the truth of the principal facts; I think, not even affect the divine inspiration of the historical books, according to the second or third hypothefis above mentioned. It will probably illustrate this propofition, to bring a parallel instance from the Roman writers. Suppose then that no more remained of these writers than Livy, Tully, and Horace. Would they not, by their references to the same facts and customs, by the sameness of style in the fame writer, and differences in the different ones, and numberless other such like circumstances of critical confideration, prove themselves and one another to be genuine, and the principal facts related, or alluded to, to be true? It is also to be observed, that this mutual harmony and self-consistency, in its ultimate ratio, is the whole of the evidence which we have for facts done in ancient times, or distant places. Thus, if a perfon was so sceptical as to call in question the whole Roman history, even the most notorious facts, as their conquests first of Italy, and then of the neighbouring countries, the death of Cæfar, and the fall of the Western empire by the invasions of the Goths and Vandals, with all the evidences of these from books, inscriptions, coins, customs, &c. as being all forged in order to deceive; one could only shew him, that it is inconfiftent with what he fees of human nature, to suppose that there should be fuch a combination to deceive; or that the agreement of these evidences with each other is far too great to be the effect of any fuch fraudulent design, of chance, &c. And all these arguments are, in effect, only bringing a number of concurring evidences, whose fum total foon approaches to the ultimate limit, i. e. to unity, or abfolute certainty, nearer than by any distinguishable difference. It does not therefore import, in respect of real conviction, after a certain number are brought, whether we bring any more or no; they can only add this imperceptible defect, i. e. practically nothing. Thus I suppose, that the remaining writings of Livy, Tully, and Horace, alone would fatisfy any impartial man so much of the general extensiveness of the Roman conquefts, &c. that nothing perceptible could be added to his conviction; no more than any common event can, or ever does in fact, appear more credible from the teftimony of a thousand than of ten or twenty witnesses of approved integrity. And whoever will apply this reasoning to the prefent cafe, must perceive, as it appears to me, that the numberless minute, direct, and indirect agreements and coincidences, that present themselves to all diligent readers of the Scriptures, prove their truth and genuineness beyond all contradiction, at least according to the first and lowest hypothesis concerning divine inspiration. As to those few and small apparent inconfiftencies, which are supposed to confine the inspiration of the Scriptures to this lowest sense; one may observe, that they decrease every day as learned men inquire farther; and that, were the Scriptures perfectly exact in every particular, there must be some apparent difficulties, arifing merely from our ignorance of ancient languages, customs, distant places, &c. and confequently that, if these be not more than our ignorance makes it reasonable to expect, they are no objection at all. And of apparent inconfiftencies, one may remark in particular, that they exclude the fuppofition of forgery. No single forger, or combination of forgers, would have fuffered the apparent inconfistencies which occur in a few places, fuch as the different genealogies of Christ in St. Matthew and St. Luke, and some little variations in the narration of the same fact in different Gospels. These are too obvious at first fight, not to have been prevented, had there been any fraud. I will here add an hypothesis, by which, as it appears to me, one may reconcile the genealogies of St. Matthew and St. Luke. I suppofe, then, that St. Matthew relates the real progenitors of Joseph; St. Luke, the series of those who were heirs to David by birthright; and that both transcribed from genealogical tables, well known to the Jews of those times. St. Matthew after David takes Solomon, from whom Joseph lineally descended. St. Luke takes Nathan, upon whom, though younger than some others, and even than Solomon, we must suppose the birthright to be conferred, as in the instances of Jacob and Joseph. St. Matthew proceeds by real descent to Salathiel at the time of the captivity; St. Luke proceeds by the heirs, according to birthright, and comes to Salathiel likewife. We must therefore fuppofe, that Salathiel, Solomon's heir, was now David's alfo, by the extinction of all the branches of Nathan's family. St. Matthew then takes Zorobabel as Jofeph's real progenitor; St. Luke takes him as heir or eldest son to Salathiel. Again, St. Matthew takes Abuid the real progenitor; St. Luke, Rhefa, the elder son: and thus St. Matthew proceeds by lineal defcent to Joseph; St. Luke, by heirs, to the fame Joseph: for we are to fuppofe, that Heli dying without heirs male, Joseph became his heir by birthright, i. e. heir to Zorobabel, i. e. to David. If we farther