Teftament; and then proceeds to a more direct attempt upon Christianity. And this appears not to be a thing he treats of merely by-the-bye, but to be a point he has formally in view, and for which he profeffes a kind of zeal. I fhall therefore confider diftinctly what he hath offered.

In his third Letter on the study of history, he fetteth himself to confider the state of antient history, both facred and profane: and begins with declaring his refolution" to speak plainly "and particularly in favour of common fenfe, against an abfurdity which is almost fanctified h."—After having made fome obfervations on the state of antient profane history, and fhewn, that it is full of fables, and altogether uncertain; he next comes to apply thefe obfervations to antient facred historyi. What he seems at firft to propose, is, to fhew; that it is"infufficient to give us light into the original of antient nations, "and the hiftory of thofe ages we commonly call the first ages."

But it is evident, that, under pretence of fhewing this, his intention is, to reprefent the whole hiftory of the Bible as abfolutely uncertain, and not at all to be depended upon for a just account of facts. He not only denieth, that the writers of the hiftorical parts of the Old Teftament were divinely inspired, but he will not allow them the credit that is due to any common honeft hiftorians. He represents thofe hiftories as-" delivered

k

to us on the faith of a fuperftitious people, among whom "the custom and art of lying prevailed remarkably .”—And obferves, that" the Jewish hiftory never obtained any credit "in the world, till Chriftianity was established 1." He fometimes expreffeth himself, as if he were willing to allow the divine infpiration of the doctrinal and prophetical parts of the Bible, and were only for rejecting the hiftorical. And this he pretends to be the best way to defend the authority of the Scriptures m But it is evident that this is only a fneer. For he was, no doubt, fenfible, that the facred history is fo interwoven with the prophecies and laws, that if the former is to be regarded as lying fiction, and not at all' to be depended upon, the divine authority of the other cannot be fupported. And what he afterwards repeatedly affirmeth of Chriftianity, that the credit of its divine inftitution dependeth upon facts, holdeth equally concerning the Old Teftament œconomy.

After having done what he can, in his third Letter, to fhew the uncertainty of antient facred as well as profane history, he

h Vol. i. p. 70. Ib. p. 91.

i lb. p. 83, & feq.

in Ib. p. 93. 98, 99.

k. lb. p. 87.

begins his fourth with obferving, that as" we are apt. naturally to apply to ourselves what has happened to other "men; and as examples täke their force from hence; fo what we do not believe to have happened we shall not thus apply; and, for want of the fame application, the examples will "not have the fame effect."- -And then he adds" An"tient history, such antient history as I have defcribed,” Fin which antient facred hiftory is manifeftly comprehended]

is quite unfit in this refpect to answer the ends that every "reasonable man fhould promife to himself in his study; be"caufe fuch antient hiftory will never gain fufficient credit "with any reasonable man.And afterwards fpeaking of antient fabulous narrations, he declares, that—" fuch narrations cannot make the flightest momentary impreffions on "a mind fraught with knowlege and void of fuperftition. Imposed by authority, and affifted by artifice, the delufion hardly prevails over common fenfe; blind ignorance almost fees, and rash fuperftition hesitates: nothing less than enthufiafm and phrenfy can give credit to fuch hiftories, or apply fuch examples."He thinks, that what he has faid will

፡፡

not be much controverted by any man that has exa"mined our antient traditions without prepoffeffion :"--and that all the difference between them, and Amadis of Gaul, is this, that" In Amadis of Gaul we have a thread of abfur

dities that lay no claim to belief; but antient traditions are "an heap of fables, under which fome particular truths in"fcrutable, and therefore ufelefs to mankind, may lie concealed, which have a juft pretence to nothing more," [i. e. to no more credit than Amadis of Gaul]—

66

and yet

impofe themselves upon us, and become, under the venerable "name of antient hiftory, the foundation of modern fables •.” He doth not directly apply this to the Scriptures. But no one can doubt that this was his intention. It is too evident, that these are defigned to be included in what he calleth-" our "antient traditions"-(a word which he had applied feveral times before to the facred records;) and which he reprefenteth as impofed by authority, and affifted by artifice."

-And

I think it fcarce poffible to exprefs a greater contempt of any writing, than he here doth of the hiftory of the Bible, and the examples it affords.

n Vol. i. p. 118.

• lb. p. 120, 121.

REFLE C

The History and Scriptures of the Old Teftament vindicated against bis Lordship's Exceptions.

H

AVING given this general view of the author's defign, I shall now proceed to a more distinct and particular examination of the principal things he hath offered to invalidate the authority of the Old Teftament Hiftory. What he faith of Christianity shall be confidered afterwards.

