THE siege of Jerusalem lasted only five months. But from the immense strength of the place, and the desperation of the inhabitants, it was expected to sustain a much longer resistance. According to the testimony of Roman historians, nearly a million of Jews perished within the walls; and Josephus supposed a still greater number. Titus, the Roman general, after the conquest of the city, exclaimed—“We have fought with the assistance of God; it was God who drove the Jews out of these fortifications for what could the hand of man effect against such works." Our Saviour had said, "Except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." Matt. 24. 22. The providential circumstances which seem to have shortened the time of the siege, were such as these-the intestine divisions among the Jews, the wanton destruction of provisions by the opposite factions, and the vast number of foreign Jews, who had come to Jerusalem to attend Vol. IV. No. 8. 27 the passover. As the multitude of foreign Jews augmented the number inclosed within the walls of the city, they also increased the famine and the pestilence. Our Lord also had said, "They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations." The truth of this prediction and its accomplishment, we have no occasion to prove, by quoting authorities. Our Saviour added, "And Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled." In agreement with this prediction, Jerusalem has been subject to the Romans, the Saracens, the Egyptians, the Mamelukes, the Franks, and the Turks. The Jews have never possessed it, and they still remain distinct and dispersed among all nations. It is also never to be forgotten, that contrary to the usual practice of the Romans, and to the will of Titus, who made.exertions to preserve it— the city was entirely destroyed. They dug up the walls, they ploughed up the foundations of the temple: and the only monu ments left of the metropolis were some towers, which were suffered to stand, as proof of the impregnable nature of the works, and the courage of the besiegers. For said our Lord, "Thine enemies shall lay thee even with the ground, and they shall not leave one stone upon another which shall not be thrown down." "Behold your house is left unto you desolate." The destruction of Jerusalem took place thirty-seven years after the crucifixion of our Saviour. This accords with his prediction. "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away till all these things be accomplished. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Although he, limited the time to that "generation," he did not foretell precisely the day or the year-"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, nor the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." The precise day had not then been revealed to him, but the event was to take place while some of that generation should be living. The uncertainty as to the day or the year, was a strong argument for vigilance on the part of the disciples, and hence the propriety of the reiterated injunctions, to watch, to pray, and to be always ready. The circumstances which have been mentioned, are not even the larger part of those which might be enumerated and confirmed by undisputed histories. But on a careful review of those which have been mentioned, who will not be ready to exclaim-"O Lord, how unsearchable are thy judgments! and thy ways past finding out! who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor!" But some unbeliever may ask, what is your authority for believing the minute fulfilment of these extraordinary predictions? We answer, that we have the same kind of evidence in support of the facts which have been stated, that we have for believing that there was such a city as Jerusalem, and that this city was destroyed-the testimony of reputable historians. Read the history of Josephus, then lay your hand upon your heart and say, whether any facts can be better substantiated. Josephus was a Jew, but not a Christian. He wrote his history of the conquest of Jerusalem, not under prepos sessions in favour of Christianity, and was probably ignorant of the predictions of our Saviour. He was an eye witness of the calamities which befel his nation; and while he records them, he attempts to account for their unparalleled greatness, by describing the wickedness of the people. His history is confirmed by the publick register to which he confidently appeals; by the testimony of Vespasian, to whom his book was presented, and it has all the marks of authenticity which any narrative can be supposed to exhibit. But even if the history of Josephus had not come down to us, the Roman historians would have been sufficient to have confirmed the essential parts of the prediction. It is perhaps not too much to say, that there is no other portion of ancient history more circumstantially, minutely and faithfully transmitted to us, than that of the Jewish war predicted by the Messiah. Is there no providence in this ? Will any objector ask,-Might not the prediction have been written after the event? We answer; on as good ground as you believe that Jerusalem was destroyed when it was, or that it was destroyed at all, you may believe that the prediction preceded the event. The question in short comes to this, Is any thing recorded in ancient history worthy of being credited? I ask then, whether you believe that those hooks of the New Testament, called the gospels, of Matthew, Mark and Luke, were written by the men whose names they bear? If you say you do not; I must ask the reason: Why are they not as likely to be genuine, as the history of Tacitus, or any other writer of that age? Till some answer can be given to this question, may it not be taken for granted, that the books were written by the reputed authors, and before the destruction of Jerusalem? Matthew was one of the twelve apostles, and there is abundant evidence that all the apostles died before Jerusalem was destroyed, except John; and it is truly remarkable, that the only apostle who could have forged the prediction after the event, has not recorded it at all. It may also be observed, that in the Epistles contained in the New Testament, there are plain allusions or references to such an event, as approaching. It seems to have been a thing generally expected by the Christians. Were then these Epistles written after the destruction of Jerusalem? If not, whence did the writers or the Christians in general, derive the idea of the tremendous calamities which were at hand? Need it be repeated, that the whole voice of antiquity repecting the Epistles, concurs in