"were not both idiots and madmen, it is not possible to ac "count for their conduct, on any other supposition than "this, that their testimony is true.” See Beattie's Evidences of the Christian Religion, pages 144, &c. Vol. I.

Mr. Maltby, in his excellent Illustrations of the Christian Re ligion, has made the following very judicious remarks, upon this subject" Let us consider the manner in which the Disciples "of Jesus conducted themselves after their Master was put to "death; after the ambitious hopes they had formed, were " entirely extinguished; after the notions and expectations "they had entertained of the character and power of the "Messiah, in common with their countrymen, were com"pletely and cruelly outraged.

"In a short space of time, we find these very men leading "a life, and adopting a conduct, suitable only to those who "were entirely satisfied that Jesus was the true Messiah. "They assert, upon their own knowledge, that he had risen "from the dead, and they expose themselves to contumely, "danger, and death, in proclaiming publickly that fact, as "well as in bearing witness to the miraculous actions of "their Master, during his life. And it is observable, that "the very person, who had denied and abandoned his Master "in a more solemn and public manner than the rest, was, ❝ after this interval of time, more bold and active in im"pressing upon the minds of others, his great qualities and "high character; as if anxious to make amends, by subse"quent zeal, for former incredulity.

Now surely it is extremely difficult, if not entirely im"possible, to devise any reason for this change of sentiment, "and of conduct, except we admit, that the Disciples really "believed the truth of what they taught. And as they as "serted these extraordinary facts, not upon the authority of ❝ others, but upon the repeated evidence of their own senses, ❝in matters where their senses could not be deceived, I "am unable to comprehend, how it can be practicable to " evade the conclusion, that what they affirmed was true.

"The Disciples, it is evident, must know, whether Jesus "really rose from the dead, or not. They had no temptation "to assert the fact, if it had been untrue; and they had "shewn by their conduct (in deserting him) before his death, "and immediately after it, that if they had been mistaken or "deceived in his character, they had not the courage, or the "inclination,

Y

"inclination, to defend and support it. Doubtless, from "their behaviour at that period, it may fairly be inferred, "that they were not insensible to the impulse of worldly and "ambitious motiyes; but still we should by no means be justified in concluding from those facts, that they would have countenanced an impostor, in order to promote such "ends. Yet, upon any other supposition than that of their conviction that Jesus had actually and indeed risen from the grave, we must believe that these men voluntarily exposed "themselves to disgrace, pain, and even death, for the sake "of supporting a lie; although they had given the clearest "proof, that the fear of these worldly evils had prevented "them from bearing testimony to the truth, and defending "the character of a man, whom they really revered.

"Inconsistency like this, without any assignable motive, nay when every visible motive lay the contrary way, cannot be admitted to be probable; and when by the easy "concession of believing these recorded truths, all these dif"ficulties are immediately solved, is it not the duty of every "serious enquirer, to relax from the pride and obstinacy of "scepticism, and, in a strain of humble and grateful acknow"ledgement, to admit the interference of God?" See pages * 145-149.

66

The Reader hath now before him, the great out-line of the Scripture doctrine concerning the coming of Christ, so far as Christ himself is concerned in the charge which has been brought against it, by the Historian of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and by the learned University Preacher. And it appears, with an evidence which is, almost, if not altogether, irresistible, that to do justice to the Christian records, they ought to be viewed as Histories of the Controversy, between our Lord and his countrymen, concerning the true nature of the character of the Messiah-that his language concerning it, was such, as à priori, might have been expected, from the very nature of that controversy that he could not have adopted any other language, without completely defeating the great purposes of his Mission-that the strongest expressions concerning his coming, and even those which respected the destruction of Jerusalem, cannot mean

*The Author laments much that he did not see this admirable Work

sooner.

any

any thing more than that that awful event would demonstrate how much they had mistaken the true nature of the Messiah's character, when they supposed that it would be productive of the greatest temporal advantage to them, as a nation, and such as would raise them, to the most distinguished pre-eminence among the nations of the world.

