It was a part of Woolston's scheme to charge Christ with a secret design of getting temporal power, notwithstanding he openly disavowed all such pretensions. In answer to this the author of the Trial showed, from the uniform character and conduct of Jesus, that Woolston's notion was void of all colour of support. Does the Considerer now enter into the argument as it stands in the Trial? No. But he takes the passages independently of the argument, of which they are a part; and thinks that taken by themselves they are not true. Be it so; what then does it signify to the fact of the resurrection, which he was to disprove? Why all this parade of many quotations from the Trial, since they do not relate to the point in dispute? Some good friend, I suspect, had asked the Considerer these questions, which he could not answer; and though he was unwilling to part with so many quotations at once, yet to prevent the same questions being asked him again, he has in his new edition confessed that "be this (that is, the ancient prophecies of the kingdom) mystically or conditionally true, it concerns not the resurrection. Yet let not truth be denied."

Well, then, the credit of the resurrection is so far safe. But he thinks it not true that Christ declined temporal power; and truth must not be denied. He goes on to produce prophecies, that God would give him the throne of his father David, and says that he was called king of Israel, king of the Jews, and rebuked not those who gave him the title. And why should he rebuke them, since he claimed that title, and never denied that he was king of the Jews? But the Considerer seems not to know that there never was a question between Jews and Christians, whether Jesus was or pre

tended to be a temporal prince. Both sides agree that he neither was nor pretended to be. But the question was and is, whether, according to ancient prophecy, the Messias was to be a temporal prince. Had not the prophets declared him to be a great prince, there would have been no dispute, whether he was to be a temporal or spiritual prince. Quoting therefore these prophecies will not determine the question; for the doubt is not, whether there are such prophecies or no, but what is the meaning of them.

The Considerer says, that "Jesus was commonly called king of the Jews, only he had not the kingdom: therefore, when he was about to suffer for it, he found it was not of this world. This confession he prudently made at a proper time, though it had not the effect to save his life." After what has already appeared of this author's spirit, it is in vain to complain of the impiety of this charge of fraud and deceit on our blessed Saviour. There is one to whom he must answer for it. In the mean time, how will he answer to reasonable inquirers the disingenuousness of concealing that Jesus, so far from denying himself to be the king of the Jews, confessed it before Pilate? (Matt. xxix. 11; Mark xv. 2; Luke xxiii. 3; John xviii. 37.) And as to the nature of this kingdom he declared it "not to be of this world,” (John xviii. 36.) With what conscience now does the Considerer ask, "how it appears by any thing recorded that Jesus explained away the kingly office of the Messias?? Explain it away! No. He insisted on it to the last. But if he means to ask whether Jesus ever explained away the temporal kingdom, it is manifest from every part and every circumstance of his life that he never claim

ed it. If he means to ask whether Jesus ever explained the nature of the kingdom of the Messias, what more is wanting than his confession to Pilate, that he was king of the Jews, and that his "kingdom was not of this world?" Was it not sufficiently declaring that the ancient prophecies, which foretold the kingdom of the Messias, did not mean a temporal kingdom?

66

But if Christ did not pretend to temporal power, the Considerer says, why was the government alarmed, and Jesus looked on as a person dangerous to the state, who was the best friend among the Jews the Roman government had, to preserve the people from enthusiastic seditions? If this be true, it was the worst policy in the world for the Romans to put him to death." The Considerer here has by chance deviated into more truth than he was aware of. Jesus was indeed the very person proper to preserve the people from enthusiastic seditions, and so far a friend to the Roman government. But who told him the Roman government was alarmed? Why, he has it from the Trial; but according to custom has taken the objector's words for the words of the author of the Trial. And the Considerer would not have argued on this supposition, had he attended in the least to the gospel history. Where does he read that the Roman government was alarmed, and thought Jesus a person dangerous to the state? Where does he find that the Roman government persecuted him to death? The Jewish government indeed did; but Pilate came unwillingly into their measures, and consented not to his death till overborne by clamour and sedition.

What the Considerer had in view in this confused discourse about Christ's kingdom, I cannot

guess. He seems to think Jesus understood the prophecies to relate to a temporal kingdom, and in consequence claimed it, and that he did not renounce a kingdom of this world, till driven to it by despair and necessity. But where did he learn this secret? Not from the gospel history, nor yet from any enemies of the gospel, whether Jews or heathens; who never have charged Jesus with setting up for temporal power. The Jews object to him the want of temporal power, which they imagine their Messias is to exercise in the fullest extent, but never accuse him for pretending to it. One would imagine it impossible for any one, who had read the four gospels or any one of them, to

entertain this conceit.

Look into the gospel; every page will afford a proof that Jesus, though he claimed to be the king of the Jews foretold in the ancient prophets, yet disclaimed all temporal power and greatness. When one of the scribes offered to become his disciple, what encouragement did he find? Possibly this scribe might conceive hopes of having a share in the temporal kingdom, which he and his countrymen expected. But our Lord undeceives him, and tells him, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head," Matt. viii. 20.

When our Lord sent out his twelve disciples, he orders them expressly "to preach, saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand," Matt. x. 7. In order, then, to establish this kingdom, what power does he give them? Were they to issue out proclamations notifying that the victorious prince was come, and calling on all his subjects to arm, and to attend him? Nothing less. He gives them "power against unclean spirits," and "to heal all

diseases," Matt. x. 1. But as to their condition in this world, he tells them they should be brought before governors" (Matt. x. 18,) for his sake, and "be hated of all men;" (Matt. x. 22,) and advises them for their safety, "when persecuted in one city to flee to another," (Matt. x. 23.) Are these proofs of his claiming temporal power? In like manner, and with like commission, he sent out the seventy disciples. They return with great joy and relate to him their success: Lord, even the devils are subject to us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven," (Luke x. 17, 18.) You see it was the kingdom of Satan he came to destroy, and not the kingdom of Cæsar.

66

The apostles were in the same mistake with the rest of their countrymen, and expected a temporal kingdom; and the sons of Zebedee were early solicitors to be first ministers. Our Lord corrects their error, and tells them his kingdom was a very different thing from the kingdoms of the world. "Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles, exercise lordship over them-But so it shall not be among you; but whosoever would be great among you, shall be your minister," (Mark x. 42, 43.)

The Considerer thinks no regard is to be had to our Lord's confession before Pilate. Let us see then whether he had not made the same declaration to the rulers of the Jews before, and when he was in no immediate danger.

The rulers of the Jews very well knew that Jesus claimed to be king of the Jews foretold by the ancient prophets; and being possessed with an opinion that their wished-for king was to be a temporal prince, they were greatly scandalized at his pretensions to be king of the Jews, in whom