entirely without example. We have searched all the ancients to find such a plan, in vain. His taste in this respect differed altogether from theirs. Moreover nothing could have been less favorable to this magnanimous and unparalleled benevolence than the mode of thinking peculiar to the nation in which Jesus lived. It is not easy for a people to be farther removed from genuine, active philanthropy, than the Jews were at the time of Christ. They looked upon the heathen with the greatest contempt, and even shunned intercourse with them as far as possible for fear of being contaminated. By means of the odious reign of Herod the Great, who was a foreigner and recognised the Jewish religion only in appearance, and by means of the Roman supremacy, under which the country afterwards fell, this aversion had been greatly increased, and finally it ended in universal exasperation. Under such circumstances was Jesus brought up, and one would suppose that with the strength of mind which he possessed, and the ardent courage with which he braved the greatest difficulties, he would have become the deliverer of his country, and have endeavored to procure for his nation that dignity, which, according to Jewish pride, they were to maintain among nations less beloved, or perhaps even reprobated by their Creator; especially as he found his fellow citizens, as I remarked above, very much bent upon such an undertaking. But his soul was not narrow and contracted enough to devote itself to such a plan. In the midst of circumstances which might have bound it up entirely in the fetters of Jewish selfishness, and in senseless, national pride, it enlarged itself to an extent of benevolence, to a universal feeling of kindness, to a tenderness and philanthropy, of which history furnishes us with no similar example. In the plan formed by Jesus, not a trace is to be discovered of that aversion to heathen nations, so peculiar to the Jews in Palestine. On the other hand, one of its principal objects was the removal of that distinction which had hitherto existed between Jews and heathen. Mankind were to be saved, educated, and blessed, by its influence, whatever they were.

How was it possible for a man who embraced all the nations of the earth in the greatest love, and projected one of the most benevolent plans that ever sprung from a human mind, to derive his origin from a nation which despised all other nations, made hatred to them a religious duty, and considered it criminal to approach them or form connexions with them? Here every thing is new and incomprehensible; every thing governed by strange laws. External circumstances and relations are constantly at variance with the disposition and feelings of Jesus, and produce in him effects directly the opposite to what they usually do in other cases. Under such circumstances, no human mind has ever developed such qualities. If God was not with this man, it is not easy to see how he became what he was; how he could possibly have acquired that heavenly dignity, greatness, and elevation, with which he stands forth unequalled and alone in the vast space of history, far surpassing in splendor all that is worthy of admiration upon earth.

§ 113. And now let him, who has a sense of what true greatness of mind is, who can rejoice to hear of genuine magnanimity, bold undertakings, and benevolent plans, and is impartial and just enough to acknowledge, esteem, and love, truth, exaltation, and goodness, wherever found, reflect, once more, upon the extraordinary plan which I have been considering; call to mind the qualities for which its author was so strikingly distinguished, and then ask his heart, whether it is rational and just, to treat with indifference, and perhaps with base ridicule and profane contempt, the conception of such a man as Christ was; who, without any external aid, could not only undertake the most important work that was ever attempted, but even effect a movement which should reach to so many nations and last for centuries; let him consider whether such conduct is not a most biting satire upon the mind and heart of him who can so far forget himself as to be guilty of it; and whether the conviction of the many thousands, who have been induced by numerous other reasons, to look upon the founder of Christianity as a

most exalted ambassador from God to our race, as well as their Redeemer and Saviour, is not far more rational than that frivolity, which, without any rational proof, believes the contrary.

APPENDIX.

A. p. 6.

Respecting the manner in which Reinhard has apprehended the plan of Jesus.

SOME Christian readers, having hearts familiar and thoroughly_penetrated with the entire representation given by the Evangelists of the work of redemption wrought out by Jesus Christ, may be surprised, and after all, dissatisfied, on finding that this production of Reinhard contains but a partial representation of Christ's plan. It must be recollected, however, that Reinhard exhibits the plan of Jesus only as that of an institution calculated for the religious instruction and improvement of mankind at large, and, at the very commencement (p. 5) expressly declares it not to be his intention to speak of the appropriate work of redemption accomplished by Christ, that is, of the expiation of sin effected by his death, and the salvation of mankind from guilt and condemnation. That Reinhard had any doubts as to this part of Christ's work, or confined his entire merit as a Saviour, to his merit as a teacher, no one can believe, who has ever glanced at his other writings, especially his Sermons, Theology, and Confessions.* The question however may arise: What

* [The following places among others may be consulted: Sermon on the Reformation, Predigten, Vol. II. for 1800; Geständnisse, Br. IX. S. 90 ff., Sulzb., 1810; Dogmatik, § 89 ff. 4te. Aufl., especially § 107; where, after having mentioned various minor objects which were to be accomplished by Christ's death, he concludes with stating the grand one; namely, to deliver mankind from the guilt and punishment of sin, and then goes on to guard and defend the doctrine that Christ's sufferings were vicarious, against the Socinians, Universalists, &c. Comp. also, Biblical Theology, transl. from the work of Storr and Flatt by Schmucker, Vol. II. pp. 218, 229. Tr.]

induced Reinhard to take such a general view of Christ's plan, and whether this part of it can be separated from Christ's other work?

The reasons of Reinhard's mode of proceeding in this respect, are easy to be discovered. It is necessary, inthe first place, to go back to the occasion of the present publication in the year 1781. This was the appearance of the Wolfenbuttel Fragment respecting the object of Jesus shortly before, or in the year 1778. In this work, the ethical character of Christ's plan was entirely mistaken and the plan itself degraded into an ignoble, though unsuccessful one, for assuming the control of the nation. How it was possible for a man of Reimarus' noted moral* character and distinguished, learned, and scientific education, thus to misapprehend the object of Jesus, so clearly laid down in the New Testament, and treat his personal character with insult, and often with rude profanity, will always belong to psychological problems. To the Wolfenbuttel Fragmentist, succeeded Bahrdt who did not impute to Christ a political plan indeed, for he acknowledged the moral tendency of his plan, but yet, in another point of view, he brought suspicion upon Christ's character and mode of introducing his doctrines, by making him employ the deceptions of a secret society for the purpose, which would necessarily obscure the personal dignity of Jesus and the pure splendor of his work. In opposition to these calumnies, Reinhard came forward in behalf of Christianity, and triumphantly defended the

*That Reimarus was the author of the Fragmente, Meusel considered only as probable in the Lexicon der 1750-1800, verst. teutsch. Schriftst. XI. 132; but since the communications made by Hartmann in the Leipz. Litt. Zeit. 1825, Sep. Nr. 231, 232, and by Oertel, Decemb. Nr. 299., also in the Zweifel, 1826, März, Nr. 60, to which, Nr. 61, and 1827, März, Nr. 55, an answer has been written by Gurlitt, may be looked upon as decided. Had it not been far from Reimarus' intention to publish The Fragments, one would be tempted here to adopt the opinion of Samuel Johnson, respecting the publication of Bolingbroke's works after his death. Vid. Boswell's Life of Johnson, Vol. I. 171. [Vol. I. p. 210, Bost., 1807. To this may also be added the opinion of Geo. Whitefield.___ Vid. his-Eighteen Sermons, S. XVI. p. 205, N. B. N. J., 1802. · Tr.]