the quotations of the Old Teftament found in the New; fome of which quotations, it is faid, are applied in a fenfe, and to events, apparently different from that which they bear, and from thofe to which they belong, in the original. It is probable to my apprehenfion, that many of those quotations were intended by the writers of the New Testąment as nothing more than accommodations. They quoted paffages of their fçripture, which fuited, and fell in with, the occafion before them, without always undertaking to affert, that the occafion was in the view of the author of the words. Such accommodations of paffages from old authors, from books efpecially which are in every one's hands, are common with writers of all coun tries; but in none, perhaps, were more to be expected, than in the writings of the Jews, whose literature was almost entirely confined to their scriptures. Those prophecies which are alledged with more folemnity, and which are accompanied with a precife declaration, that they originally respected the event then related, are, I think, truly alledged. But

were

were it otherwise; is the judgement of the writers of the New Teftament, in interpreting paffages of the Old, or fometimes, perhaps, in receiving established interpretations, fo connected either with their veracity, or with their means of information concerning what was paffing in their own times, as that a critical mistake, even were it clearly made put, fhould overthrow their historical credit?-Does it diminish it? Has it any thing to do with it?

Another error imputed to the first Chriß tians, was the expected approach of the day of judgement. I would introduce this objection by à remark upon what appears to me a fomewhat fimilar example. Our Saviour, fpeaking to Peter of John, faid, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee*?" These words, we find, had been so misconstrued, as that "a report" from thence ❝ went abroad among the brethren, that that difciple should not die." Suppofe that this

John xxi. 23.

had

1

had come down to us amongst the prevailing opinions of the early Chriftians, and that the particular circumftance, from which the mistake fprung, had been loft (which humanly fpeaking was most likely to have been the cafe,) fome, at this day, would have been ready to regard and quote the error, as an impeachment of the whole Chriftian system. Yet with how little juftice fuch a conclufion would have been drawn, or rather fuch a prefumption taken up, the information which we happen to poffefs enables us now to perceive. To thofe who think that the fcriptures lead us to believe, that the carly. Chriftians, and even the Apoftles, expected the approach of the day of judgement in their own times, the fame reflection will occur, as that which we have made with respect to the more partial perhaps and temporary, but ftill no lefs ancient, error concerning the duration of St. John's life. It was an error,

it

may be likewife faid, which would effectually hinder those who entertained it from acting the part of impoftors.

The

The difficulty which attends the subject of the prefent chapter, is contained in this ques tion: If we once admit the fallibility of the apoftolic judgement, where are we to stop, or in what can we rely upon it? To which question, as arguing with unbelievers, and as arguing for the fubftantial truth of the Chriftian history, and for that alone, it is competent to the advocate of Chriftianity to reply, Give me the apostle's teftimony, and I do not ftand in need of their judgement; give me the facts, and I have complete fe curity for every conclufion I want.

But, although I think that it is competent to the Christian apologist to return this anfwer; I do not think that it is the only answer which the objection is capable of receiving. The two following cautions, founded, I apprehend, in the most reasonable diftinctions, will exclude all uncertainty upon this head which can be attended with danger.

First, to feparate what was the object of the apoftolic miffion, and declared by them

to

to be fo, from what was extraneous to it, or only incidentally connected with it. Of points clearly extraneous to the religion, nothing need be faid. Of points incidentally connected with it, fomething may be added. Demoniacal poffeffion is one of these points: concerning the reality of which, as this place will not admit the examination, or even the production of the arguments on either fide of the queftion, it would be arrogance in me to deliver any judgement. And it is unnecessary. For what I am concerned to observe is, that even they who think that it was a general, but erroneous, opinion of those times; and that the writers of the New Teftament, in common with other Jewish writers of that age, fell into the manner of speaking and of thinking upon the fubject, which then univerfally prevailed; need not be alarmed by the conceffion, as though they had any thing to fear from it, for the truth of Christianity. The doctrine was not what Chrift brought into the world. It appears in the Chriftian records, inciden tally and accidentally, as being the fubfifting

opinion