aggrandizement to favour his pretensions; at any rate it is plain he was endeavouring to learn what his designs and pretensions were; and hence, eagerly asked, catching, as it were, at his words, "Art thou a King then?" the answer, in which Jesus

claims to be a minister of the Truth, seems to have disappointed and perplexed him: "What is truth?" he replied; as much as to say, "what has truth to do with the present business? I wish for information as to your claims and objects;-what sovereignty it is that you pretend to, or aim at; and you tell me about Truth; what is that to the purpose?"

On this and on other occasions, our Lord points out Truth as, in an especial manner, the characteristic of his religion; "If ye continue in my words, then are ye my disciples indeed, and ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free" "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life."-" They that worship God must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.--When He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he shall guide you into all Truth."--" And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the Truth." His great adversary, on the other hand, is designated by Him as "a liar, and the father of lies." And the apostles of Christ, in like manner, perpetually make use of the words

66

Truth," and "Faith," to designate the Christian religion. By all which, more, I conceive, was

implied than that the religion is true, and is the only true one, and that faith in it is required; in the present day this would be implied by the very circumstance of preaching any religion; but in those days the very pretension to truth,--the very demand of faith, were characteristic distinctions of the Gospel: the Heathen mythology not only was not true, but was not even supported as true; it not only deserved no faith, but it demanded none. It was needful, therefore, to inform and remind men not merely of the strength of the Gospel claims, but of the nature of those claims;---to point out not only the force of the evidence in its favour, but its appeal to evidence.

§. 2. But how, it may be said, do these considerations affect us Christians of the present day? We, it is to be hoped, are not chargeable with that culpable carelessness about truth, especially in religious matters, which characterised the ancients. We do believe in Jesus as the "Way, and the Truth, and the Life.”

Let it be remembered, however, that as the ancient heathen are not the standard by which

we are to be measured; so it is not our superiority to them that will at once acquit us. They had many excuses, of which we have none, for their disregard of truth: in particular, they knew not (as we do) of any religion that did challenge inquiry, and appeal to evidence, and demand well-grounded and firm belief; that taught them to " prove all things, and hold fast that which is right," and to be "ready to give a reason of their faith." Do Christians, then, in this respect, shew themselves worthy of their peculiar advantages? Do they speak and act altogether consistently with a religion which is built on Faith in the Truth? The professors of such a religion ought not merely to believe it in sincerity, but to adhere scrupulously to Truth in the means employed on every occasion, as well as in the ends proposed, and to follow fearlessly wherever Truth may lead.

Now we should recollect that most of the pretended miracles, the "pious frauds," as they are called, perpetrated by the Papists, and many others, are, or at least were, in the first instance, the work of men who were sincere believers in the truth of their religion; it is, indeed, on