A dissertation on II Peter I. 19. In which is shewn, I. That the interpretation of this passage, in the Apostle, as it is propos'd by the author of The grounds and reasons of the Christian religion, is not, probably, the sense of the author, because it does not fall in naturally, with the Course of his Argument to make any Comparison between Miracles and Prophecy; nor is the State of the, suppos'd, Comparison natural. II. That it cannot, possibly, express the Mind of the Author, because it includes Assertions which are false in fact, and, absolutely, contradictory to the positive Declarations of Christ himself. III. That the most remarkable Interpretations, which are manifestly intended to remove these Difficulties, are liable to the same, or other Difficulties. IV. That there is a Construction of the Place, which is natural, easy, and obvious; consistent with the Argument of the Apostle, with the Truth of Things, and with the whole Tenor of the Gospel. Nullius addictus jurare in Verba Magistri, Quod verum atque decens curo, & rogo, & omnis in hoc sum. By Thomas Ashton, M. A. Fellow of Eton College [electronic resource].