which divided the attachment of the people, according to their several dispositions.

The Pharisees adhered strictly to the letter of the Mosaic law, and even united to it works of supererogation, fasts, abstinences, and mortifying devotions, to which they ascribed a high degree of importance. Hence they were followed generally by the lower classes, who are commonly disposed to venerate austerity 3; and as it may be supposed, by that large majority who in all countries are willing to compound for the want of spiritual religion by a strict observance of prescribed ceremonies.

The Sadducees denied any future state, any resurrection of soul or body. A lax morality could not fail to attend such opinions, especially when maintained in the teeth of the Jewish Scriptures. These had fewer followers; but those were important from their rank and opulence.

3. Τοις δήμοις πιθανοτατοι τυγχανεσι. 105.

The Essenes, though few in number, at least in Judea, were remarkable for the singularity of their tenets and habits. They maintained the immortality of the soul; but seem to have borrowed their ideas upon that subject from Pythagoras, rather than the Scripture. They held their public worship separately, and in some respects differently, from the rest of their countrymen. They professed the most exemplary strictness of morals. But the peculiar characteristic of the sect was, an entire community of goods, and the austerest celibacy: so that their number was chiefly continued by the accession of persons advanced in life, who were disgusted with its cares, or wearied by misfortune.

These are the several opinions which existed in Judea, at the time when the Gospel was first preached. But I do not find that those who in

4 Josephus says, 4000. The greater part of this peculiar sect resided in Egypt. See Plin. Nat. Hist. v. 17.

5 See Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 5; xviii. 1. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. Philo Frag. p. 632, v. i. Ed. Mangey.

troduced that religion belonged to any of these sects; they betray no attachment to any of their peculiar doctrines; they rather oppose them all; not, indeed, systematically, like the partizans of a different faction, but wherever their tenets are contradictory to enlightened reason, or inconsistent with the general good of mankind. If not actually biassed towards any sect, we might expect, as a matter of precaution, that they would seek the countenance and support of some who were in possession of public favour; would try to engage on their side some of those who were opulent, or powerful, or respected in their nation. But the plan which they pursue is directly opposite to all this. Their religious precepts are levelled against the self-indulgence of the rich; against the pride and hypocrisy of the Pharisees; against the immoral and degrading principles of the Sadducees; against the unsocial and levelling tenets of the Essenes.

In all human appearance, this was to set at work against the system which they were introducing a counteracting influence which must

at once be fatal to its progress. Unknown and unprotected men, entering upon a new and hazardous enterprise, begin by arming against themselves all the learning, power, wealth, and influence existing in their country.

This is an important point, and requires to be accurately examined. The Gospel was engrafted upon the Jewish religion. The Jews, we know, derived from their peculiar religion very peculiar sentiments; certain national opinions and prejudices were universally received among them, in which every sect agreed. Did the Christian religion agree or disagree with these prevailing opinions? because, upon this question the chance of its being a Jewish invention, or of its being embraced by any of that people, will materially depend.

I. There is no doubt, that at the time when Jesus appeared, the Jews were expecting a prophet, or a king, or a deliverer, known from their ancient writings under the title of the Messiah. This expectation had even extended through

other parts of the East. Such a belief is implied in the inquiry of the Magi who came to Jerusalem to pay homage, asking "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?" We read, too, of "devout men," who were "waiting for the consolation of Israel." All were desiring "one who should come." He was anticipated, moreover, under the very title which Jesus assumed. The Samaritan woman spoke the general opinion, when she said, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. And the impression produced by the appearance of Jesus is represented as this; "Come, see a man which told me all that ever I did: is not this the Christ? When Christ cometh, will he do greater things than these??"

Now, suppose the case assumed that a person, with no divine commission, resolved to claim to himself the character of the expected Messiah. He would lay hold of the popular hope of such an appearance, as the most reason