Probably the fame obfervation, concerning the particular defign which guided the hiftorian, may be of ufe in comparing many other paffages of the gospels. CHAP. II. Erroneous opinions imputed to the Apofles. A SPECIES of candor which is fhewn towards every oth er book, is fometimes refufed to the fcriptures; and that is, the placing of a diftinction between judgment and teftimony. We do not ufually question the credit of a writer, by reafon of any opinion he may have delivered upon fubjects unconnected with his evidence; and even upon fubjects connected with his account, or mixed with it in the fame difcourfe or writing, we naturally feparate facts from opinions, teftimony from obfervation, narrative from argument. To apply this equitable confideration to the Chriftian records, much controverfy and much objection has been raised, concerning the quotations of the Old Teftament found in the New ; fome of which quotations, it is faid, are applied in a sense, and to events, apparently different from that which they bear, and from those to which they belong, in the original. It is probable to my apprehenfion, that many of thofe quotations were intended by the writers of the New Teftament as nothing more than accommodations. They quoted paffages of their fcripture, 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 countries; but in none, perhaps, were more to be expected, than in the writings of the Jews, whofe literature was almost entirely confined to their fcriptures. Thofe prophecies which are alleged with more folemnity, and which are accompanied with a precife declaration, that they originally refpected the event then related, are, I think, truly alleged. But were it otherwife; is the judgment of the writers of the New Testament, 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 out, fhould overthrow their historical credit? Does it diminish it? Has it any thing to do with it? Another error, imputed to the first Christians, was the expected approach of the day of judgment. I would introduce this objection, by a 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."a These words, we find, had been fo misconstrued, as that “a re- ́ port" from thence, "went abroad among the brethren, that that difciple fhould not die." Suppofe that this had come down to us amongst the prevailing opinions of the early Chrif tians, and that the particular circumstance, from which the miftake 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 fyftem. Yet with how little justice such 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 those who think that the fcriptures lead us to believe, that the early Chriftians, and even the apostles, expected the approach of the day of judgment in their own times, the fame reflection will occur, as that which we have made, with refpect to the more partial perhaps and temporary, but still no less ancient error, concerning the duration of St. John's life. It was an error, it may be likewife faid, which would effectually hinder thofe, who entertained it, from acting the part of impoftors. The difficulty which attends the fubject of the prefent chapter, is contained in this question; if we once admit the fallibility of the apoftolic judgment, where are we to stop, or in what can we rely upon it? To which queftions, as arguing with unbelievers, and as arguing for the fubftantial truth of the Christian hiftory, and for that alone, it is competent to the advocate of Chriffianity to reply, Give me the apoftle's teftimony, and I do not stand in need of their judgment; give me the facts, and I have complete fecurity for every conclufion I want. But, although I think, that it is competent to the Christian apologift to return this anfwer; I do not think that it is the only anfwer which the objection is capable of receiving. The two following cautions, founded, I apprehend, in the most rea a John xxi. 26. fonable diftinctions, will exclude all uncertainty upon this head, which can be attended with danger. Firft, to feparate what was the object of the apoftolic miffion, and declared by them 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 thefe 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 question, it would be arrogance in me to deliver any judgment. And it is unneceffary. For what I am concerned to obferve is, that even they, who think that it was a general, but erroneous opinion, of thofe times; and that the writers of the New Teftament, in common with other Jewish writers of that age, fell into the manner of fpeaking 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, incidentally and accidentally, as being the fubfifting opinion of the age and country in which his miniftry was exercifed. It was no part. of the object of his revelation, to regulate men's opinions concerning the action of fpiritual fubftances upon animal bodies. At any rate it is unconnected with teftimony. If a dumb perfon was by a word restored to the ufe of his fpeech, it fignifies. little to what caufe the dumbnefs was afcribed; and the like of every other cure, wrought upon thofe who are faid to have been poffeffed. The malady was real, the cure was real, whether the popular explication of the caufe was well founded or not. The matter of fact, the change, fo far as it was an object