suppose, that the Virgin Mary was daughter to Heli, for which there appears to be fome evidence, the folution will be more complete and more agreeable to the Jewish customs. It confirms this solution, that St. Matthew uses the word ἐγέννησε, which reftrains his genealogy to lineal defcent; whereas St. Luke uses the article rõ, which is very general. It confirms it also, that St. Luke's defcents, reckoning from David to Salathiel, are but about twenty-two years apiece; which is much too short for descents from father to fon, but agrees very well to defcents by birthright. As to St. Matthew's defcents, they are far too long, after the captivity, for descents from father to fon; but then it is easy to suppose, that some were left out on account of dying before their fathers, or fome other reafon. Three of the Kings of Judah are left out after Joram, perhaps on account of their being of the immediate pofterity of the idolatrous Ahab's daughter Athaliah. Others are left out after the captivity, perhaps for fome fimilar reason. VOL. V. D PROP. PROP. ΧΙ. THE UNITY OF DESIGN WHICH APPEARS IN THE DISPENSATIONS RECORDED IN THE SCRIPTURES, IS AN ARGUMENT NOT ONLY OF THEIR TRUTH AND GENUINENESS, BUT ALSO OF THEIR DIVINE AUTHORITY, FOR this unity is not only so great as to exclude forgery and fiction in the same way as the mutual agreements mentioned in the laft propofition, but also greater than the best and ablest men could have preserved, in the circumstance of these writers, without the divine afssistance. In order to fee this, let us inquire what this design is, and how it is pursued by the series of events, and divine interpofitions, recorded in the Scriptures. The design is that of bringing all mankind to an exalted, pure, and spiritual happiness, by teaching, enforcing, and begetting in them love and obedience to God. This appears from many passages in the Old Testament, and from almost every part of the New. Now we are not here to inquire in what manner an Almighty Being could foonest and most effectually accomplish this. But the question is, Whether, laying down the state of things as it has been, is, and probably will be, for our foundation, there be not a remarkable fitness in the dispensations ascribed to God in the Scriptures, to produce this glorious effect, and whether the persons who administered these dispensations did not here concur with a surprising uniformity, though none of them faw God's ultimate design completely, and fome but very imperfectly; just as brutes by their instincts, and children by the workings of their natural faculties, contribute to their own preservation, improvement, and happiness, without at all foreseeing that they do this. If we alter any of the circumstances of the microcofm, or macrocofm, of the frame of our own natures, or of the external world that furrounds us, we shall have question rise up after question in an endless feries, and shall never be fatisfied, unless God should be pleased to produce happiness instantaneously, i. e. without any means, or secondary inftrumental causes at all; and, even then, we should only be where we were at our first setting out, if things be confidered in the true ultimate light. We are therefore to lay down the real state of things as our foundation; i. e. we are to suppose man to be in a state of good mixed with evil, born with appetites, and exposed to temptations, to which if he yields, fuffering must follow; which fuffering, however, tends to eradicate the difpofition from whence it flowed, and to implant a better. We are to suppose him to be endued with voluntary powers, which enable him to model his affections and actions according to a rule; and that the love of God, his ultimate happiness, can never be genuine, but by his first learning to fear God, by his being mortified to pleasure, honour, and profit, and the most refined selfish defires, and by his loving his neighbour as himself; i. e, we must suppose all that which practical writers mean by a state of trial, temptation, moral exercise and improvement, provement, and of practical free-will. Let us fee, therefore, how the several dispensations mentioned in the Scriptures, their being recorded there, and the fubordinate parts which the prophets and apostles acted, conspired to bring about this ultimate end of man, both in each individual, and in the whole aggregate, confidered as one great individual, as making up the mystical body of Chrift, according to the language of St. Paul; and inquire, whether, if all other reasons were set aside, the mere harmony and concurrence of fo many parts, and so many persons removed from each other by long intervals of time, in this one great design, will not compel us to acknowledge the genuineness, truth, and divine authority of the Scrip tures. The first thing which presents itself to us in the Scriptures, is the hiftory of the Creation and Fall. These are not to be accounted for, as was said above, being the foundation upon which we go. However, the recording them by Moses, as tradition began to grow weak and uncertain, has been of great use to all those who have had them communicated by this means, perfectly