I Do not dislike our Author'sFrench Edit. p. 222. English, p. 13 Division of the Scripture-Writings into Prophecies, Histo­ries and Doctrines: and I do so far agree with him, as to grant that all the Holy Books have not an e­qual degree of Inspiration, but have more or less of it, according as the matters they contain are more or less Adequate to the Wri­ters Understanding and Capacities. For I cannot but think that God made use of their Natural Talents as far as they could be subservient to his designs, the Reasons of which Opinion I shall have occasion here­after to mention. But yet, not­withstanding my agreement with him thus far, I must desire leave not to follow his Method, because [Page 2] I think 'twill contribute much to the Clearness and Strength of the following Discourse, if I treat of the Inspiration of the New-Testament-Writings in General, in the first place. For in this Method we begin with what is most Known and Cer­tain, and from thence proceed to explain what is more Doubtful and Obscure. And if the Divine Au­thority of the Writings of the New Testament be once proved, that of the Old must follow as a necessary Consequence; because the former gives Testimony to the latter, and most of the Arguments which prove the one, may be easily ap­plied to the other.

Mr. N. allowes the Histories of the N. Testament to be exact and true Re­lations of the matter of Fact, but suppo­ses that there's no need of Inspiration to Write a true History Fr. p. 231, &c. Engl. p. 28. &c.. He grants like­wise that the Apostolical Epistles con­tain nothing but what is conformable to the Doctrine of Christ; but yet that the A­postles had no need of an extraordinary Inspiration for Writing their Epistles Fr. p. 282, 283. Eng. p. 112, 113.. But all this while he takes no no­tice [Page 3] that these Writings were de­sign'd by God for the Perpetual Use and Instruction of the Church, and to be a Rule of Christian Faith to all Ages. Which one thing if it be made out, will prove their Divine Original, and sufficiently distinguish them from all other Writings, purely Humane, where Providence cannot be supposed to have had such an extraordinary Hand in the Composure: since it neither can be pretended that the Authors were the Immediate Instru­ments of God in publishing his Will, nor that their Works were design'd for so general a Use, as the Instru­ction of the Universal Church.

I shall therefore in the first place give a definition of an Inspir'd Wri­ting, and then prove that the Wri­tings of the New Testament are truly such. An Inspired Writing I take to be a Book that is writ by the Incitation, Direction and Assistance of God, and design'd by him for the Per­petual use of the Church.

The Proof of the Inspiration of the New-Testament-Writings, I shall [Page 4] comprise in these following Pro­positions.

• I. God design'd to provide a means for the preserving the Doctrine of Christ to the end of the World.
• II. This could not be done so well in any Ordinary way or Humane means, as by committing this Doctrine to Wri­ting.
• III. 'Tis more reasonable to suppose that God would make use of this way than any other, because he made use of the same means before, for the In­struction of the Jewish Church.
• IV. He has actually made use of no o­ther way for the conveying down the Christian Doctrine, that can be as­sign'd.
• V. The Apostles themselves design'd their Writings for the Perpetual use of the Church, and lookt upon them of equal Authority in the Christian Church, as the Writings of the Old Testament were in the Jewish.
• VI. The Age immediately after the A­postles lookt upon the Writings of the New Testament, as the standing Rule of Faith to the Christian Church.

[Page 5]I think the making out these Propositions, (some of which need very little proof) will fully prove the Divine Authority of the Books contain'd in the Canon of the New Testament: and when they are made out, such Consequences may be drawn from them, as will silence most of the Cavils and Objections, which the Author of these Letters and some others have raised against the Inspiration of the Scripture.

I. The first Proposition to be proved is this: God design'd to pro­vide a means for the preserving the Doctrine of Christ, to the end of the World.

This Proposition I think any Christian will take for granted: and my design at present is not to dispute with Infidels, but to lay down those Principles upon which the Divine Authority of the Scri­ptures is built, the truth of Chri­stianity being presupposed: be­cause the Author I am to deal with professes the Belief of Christianity, and yet has raised Objections a­gainst a great many of those Wri­tings, [Page 6] which Christians have all a­long lookt upon to be of Divine Authority. I say therefore that no Christian can doubt of the truth of this Proposition: for every Christian believes the Gospel to be the last and most perfect Reve­lation of the Will of God which he intends to afford to the World: he believes that Christ will be with his Church to the end of the World, Mat. 28.20 —16.18. and that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it: i. e. it shall never be so far weakned, as that the Profession of Christianity should cease, or the Church be perfectly deprived of the Knowledge of saving Truth. Nothing further being needful for the illustrating this Proposition, I proceed to the

II. Proposition. God could not pre­serve the Knowledge of Christianity in an Ordinary way, or by any Humane means so well, as by conveying the Do­ctrine of it to after Ages by Writing.

