from themselves, and therefore, though highly to be regarded, are not of unquestionable authority. The arguments for this hypothefis may be, that, since the scriptures have suffered by transcribers, like other books, a perfect exactness in the original, as to minute particulars (in which alone it has fuffered, or could fuffer, from transcribers), is needless; that Mofes and the prophets, the evangelists and apostles, had natural talents for writing history, applying the scriptures, reafoning, and delivering their opinions; and that God works by natural means, where there are such; that the apostles were ignorant of the true extent of Christ's kingdom for a confiderable time after his resurrection, and perhaps mistaken about his fecond coming; that God might intend, that nothing in this would should be perfect, our blessed Lord excepted; that fome historical facts seem difficult to be reconciled to one another, and some applications of passages from the Old Testament by the writers of the New, with their reasonings thereupon, inconclusive and unsatisfactory; that the writers themselves nowhere lay claim to infallibility, when speaking from themselves; and that Hermas, Clemens Tomanus, and Barnabas, who were apoftolical persons, seem evidently to have reasoned in an inconclufive manner.

The second hypothesis is, That hiftorical incidents of small moment, with matters of a nature foreign to religion, may indeed not have divine authority; but that all the rest of the scriptures, the reasonings, the application of the prophecies, and even the doctrines of inferior note, must be inspired: else what can be meant by the gifts of the spirit, particularly that of prophecy, i. e. of instructing others? How can Chrift's promife of the Comforter, who should lead his disciples into all truth, be fulfilled? Will not the very effentials of religion, the divine miffion of Chrift, providence, and a future state, be weakened, by thus supposing the sacred writers to be mistaken in religious points? And though the hiftory and the reasonings of the fcriptures have the marks of being written in the fame manner as other books, i. e. may feem not to be inspired, yet a fecret influence might conduct the writers in every thing of moment, even when they did not perceive it, or reflect upon it themselves; it being evident from obvious reasonings, as well as from the foregoing theory, that the natural workings of the mind are not to be diftinguished from those which a Being that has a sufficient power over our intellectual frame might excite in us.

The third and last hypothesis is, That the whole scriptures are inspired, even the most minute historical passages, the salutations, incidental mention of common affairs, &c. The argument in favour of this hypothefis are, That many parts of scriptures appear to have double, or perhaps manifold senses; That not one jot or tittle of the law (i. e. of the whole scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments, in an enlarged way of interpretation, which, however, seems justifiable by parallel instances) shall perish; That the Bible, i. e. the book of books, as we now have it, appears to have been remarkably diftinguished by Providence from all other writings, even of good Jews and Christians, and to admit of a vindication in respect of small difficulties, and small feeming inconsistencies, as well as of great ones, every day more and more as we advance in knowledge; and that effects of the same kind with

B 4

with divine inspiration, viz. the working of miracles, and the gift of prophecy, fubfifting during the times of the authors of the books of the Old and New Testaments, and even in all, or nearly all, of these writers; also, that they extended, in fome cases, to very minute things.

I will not prefume to determine which of these three suppositions approaches nearest the truth. The following propofitions will, I hope, establish the first of them at least, and prove the genuineness of the scriptures, the truth of the facts contained in them, and their divine authority, to fuch a degree, as that we need not fear to make them the rule of our lives, and the ground of our future expectations; which is all that is abfolutely neceffary for the proof of the Chriftian religion, and the fatisfaction and comfort of religious persons. I even believe, that the following evidences favour the second hypothefis strongly, and exclude all errors and imperfections of note; nay, I am inclined to believe, that serious, inquifitive men can scarce rest there, but will be led by the fucceffive clearing of difficulties, and unfolding of the most wonderful truths, to believe the whole fcriptures to be inspired, and to abound with numberless uses and applications, of which we yet know nothing. Let future ages determine. The evidently miraculous nature of one part, viz. the prophetical, disposes the mind to believe the whole to be far above human invention, or even penetration, till fuch time as our understandings shall be farther opened by the events which are to precede the fecond coming of Chrift. In the mean while, let critics and learned men of all kinds have full liberty to examine the sacred books; and let us be sparing in our cenfures of each other. "Let us "judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come; and then shall

८८

every man have praise of God." Sobriety of mind, humility, and piety, are requisite in the pursuit of knowledge of every kind, and much more in that of facred. I have here endeavoured to be impartial to each hypothefis, and just to hint what I apprehend each party would or might fay in defence of their own. However, they are all brethren, and ought not to fall out by the way.

