Q. But it will be said, if one religion make its way without miracles, why may not another?

A. I reply, first, this is not the question; but whether a religion, founding itself in miracles, could succeed without any reality to rest upon. It is very observable that Mahomet did not disclaim miraculous evidence from an unconsciousness of its importance, since he incessantly refers ro the miracles of preceding prophets.

Q. Are there not causes for the establishment of Mahomet's religion, which in no degree belong to the origin of Christianity?

A. Many; yet his converts during the first twelve years of his mission, while he confined himself to persuasion, were very few. He was wealthy, of high descent, and nearly allied to the chiefs of his country. At the outset he proceeded as a politician would conduct a plot-he applied first to his own family, and in three years obtained fourteen proselytes. After he commenced his public preaching his success was no more than might be expected from his advantages, and the singular circumstance of there being no established religion in Mecca to contend with.

Q. Did not the Arabians acknowledge the unity of God, though associated with many idolatrous notions ?

A. They did; the unity of God was Mahomet's great doctrine, and this doctrine he recommended to the Arabians as the same believed by their great progenitors, Abraham and Ishmael-as the belief of Moses and of Christ.

Q. Do not the two purposes of making converts, and making those converts soldiers, pervade the whole institution?

A. Yes; Mahomet taught the Jews, the Christians, and the Pagan Arabs, that his religion was what had been originally their own; he never ceases from describing the future anguish and torment of unbelievers; and on the other hand his voluptuous paradise seized the passions of his followers. But the highest heaven was for those who expended their lives and fortunes in his cause.

Q. How was his doctrine of predestination applied? A. To the same purpose-of fortifying and exalting the courage of his adherents. The institution of fasts, the pilgrimage to Mecca, and the prohibition of inebriating liquors, did not take place until his military successes had established his authority. For the latter prohibition, which was not irksome in warm regions, he compensated by a licentious indulin the use of women. gence

Q. Is not the peaceable part of Mahomet's mission the only part which admits of any comparison with the origin of Christianity?

A. It is; for when the inhabitants of Medina had, as it should seem, recourse to his authority from the miseries of contending sects of Pagans, Jews, and Christians, he changed his language and conduct. He pretended to have received a Divine commission to destroy infidelity and to set up the true faith by the sword.

Q. What was the result?

A. An early victory over a superior force, which from this time leaves us nothing to account for. Death or conversion was the only alternative for the idolaters; conversion, tribute, or the sword, for Jews and Christians. His conquests would thus naturally carry his religion with them, particularly when they were constantly represented as divine declarations in his favour.

Q. What inference can be drawn from these successes, to the prejudice of the Christian argument? A. None; because they bear so little or no resemblance to the propagation of Christianity.

Q. What are we comparing?

A. A Galilean peasant accompanied by a few fishermen, with a conqueror at the head of his army. Jesus prevailing against the learning and authority of the Roman empire at its most polished period. Mahomet collecting followers in the darkest ages and countries of the world.

Q. Does then, the success of Mahometanism stand in our way?

A. No; the important conclusion is clear, that the propagation of Christianity in the manner and under the circumstances in which it was propagated, is an unique in the history of the species.

Q. Why then have you placed the prevalency of the religion amongst the auxiliary arguments of its truth?

A. Because, whether it had prevailed or not, or

H

whether its prevalency can or cannot be accounted for, the direct argument remains still.

PART III.

Q. To what is the third part devoted? A. To a brief consideration of some popular objections.

CHAPTER I.

Q. What are they which form the subject of the first chapter?

A. The discrepancies between the several Gospels. Q. What is the usual character of human testimony?

A. Substantial truth under circumstantial variety. This is what the daily experience of courts of justice teaches, certain inconsistencies often make little impression, but a minute agreement induces the suspicion of fraud.

Q. Does not ancient history, and even our own, supply examples of such inconsistencies?

A. Many; yet they are not deemed sufficient to shake the credibility of the main fact. So the dif

ferent hours of the day assigned to the crucifixion, by John and the other Evangelists, by no means warrant the discrediting of the history as to the principal fact.

Q. Do not many of the discrepancies of the Gospels arise from omission ?

A. Certainly; and omission is at all times a very uncertain ground of objection.

Q. Will not discrepancies be still more numerous when men do not write histories but memoirs?

A. They will; and this perhaps is the proper description of our Gospels, whose writers never undertook to deliver in order of time an account of all the things of importance which the person who was the subject of the history did or said; but only such as were suggested by their particular design at the time of writing.

Q. What appears to have been Matthew's particular design in his history of the Resurrection?

A. To attest the faithful performance of Christ's promise to his disciples, to go before them into Galilee. This most public manifestation of Christ dwelt upon St. Matthew's mind and he adapted his narrative to it. But there is nothing in his language which negatives other appearances.

Q. Why does it appear that St. Mark, who uses the same terms, did not mean to be understood as saying this was Christ's first appearance ?

A. Because he records two other appearances prior to this. The same observation concerning