I do not pretend to prescribe to God Almighty what method he shall use to discover his Will to the World, or confine him to any one [Page 7] way of doing it: but thus much I think I may safely say, that a stand­ing Rule of Faith committed to Wri­ting is liable to less inconveniencies and difficulties, than any other way of conveying down Divine Truth. Whereas all other ways that can be assign'd of transmitting Divine Revelation are incumbred with so many difficulties, that without a constant series of Miracles, they can never attain their end. And therefore we can't reasonably sup­pose that God will make choice of any such methods to Reveal his Will by. For this is to be laid down for a certain truth, that God never works more Miracles than needs must, nor ever suspends or over­bears the force of natural Agents without evident necessity, but all­ways uses second Causes and Hu­mane means as far as they will go. And therefore that method which offers least violence to Nature, is more likely to be made choice of by God. Some Men indeed are apt to think that the Hand of God can't shew it self without a constant [Page 8] series of Miracles: but they that consider things more exactly, ra­ther judge that a continued succes­sion of Miracles would really be a reproach to God's Ordinary Pro­vidence: for often to interrupt the course of Nature, must needs be a reflection upon the Wisdom that first contrived it. We can imagine but two ways of God's Communi­cating his Will to several successive Ages without the help of Writing; either Oral Tradition, or making a Particular Revelation to every single Person, or at least to all those whose business 'tis to teach and instruct others in their Duty. Now both these ways are liable to such diffi­culties, and do suppose so many immediate interpositions of God's Power to prevent those errors which must of necessity attend them, (considering the present state of Humane Nature) as are not suit­able to the methods which God uses in Governing the World. I shall not pursue this matter any further, nor give a particular ac­count of the inconveniencies to [Page 9] which both these Methods are ob­noxious, and to correct which a constant Interposition of Miracles will be necessary. The Absurdity of the former has bin abundantly demonstrated by theDr. Til­lotson's Rule of Faith. Dr. Stil­lingfl. Defence of A. B. Laud. Dr. Sher­locks Pro­testant Resolu­tion of Faith. Learned De­fenders of the Protestant Resolution of Faith, against those Popish Wri­ters that set up Tradition in Oppo­sition to it: and the Absurdity of the latter is evident at first sight, and none but meer Enthusiasts ever made any Pretence to it. But on the other side, for God to commu­nicate his Will by Writing, implies nothing in it but what is Natural and Easie: there is nothing requi­site to continue this to Posterity, but God's preserving the Writings themselves by the ordinary Me­thods of Providence: and then men may as well learn his Will from thence, as they can know the Hi­stories of former Ages, the Opinions of Philosophers, the Laws of their own and other Countries, from the Writings which record each of these particulars: unless we will say, that God cannot order a Book [Page 10] to be writ in as Intelligible a man­ner, as men can indite it when they are left to themselves.

But 'twill further appear that 'tis more reasonable to suppose that God should preserve the Know­ledge of Christianity by appoint­ing a written Rule of Faith, than by any other means, if we consider,

III. That he made use of the same means formerly for the Instruction of the Jewish Church.

With God is no variableness, and what he once approves of, he does not afterward lay aside, but upon some great reason. Moses wrote his Law in a book by God's directionExod. 34.27.: the Prophets appeal to the Law and to the Testimony Is. 8.20., as the only safe Guide, and by which men must judge whether a Doctrine come from God, or not. Our Saviour bids the JewsJoh. 5.39. search the Scriptures, for in them they were perswaded, and so far they were in the right, was contain'd the way to Eternal Life: and in all his Contests with the Jews, he desired no other Vouchers for the Truth of what he said but Moses [Page 11] and the Prophets. And 'twill appear very reasonable to believe that God should use the same Method to instruct the Christian Church which he did the Jewish, if we con­sider that our Saviour and his A­postles conform'd the External parts of their Religion, to the Customs received among the Jews as much as they could, being resolv'd to give no offence by studiously affecting Novelties. The Two Sacraments were taken from Jewish Rites: the Government of the Christian Church was framed after the Pattern of the Jewish Hierarchy: the Apostles, as 'tis natural for all men to do, being willing to retain the Customs they had been bred up in, wherever the Nature of Christiany did not ob­lige them to the contrary. From whence 'tis natural to suppose that the Apostles should take care be­fore they left the world, to provide some certain means of Instruction for the Christian Church, in Con­formity to the Jewish, which might supply their place when they were dead and gone: or else they would [Page 12] not have been so faithful in their office as Moses was, who delivered the Book of the Law to the Priests before his Decease Deut. 31 9, 26.. And 'tis likely the Chri­stians themselves would expect to be provided with as good and sufficient means of knowing their duty, as the Jews enjoyed, or else they would have had just cause to complain that they came behind them in the Ad­vantages of Knowledge and Instru­ction. And that this is not a meer Conjecture, but the real Sense of the first Christians, is plain from the Account which the Ancient Wri­ters give us of the occasion of St. Matthew and S. Mark's writing their Gospels. Eusebius tells us,H. E. l. 3. c. 24. that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel particular­ly for the use of the Jews to whom he had preached, because going into other parts he would supply the Want of his Presence by Writing. Clemens A­lexandrinus saies,Ap Eus. H. E. l. 2. c. 15. That St. Mark wrote his Gospel at the Request of the Christians at Rome, who were not sa­tisfied with an unwritten Tradition of the Word, and therefore desir'd him to commit it to Writing. Which St. [Page 13] Peter coming to understand, approved and confirmed this Gospel for the use of the Church. And when these and the other Apostolical Writings came into the hands of Christians, there was no need of a particular Com­mand from God to make them be received as the Rule of the Christi­an Faith. For the Character of the Persons who wrote them, the Ex­ample of the Jewish Church, and the Parity of Reason why these Writings should be of equal Au­thority among Christians, as the Writings of the Old Testament were among the Jews: and lastly the Necessity of having some Stan­ding and Settled Rule of Faith: these were all sufficient Induce­ments to Christians to look upon the Apostolical Writings as ordain­ed by God, for the Perpetual Use and Instruction of the Church. And this will further appear if we consider,

IV. That God has actually made use of no other way for the conveying down the Doctrine of Christianity, that [Page 14] can be assign'd, but the Writings of the N. Testament.

