particular design may be of use in comparing many other passages in the Gospels. CHAPTER II. Q. Of what does this chapter treat ? A. The erroneous opinions imputed to the Apos tles. Q. What species of candour shewn to other books, is sometimes refused to the Scriptures? A. The placing of a distinction between judgment and testimony. Q. To what part of the Christian records will this equitable consideration apply? A. To the quotations of the Old Testament found in the New, some of which, it is said, 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. Q. What reply do you offer to this objection? A. It is probable that many of those quotations were intended by the New Testament writers, only as accommodations. Those prophecies which are precisely declared to have originally respected the event are, I think, truly alleged. But if it were otherwise, any error in judgment does not overthrow their historical credibility-it has nothing to do with it. Q. State another error imputed to the first Christians. A. The expected approach of the day of judgment; a similar error was that which led the disciples to conclude, from an expression of Christ's, that John should not die. The same reflection will occur on both errors, they would effectually hinder those who entertained it from acting the part of impostors. Q. In what is the difficulty which attends the subject contained ? A. In saying where we are to stop if we once ad mit the fallibility of the apostolic judgment. To this objection, as arguing with unbelievers, I would say, give me the apostles testimony, and I do not need their judgment, the facts afford security for every conclusion I want. Q. In giving another answer what cautions will exclude all dangerous uncertainty upon this head? A. Two. First, to separate what was the declared object of the apostolic mission from what was extraneous, or only incidentally connected with it. Of the former nothing need be said, to the latter something may be added. Q. Demoniacal possession is one of these; is it necessary to decide on its reality? A. No; it was no part of the object of Christ's revelation to regulate men's opinions concerning the action of spirits upon animal bodies. If a dumb person is restored by a word, it matters little to what his dumbness was ascribed. The fact, as an object of sense or testimony, was, in either case, the same. Q. State the second caution. ments. A. Secondly, in reading the writings of the apostles we distinguish between their doctrines and their arguThese doctrines came by revelation properly so called, but they illustrated and supported them by their own analogies and arguments. Thus in Paul's assertion of the call of the Gentiles, the doctrine must be believed; but in order to defend Christianity it is not necessary to defend the propriety and validity of every argument. CHAPTER III. Q. What is the subject of the third Chapter? A. The connection of Christianity with the Jewish history. Q. How far, as Christians, are we bound to go in considering this connection? A. To admit that Christ assumes the divine origin of the Mosaic institution, and recognises the prophetic character of many of the ancient prophetic writings. But to make Christianity answerable for the genuineness of every book of the Old Testament; and for the fidelity and judgment of every writer in it, is to bring unnecessary difficulties into the system. Q. Were not these books universally read and received by the Jews, in our Saviour's time? A. They were; and he and his Apostles in common with other Jews, referred to them; yet except where a divine authority is expressly ascribed to particular predictions, I do not know that we can draw other conclusion, besides the proofs of their notoriety and reception at the time. any Q. Illustrate this remark by some particular in stances. A. When St. James refers to the patience of Job, his authority is good evidence of the existence and reception of the book of Job at the time, and nothing more. When St. Paul mentions "Jannes and Jambres, who withstood Moses," which names are not found in the old Testament, he does not make himself answerable for the truth of the quotation, much less does the credit of his own history depend upon the fact. Q. Do you mean that no parts of the Jewish history stand upon better authority than these? A. On the contrary, I think much otherwise; but it is unwarrantable to try the Jewish history by a rule applied to no other, that either every particular must be true, or the whole false. I state this point explicitly, because sceptics frequently attack Christianity through the sides of Judaism. CHAPTER IV. Q. Of what does the fourth chapter treat? Q. What do you understand by this rejection? A. That Christianity, although it converted great numbers, did not produce an universal, or even a general conviction in the minds of men ? Q. To what does the matter of the objection refer ? A. First to the Jews; with us there is but one question upon the truth of Christianity; viz. whether the miracles were actually wrought? Yet it appears that the state of thought in a Jew of Christ's age, was totally different. After allowing the miracle, he had much to do to persuade himself that Jesus was the Messiah. Q. What is observable in the passage John vii. 21, 31. ? A. It exhibits the reasoning of different sorts of persons upon a miracle; one sort believing it some. thing very extraordinary; yet a circumstance in his coming militated with their opinion concerning Christ. Another sort were inclined to believe him to be the Messiah. Q. What evidence is gathered from the account of the resurrection of Lazarus ? A. Some believed on Jesus, others retained hostile sentiments. The evangelist does not impute the |