done much, ought to try whether the same could be done, if Mahomet or any other person were proposed as the subject of the Jewish prophecy

Q. On what is a second head of the argument from prophecy founded?

A. Our Lord's predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, recorded by three out of the four Evangelists, Luke xxi, 5-25, Matt. xxiv, Mark xiii, and these passages are direct and explicit predictions. Q. How is the general agreement of the description with the event shewn ?

A. The ruin of the Jewish nation is most evident, and the accordancy in various articles of detail and circumstance, has been shown by many learned writers.

Q. Is it not advantageous to the argument, that we have a copious account of the transaction from Josephus ?

A. Yes; this part of the case is perfectly free from doubt. The only question that can be raised is, whether the prophecy was really delivered before the

event.

Q. What observations apply to this point?

A. The judgment of antiquity, though varying in the precise year, concurs in assigning them a date prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Q. Is not this confirmed by a strong probability arising from the course of human life?

A. Yes; the Evangelists must have been far advanced in life when Jerusalem was taken.

Q. Is it not probable that the Evangelists, if they had known of the destruction of Jerusalem, would have dropped some word about the completion ?

A. It is; in like manner as Luke (Acts xi, 28.) relating the denunciation of a dearth by Agabus, adds "which came to pass in the days of Claudius Cæsar."

Q. But would it not have been the part of an impostor, to have carefully suppressed any such intimation.

A. I admit that it would; but this was nor the character of the authors of the Gospels, of all writers they thought the least of providing against objections.

Q. Can the admonitions which Christ gave to his followers to save themselves by flight, be accounted for supposing the prophecy to have been fabricated before the event?

any

A. Not easily; if the Christians did escape from Jerusalem, at the approach of the siege, they must have had the prophecy; if they did not know of such prediction, it was an improbable fiction in a writer publishing his work near that time to state that the followers of Christ had received warnings of which they made no use.

Q. Would there not have been more specification, if the prophecies had been composed after the event? A. Most probably the names of the general, or the enemy, would have been given; the designation of the time would have been more determinate.

:

Q. Does the objection, that the prophecy of the

fall of Jerusalem is connected with the final judg ment, concern our present argument?

A. No; if Christ foretold the fall of Jerusalem, it is sufficient, even although we should allow that the narration of the prophecy had combined what had been said by him on kindred subjects.

CHAPTER II.

Q. What is the subject of this Chapter?
A. The Morality of the Gospel.

Q. In stating this, as an argument for its truth, what points will be admitted?

A. Two; first, that the teaching of morality was not its primary design; secondly, that morality, neither in the Gospel, nor any other book, can be a subject of discovery.

Q. How would you describe, in a few words, the scope of Christianity as a revelation?

A. I should say, that it was to influence the conduct of human life, by establishing the proof of future rewards and punishments.

Q. What, then, is the direct object of the design? A. To supply motives, not rules; sanctions, not precepts; and although in prosecuting the design, highly valuable moral precepts may be given, still they do not form the original purpose of the mission. Q. What is meant by saying that morality, nei

ther in the Gospel nor in any other book, can be a subject of discovery?

A. That there cannot, in morality, be any thing similar to what are called discoveries in philosophy, as the system of the universe, the circulation of the blood, gravitation, &c.

Q. Although there is no place for discovery, is there not ample room for the exercise of wisdom, judgment, and prudence?

A. Yes; for when it is once settled that to do good is virtue, the rest is calculation.

Q. Can that calculation be instituted concerning each particular action?

A. It cannot; we therefore establish rules, by which the business of morality is facilitated. We refer actions to rules, and rules to public happiness.

Q. Is it not such a morality, as, considering from whom it came, is most extraordinary?

A. Yes; such as without allowing some reality to the character of the religion, it is difficult to account for; or to place the argument lower, it is such as repels the supposition of it being the tradition of a barbarous age or people.

Q. In dividing the subject into the things taught, and the manner of teaching, what is remarked under the first head?

A. Two positions appear to be satisfactorily made out. 1st, That the Gospel omits some qualities which have engaged the admiration of men, but which, in reality and in their general effects, have been prejudicial to human happiness.

Q. What is the second?

A. That the Gospel has brought forward some virtues which possess the highest intrinsic value, but which have been commonly overlooked and contemned.

Q. By what instances are these exemplified ?

A. The first by friendship, patriotism, and active courage; the second by passive courage, patience under injuries, humility, irresistance, placability.

Q. Are there not two opposite characters under which mankind may be classed?

A. Yes; one possesses vigour, firmness, resolution; the other is meek, yielding, complying, forgiving. The former is, and ever hath been the favourite of the world; the latter is poor-spirited, tame, and abject.

Q. But which with the Founder of Christianity is the subject of his commendation, precepts, and example?

A. The latter; the former is so in no part of his composition: this character alone is designated in Matt. v. 39-44.

Q. Is this common-place morality?

A. No; it is very original. It shows at least that no two things can be more different than the heroic and the Christian character.

Q. What arguments are employed in contradicition to popular opinion, to poets, orators, historians, and moralists, to prove that the latter character possesses the most of true worth?