THE MANNER IN WHICH THE BOOKS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS HAVE BEEN HANDED DOWN FROM AGE TO AGE, PROVES BOTH THEIR GENUINENESS, AND THE TRUTH OF THE PRINCIPAL

FACTS CONTAINED IN THEM.

FOR, first, It resembles the manner in which all other genuine books and true histories have been conveyed down to pofterity. As the writings of the Greek and Roman poets, orators, philosophers, and hiftorians, were esteemed by these nations to be tranfmitted to them by their forefathers in a continued fuccession, from the times when the respective authors lived; so have the books of the Old Teftament by the Jewish nation, and those of the New by the Chriftians; and it is an additional evidence in the last cafe, that the primitive Christians were not a diftinct nation, but a great multitude of people people dispersed through all the nations of the Roman empire, and even extending itself beyond the bounds of that empire. As the Greeks and Romans always believed the principal facts of their historical books, so the Jews and Christians did' more, and never seem to have doubted of the truth of any part of theirs. In short, whatever can be faid of the traditional authority due to the Greek and Roman writers, something analogous to this, and for the most part of greater weight, may be urged for the Jewish and Christian. Now, I suppose that all fober-minded men admit the books usually ascribed to the Greek and Roman historians, philosophers, &c. to be genuine, and the principal facts related or alluded to in them to be true; and that one chief evidence to this, is the general traditionary one here recited. They ought therefore to pay the same regard to the books of the Old and New Testaments, fince there are the fame or greater reafons for it.

Secondly, if we re-confider the circumstances recited in the last paragraph, it will appear, that these traditionary evidences are fufficient ones; and we shall have a real argument, as well as one ad bominem, for receiving books so handed down to us. For it is not to be conceived, that whole nations should either be imposed upon themselves, or concur to deceive others, by forgeries of books or facts. These books and facts must therefore, in general, be genuine and true; and it is a strong additional evidence of this, that all nations must be jealous of forgeries for the fame reasons that we are."

Here it may be objected, that as we reject the prodigies related by the Greek and Roman writers, though we admit the common history, so we ought alfo to reject the scripture miracles. To this I answer,

First, That the fcripture history is supported by far stronger evidences than the Greek or Roman, as will appear in the following Propofitions.

Secondly, That many of the scripture miracles are related by eyewitnesses, and were of a public nature, of long duration, attended by great and lasting effects, inseparably connected with the common hiftory, and evidently suitable to our notions of a wife and good Providence, which cannot be faid of those related by the Pagan writers.

Thirdly, That the scripture miracles not attended by these cogent circumstances, are supported by their connexion with such as are; and that, after we have admitted these, there remains no longer any presumption against those from their miraculous nature.

Fourthly, If there be any small number found amongst the Pagan miracles, attested by such-like evidences as the principal ones for the scripture miracles, I do not see how they can be rejected; but it will not follow, that the fcripture miracles are false, because some of the Pagan ones are true,

PROP.

THE GREAT IMPORTANCE OF THE HISTORIES, PRECEPTS, PROMISES, THREATENINGS, AND PROPHECIES, CONTAINED IN THE SCRIPTURES, ARE EVIDENCES BOTH OF THEIR GENUINENESS, AND

OF THE TRUTH OF THE PRINCIPAL FACTS MENTIONED IN THEM.

THIS is one of the instances in which the evidences for the fcriptures are fuperior, beyond comparison, to those for any other ancient books. Let us take a short review of this importance in its feveral particulars.

