but should also "preach good tidings to the "meek and the poor." These were two distinct and separate marks by which he was to be known, and it was therefore as proper and neceffary for our Saviour to refer to the one as to the other. Whoever pretended to be the MESSIAH, muft unite in himself these two great difcriminating peculiarities, which, taken together, form one of the moft illuftrious and beneficent characters that can be imagined; a character diftinguished by the communication of the greatest of all earthly bleffings to two defcriptions of men, who stood most in need of affiftance, the difeafed, and the poor. To the former, the promised Saviour of the world was to give health; to the latter, Spiritual inftruction, In this manner was the great Redeemer marked out by the prophets, and this glorious diftinction did Chrift difplay and fupport in his own person throughout the whole course of his ministry.

That he was infinitely fuperior to every other teacher of religion in the number, and the benevolent nature of his miracles, is well known; and that he was no lefs diftinguished * Isaiah xxix. 18, 19. xxxv. 5, 6. lxį. 1. VOL. II, S.

by

by the circumftance of "

preaching to the

poor;" that there was no one either before or after him, who made it fo much his peculiar business to inftruct them, and paid fuch conftant and condefcending attention to them as he did, is equally certain. The ancient prophets were ufually fent to kings and princes, to the rich and the great, and many of their prophecies were couched in fublime figurative language, beyond the comprehenfion of the vulgar. There were, indeed, other parts of the Jewish fcriptures fufliciently plain and intelligible, and adapted to all capacities; but even thefe the rabbies and the fcribes, the great expounders of the law among the Jews, contrived to perplex and darken, and render almost uselefs by their vain traditions, their abfurd gloffes, and childish interpretations. So far were they from showing any particular regard or tendernefs to the common people, that they held them in the utmost contempt; they confidered them as accurfed*, becaufe they knew not that law, which they themselves took care to render impenetrably obfcure to them." They took away the key of knowledge; they entered • John vii. 48, 49.

“

" not

"not in themfelves, and thofe that were en

tering in they hindered *." It was even a proverbial faying among them, "that the Spi"rit of God did not reft but upon a rich "mant." So different were the maxims of the great Jewish teachers from the fentiments and conduct of that heavenly Inftructor, who openly declared, and gloried in the declaration, that he came "to preach the Gospel to the poor+."

Nor did the lower ranks of mankind meet with better treatment in the heathen world There were among the ancient Pagans, at different periods, and in different countries, many excellent moral writers of fine talents and profound knowledge; but their compofitions were calculated not for the illiterate and

* Luke xi. 52. + Grotius on Matth. xi. 5.

in

It may be alledged, that by the poor, to whom our Lord preached the Gofpel, the facred writers meant not the poor circumftances, but the poor in fpirit. The truth is, they meant both; by our Saviour's conduct both fenfes were equally verified; and these two sorts of poverty are fo frequently found united, that it is scarce neceffary, at least in the present instance, to diftinguish between them. For more complete fatisfaction on this and fome other points (of which but a very imperfect view is given here) fee Bishop Hurd's admirable fermon on Matth. v. 3. f. 8.

the indigent, but for men of ability and erudition like themselves. They thought the poor below their notice or regard; they could not ftoop fo low as to accommodate themselves to the understanding of the vulgar. Their ambition, even in their ethical treatifes, was to please the learned few. To these the Dialogues of Plato, the Ethics of Ariftotle, the Offices of Cicero, the Morals of Seneca and of Plutarch, might afford both entertainment and information; but had they been read to a Grecian or a Roman peafant, he would not, I conceive, have found himfelf either much enlightened or much improved by them. How fhould he get wisdom from fuch fources "that "holdeth the plough, and that glorieth in the

goad; that driveth oxen, and is occupied in "their labours; that giveth his mind to make "furrows, and is diligent to give the kine "fodder*." Very different occupations thefe from the ftudies of the philofopher or the metaphyfician, and not very well calculated to prepare the mind for the lectures of the academy, the lyceum, or the portico..

* Ecclus xxxviii. 25, 26.

The

The truth is, there was not a fingle book. of morality at that time written folely or principally for the ufe of the ignorant and the poor; nor had they their duty explained to them in any other mode of inftruction adapted to their capacities. They had no leffons of conduct given them fo plain, fo familiar, fo forcible, fo authoritative, as thofe which are now regularly dispensed to every Christian congregation; nothing that made, the smallest approach to our Saviour's divine difcourfes, (especially that from the Mount) to the ten commandments, to the other moral parts of the Old and New Teftament, or to the practical instructions and exhortations given weekly to the people by the minifters of the Gospel. They were left to form a system of morality for themselves as well as they could; in which they were so far from being affifted by their national religion, that both the mode and the objects of their worship, were of themselves fufficient to corrupt their hearts, and to counteract any right opinions or virtuous inclinations that might cafually fpring up in their

minds.