I need not take much notice of what he hath urged to fhew, that the writers of the Sacred Books did not intend an univerfal history, or fyftem of chronology. I know nobody that supposes they did; fo that he might have fpared that part of his pains. But notwithstanding the Bible was not defigned for an univerfal history, or to exhibit a complete system of chronology, though it may fafely be affirmed, that no one book in the world gives fo great helps this way, it is fufficient if it gives us a true hiftory as far as it goes, and which may be fafely de

• Vol.. i. p. 202, & feq.

pended

pended upon. This is what our author will not allow. It is manifeft, that he placeth it in the fame rank with the most fabulous accounts of antient times. This then is the point we are to confider. Let us therefore examine what proofs or arguments he hath brought against the truth and credit of the Sacred Hiftory.

Some of the things offered by him to this purpose have scarce fo much as the appearance of argument. Of this kind is what he faith concerning the use that has been made by Jewish Rabbies, and Christian Fathers, and Mahometan Doctors, of the fhort and imperfect accounts given by Mofes of the times from the creation to the deluge. Let us grant, that the fables they have feigned concerning Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Enoch, Noah, and his fons, &c. are fuch as- "Bonzes or TalaI poins would almost blush to relate;"--I do not fee how this can be reasonably turned to the disadvantage of the books of Mofes, or hurt the credit of them; fince his Lordship owns, that these fables are" profane extenfions of this part of "the Mofaic history." And that hiftory is certainly noway answerable for the additions which have been made to it. It would have been eafy for Mofes, if he had been a fabulous writer, to have filled up this part of his history with marvellous relations, and to have embellished it with fuch fictions concerning our first parents, and the most antient patriarchs, as our author here referreth to: and his not having done fo is a strong prefumption in his favour, that he did not give way to fancy or invention, but writ down the facts as they came to him, with an unaffected fimplicity. His accounts are fhort, because he kept close to truth, and took care to record no more of thofe times than he had good information of, or than was necessary to the design he had in view; which feems principally to have been to give a brief account of the creation, the formation of the first human pair, the placing them in Paradise, the fall, and the flood, which were the most remarkable events of that period; and to continue the line from Adam by Seth to Noah, as afterwards he does from him to Abraham.

What his Lordship obferves concerning the blunders of the Jewish chronologersb, is not much more to his purpose, except 'he could prove, that thofe blunders are chargeable upon the Scriptures; which is fo far from being true, that, if accurately examined, arguments may be brought from thofe very Scriptures to confute the blunders he mentions.

b Vol. i. p. 104.

As

7

As to the differences he takes notice of between the Scripture-accounts of the Affyrian empire, and those given by profane authors; i. e. by Ctefias, and them that copy from him; very able chronologers have endeavoured to fhew, that those accounts may be reconciled. But if not, it would only follow, that the Scripture-history differeth from Gtefias, who, in his Lordship's own judgment, and by the acknowlegement of the most judicious among the Greeks themselves, was a very fabulous writerd; and how this can be fairly thought to derogate from the credit and authority of the Sacred History, I cannot fee.

But to come to those things on which he seems to lay a greater ftrefs. The fum of what he hath offered to deftroy the truth and credit of the Sacred writings amounteth to this,"That the Jews, upon whofe faith they are delivered to us, were a people unknown to the Greeks, till the time of Alex"ander the Great.--That they had been slaves to the ፡፡ Egyptian, Affyrians, Medes, and Perfians, as these several

፡፡

empires prevailed. That a great part of them had been "carried captive, and loft in the Eaft: and the remainder "were carried captive to Babylon, where they forgot their 66 country, and even their language-And he intimates, that "there also they loft their antient facred books: that they were a fuperftitious people, among whom the custom and "art of pious lying prevailed remarkably-That the origi"nal of the Scriptures was compiled in their own country, " and, as it were, out of the fight of the rest of the world"That the Jewish hiftory never obtained any credit till Chrif"tianity was established; but though both Jews and Christians hold the fame books in great veneration, yet each con"demns the other for not understanding, or for abufing them

66

That the accidents which have happened to alter the text of the Bible fhew, that it could not have been originally given by divine inspiration; and that they are come "down to us broken and confufed, full of additions, inter"polations, and tranfpofitions.-That they are nothing more "than compilations of old traditions, and abridgments of old "records made in later times--and that Jews and Christians "differ among themfelves concerning almost every point that is "neceffary to eftablish the authority of thofe books." He concludes with "fome obfervations on the curfe faid to be pro"nounced by Noah upon Canaan, which he would have pass