he will be, and what will be the blessings he is to bring, we cannot clearly see; we will patiently wait the event.'

And others again, (like most of the disciples,) though they had formed expectations of a temporal Messiah, yielded humbly and candidly to the evidence of Christ's miracles, and submitted to learn from Him. When He did come, then a practical question arose. Before his coming there was nothing to be done, in consequence of interpreting the prophecies this way or that. But when a person appeared who was supposed to be the Christ, then it became a duty to examine his claims, and either reject Him as an impious impostor, or acknowledge and submit to Him as from Heaven. And as soon as men were thus called on to act, observe what a blaze of light is bestowed, in contrast to the faint twilight which prevailed before, when nothing practical was involved. Jesus wrought such miracles that his opponents were compelled to refer them to the agency of demons. None but the obstinately prejudiced could have any doubt of his divine mission.

And this is just of a piece with the general character of God's teaching. Speculative matters are touched on slightly and obscurely; but practical questions are made plain to every candid mind.

The prophecies concerning Christ's coming were, before He did come, very obscure; and the right interpretation of them was not necessary for practice: after He was come, and when they were fulfilled, the right interpretation of them became a matter of the highest practical importance; and then, the event made them clear to every fair inquirer.

'Our Lord's predictions concerning the destruction of

Jerusalem.'

It is a most remarkable point in this prophecy and its accompanying directions, that the Disciples were directed to fly, not, as soon as the war should break out, but when Jerusalem should be encompassed with armies;' which might be expected -humanly speaking-to intercept their flight.

Now how stands the event? The Roman army when encamped before the city, was seized with a strange and sudden panic, such as no one could have conjectured; and made a hasty retreat. This afforded a triumph to the Jewish warriors;

though only temporary, as the Romans soon returned; but the interval allowed the escape of the Christians.

And this proves, among other things-that the prophecy could not have been forged after the event. For if the Christians did-as no doubt was the fact-conform to the precept given, this could have been only in consequence of that precept; since otherwise their conduct in doing so would have been unaccountable. And if it be supposed that they did not adopt that course, then, a forger of a feigned prophecy would not have inserted a direction that had not been complied with.

Ν

CHAPTER II.

The Morality of the Gospel.

IN stating the morality of the gospel as an argument of its

truth, I am willing to admit two points; first, that the teaching of morality was not the primary design of the mission; secondly, that morality, neither in the gospel, nor in any other book, can be a subject, properly speaking, of discovery.

If I were to describe in a very few words the scope of Christianity, as a revelation,' I should say, that it was to influence the conduct of human life, by establishing the proof of a future state of reward and punishment—' to bring life and immortality to light.' The direct object, therefore, of the design is, to supply motives, and not rules; sanctions, and not precepts.

And

1 Great and inestimably beneficial effects may accrue from the mission of Christ, and especially from his death, which do not belong to Christianity as a revelation ; that is, they might have existed, and they might have been accomplished, though we had never, in this life, been made acquainted with them. These effects may be very extensive. They may be interesting even to other orders of intelligent Beings. I think it is a general opinion, and one to which I have long come, that the beneficial effects of Christ's death extend to the whole human species. It was the redemption of the world. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the whole world.'-1 John ii. 2. Probably the future happiness, perhaps the future existence of the species, and more gracious terms of acceptance extended to all, might depend upon it, or be procured by it. Now these effects, whatever they be, do not belong to Christianity as a revelation; because they exist with respect to those to whom it is not revealed.

these were what mankind stood most in need of. The members of civilized society can, in all ordinary cases, judge tolerably well how they ought to act; but without a future state, or, which is the same thing, without credited evidence of that state, they want a motive to their duty; they want at least strength of motive, sufficient to bear up against the force of passion, and the temptation of present advantage. Their rules want authority. The most important service that can be rendered to human life, and that, consequently, which, one might expect beforehand, would be the great end and office of a revelation from God, is to convey to the world authorized assurances of the reality of a future existence. And, although in doing this or by the ministry of the same person by which this is done, moral precepts, or examples, or illustrations of moral precepts, may be occasionally given, and be highly valuable, yet still they do not form the original purpose of the mission.