/ difperfion of

The history of the creation, fall, deluge, longevity of the patriarchs, mankind, calling of Abraham, defcent of Jacob with his family into Egypt, and the precepts of abstaining from blood, and of circumcifion, were of so much concern, either to mankind in general, or to the Ifraelites in particular, and fome of them of fo extraordinary a nature, as that it could not be an indifferent matter to the people, amongst whom the account given of them in Genesis was first published, whether they received them or not. Suppose this account to be first published amongst the Ifraelites by Mofes, and also to be then confirmed by clear, univerfal, uninterrupted tradition (which is pofsible and probable, according to the history itself); and it will be easy to conceive, upon this true supposition, how this account should be handed down from age to age amongst the Jews, and received by them as indubitable. Suppose this account to be false, i, e. fuppose that there were no fuch evidences and vestiges of these hiftories and precepts, and it will be difficult to conceive how this could have happened, let the time of publication be as it will. If early, the people would reject the account at once for want of a clear tradition, which the account itself would give them reason to expect. If late, it would be natural to inquire how the author came to be informed of things never known before to others.

If it be faid, that he delivered them as communicated to him by revelation (which yet cannot well be faid, on account of the many references in Genefis to the remaining veftiges of the things related), these furprifing, interesting particulars would at least be an embarrassment upon his fictitious credentials, and engage his contemporaries to look narrowly into them.

If it be faid, that there were many cosmogonies and theogonies current amongst the Pagans, which yet are evidently fictions; I answer, that these were in general regarded only as amazing fictions; however, that they had fome truth in them, either expressed in plain words, or concealed in figures, and that their agreement with the book of Genefis, as far as they are confiftent with one another, or have any appearances of truth, is a remarkable evidence in favour of this book. It is endless to make all the possible suppositions and objections of this kind; but it appears to me, that the more are made, the more will the truth and genuineness of the fcriptures be established thereby.

It ought to be added, in relation to the precepts of abstaining from blood, and circumcifion, before mentioned, that if the first was common to mankind, or was known to have been so, the last peculiar

to

to the descendants of Abraham at the time of publication of the book of Genefis, this confirms it; if otherwise, would contribute to make it rejected. If neither the practices themselves, nor any vestiges of them subsisted at all, the book must be rejected. The difficulty of deducing these practices from the principles of human nature ought to be confidered here; as it tends to prove their divine original, agreeably to the accounts given of them in Genefis.

Let us next come to the law of Mofes. This was extremely burdensome, expensive, severe, particularly upon the crime of idolatry, to which all mankind were then extravagantly prone; and abfurd, according to the common judgment of mankind, in the instances of forbidding to provide themselves with horses for war, and commanding all the males of the whole nation to appear at Jerufalem three times in a year. At the same time it claims a divine authority every where, and appeals to facts of the most notorious kinds, and to customs and ceremonies of the most peculiar nature, as the memorials of these facts. We cannot conceive, then, that any nation, with Yuch motives to reject, and such opportunities of detecting, the forgery of the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, should yet receive them, and submit to his heavy yoke. That they should often throw it off in part, and for a time, and rebel against the divine authority of their law, though sufficiently evidenced, is easily to be accounted for from what we see and feel in ourselves and others every day; but that they should ever return and repent, ever submit to it, unless it had divine authority, is utterly incredible. It was not a matter of fuch small importance, as that they could content themselves with a superficial examination, with a less examination than would be fufficient to detect fo notorious a forgery; and this holds, at whatever time we fuppose these books to be published.

That the Jews did thus submit to the law of Mofes, is evident from the books of the Old and New Testaments, if we allow them the leaft truth and genuineness; or even from profane writers; nay, I may say, from the present obfervance of it by the Jews, scattered through all the kingdoms of the world.

If it be faid, that other nations have ascribed divine authority to their lawgivers, and fubmitted to very fevere laws; I answer, first, That the pretences of lawgivers amongst the Pagans to inspiration, and the fubmiffion of people to them, may be accounted for in the degree in which they are found, from the then circumstances of things, without having recourse to real inspiration and particularly, that if we admit the patriarchal revelations related and intimated by Mofes, and his own divine legation, it will appear, that the heathen lawgivers copied after these; which is a strong argument for admitting them. Secondly, That there is no instance, amongst the Pagans, of a body of laws being produced at once, and remaining without addition afterwards; but that they were compiled by degrees according to the exigences of the state, the prevalence of a particular faction, or the authority of some particular perfons, who were all styled lawgivers, as Draco and Solon, at Athens: That they were made, in general,