On the alleged Erroneous Opinions of the Apostles.

It has been objected that the sacred writers sometimes quote the Old Testament erroneously; but on many occasions they often quote it allusively, and by way of accommodation, and not as strictly applicable in every point. Neither does their wrong judgment in arguing on the merits of a fact, destroy the validity of their testimony as to the fact itself.

On the Connection of Christianity with Jewish History.

In this we are not to be too nice. Our Saviour assumes the divine origin of the Mosaic Institution; but a reference to the Old Testament in the New is not to fix the exact truth of every little circumstance in the former; ex. gra. we are not to suppose that because St. James * refers to Job, it is therefore to be certainly inferred that such a person as Job existed. St. James's allusion only proves that such a performance as the book of Job was in his time received among the Jews. This point is explicitly stated by Paley, because Voltaire and others had begun to attack Christianity through the sides of Judaism, making Christianity responsible, as it were, for every fact recorded in the Old Testament.

On the Rejection of Christianity.

This should be more properly termed " its want of more extensive success;" and it forms no substantial argument against its truth; for though with us the acknowledgment of the miracles leads at once to conviction, and to the belief in Christ's divine mission; yet with the Jews it was not so. After acknowledging (as is evident in various parts of the Gospel,) the reality of the miracles, their national prejudices prevented them from receiving Jesus as the Messiah, and they perversely attributed the miracles to Beelzebub. Hence their rejection of Him is no argument against miracles having been performed. As to the Gentiles, their rejection of Christianity may be ascribed to contempt prior to examination; to its being an unphilosophical religion; and to its connexion with Judaism, which was held in abhorrence by the Gentile world. This contempt prior to examination accounts also for the comparative silence of heathen writers about it; and that this was the feeling entertained is proved, not only on a comparison of the doctrines of the New Testament with the accounts given of it by heathen writers; but also from their writings themselves; ex. gra. compare Pliny's account of Christians' conduct with Tacitus' appellation of its being an "exitiabilis superstitio."

On Christian Miracles not being frequently appealed

to and recited by early Christian writers.

The apostolic and early writers addressed themselves to those who already believed Christian miracles; and their object was to exhort to Christian duty rather than to prove the truth of Christianity. They, however, frequently either mentioned Christian miracles or alluded to them. The subject of which the Apostles and Fathers treated did not lead them to any direct recital of Christian history, but still the whole system was founded on the tacit admission of miracles.

The Epistle of Barnabas is, in its subject and composition much like the Epistle to the Hebrews, an allegorical application of divers passages of the Jewish history, and of their law and ritual, to those parts of the Christian Dispensation, in which the author perceives a resemblance.

Clement's Epistle was written to quiet certain dissentions that had arisen amongst the members of the Church of Corinth, and of reviving a Christian temper among them.

Hermas's work is a vision, and quotes neither Old Testament nor new, but merely falls now and then into the language and mode of speech which he had read in the Gospel.

Polycarp and Ignatius' Epistles had for their object the order and discipline of the Churches.

Quadratus, the first Christian apologist, who lived about 70 years after the ascension, in his Apology presented to the Emperor Adrian, formally appeals to our Saviour's miracles. Justin, 30 years after, does the same; and also adds that he would rather argue from prophecy, because his adversaries attributed miracles to magic. After these, very many of the Fathers appeal to miracles.

On the want of Universality in the reception of Christianity, and greater clearness of Evidence. We have no right to ask why God did not give more evidence, if we have sufficient, and what is suited to our circumstances. We may on this point draw an analogy between the works of nature and revelation; in the former things might be managed according to our ideas perhaps sometimes better; ex. gra. the rain falls in vast quantities into the ocean again; and many vast deserts are without it. After all, perhaps, both the scheme of Christianity and the order of nature may be a plan of optimism though unperceived by us.

If the evidence of Christianity had been irresistible, there would have been an end to the exercise of

our natural powers; it would not have answered the purposes of trial, nor permitted the exercise of candour, humility, and seriousness in inquiry. If there were a perfect display of a future state, its effects on the human mind might interfere with the ordinary business of life.

On the supposed Effects of Christianity. The effects of Christianity consist chiefly in its aggregate influence on the great mass of society; and more especially in its operation amongst the more retired and domestic scenes of private life; in the general improvement of the usages of society ; and the diffusion of more elevated ideas of God.The influence of religion is strongest in the breasts of those with whom history has the least to do.Religion operates most on fathers and mothers in their families, on servants, on the orderly tradesman, the quiet manufacturer; on the villager and the husbandman; amongst such, its influence collectively may be of inestimable value, though its effects appear but little upon those who figure in the world. Those writers who paradoxically contend that Christianity, as far as is believed, produces a bad effect on public happiness, and look for its direct and obvious influence in courts, or camps, or popular assemblies,