of fenfe, or of teftimony, was in either cafe the fame.. Secondly, that in reading the apoflolic writings, we diftinguish between their doctrines, and their arguments. Their doctrines came to them by revelation properly fo called; yet in propounding thefe doctrines in their writings or difcourfes, they were wont to illuftrate, fupport and enforce them, by fuch analogies, arguments, and confiderations, as their own thoughts fuggefted. Thus the call of the Gentiles, that is, the admiflion of the Gentiles to the Chriflian profeffion without a previous fubjection to the law of Mofes, was imparted to the apoflies by revelation; and was attefted by the miracles which attended the ; Christian miniftry amongst them. The apoftles' own affurance of the matter refted upon this foundation. Nevertheless, St. Paul, when treating of the fubject, offers a great variety of topics in its proof and vindication. The doctrine itfelf must be received; but is it neceffary, in order to defend Christianity, to defend the propriety of every comparifon, or the validity of every argument, which the apoftle has brought into the dif cuffion? The fame obfervation applies to fome other inftances and is, in my opinion, very well founded. "When divine writers argue upon any point, we are always bound to believe the conclufions that their reafonings end in, as parts of divine revelation ; but we are not bound to be able to make out, or even to affent to, all the premises made ufe of by them, in their whole extent, unless it appear plainly, that they affirm the premifes as exprefsly as they do the conclufions proved by them." a CHAP. III. The Connexion of Chriflianity with the Jewish Hiftory. UNDOUBTEDLY, our Saviour affumes the divme origin of the Mofaic inftitution; and, independently of his authority, I conceive it to be very difficult to affign any other cause for the commencement or existence of that inftitution; especially for the fingular circumftance of the Jews adhering to the unity, when every other people flid into polytheism; for their being men in religion, children in every thing else; behind other nations in the arts of peace and war, fuperior to the most improved in their fentiments and doctrines relating to the Deity. Undoubtedly alfo, our Saviour recognises the prophetic character of many of their ancient writers. So far, therefore, we are bound as b Chriftians to go. But to make Chriftianity anfwerable with its life, for the circumftantial truth of each feparate paffage of a Burnet's Expof. art. 6. b" In the doctrine, for example, of the unity, the eternity, the omnipotence, the omnifcience, the omniprefence, the wifdom and the goodnefs of God; in their opinions concerning providence, and the creation, prefervation, and government of the world." Campbell on Mir. p. 207. Z a the Old Testament, the genuineness of every book, the information, fidelity, and judgment of every writer in it, is to bring, I will not fay great, but unneceffary, difficulties, into the whole fyftem. These books were universally read and received by the Jews of our Saviour's time. He and his apostles, in common with all other Jews, referred to them, alluded to them, used them. Yet, except where he exprefsly afcribes a divine authority to particular predictions, I do not know that we can ftrictly draw any conclufion from the books being fo ufed and applied, befide the proof, which it unquestionably is, of their notoriety and reception at that time. In this view our fcriptures afford a valuable teftimony to thofe of the Jews. But the nature of this teftimony ought to be understood. It is furely very different from, what it is fometimes reprefented to be, a fpecific ratification of each particular fact and opinion; and not only of each particular fact, but of the motives affigned for every action, together with the judgment of praife or difpraise bestowed upon them. St. James, in his epiftle, fays, "Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord." Notwithstanding this text, the reality of Job's history, and even the existence of fuch a perfon, has been always deemed a fair fubject of inquiry and difcuffion amongft Chriftian divines. St. James's authority is confidered as good evidence of the existence of the book of Job at that time, and of its reception by the Jews, and of nothing more. St. Paul, in his fecond epiftle to Timothy, has this fimilitude, "Now, as Jannes and Jambres withstood Mofes, fo do these alfo refift the truth.' These names are not found in the Old Testament. And it is uncertain, whether St. Paul took them from fome apocryphal writing then extant, or from tradition. But no one ever imagined, that St. Paul is here afferting the authority of the writing, if it was a written account which he quoted, or making himself anfwerable for the authenticity of the tradition; much less, that he fo involves himself with either of these questions, as that the credit of his own history and mission should depend upon the fact, whether "Jannes and Jambres withstood Mofes or not." For what reafon a more rigorous interpretation fhould put upon other references, it is difficult to know. I do not mean, that other paffages of the Jewish hiftory-ftand upon no better evidence than the hiftory of Job, or of Jannes and Jam be |