Thus was this celebrated emperor CC taken in his own craftiness," and his presumptuous attempt to frustrate the plans, and falsify the declarations of infinite omnipotence and wisdom, converted into a new and striking evidence of their certainty and truth.

We shall now proceed to reply to two or three objections, which may be rashly opposed to the impregnable argument which the preceding account furnishes in defence of our religion.

I. It may be alleged, that the prophecies, whose fulfilment has been demonstrated, were not written until after the events to which they refer were past.

Assertion is not proof; and even a conjecture to this effect, in the face of the his

*This subject is discussed at length, with singular ingenuity and force of argument, by the learned bishop Warburton, in his work entitled Julian.

toric testimony, and general sentiment of seventeen ages, would be ridiculous. On the faith, then, of all antiquity, we affirm, that the gospels containing these predictions were written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and we confirm this assertion by particular proof. The gospel of St. Matthew, who died previously to that event, supposed to have been written about eight years after the ascension of our Saviour, was published before the dispersion of the apostles; for Eusebius says, that St. Bartholomew took a copy of it with him to India; and the dispersion of the apostles took place within twelve years af ter the ascension of our Lord. Mark must have written his gospel at the latest in the time of Nero, for he died in the eighth year of that emperor's reign. The gospel by St. Luke was written before the Acts, as the first verses of that narrative prove; and the Acts were written before the death of St. Paul, for they carry down his history only to A. D. 63; whereas he was not crucified until the 12th of Nero,

K

the very year before the Jewish war commenced. Of Luke's death the time is uncertain. As to the Evangelist John, he both lived and wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem; but then, as if purposely to prevent this very cavil, his gospel does not record the prophecies which foretold it! Learned men, indeed, differ with regard to the precise year in which the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote their respective gospels; but they universally agree, that they were both written and published before the destruction of Jerusalem. As to the gospel by St. John, some are of opinion that it was written before, and some after that event.

II. If it be objected, that, although the gospel narratives might be written and published before the destruction of Jerusalem, yet that the predictions relating to that event may be subsequent interpolations; we reply, that this cannot but be considered as a preposterous supposition,. because those predictions are not confined

to the particular chapters to which we have chiefly referred, but are closely and inseparably interwoven with the general texture of the history-because the character of the style is uniform-because there is no allusion, in conformity to the practice of the sacred historians*, to the fulfilment of these prophecies-because such an attempt must have destroyed the cause it professed to serve, and, lastly, be"no unbeliever of the primitive times (whether Jew or Gentile), when pressed, as both frequently were, by this prophecy, appear to have had recourse to the charge of forgery or interpolation." It may be added also, that, in modern times, no distinguished unbeliever (not even the arch-infidels Voltaire and Gibbon) has had the temerity so much as to insinuate a charge of this nature.

cause

III. It may be alleged, that the accom plishments of our Lord's predictions relative to the destruction of Jerusalem, ought

* Vide, particularly, Acts xi. 28.

not to be deemed supernatural, inasmuch as the distresses of all great cities, during a siege, are similar, and because it is pro. bable that, some time or other, such should be the fate of every city of this description; and that, since the obstinacy of the Jews was great, and their fortifications were strong, when war did come, Jerusalem was more likely to suffer under that form of it than any other.

In answer to this objection we remark, that it was not merely foretold that Jerusalem was to be destroyed, but that it was to be destroyed by the Romans; and so it was. But was this then a likely event? When our Lord delivered his predictions, Judea was already completely in their hands. Was it a probable thing that it should be desolated by its own masters? Or was it a natural thing that they should be indifferent to the revenue which was derived from a country so populous and fertile? Again, was it likely that this petty province should provoke the wrath