A C C 



The apodles and evancrclifta alfo imitated liis example, of 

 which inihnccs occur m l Thcff. v. 23. Coloir. i. 16. 

 Ephcf. i. 21. iii. 10. Rom. viii. 38. i Pet. iii. 22. In re- 

 lating fadj, the ^vritcrs of the New Teftament conform to 

 the popular opinion. Of this nature, (fays this author) 

 in aU thofe paflages whicli refer to demons and demoniacs, 

 and thofe which reprcfent the dsvil as the principle of evil, 

 iiiftii^ating mankind to fm. Tlil-fe, he adds, were opinioni 

 which properly related to philofophy, and did not materially 

 ificft religion ;' as long, at leaft, as it was believed that thcie 

 malignant agents were under the control of divine power, 

 and might be vr.nqiiilhtd by good men. The ProfelTor is 

 of opinion, that the exiflence of fuch a malignant being, 

 csertmg an influence over the minds of men, and impelling 

 tiem to vice and mifery, is utterly inconiillent with the 

 perfctlions of ihe Deity, with the wifdom of the divine 

 government, and with the free and moral agency of man. 

 The Jews had derived from the Chalda:an3 a notion, that 

 the air was peopled with da:mon5, and that fome of thefe 

 were confined in dark prlfons, in the infernal world ; and 

 fome commentators have fuppofed, that what the apoflles 

 Peter and Jude have faid concerning the punidimcnt of 

 angels, was borrowed from the apocr^^phal book of Enoch, 

 which might probably have been written by fome Helleniftic 

 Jew. Of the acquiefcence of the writers of the New 

 Tiftament in the current, but erroneous notions of their 

 countrv-men, this author mentions St. John's account of the 

 vonderful virtues of the pool of Bethefda, and what St. 

 Luke fays of the Sadducees in Afts xxii. 8. There are alfo 

 many cafes, in which Chrill ufed, what logicians call, the 

 tir^um.'nlum ad hotnwan ; of which there is a ftriking ex- 

 ample in the anfwer given to the Pharifees, when they ac- 

 cufed him of calling out devils by Beelzebub. Thus 

 alfo, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Chrill 

 founded his defcription of the future ftate of reward and 

 punilhment on the notions of the Jews concerning their pa- 

 Yadlfe and gehenna, which were nearly the fame with thofe 

 of the Greeks and Romans concerning the Elyfian fields 

 and Tartarus. See alfo Luke xxii. 30. The acquiefcence 

 of Chrift and his apollles in the prejudices of their countiy- 

 men is alfo evident in the quotations from the books of the 

 Old Teftament. Thefe, as their claffic authors, the Jews 

 cited on every occafion ; but being, like all the orientalifts, 

 verv' fond of allegory, they fuppofed that, befide the obvious 

 and literal meaning of thefe writers, which they confidered 

 as comparatively of little value, there was a hidden and 

 myfterious fenfe which referred to the Mcfliah and his 

 kingdom. With this cuftom, fays the Profeffor, though 

 in itfelf injudicious, the writers of the New Teftament judi- 

 cioully complied. Hence, he adds, moft of, if not all, the 

 pafTages of the Old Teftament, which are quoted in the 

 New, are adduced in a fenfe very different from their pri- 

 mitive fignification, and form a kind of «;-^um™/(T ad homhifm, 

 founded on the principles of thofe to whom they were ad- 

 dreffed. Of the fame kind of accommodation to Jev.-ifh 

 prejudices the author deems the condefcenfion of St. Paul 

 in adopting the puerile allegories of the rabbies concerning 

 Sarah and Hagar in Gal. iv. 24 ; and that of the apoftles 

 Peter and Jude, in referring to a ftor}-, related in fome 

 apocryphal book, of a difpute between t!ie archangel Mi- 

 chael and the devil about the body of Mofes. Such are 

 the outlines of the Differtation above cited, in which the 

 author produces other inftances of accommodation. The 

 Plijirifees believed the metempfychofis or tranfmigration of 

 fouls (fee Jofephus Bell. Jud. 1. ii. c. ?) ; and M. Hemert. 