'Tis a very weak Argument to infer that things must be so, because we think it Convenient they should be so. This is indeed to prescribe to God Almighty, and tell him he ought to have ask'd our Advice in the Managing of things. And there­fore, tho the Arguments for the Infallibility of Tradition, for an In­fallible Judge of Controversies, or what­ever other Guide men have set up in opposition to the Scriptures, were never so plausible, and were as real Demonstrations as the Authors of them fancy them to be, yet as long as 'tis plain by Experience that Tra­dition is not Infallible, and that there is no Infallible Judge of Controversies, all these Pretences to Demonstrati­on signify nothing, for a man may demonstrate his heart out, before he will be able to confute Experience. And that neither the Authority of the Church Representative, nor the Tradition of the Church Diffusive, neither Pope nor Council, jointly or separately, are Infallible Guides [Page 15] to Christians, or equivalent to the Scriptures, has been made out with such admirable Clearness, and un­answerable Strength of Reason, by the Learned Defenders of the Pro­testant Cause against Popery, that without further insisting upon this Point, I shall refer to them for fur­ther Satisfaction, and proceed to the

V. Proposition. That the Apostles themselves design'd their Writings for the Perpetual Ʋse of the Church, and look'd upon them of Equal Authority with the Writings of the Old Testa­ment.

The Supernatural Assistance which attended the Apostles in every thing of Moment, and tending to the Edi­fication of the Church, was so Ex­traordinary: and even their Pri­vate Judgment as men, was so Up­right and void of all Self-interest and Corruption, that 'twill very much illustrate this matter, to con­sider what Judgment and Opinion they themselves had of their own Writings.

The very Design of the Gospels [Page 16] shews that they were writ for the General Ʋse of the Church, to Re­cord the Doctrine and Miracles of our Saviour, the Author and Fini­sher of our Faith, whom all are to hear and obey. And tho it were some particular Emergency that might induce the Evangelists to set about this Work, which yet is to be look'd upon as a Providential Motion, yet the Gospels themselves not only answer that particular End which was the first Occasion of their being writ, but are of General Use, and fitted to all Ages and times. We have already mention'd the Occasion of St. Matthew and St. Mark's writing their Gospels. St. Luke gives anLuk. 1.1. Account of his Un­dertaking himself, the substance of which is, ‘That since many had written an History of our Savior's Life and Actions, who wanted some Advantages of knowing the Particulars which he had, he him­self being exactly inform'd by those who were Eye-witnesses and Parties concern'd, set about a more accurate account of these Matters, [Page 17] to the end that every Christian who will be at the pains to read it, might know the Certainty of those things wherein he has been instructed.’ It seems from hence that committing things to Writing, was in St. Lukes judgment the most certain means of Conveying the Knowledge of them to others.

As for St. John, 'tis plain by com­paring his Gospel with the other Three, that he had seen the Rest and approved them,V. Eus. H. E. l. 3. c. 24 and therefore supplied what he thought fit, which the former Evangelists had omit­ted: that so all of them together might be a Complete Account of all that Jesus did and taught. And he [...] himself tells us that his Design in writing his Gospel was,Joh. 20.31. That men might believe that Jesus is Christ, and that believing they might have life thro' his Name.

To proceed to the Epistles of the Apostles: it must be confess'd that many of St. Paul's were written up­on the particular Exigencies of the Churches to which they are dire­cted, and were occasion'd by some [Page 18] Disputes that were proper to those times: which may be thought an Argument that they were not de­sign'd for the General Use of the Church. But yet if we consider that the Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity are admirably illu­strated by them, and many of the more Mysterious parts of the Gos­pel-Dispensation more fully trea­ted of in them, than by Christ him­self, because there were many things which the Apostles were not able to bear Joh. 16.12. while he was with them, and therefore they were referred to the Teaching of the Holy Ghost, for fuller Instruction in such matters: I say if we lay these things toge­ther, we must acknowledge it ne­cessary to add the Apostolical E­pistles to the Gospels, in order to the making up a Complete Rule of Christian Faith: or else we shall be much to seek for an Authentick Explication of several Important Points of Christianity. But of this I shall discourse more largely in the next Chapter. To return to S. Paul's Epistles: I cannot but observe [Page 19] how the Wisdom of God has made St. Paul's Style and way of Wri­ting, to be admirably serviceable to the Edification of the Church, which yet if we examine it by the Rules of Criticism, is far from be­ing Regular and Exact. But his free use of Digressions, and those long ones too sometimes, opens him a way into a larger Subject and of more General Use, and does not suffer him to confine himself to that one particular Point, which 'twas his main Design to treat of. And when we find him take occa­sion from every hint to explain the Mysteries of the Gospel, to set forth the Excellency of it, and to perswade men to live up to the Height of its Precepts, this is not only a sign that his holy Soul was full of this noble Subject, but is likewise an argument that the Ho­ly Spirit Influenc'd his Pen, and made him enlarge himself upon those Points which were of Uni­versal Concern, and would be for the Perpetual Benefit of the Church in all succeeding Ages. A signal In­stance [Page 20] of this you may see in that large Digression in the second Epistle to the Corinthians, which reaches from the 13. verse of the Second Chapter, to the 5. verse of the Seventh. Where he discourses of some of the Fun­damentals of Christianity, with such a true Spirit of Piety, and with such a powerful Force of Natural Eloquence, that if we may prefer one part of that Inspir'd Teacher's Writings before another, we might call this one of the most Elevated Discourses in all St. Paul's Epistles. And as both the Matter of his E­pistles, and the Manner how they are writ, discover to us that they were design'd for the Perpetual Use of Christians, so we shall find St. Peter to have been of the same mind, whose words justify all that I have said. For he places St. Paul's Epistles in an equal Rank with those holy Writings, which were on all hands agreed upon to be the Word of God. Thus much his words import, II. Pet. 3.15, 16. where speaking of St. Paul's E­pistles that there were some things [Page 21] in them hard to be understood, which ignorant and unstable men wrested and applied to ill purposes, to e­stablish corrupt Doctrines: he adds, As they do also the OTHER SCRI­PTURES to their own destruction: which Expression of [other Scri­ptures] plainly implies that St. Pe­ter look'd upon St. Paul's Epistles as part of the Canon of Scripture, and rank'd them among those Di­vine Writings which were design'd for our Edification and Instructi­on in Righteousness, and which 'twas dangerous to pervert to a con­trary Purpose.