To the judicious and candid Reader of the Gospel History," it may safely be left to determine whether, even those who understand the discourses of Christ himself, in a literal sense, are not obliged, by all the rules of historical evidence, which, in the present case, is the best evidence which can possibly be desired; and, by all the principles of sound reasoning, to understand them of his first coming, as the Messiah; for to that coming, the thoughts of every Jew were, immediately and necessarily directed, upon the declaration of Jesus, that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. To that coming they, evi-' dently, and beyond all reasonable ground of dispute, directed their chief attention; not only, at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus, but throughout every period of his Life, and even after his Resurrection from the dead; as is abundantly evident, from the questions of the Disciples and of the Pharisees; the one asking him-When he would restore the kingdom to Israel?-the other, When the kingdom of God' should come? To that coming Jesus himself directed their thoughts, as the ultimate object, of all their hopes and expectations and, as that, concerning which, it was absolutely necessary for them to be fully satisfied about; never varying, or deviating, in the least, from the general purport of his original language-or leading them to think, otherwise, than as they had themselves, from the very beginning, thought, so far at least, as the coming of the Messiah only, was concerned. With respect indeed to the real nature of his coming-they differed from each other, as widely as possible; the one view, ing it as a spiritual, and the other as a temporal kingdom. But with regard to the coming itself-both had a reference, in the language which was made use of, upon the subject-not to HIS SECOND COMING in the clouds of heaven to judge all mankind-but simply and exclusively, to HIS FIRST COMING, as the Messiah, and to the establishment of that kingdom, which was necessarily connected with his coming, in that character. In one word the whole of the Gospel History, must, to do it strict justice, be considered as one continued chain

of evidence that Jesus was the true Messiah, notwithstanding he laid no claim to the character of a temporal Prince.

To those who are at all capable of judging of the nature of genuine historical evidence-nothing can appear more satisfactory than the conduct of our Lord, in this matter-nothing more strictly proper or necessary than the language which he made use of. It is even difficult to imagine, that he would have been listened to, at all, if he had said that he was the Messiah or that he, as such, was already come; having none of those proofs to offer, of his sustaining that character, which they had, invariably, affixed to it. Or if he had been listened to, it would have been only to have taken advantage of the declaration, in order that they might put him to death as an Impostor. But by the conduct which he actually did pursue all their expectations were kept afloat-their confidence in the character of Jesus as an extraordinary personage, was increased, and time was given for the gradual correction of their prejudices-for instilling into their minds, right ideas of the true nature of the Messiah's character-for unfolding to them, the various events which were to happen, in the course of his ministry, and, particularly, for leading them to form a just estimate of the rectitude of the conduct of Providence, in the approaching ruin of their country, from their own observation of the flagitious conduct of the great body of the Jews, and especially of their Rulers !

As the temporal prosperity of their country, under the reign of their Messiah, was the darling theme of the Jewish nation, and that on which their hearts were, chiefly fixed, as the grand characteristic of the Messiahship: it was, more particularly, the object of the ministry of Jesus, to shew that no such prosperity was to be expected. This, it hath been observed, he pursued, in a language which, in some instances, was highly figurative-but, by no means, uncommon among the Prophets of their nation, when great temporal calamities were described but that this language might not be mistaken, he farther described the calamities which were approaching, in terms which were divested of all figure, and which could be applied to temporal calamities ONLY. To this subject, it hath been shewn, with an evidence, bordering on demonstration; the xxivth of Matthew and its parallel chapters, together with the xviith of Luke, and his solemn declaration, before the Jewish Rulers, upon his trial, of his coming in clouds, exclusively relate!

Upon

Upon the whole, the reasoning of Mr. Henry Taylor, appears to be highly deserving the attention of those who would form an accurate judgment of the objection of the Historian of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, respecting the Scripture Doctrine of the coming of Christ: for having quoted the objection of the Historian of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which it was the principal design of this Work to confute, he says," He might have said more "justly, that the revolution of seventeen centuries has in"structed us, that those who understand the text as he does, " contrary to Reason and Prophecy, and Fact, understand it "wrong, and ought to press the mysterious language of pro"phecy and Revelation as closely as possible, in order to "elicit the true precise meaning of it, and not to rest content "with a superficial examination, which leaves them in a state "little short of Infidelity. Here then," says this Writer, "let us join issue: if those who understand the discourses of "Christ, in a literal sense, are obliged to believe his second "coming was foretold by him to be accomplished, before the "end of the then current generation; the revolution of seventeen centuries has proved the prophecy to be false. But if "those who understand the discourses of Christ, in a literal 66 sense, are not obliged to believe his second coming was fore"told to be accomplished, before the end of that genera"tion-the prophecy may, in a literal sense, be true, and the revoluion of seventeen centuries will prove, that' "Mr. Gibbon has mistaken the sense of it."*

66

Let the judicious and impartial Reader now determine, from the evidence which has, at large, been laid before him, in the preceding pages, and even from this short abstract, whether his first or his second coming, is to be understood, in these discourses of Christ, and let him pronounce sentence, upon the truth, or falsehood of Christianity, as his cool and deliberate judgement shall direct him. While the Christian records possess such ample evidence of the truth of the caseno apprehension, it may, with confidence be affirmed, needs to be entertained, as to the consequences of such a decision! If the Gospels be examined, with that accuracy and precision to which they are, on all accounts, justly entitled, as Histories, and as Histories containing the genuine evidences of the real nature of the Messiah's Character, in opposition to that

* See Taylor's Thoughts on the Grand Apostacy, page 50.