Secondly, morality, neither in the gospel, nor in any other book, can be a subject of discovery, properly so called. By which proposition, I mean that there cannot, in morality, be anything similar to what are called discoveries in natural philosophy, in the arts of life, and in some sciences; as the system of the universe, the circulation of the blood, the polarity of the magnet, the laws of gravitation, alphabetical writing, decimal arithmetic, and some other things of the same sort; facts, or proofs, or contrivances, before totally unknown and unthought of. Whoever therefore expects, in reading the New Testament, to be struck with discoveries in morals, in the manner in which his mind was affected when he first came to the knowledge of the discoveries above mentioned; or rather in the manner in which the world was affected by them, when they were first published; expects what, as I apprehend, the nature of the subject renders it impossible that he should meet with. And the foundation of my opinion is this, that the qualities of actions depend entirely upon their effects, which effects must all along have been the subject of human experience.

When it is once settled, no matter upon what principle, that to do good is virtue, the rest is calculation. But since the calculation cannot be instituted concerning each particular action, we establish intermediate rules; by which proceeding, the business of morality is much facilitated, for then, it is con

cerning our rules alone that we need inquire, whether in their tendency they be beneficial; concerning our actions we have only to ask, whether they be agreeable to the rules. We refer actions to rules, and rules to public happiness. Now, in the formation of these rules, there is no place for discovery properly so called, but there is ample room for the exercise of wisdom, judgment, and prudence.

As I wish to deliver argument rather than panegyric, I shall treat of the morality of the gospel, in subjection to these observations. And after all, I think it such a morality, as, considering from whom it came, is most extraordinary; and such as, without allowing some degree of reality to the character and pretensions of the religion, it is difficult to account for: or, to place the argument a little lower in the scale, it is such a morality as completely repels the supposition of its being the tradition of a barbarous age or of a barbarous people, of the religion being founded in folly, or of its being the production of craft and it repels also, in a great degree, the supposition of its having been the effusion of an enthusiastic mind.

The division, under which the subject may be most conveniently treated of, is that of the things taught, and the manner of teaching.

Under the first head, I should willingly, if the limits and nature of my work admitted of it, transcribe into this chapter the whole of what has been said upon the morality of the gospel, by the author of The Internal Evidence of Christianity: because it perfectly agrees with my own opinion, and because it is impossible to say the same things so well. This acute observer of human nature, and, as I believe, sincere convert to Christianity, appears to me to have made out satisfactorily the two following positions, viz.

I. That the gospel omits some qualities, which have usually engaged the praises and admiration of mankind, but which in reality, and in their general effects, have been prejudicial to human happiness.

II. That the gospel has brought forwards some virtues, which possess the highest intrinsic value, but which have commonly been overlooked and contemned.

The first of these propositions he exemplifies, in the instances of friendship, patriotism, active courage; in the sense in which

these qualities are usually understood, and in the conduct which they often produce.

The second, in the instances of passive courage or endurance of sufferings, patience under affronts and injuries, humility, irresistance, placability.

The truth is, there are two opposite descriptions of character, under which mankind may generally be classed. The one possesses vigour, firmness, resolution: is daring and active, quick in its sensibilities, jealous of its fame, eager in its attachments, inflexible in its purpose, violent in its resentments.

The other, meek, yielding, complying, forgiving; not prompt to act, but willing to suffer; silent and gentle under rudeness and insult, suing for reconciliation where others would demand satisfaction, giving way to the pushes of impudence, conceding and indulgent to the prejudices, the wrong-headedness, the intractability of those with whom it has to deal.

The former of these characters is, and ever hath been, the favourite of the world. It is the character of great men. There is a dignity in it which universally commands respect.

The latter is poor-spirited, tame, and abject. Yet so it hath happened, that, with the founder of Christianity, this latter is the subject of his commendation, his precepts, his example; and that the former is so, in no part of its composition. This, and nothing else, is the character designed in the following remarkable passages: 'Resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also; and whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain; love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you.' This certainly is not common-place morality. It is very original. It shows at least (and it is for this purpose we produce it) that no two things can be more different than the Heroic and the Christian character.

Now the author, to whom I refer, has not only remarked this difference more strongly than any preceding writer, but has proved, in contradiction to first impressions, to popular opinion, to the encomiums of orators and poets, and even to the suffrages of historians and moralists, that the latter character