And if St. Paul's Epistles, which were writ upon the Exigencies and with Regard to the State of Parti­cular Churches, were yet still de­sign'd to be of general Use; the same may be said with much greater rea­son concerning the Epistles of the rest of the Apostles, with aim only at this General Design, to confirm those in the Faith to whom they were directed, to exhort and testifie that this is the true Grace of God where­in they stood 1 Pet 5.12., and to keep up the Re­membrance [Page 22] of the Apostles Doctrine af­ter their decease 2 Pet. 1.15., as St. Peter speaks concerning the Intent of his two Epistles. And we find St. John ad­dresses himself to all Christians, without Restriction, and even to all Ranks and Degrees of them, whom he divides into Children, Young men, and Fathers 1 Joh. 2.12, 13..

Thus much I think sufficient to prove that the Apostles themselves design'd their Writings for the Perpetual Use of the Church, and look'd upon them as of Equal Au­thority with the Inspir'd Books of the Old Testament. I proceed to the

VI. and last Proposition, viz. The Age immediately following that of the Apostles, look'd upon their Writings as the Standing Rule of Faith to the Christian Church.

Certainly next to the Apostles themselves, the Age immediately following was best able to know what the Apostles thought of their own Writings, and what Authority they challeng'd as due to them. Irenaeus, one of the [Page 23] Greatest men of the Church in that Age, sufficiently shews the Sense of the Christians of his own time concerning the Authority of these Writings. The Hereticks a­gainst whom he writes, pretended that their Opinions came origi­nally from the Apostles, and that, whatever the Apostles might say to the contrary in their Writings, yet they taught those very things by word of mouth, which these Hereticks since maintain'd. In an­swer to this, Irenaeus does not only confute their Pretences, by shew­ing that there was Clear and Un­doubted Tradition for the Catho­lick Faith, which in those early Times could easily be trac'd up to the very ApostlesIren. l. 3. c. 3.: but likewise proves that 'tis in vain to set up Oral Tradition in Opposition to the Writings of the Apostles,Ibid. l. 3. c. 1. because the very same Gospel which they at first preach'd, they afterwards by the Will of God committed to Writing, to be the Foundation and Pillar of our Faith. In pursuance of which Te­stimony we may further observe, [Page 24] that the very Arts which those He­reticks used either to Undermine, or Evade the Authority of the A­postolical Writings, plainly shew their Authority was look'd upon as Sacred and Decisive in the Chri­stian Church.

The Writers of the same Age do fully bear witness to the Ca­non of the New Testament. The Learned Mr. Dodwell has observ'dDissert. in Irenae­um l. n. 40, 41. that St. Paul's Epistles were gene­rally known and received in the Church soonest of any of the New Testament Writings: and accor­dingly, besides the Testimony which St. Peter gives them, which we have already mention'd, we we may observe, that Ignatius the earliest Writer of the second Age, is very industrious in imitating St. Paul's Style, and using his Expressions, as if he had a mind his Readers should take notice that he had studied his Epistles. The Authority indeed of the E­pistle to the Hebrews hath been call'd in question, because the Au­thor's not having set his Name to [Page 25] it, has given occasion to doubt whe­ther it were S. Paul's or not. But as this Epistle must be of Aposto­lical Authority, being older than Clemens Romanus, who plainly al­ludes to it in two places of his E­pistle to the Corinthians N. 17, & 36.; so the style, the way of Arguing, and the Genius of the work discover it to be S. Paul's: but S. Peter puts an end to the dis­pute; for the saying which he quotes in his second Epistle as S. Paul's, is certainly taken out of the Epistle to the Hebrews 2 Pet. 3.15. compar'd with Hebr. 10.37.. The first Epistle of S. Peter is quoted by S. Polycarp, who writ just after Igna­tius's death. About the same time certain Pious Men Travell'd from place to place, on purpose to com­municate the Writings of the Gospels, as Eusebius informs us [...]. H. E. l. 3. c. 37.: which he to be sure understood of the Four Gospels now extant, which only were reckon'd Authentick in his time. And 'tis plain they were esteem'd so in the Middle of the Second Age, because Justin Martyr quotes them generally, whenever he has occa­sion to mention any thing belong­ing [Page 26] to the History of our Saviour. But in Irenaeus's time their Autho­rity was settled beyond all dispute: for he says positively,Iren. l. 3. c. 11. that there are Four Gospels, neither more nor less. And indeed the Authenticalness of Four Gospels seems to be owing to St. John himself, who made them into one Complete Code, as I ob­served before.p. 11. 12.. The same Iraeneus gives a large Testimony to the Re­velations, and often quotes the first Epistle of S. John ap. Eu­seb. H. E. l. 3. c. 18. & l. 5. c. 8..

