said of his disciples that, they were his mother and brethren (Matt. xii. 49, 50); when he warned his disciples to beware of the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees (xvi. 5); when he called Simon and Andrew from fishing to become fishers of men (Mark i 16.17); and in what he said of the Galileans slain by Pilate, in reply to those who mentioned the circumstance (Luke xiii. 1, 5), &c. &c.

Q. Give some instances of this manner from St. John ?

A. Christ's reply to the woman of Samaria (John iv. 12.) his answer to the disciples who intreated him to eat (iv. 31); his remarks on the cure of the blind man (ix. 1—5, and ix. 35—40), &c.

Q. How do you proceed with the argument ? A. I compare the examples from John with those of the other Evangelists, to judge whether there be not a visible agreement of manner between them.

Q. Is this manner perceptible in speeches in the Acts, or in any other, but those attributed to Christ? A. No; in truth it was a very unlikely manner for any forger or fabulist to attempt.

Q. Wherein does the affinity appear between the history of Christ placing a little child in the midst of his disciples, related by the first three Evangelists, and that of Christ washing the disciples' feet as given by St. John?

A. Both stories denote the emulation which pre vailed among Christ's disciples, and his care to correct it; and both stories are specimens of the same manner of teaching, viz. by action.

Q. What singularity is noticed in Christ's language?

A. The appellation of "The Son of Man" applied by Christ to himself, and never to any other person, which is repeatedly used by all the Evangelists.

Q. Mention a point of agreement in the conduct of Christ, as represented by his different historians? A. The withdrawing himself out of the way whenever the behaviour of the multitude indicated a disposition to tumult.

Q. Which of the Evangelists gives the reason for this conduct?

A. St. John only; it is left unexplained by the others.

Q. Was there not another and more singular proof of Christ's ministry?

A. The reserve which, for sometime and upon some occasions, at least, he used in declaring his own character.

Q. What particular is observable in Christ's commerce with his disciples ?

A. The difficulty they found in understanding him, especially when he spoke of what related to his passion or resurrection.

Q. How is the meekness of Christ during his sufferings mentioned ?

A. In the first three Evangelists it is conspicuous; in St. John it is preserved under separate examples. Q. Are there not other correspondencies between St. John's history of the transaction and theirs?

"that

A. Two; the first three Evangelists ascribe to Christ the particular metaphor in his prayer, the cup might pass from him." St. John does not give the scene in the garden, but ascribes the same metaphor to Christ. This is more than consistency, it is coincidence.

Q. Mention the second similar correspondency?

A. Matthew and Mark make the charge upon which Christ was condemned, to be a threat of destroying the temple, but neither informs calumny was founded, while St. Jo

1

upon what this relates that it

arose from Christ's reply to the Jews in his first journey to Jerusalem (John ii. 9.).

Q. Particularise a stronger and more general instance of agreement ?

A. The first three Evangelists have related the appointment of the twelve apostles; and have given a catalogue of their names in form. John, without mentioning the appointment, supposes, throughout his narrative, Christ to be accompanied by twelve select disciples.

CHAPTER V.

Q. Of what does the fifth chapter treat? A. The originality of our Saviour's character. Q. What was the reigning opinion and expectation of the Jews at the time?

A. They understood their prophecies to foretel the advent of a person who, by some supernatural assistance, should advance their nation to independence and prosperity.

Q. What would have been Christ's conduct if he had been an enthusiast, or an impostor?

A. If the former, he would probably have fallen in with the popular delusion, have given himself out to be the person, and assumed a corresponding character. If he had been an impostor, it would have been his policy to have flattered the prevailing hopes.

Q. Did not the pretended Messiahs actually do so? A. Yes; we learn from Josephus that there were many of these, some probably impostors, others enthusiasts; but both concurring in assuming the character which their countrymen looked for.

Q. Was not a mission referring to another life unthought of as the subject of these prophecies ?

A. Entirely; therefore that Christ should come as their Messiah under a character totally different from that in which they expected him, appears to be inconsistent with enthusiasm or imposture.

、

Q. Suppose it were objected that Christ having tried the other plan, turned to this?

A. I reply that the thing is said without evidence, and against evidence; none of the others, although they might have done so, thought of doing the same.

CHAPTER VI.

Q. What is the subject of the sixth chapter?

A. The conformity of the facts occasionally mentioned or referred to in Scripture, with the state of things in those times as represented by foreign and independent accounts.

Q. What does this conformity prove?

A. That the writers of the New Testament possessed a species of local knowledge, which could only belong to persons of that age and country.

Q. How is the argument stronger when applied to the case of the New Testament, than it is in the case of almost any other writings?

A. From the mixed nature of the allusions which it contains, viz. to the manners and principles of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews, which variety renders a forgery proportionably more difficult, especially to a posterior writer.

Q. Does not this argument depend upon an induction of particulars ?

A. Entirely; it will therefore be necessary to propose articulately and distinctly a detail of examples.

Q. What writer is principally to be made use of in the inquiry?

A. Josephus, born at Jerusalem four years after the ascension; he wrote his Jewish war sometime after the fall of Jerusalem, A. D. 70, and his History of the Jews A. D. 93.