assigning them a date prior to the ruin of Jerusalem? Need the unbeliever be challenged to point out a single word, clause, or passage in the gospels, from which it can be reasonably inferred, that they were written after the predicted events took place. Had they been written subsequent to the events, would there not probably have been some specification of names and dates? Is there any thing in the complexion of these historians from beginning to end, which has even the appearance of cunning or imposture, or of any thing but unrivalled simplicity? Once more; Suppose the prophecy to have been fabricated after the event. By whom was it done? It must surely have been done by a Christian. But in it there are admonitions of Christ to his disciples, to save themselves by flight. The Christians, when the siege approached, either did make their escape, or they did not. If they did, they must have had the prophecy among them; for the event was sudden and unexpected to the nation. If the Christians did not make their escape, let me ask, would any intelligent Christian, in writing for Christians a history of their master, have been so ab surd as to insert admonitions as delivered by him to them, of which they had made no use when the occasion occurred? Would he have fabricated these admonitions, when facts had already proved, that those who were most concerned to know and re gard them, were either ignorant of them, or had treated them with neglect? The subject is too important to be thus dismissed. Some reflections on the prophecy itself, and on the principal event foretold, may be expected in subsequent numbers. f WHY WAS JESUS CHRIST PERSECUTED? Ir is an interesting question, Why was Christ persecuted? By what conduct, and what doctrines, did he awaken that unrelenting malignity which pursued him to the cross, and even exulted in his last pangs? The subject is important, as it throws a lustre on the character of our Lord, and as it may correct some mistakes as to the class of his followers, to whom the honour eminently belongs of walking in his steps. One principal cause of the persecution of Jesus (a cause to which our remarks will now be confined) is to be found in the enlarged, generous and liberal sentiments, which he communicated in relation to the character of God, and to the nature of religion. Jesus was sent to live and to preach in the midst of a bigoted, exclusive and censorious people, who regarded God as a partial being, and expected to monopolize his favour, who regarded all other nations with contempt, and ascribed to the Creator the same unfriendly feelings, who placed religion in nar forms of worship which were confined to themselves, and, through an excessive and arrogant estimation of their own distinctions and peculiarities, discarded the obligations of general benevolence, and severed as far as possible the bond which united them to the great family of mankind. Such were the Jews, and especially the Pharisees;-and what course did Jesus pursue? His whole ministry was one continued testimony against their row and unworthy views of God and of his service; one continued testimony to the unbounded love of our heavenly Father, and to his delight in benevolence and charity, as the most acceptable service which his creatures can render him. Jesus continually taught, that the character of God is parental, that his love extends beyond the Jew to the Gentile, and that many shall come from the east and west, the north and south, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in his kingdom. He taught, that God prefers mercy or humanity to ac sacrifice, that the noblest use of the Sabbath is doing good, and that the compassionate Samaritan, although a worshipper on Mount Gerizim, was more ceptable to God than the Priest and Levite, whose superiour light did not guide them to charity. He taught, that the Pharisee, notwithstanding his long prayers and disfigured face, was an abomination in the sight of Heaven, because he despised and condemned others, because he valued himself on his forms, and made a parade of saintship, whilst his heart was a stranger to mercy, justice, and the love of God. He taught that God abhors ostentation, censoriousness and spiritual pride, and that the service, in which he most delights, consists in the exercise of a candid and forgiving temper, and in modest and silent acts of kindness and devotion. In one word, he taught, that God loves not a chosen few, but sent his son to be the Saviour of the world; that Publicans, Sinners, ↑ Samaritans and Gentiles are all comprehended in the offers of his mercy; that love of enemies and a love of peace constitute men, in the noblest sense, children and and followers of their Father in heaven; and that the reign of Messiah consists, not in spreading a religion of forms, or in exalting a particular people, but in diffusing through the whole earth filial piety, humility, and charity. These generous and enlarged views were a principal cause of the malignity and persecution, which fell on the head of Jesus. The Elders, Rulers, Scribes and Pharisees, hated him because he testified against their narrowness, hypocrisy, pride and bigotry, because he resisted their exclusive feelings and hopes, and in his conduct and teaching, inculcated a liberality of sentiment altogether uncongenial with the spirit of his age. It is true, that they condemned Jesus at last on different grounds. They accused him before Pilate, of making himself a king and the Son of God. But in this they discov ered their characteristick hypocrisy. At that very moment, they were looking with restless impatience for a distinguished personage, who would assume these very titles, of Son of God and king of Israel, and under whose sway they hoped to subvert the throne of the Cæsars; and one great objection to Jesus was, that he gave no countenance to these views, but preferred the glory of founding a spiritual empire of love to God and to mankind. We thus learn one principal cause of that singular hatred with which Jesus was pursued, his actions watched, his words perverted, his character aspersed, and his bloodshed on the cross as if he were the vilest of malefactors. To the same cause we must ascribe, in a great degree, the persecution of the apostles. Every where the Jews followed these first preachers of Christianity with clamour and rage, because they taught, that God was the God of the Gentiles as well as the Jews, that the blessings of the Messiah were equally extended to all mankind, that the partition wall of the Mosaick dispensation was broken down, and that love was the fulfilling |