I thought it not improper to give this brief Account of the Testimo­nies which are given by the earliest Christian Writers, to the most consi­derable Books of the New Testa­ment, to shew how good a Foundati­on there is for the Authority of the New-Testament Canon: and how little ground there is for Mr. Hobb's Insi­nuation to the contrary, who tell us,Levia­than part 3. c. 33. that the Writings of the Apostles were not received nor acknowledged as such by the Church, till the Council of Laodicca, which was held in the Year 364. re­commended them to Christians. As if all Christians did not agree in ac­knowledging [Page 27] such particular Books for the Writings of the Apostles, till they were Recommended to them, as he speaks, and Enumerated by a Council. Which has as little truth in it, as what he says just after­ward, that at the time of this Council, all the Copies of the New Testament were in the hands of Eccle­siasticks, which if it be not a down­right and wilful falsity in him, is such a piece of ignorance, as a grosser cannot be found in all the King­dom of Darkness which he has de­scribed. I find Men generally a­gree in believing Mr. Hobbs to be the Author of the Leviathan and several other ill Books, and I fear too many have a great deference for their Authority, tho the Par­liament (which according to him hath a juster right to declare what Books or Doctrines are to be re­ceived, than a Council) hath not yet given us a Catalogue of his Writings or Recommended them to the World: neither of which could be true, if this Argument of his be good. But to return; I don't pretend to have [Page 28] Collected all that can be alledged to prove the Antiquity of the New-Testament-Canon, nor will I go farther upon a Subject that is already undertaken by that Learn­ed Person who will shortly Publish an Elaborate Collection of all the Va­rious Readings of the New Testa­ment, from whom the World may expect full satisfaction as to this matter.

However I can't but just take notice, that 'tis no prejudice to the Divine Authority of the N. Testa­ment, as our Author intimatesFr. p. 266. Eng. p. 85., that some Books are received into it whose Authors are not certainly known, and therefore, as he argues, of whose Inspiration we can't be certain. He instances in the Epistle to the Hebrews. But there is sufficient proof that S. Paul was the Author of that Epistle, as I have shewed al­ready. And as to the whole New-Testament Canon, 'twas certainly the design of those that Compiled it, only to gather together the Wri­tings of the Apostles, or of such as writ by their direction, as the [Page 29] Ancients tell us S. Mark did by S. Peter'sClem. Alex. ap. Eus. H.E. l. 2. c. 15., & S. Luke by S. Paul'sIren ap. eund. l. 5. c. 8. Grot. in Luc. 21.34. & 1 Cor. 11.23, 24, 25. compar [...]d with Luk. 22.19, 20.. So that the only reason why some Books were doubted of, was be­cause it did not clearly appear whe­ther they were Writ by Apostles or not, and assoon as that point was cleared, their Authority was immediately Establisht. And so much for the proving the Sixth Proposition.

And I think supposing these Six Propositions proved, this Conclu­sion will plainly follow from what has been said, that the Books of the New-Testament were Written by God's Direction, and design'd by Him for the Perpetual use and Instruction of the Church, and are the only Fixt Rule which he has appointed for this purpose.

I shall draw some Conclusions from these Premises, which will tend to illustrate and explain the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Writings.

1. It follows from hence that the Holy Ghost assisted the Apostles as fully when they Writ, as when they Preached. How far this assistance extended, [Page 30] and wherein it consisted, I shall ex­amine particularly in the next Chapter: at present I intend only to shew that we may presume there is as great a degree of Inspiration to be found in their Writings, as was in their Preaching. For since the reason why this Assistance ac­companied them in their Preach­ing, was the benefit of the Church, that they might Guide it into all Truth, without any danger of mix­ing error with it: the same reason holds much stronger for their Wri­tings, which do not serve for the Instruction of One Age only, as their Preaching did, but of Many. And therefore tho we should sup­pose that they use Arguments ad Hominem sometimes, and proceed upon such Principles as were gene­rally admitted in the Age they lived, without nicely examining whether they were true or not; yet this only shews that they thought fit to explain Divine Truths in such a manner as was most suitable to the Capacity of the persons they were immediately to Instruct. And [Page 31] as we must grant that tho the New Testament was design'd for the use of future Ages, yet the Phrase and Style and Argumentation used in it is wholly accommodated to the Sen­timents and Usage of that Age in which 'twas writ: so S. Paul himself does plainly imply that he does not always use the Best Arguments, but sometimes such as are best fitted to the Capacities and Notions of those he Writes to. For thus we find him express himself by way of excuse for the Argument he makes use of,Rom. 6.19. I speak after the manner of men, because of the infir­mity of your flesh: which is as much as if he had said, I could bring a better argument to prove what I say, but this which I make use of is more suitable to your Capacities, and may perhaps more effectually convince you, than a better.

