kind, are mere transcripts of the history, moulded into a prophetic form.

It is objected, that the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem is mixed, or connected, with expressions which relate to the final judgment of the world; and so connected as to lead an ordinary reader to expect, that these two events would not be far distant from each other. To which I answer, that the objection does not concern our present argument. If our Saviour actually foretold the destruction 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, without accurately preserving the order, or always noticing the transition of the discourse. (g)*

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

(g) These admissions are quite needless. In the Gospel of St. Luke the transition is very clear; and this may be viewed as fulfilling the purpose of a commentary on the more strictly verbal report of the discourse in the two other Gospels.-EDITOR.

* See Supplement E.

+ 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.

proof of a future state of reward and punishment, (h) 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 these were what mankind stood most in need of. (i) 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

(h) This statement seems to be very defective. However important a clear revelation of a future state, it is by no means the only, perhaps hardly the chief object of the gospel, as a Divine revelation. It was a truth already held firmly by the great body of the Jews, and was the popular creed even of the idolatrous Gentiles, with the exception of a few Sadducees and free-thinking philosophers. Our Lord himself has said, with reference to this very truth, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Even the very text here quoted does not really bear the meaning which Paley ascribes to it. To abolish death, and bring life and immortality to light, is something more than a bare revelation of a future existence. It means clearly a Divine provision for a happy existence, incorruptible and glorious. The great object of Christianity, as a revelation, is to make known the free grace of God in Christ to sinners, and thereby to redeem them from lust, selfishness, and pride, to a life of holy love and obedience on earth, and then to the full enjoyment of the Divine goodness for ever and ever. It was one essential part of this design, to establish men in the belief of a future life. But this truth was already taught, though less clearly, by Moses and the prophets, and widely received among the Jewish people. It was confirmed and illustrated by the gospel, but not revealed for the first time. The peculiar glory of the gospel is, first, that it reveals more clearly than ever before, the pardoning mercy of God to sinners, through the death of the Saviour: "The law was given by Moses; but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Secondly, that it exhibits more powerful motives for holy

"Herein

obedience to the Divine will: "The love of Christ constraineth us." is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and gave his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another." Thirdly, that it prescribes a higher and more spiritual obedience: "That we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." Fourthly, that it raises the soul into nearer and closer fellowship with God himself: "For through him we have access by one Spirit unto the Father." And lastly, that it conveys, to all who believe, a fuller assurance of a blessed immortality: "Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept." Knowing that He which raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you." It is clear, therefore, that a divine morality is one main object of the message, though not the sole, or perhaps the chief object.-EDITOR.

(i) It is true that men in general know their duty far better than they practise it. But it is also true, that the practical frequency of sin tends to pervert the conscience, and to lower the actual standard of obligation. Hence gospel precepts were almost as necessary as gospel motives, and perhaps take precedence of them, in the natural order of exhibition, as the sermon on the mount comes earlier than the promises at the last supper, and the full proclamation of mercy after the day of Pentecost.-EDITOR.

authorized assurances of the reality of a future existence. And although in doing this, or by the ministry of the same person by whom this is done, moral precepts or examples, or illustrations of 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 any thing 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.(k)

(k) The statement in this paragraph is very defective, and the reason given for it at the close is positively untrue. The moral quality of actions does not depend upon their effects, but, on the contrary, their real effects depend upon their moral quality. To see this plainly, we have only to consider the difference between an occasion and a cause. A good action may become an occasion of evil, and an evil action the occasion of good; and the sequence of events is just the same, as if, in each case, it had been the cause of what follows. How, then, can we distinguish the true effects of any action, from those of which it is merely the occasion, and which may be of the very opposite character? We cannot possibly from the events themselves, and must refer back to the voice of conscience, and the moral quality of the action. So far from human experience determining the moral nature of human actions by their complex results, we need first to learn what is their moral nature, that we may know what consequences are justly ascribed to them, and which are due only to the wickedness that turns food into poison, or to that wise providence which educes good from evil.

Again; there is no reason why there may not be discoveries in morals, as in natural philosophy. The reason here assigned would prove the very reverse; for the effects of moral actions are just as complex and various as those of physical causes. Or, if we recur to a sounder view of the true basis of morals, there is no reason why the great law of love should not be as complex in its results, as the law of physical gravitation. The physical law is equally simple in its terms as the other, and yet the highest powers of mind have been occupied for nearly two centuries in tracing out its results, and have not yet succeeded in explaining them fully. The laws of morality, it is true, must be always the same in their

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 concerning 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 con

main substance; but in their application to the various relations of human life, and of Divine Providence, they open a boundless field for growing discovery. The opposite view is the result of a very superficial view, either of the human conscience, or of the variety and fulness of the precepts in the word of God. It is not the nature of the subject, but the too frequent dulness of the conscience, through habits of worldliness and sin, which can render the precepts of the New Testament less striking than discoveries in natural sciences.-EDITOR.

(7) The first sentence of this paragraph is perhaps the greatest blot in the whole work. It implies a theory of morals as superficial and illogical as it is cold and heartless. Actions are to be tested by their consequences, which is untrue; and then their consequences are to be calculated, which is impossible. The rest is calculation: but what a calculation, for which omniscience is required; and which, even if we were omniscient, would require, as its first step, a previous decision on the moral quality of the action, that we may know which of all the events that follow are properly assigned to it! The Jews crucified our Lord, and their sin led to the redemption of a lost world. Does this make their malice less sinful, because the result was so blessed and glorious? Our Saviour spoke the truth, and they hated and murdered him on account of it. Does this render his faithful teaching criminal, because it led to such evil results in almost the whole nation? There never was so short a sentence which contained a more comprehensive, or a more dangerous error. And, besides, the conclusion does not follow, if the premises were just; for what is the use of wisdom, judgment, and prudence, but to discover and reveal what is unknown and unobserved by the foolish, imprudent, and injudicious?-EDITOR.

veniently treated, 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, namely,

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 forward 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 of 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 purposes, 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 wrongheadedness, 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 There is a dignity in it which universally commands

men.

respect.