were it otherwise; is the judgement of the writers of the New Teftament, in interpreting paffages of the Old, or sometimes, 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 judgement. I would introduce this objection by a remark upon what appears to me a fomewhat fimilar example. Our Saviour, speaking 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 disciple should not die." Suppose that this

had come down to us amongst the prevailing opinions of the early Chriftians, and that the particular circumftance, from which the miftake sprung, had been loft (which humanly speaking was moft 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 Christian 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 early Chriftians, and even the Apostles, expected the approach of the day of judgement 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 ftill 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 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 queftion: 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 queftion, as arguing with unbelievers, and as arguing for the fubftantial truth of the Christian history, and for that alone, it is competent to the advocate of Christianity to reply, Give me the apoftle's teftimony, and I do not stand in need of their judgement; give me the facts, and I have complete fecurity for every conclufion I want.

But, although I think that it is competent to the Chriftian apologift to return this answer; 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 separate 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 question, it would be arrogance in me to deliver any judgement. And it is unneceffary. For what I am concerned to observe is, that even they who 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

opinion of the age and country in which his ministry was exercised. It was no part of the object of his revelation, to regulate men's opinions concerning the action of spiritual fubftances upon animal bodies. At any rate it is unconnected with teftimony. If a dumb perfon was by a word restored to the use of his speech, it fignifies little to what cause the dumbness was afcribed; and the like of every other cure wrought upon those who are faid to have been poffeffed. malady was real, the cure was real, whether the popular explication of the cause 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.

The

Secondly, that, in reading the apoftolic writings, we diftinguish between their doctrines and their arguments. Their doctrines came to them by revelation properly fo called; yet in propounding these doctrines in their writings or difcourfes, they were wont to illuftrate, fupport and enforce them,

by