2. It follows secondly, that since the Books of the New Testament, (and the same reason holds as to any other Writings of the same rank and use) were design'd to be a standing rule of Faith to Christians, the Holy Ghost, [Page 32] tho he did not generally Dictate the words which the holy Writers used, yet directed them to express their minds in such a manner, that those who have a regard to the Dialect and way of speak­ing in which they write, might rightly un­derstand them; or at least the Holy Spirit prevented their giving just occasion for Men's errors and mistakes in matters of Consequence, by their Phrases and Expressions. And such a degree of assistance is absolutely necessary to make these Books a standing Rule of Faith. For tho we suppose the Holy Writers used a Popular style, and consequently made use of such Hyperboles and Metaphors and other Improprieties of Speech, which common practise allows of in all Languages, (especially where they occasionally speak of Philosophical matters, and things not immediately relating to Religion:) yet unless we suppose them to speak properly in those Terms of Art which are of fun­damental use in the explaining the Doctrines of Christianity, and up­on the sense of which whole Con­troversies turn, and as they are [Page 33] differently taken they alter the very face of the Christian Religion; I say, except we suppose the A­postles to speak properly, i. e. agree­ably to their own Simplicity and Plainness of Speech, and in such a manner as was most likely to be understood by those they writ to, when they treat of matters of great Importance, and such as are justly to be reckon'd Fundamental Do­ctrines, the New Testament will not answer the ends of a Rule of Faith. For a Book is of no use to explain or decide any Controversy, if we can have no sixt rule where­by to judge of its style, so as to be in some measure certain what is its true sense. And 'tis very strange if a Book writ by persons who had an extraordinary assistance from God, and which was design'd for Universal use, should not be worded with that care which Hu­mane Industry uses in matters of Importance. And therefore we have reason to rely upon the assi­stance of the Holy Spirit, even with relation to the Phrase and Let­ter [Page 34] of the Scripture, and to believe that he has so far directed the holy Pen-men, that their Phrases and Expressions should not lead Men into error in matters of Consequence; but may be rightly understood by those that acquaint themselves with the Dialect in which they writ, and consult the Ages nearest the Apostles, who must needs be, next to their own style, the best Judges of their sense. If indeed the Socinian Doctrines concerning the Nature and Satisfaction of Christ were true, it must be confessed there would be little reason to believe that the Holy Ghost had a hand in word­ing the Scriptures: nay then the Scriptures will appear to be writ­ten in such a style, as if the Writers design'd to lead Men into error. And the Socinians themselves, when they make Reason the sole Judge of Sripture, and tell us they will not believe any thing contrary to Rea­son, tho it were never so plainly asserted in Scripture, do in effect confess that the expressions of Scri­pture, taken in their natural and [Page 35] most obvious sense, do not at all favour their OpinionsSocin. de Christ. Servat. l. 3. c. 6.. And therefore 'tis no wonder to find these Gentlemen warn their Read­ers so often not to make Inferences from the Phrases of Scripture, as if they were used strictly and pro­perly: that they so often tell us of the Improprieties and Meta­phors which the Eastern Writers, and those who imitate them, a­bound with: that the Apostles play with Words as Socinus with Reve­rence speaksAma­vit Pau­lus in Ex­ecrationis verbo esse argutus Socm. de Chr Ser [...] l. 2. c. 1, and take them some­times in one sense and sometimes in another. Our Author follows them in this, as well as in some o­ther thingsv Fr. p 234. Eng p. 146., and often cautionsEng. p 107, 111. Fr. p. 280, 281. En. p. 11 [...]. Fr. p. 285. Eng. p. 145, 146. Fr. p. 233, 234. us ‘not to subtilize about the expres­sions, nor stick too close to the Letter of the Scripture, since the style of Scripture is so far from being exact, that 'tis very careless: and tells us, Eng. p. 107, 116. Fr. p. 280, 285. that laying too great stress upon Words, has bin the occasion of most of the Disputes among Christians.’ I readily grant it has; but then the fault has bin that Men have either Interpreted Scripture-Expressions [Page 36] by notions of Philosophy, which the Holy Writers never heard of, or else they have not inquir'd into the Sentiments of those times in which these Books were writ, but have judged of their sense by the Schemes, and applied them to the Disputes of Modern Ages, as if they were writ only with a regard to the Contro­versies that should arise in After-Times, without any respect to the Sentiments and Exigencies of the Age wherein they were written. But if we have a regard only to the Genius of the Language which the Holy Writers used, and judge of their Sentiments by the State of the Church in their time, and by such Ancient Authors as were most likely to be acquainted with the Notions which were then generally received; I don't think laying stress upon the Phrases of the Scriptures can lead us into such gross errors as Mr. N. imaginesEng. p. 146. Fr p. 234.. And without sup­posing this, we can scarce deduce any Inferences from Scripture Texts, and yet this is practis'd by the Apostles themselves, who some­times [Page 37] argue from Words, and those too taken in their nicest significa­tion. A remarkable example of which is that Inference of S. Paul's, Gal. 3.16. To Abraham and to his seed were the Promises made: he saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

3. Since God in his Providence took care that these Books should be Writ for the use of his Church, and therefore gave Providential occasions for their being Written, it follows that they are Compos'd in such a manner as not to exclude the use of the Natural Reason and Meditation of the Writers who Compos'd them.