or imperfectly, i. e. to a great part of the world. This history impresses an awful and amiable sense of the Divine Being, our Creator and Judge; shews the heinousness of fin; and mortifies us to this world, by Heclaring that our paffage through it must be attended with labour and forrow. We find ourselves in this state: Revealed Religion did not bring us into it: nor is this state an objection to Revealed Religion, more than to Natural: however, Revealed Religion goes a step higher than Natural, and shews the immediate secondary cause, viz. the fin and wilful disobedience of our first parents. And when the account of paradise, of man's expulfion thence, and of the curse passed upon him in Genefis, are compared with the removal of this curse, of forrow, crying, pain, and death, with the renovation of all things, and with man's restoration to the tree of life and paradife, and his admiffion into the new Jerufalem in the last chapters of the Revelation, hope and fear quicken each other; and both conspire to purify the mind, and to advance the great design confidered under this propofi tion. How far the deluge was necessary, cæteris manentibus, for the purification of those who were destroyed by it, i. e. for accomplishing this great end in them, we cannot presume to say. It is sufficient that there is no contrary presumption, that no methods confiftent with the state of things in the ancient world were neglected, as far as we know, and that we are not in the least able to propose a better scheme. We leave these rebellious, unhappy people, now tranflated into another state, to the fame kind Providence which attended them in this, and all whose punishments on this fide the grave are for melioration. However the evident footsteps of this in the world, and the clear tradition of it, which would continue for several ages, also the history of it delivered by Mofes, have an unquestionable good tendency. Sinners, who reflect at all, cannot but be alarmed at so dreadful an instance of divine severity. Farther, D2 now contiguous to the North-east part of Afia. Secondly, that it might have been contiguous to other parts of our great continent for fome centuries after the deluge, though that contiguity be fince broken off. Thirdly, that the first failors who ventured out of the Streights, or others, might be driven by stress of weather and their own ignorance, first within the influence of the trade-winds, and then to fome part of America. One can offer nothing certain on either fide, in respect of these points. However, it feems to me, that many customs found amongst the Negroes and Americans are stronger evidences that they are of the fame original with the Afiatics and Europeans, than any which have yet appeared to the contrary. And, upon the whole, I conclude certainly, that the Mofaic account of the deluge is much confumed by both natural and civil hiftory, if we embrace the first and lowest hypothefis concerning divine inspiration; and has very strong presumptions for it, according to the second or third. If we could suppose the high mountains in South America not to have been immerged in the deluge, we might the more easily account for the wild beafts, poisonous ferpents, and curious birds of America. Might not the ark be driven round the globe during the deluge? And might not Noah be aware of this, and observe that it had been immerged fifteen cubits in water? And may not the Mofaic account be partly a narrative of what Noah faw, partly the conclufions which he must naturally draw from thence? Thus the tops of fome of the highest mountains might escape, confiftently with the Mofaic account. The future inquiries of natural hiftorians may perhaps determine this point. The next great event recorded in Genefis is the confufion of languages. Now the Mofaic account of this appears highly probable, if we first allow that of the deluge. For it feems impoffible to explain how the known language should arife from one stock. Let any one try only in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English. The changes which have happened in languages since history has been certain, do not at all correspond to a supposition of this kind. There is too much method and art in the Greek and Latin tongues, for them to have been the inventions of a rude and barbarous people; and they differ too much from Hebrew, Arabic, &c. to have flowed from them without design. As to the Chinese, it is difficult to make any probable conjectures about it; partly from its great heterogeneity in respect of other languages, partly because learned men have not yet examined it accurately. However, the most probable conjecture seems to be, that it is the language of Noah's poftdiluvian posterity; the leaft probable one, that it could have flowed naturally from any known language, or from the same stock with any; which it muft have done, if we admit the deluge, and yet reject the confufion of languages. The difperfion of the three fons of Noah into different countries, related in the tenth chapter of Genefis, comes next under confideration, being a confequence, not the cause, of the diversity of languages, Now |