New; there is yet another method of vindicating the apoftles, ftill remaining; viz. that they argued ad hominem, or from the allowed interpretation of fcripture amongst the Jews, in order to convince them, upon their own principles, that Jefus was the true Meffiah. Our author hath spent a whole chapter, chap. 11. to prove the contrary; but hath failed in the attempt. If indeed false affertions,

affertions, and malicious infinuations and comparisons would have done, he hath not been wanting in this part of the argument: but I may venture to affirm, that he hath not advanced one probable reason in support of his assertion. I have already proved, that the Jews, long before the time of Christ, were in expecta-' tion of the Messiah; i. e. of a certain prince and deliverer, whofe coming as they apprehended, was foretold by the writings of their prophets. Of confequence, no arguments could be fufficient to convince them of Jesus's being the Meffiah, or that particular prince they expected, unless they faw the prophecies; which they apprehended had a relation to him, verified in the person who affumed that character: and therefore 'twas as neceffary that the apoftles fhould fhew, that those paflages, which had a real reference to the Messiah, were accomplished in Jefus Chrift as it was that they should prove him to be the Meffiah. And as to other paffages where the reference to the Meffiah was not so natural and clear, yet, if it had been the conftant method of the

Jews

Jews to apply them to the future times of the Meffiah; nothing could be more proper in the apoftles, when reasoning with the Jews, than to apply them to Jefus Chrift, as far as they did agree to his perfon and character.

But is this agreeable to the character of inspired persons, to make use of arguments not conclufive, or to argue with others from what they know to be a falfe fense of scripture? I anfwer, that fo many and strong were the prejudices that the Jews laboured under, as made their converfion to Christianity exceeding difficult, and therefore rendered it the more neceffary that they should be dealt with in a very tender manner. Particular truths were to be told them as they were able to bear, and their prejudices were to be gradually removed by a prudent forbearance. The apoftles of our blessed Saviour could not but remember his conduct towards themselves, and acknowledge both the wifdom and goodness of it; and had therefore reason to believe, that the fame method of acting towards others might have a good influence over them.

them. They did not indeed conceal the main and effential doctrines of Chriftianity, how much foever those to whom they preached might be offended with them. But as for other matters of leffer importance, the interpretation of a single paffage of scripture for instance; fuppofing them mistaken, was it neceffary they should be immediately contradicted? Or rather, was it not prudent to leave it to time and better knowledge to correct it? Or ought the apostles to have neglected to fhew them, how fuch and fuch a paffage was accomplished in 7 fus Chrift, if they fairely could do it, and thofe, to whom they preached, expected it?

If these indeed were the only topicks they argued from, I should fufpect their inspiration, and their teftimony would deferve but little credit. But fince there are but few inftances of this kind, and the apostles lay but little fircis upon fuch citations; and at the fame time they make use of them, lay down other folid and fubftantial proofs of the truth of Christianity, fuch as the certainty of Chrift's miracles and refurrection, the

excellency

excellency of his doctrines, and the cer tain accomplishments of real prophecies; as this was a rational method of converting them to the Chriftian faith, fo the other was but a prudent means of preventing the ill effects of their prejudices: and all that will follow from this way of arguing in the apostles, is, not that they endeavoured to build Christianity on a false foundation, but that as they established the truth of it by undeniable proofs, fo they took all the best care they could to fecure to them their proper influence and force. Indeed fuch a method of arguing as this is not to be looked upon as any proper proof; nor is it ever defigned as fuch by those who make a just use of it. It is rather an appeal to a perfon's present fentiments, and taking the advantage of his own conceffions. would be unworthy a wife or a good man, if there were no arguments of intrinfick worth made use of: but where the thing to be proved is fupported by folid reasons, I fee nothing to forbid our appealing to a perfons avowed fentiments, where a fair advantage can be

This 'tis true,

made