Works of Providence are not sup­pos'd to exclude Humane means, and we believe many things to be brought to pass by the determinate Counsel and Power of God, tho they are not purely Miraculous and and meerly God's own Act and Deed, but are brought to pass by second Causes as his Instruments. And why then can't he give Men a Rule of Faith and Manners, ex­cept the Writing be with the im­mediate [Page 38] Finger of God, as the Two Tables were? 'Tis certain that the ordinary Operations of the Spirit do only excite and assist our na­tural Faculties, not supersede or render them useless. And even the extraordinary ones do very often influence Men's minds after the same manner, as appears by S. Paul's advice to Timothy, 1 Tim. 4.14. Give atten­dance to Reading, to Exhortation, to Doctrine, neglect not the gift which is in thee, which was given thee by pro­phecy. And to the same purpose he speaks in the second Epistle2 Tim. 1.6.. And therefore tho we suppose the Authors of the Scriptures to have been Inspir'd, and to have had the extraordinary Assistances of God's Spirit, yet this will not exclude the use of their Natural Talents, but that the Writers made use of them as far as they could be serviceable to their purpose, and God sup­plied their defects. From hence appears the weakness of that Ar­gument which is urged by our Au­thor and by some others, against the Inspiration of the Poetical [Page 39] BooksFr. p. 230. En. p. 27. of the Old Testament, be­cause they seem to be the effects of Study and Meditation: and against that of the Historical Books of the Scri­pture,Grot. votum pro pace, p. 672. Refutat. Apologet. p. 722. because the things contain'd in them are either of the Writers own Knowledge, or else taken from Anci­ent Memoirs, or the Relation of others. To the same purpose 'tis urged a­gainst the Divine Authority of S. Paul's Epistles by Spinoza, Theol. Polit. c. 11 that they are full of Argumentation, which he thinks must be the effect of S. Paul's own reason. As if a Man that had a perfect Systeme of the Christian Religion infused into his mind by Revelation, as we sup­pose S. Paul to have had, did not apprehend it after a Rational man­ner, and see the whole Series and Chain of its Principles, by the help of which he could infer one thing from another. But is it not a plea­sant Argument against the Inspira­tion of a Book, that it is writ in a Rational and Argumentative way? which must either suppose that 'tis below God Almighty to give a reason for his Institutions: or else [Page 40] that 'twas not proper for the Apo­stles, to shew their Disciples that the Doctrines they taught them were such as might be Rationally deduc'd from certain Principles, and to confute their Adversaries the same way, who would not submit to their bare Authority, nor believe a thing to be true, meerly because they said so.

4. It follows from what has bin said, that 'tis no Argument against a Book's being design'd by God for the perpetual use of the Church, that 'twas at first writ upon some particular Exigency, and with relation to the peculiar Cir­cumstances of the persons to whom 'tis directed.

For some of those Books of the Old Testament which were certain­ly design'd for the publick benefit of the Church, as 'tis granted by all that acknowledge any such thing as Inspiration, (and I don't at pre­sent concern my self with any o­thers) I say some of the Undoubt­edly Inspir'd Writings were occasi­on'd by the particular Exigences of those times in which their Authors [Page 41] lived. I mean the Books of the Prophets, who were all sent by God to testify against the sins which were committed in their own times. And if God so order'd it, that these Prophecies should be of per­petual use to the Church, why may not the other Occasional Writings of the Scripture, if I may so term them, have been compos'd with the same Design? I have already shewedP. 19. that the manner of St. Paul's Writing does excellently answer this Intent. From hence it appears that the Argument used by some Popish Writers why the New Testament cannot be a perfect Rule of the Christian Faith, because several parts of it were writ only with Relation to particular Exigencies of some one Church, holds as well against the Old Testament being a Rule to the Jews, because a great part of of it, viz. the Prophecies, were oc­casion'd by the particular Circum­stances of those Times in which the Prophets lived.

HAving said thus much in ge­neral concerning the Di­vine Authority and Inspi­ration of the Apostolical Writings, I proceed to examine more distin­ly the Assertions which the Au­thor of the Letters hath laid down concerning the Inspiration of the Apostles and of their Writings: and in order to that shall consi­der particularly, both as to their Nature and Extent, some of the most remarkable Gifts, with which the Holy Spirit indowed the A­postles. I find our Author is very industrious to lessen the Apostoli­cal Gifts, as much as he can, and to represent them very little above their natural Faculties. He indea­vours to shew, ‘That the Operation of the Holy Spirit upon their Minds, [Page 43] consisted chiefly in refreshing their Memories,Fr. p. 254, 257. En. p. 66. 70. and bringing to their Remembrance what Christ had said unto them. He does indeed say,Fr. 255. En. p. 67. That sometimes the Holy Spirit made them understand by extraor­dinary Revelations, that which Christ had said unto them whilst he was with them, but which they then understood not. And that they had many imme­diate Revelations and divers heaven­ly VisionsFr. p. 252. Eng. 62.. And in another place, Fr. 257. Eng. p. 70. That perhaps the Spirit open'd their Minds after a manner we compre­hend not.’ But while he sets out the Objections against the Inspiration of the Apostles in the best Light, and with the greatest Force he can, he passes over the Evidences for it very slightly, and looks upon their Imme­mediate Inspirations to have been so extraordinary, and to have hap­pen'd so seldom, that he does not stick roundly to declare,Ubi sup. That their Infallibility consisted in relating faith­fully what they had seen and heard. He likewise endeavours to shew,Fr. p. 240. &c. Eng. p. 42, &c. That they had not an extraordina­ry Assistance, when they were sum­mon'd [Page 44] before the Secular Powers, upon the account of their Religion. And he makes this another argument against the Inspiration of the Apostles, and other persons in those times whom the Scripture speaks of as inspir'd,Fr. p. 248, 249. 259. Eng. p. 57. 74. that they confer'd with one another, and submitted to one another's Judgments, and did not come to a Con­clusion concerning any matter in questi­no, till after long Deliberation, and Con­sultation with each other: with many other Cavils of less weight. In An­swer to which, and for the Clearing of this Matter I shall shew,

• I. How far we may allow what he says to be true, and in what Cases the Apostles did not speak or act by Inspiration.
• II. I shall shew that excepting those Cases, the Apostles writ and spake by the particular Assistance and Direction of the Spirit.
• III. I shall shew that the Assistance of the Holy Spirit did not consist only or chiefly in Improving their Natural Faculties, or Strengthen­ing and Refreshing their Memories.
• IV. I shall shew that they had an [Page 45] extraordinary Assistance, when they were summon'd before Magistrates upon the Account of their Religion: and vindicate their Behaviour under those Circumstances, from the unbe­coming Reflections which Mr. N. has made upon it.
• V. I shall vindicate the Inspiration of the Apostles and other inspir'd persons from the rest of the Obje­ctions which he advances against it.