 -imagines, that they applied this hypottitfis to the prophecy 

 in Malachi iv. 5, and that our Lord did not contradift it in 



A C C 



his difcourfe with his dlfciples, M.ttt. xvi. 14. And agaiil, 

 he apprehend:;, that in Matt. xi. 14, Chrift not only forbear! 

 to correft this notion of the Jews, but indircftly allows it, 

 as what he did not at that time think proper to oppofe ; 

 and (hews them that, even on this liypothefis, the propliecy- 

 of Malachi was fulfilled. The blended accounts that arc 

 given of the deftriitlion of Jerufalem, and of the refuncAion 

 andlaft judgment in Matt. xx. 34, &c. are confidered by this 

 writer as an acquiefcence in the popular notion, with a view 

 of animating the firft Ciiriftians to conftancy and diligence 

 amid the peculiar difhcuUies wliich they h?.d to encounter. 

 The Profeffor having by fuch modes of reafoning flated t!iS 

 faft, proceeds to inquire how far this hyi^othefis of accom- 

 modation to popular notions may be extended, confiftently 

 with the veneration and efteem due to the charaSer of our 

 Saviour and his apoft'es. Whilft our Lord generally left phy- 

 fical errors ancontradi6led, he conftantly oppofed thofe pre- 

 judices and miftakes that were contraiy to the perfuafion of 

 God's impartial love to all mankind, or detrimental to the 

 nature and principles of pi-a£lical piety and virtue. In 

 anfwer to the objeftions which may be alledged agai!:ft his 

 hypothefis, the Profeffor begins with evincing the abfurdities 

 to which thofe have been reduced, who have endeavoured 

 to vindicate the philofophlcal accuracy of the Scriptures. 

 In accommodating their inftruction to the different capaci- 

 ties of thofe to whom they v.'ere communicated, and adapting 

 them to the peculiar charafter of their age and nation, ax 

 well as to their particular prejudices and habits, Chrift and 

 his apoftles did no more than wh?it might be cxpeiTted from 

 wife teachers, endued with a divine ccmmilTion ; and they 

 who on this account objeft to them, mp.nifeft an ignorance 

 of the human heart, as well as of the office of an iiiftniftor 

 of mankind. They alfo mifappreliend the defign of 

 Chrift's mifllon ; which was not to make his hearers philo- 

 fophers, nor even to inftruft them in all thofe particular 

 truths which may be confidered as influencing religious opi- 

 nions. Mankind in general, and the Jews in particular, 

 ■were not qualified to receive fuch inftruftion. Without this 

 accommodation the defign of our Lord's miflion would have 

 been counterafted and defeated, if either he or his apoftles 

 had encountered every error of the age and nation to which 

 they were fent. To thofe who alledge that, among the 

 inftances cited by the author, of popular errors, in which 

 Chrift and his apoftles are fuppofed to have acquiefced, there 

 are fome which relate to the efiential doctrines of the 

 gofpel ; he replies, that while he allows that important 

 truths might fometimes be inculcated on the attention of 

 the people, by arguments founded on their own erronco'iis 

 notions, he abfohitely denies that thefe notions themfelvcs 

 have any necelTar)' connexion with the effential truths of 

 the gofpel. Perhaps, he adds, it may be afked, whether the 

 exiflence and power of the devil be not religious tenets ? — 

 but by wbom, or on what foundation, were t-hefe ever made 

 articles of Chriftianity ? Does the belief of fuch an enemy 

 of mankind at all contribute to promote that integrity, and 

 that fanciity of heart and condiift, which the Saviuur came 

 to eftablifh ? Or is not this notion rather calculated to fill 

 the weak and fuperftitioiiS with vain terrors ? For this 

 reafon, fays this profeffor, the apoftles, though they did 

 not contradift the popular notion, took care to obviate its 

 pernicious confequences by always reprefenting tlie deyil as 

 vanquiihed by Chrift. Is the belief of demons that inhnl-.it 

 the air, that haunt the defert, or that infmuate themfjlves 

 into the bodies of men and afflicl them with difeafes, an 

 effential doftrine of the gofpel ? May we not beheve tlie 

 Chriftian doctrine of a future ftate of retribution, without 

 acqniefcing in the notions uf the Jews concerning paradlfe 



and 