I. As to the first of these Inqui­ries, What were the Cases wherein the Apostles did not act or speak by Inspi­ration, I conceive we may allow them to be these following.

1. Where they treat of the common Occurrences of Life, and such things as have no Relation at all to Divine Truths. As when St. Paul speaks of his design to take Rome Rom. 15.24. in his way to Spain, and to call at2 Cor. 1.16. Corinth as he went into Macedonia: but yet it appears he was uncertain as to that Resolution,v. 1 Cor. 16.7. and did not actuallyv. 2 Cor. 17. make it good. Many In­stances of the like nature might be alledg'dv. 1 Cor. 1.16. r. Joh. 6.19. Act. 19. Hitherto we may refer Slips of memory in matters of [Page 46] no consequence, some Examples of which there are to be found in in the N. Testamentv. Mat. 27.9. Act. 7.16..

2. Such things as were matters only of Humane Prudence, being of an Indif­ferent nature in themselves, and conse­quently not the proper Subjects of a Di­vine Revelation. For matters of Pru­dence, i. e. Where God has given men no fix'd rule, but left them at liberty to determine for themselves accor­ding as their circumstances shall di­rect, as they are not the proper Sub­jects of a Divine Law, so neither are they of a Divine Revelation. Such is the Case of married persons where one party is an Ʋnbeliever, which St. Paul considers,1 Cor. 7.12. and resolves by the Rules of humane Prudence, (and therefore tells us before hand, that 'tis He that speaks, not the Lord) ta­king his measures from the general Law of Christian Charity. For as to this Case I look upon Mr. Thorn­dike'sLaws of the Church, p. 117. Opinion as the most pro­bable, which is, That the Apostle look'd upon Marriage made by per­sons before they were Christians, to lay no stricter Obligation upon [Page 47] the Parties, than the Laws which they were under when the Marri­age was contracted, design'd to lay upon them. So that if two per­sons who were under the Laws of the Roman Empire married, and afterward one of them turn'd Christian, this did not at all alter the Conditions of the Marriage, in respect of the Converted Party, from what they were before: nor in a Marriage contracted by Sub­jects of the Roman Empire, under the state of Heathenism, is the Con­verted Party by virtue of his imbra­cing Christianity afterward, oblig'd anew by the stricter Ties of the Christian Law concerning Mar­riage, but only by those which the Roman Laws required, upon which Terms the Marriage was made at first: and so might upon just occasi­on, take Advantage of the Privilege which the Roman Laws permitted, of being Divorc'd for other Causes be­sides that which was allowed by our Saviour. Now the reason why the Laws of Christianity do not extend to a Marriage contracted under a state of Heathenism I conceive to [Page 48] be this, because Heathen Marriages being not in their own nature In­dissoluble, as Christian Marriages are, but the Parties having reserv'd to themselves a liberty to part from each other, in such Cases as the Laws of each Country allowed, the nature of the Marriage-contract still continues the same, after the Con­version of either Party which it did before, i.e. Dissoluble, unless the Be­lieving Party can perswade the Un­believing, to oblige himself to the Observation of those stricter Laws of Matrimony, which are injoin'd by Christ. Without which mutual Consent the Marriage continues the same it was before, while both Par­ties were Unbelievers: and conse­quently the Laws of Christ do not reach this Case, being appli­cable only to those Marriages which are made in the Christian Church, or at least which are made Christian by an After-act, and mutual Con­sent of the Parties to submit to the Christian Law in this particular. This Opinion seems to be counte­nanc'd by the Apostle in the 15. verse of that Chapter.1 Cor. 7.15. If the [Page 49] Ʋnbeliever depart, a Brother or Sister is not under Bondage in such Cases: the most natural Sense of which Words is, If the Marriage Contract be broke on the Unbe­lievers side, the Believer is no lon­ger tied [...]. V. ver. 39. & Rom. 7.1, 2, 3. by it. Which is not true of a Marriage where the Laws of Christianity take place, for there the Breach of the Marriage Cove­nant on one side, does not dissolve the Bond, nor release the other party from the Obligation of it, except in the Case of Adultery, which St. Paul does not here sup­pose. Which seems to me plainly to prove that St. Paul did not think the Laws of Christianity were to be extended to such Mar­riages as these. This seems too to have been the sense of the Pri­mitive Christians, by the Story which gave occasion to Justin Martyrs first Apology, (as 'tis usually reckon'd) concerning a WomanApol. 1. init. that being Converted to Chri­stianity, after having used many endeavours to reclaim her Husband from his vicious course of Life, [Page 50] when they all proved ineffectual, sent him a Divorce drawn up ac­cording to the form prescribed by the Roman Laws [...]. Ibid.. This action of hers is commended by Justin Mar­tyr; which I suppose he would not have done, if he had thought the Laws of the Gospel took place in such a Marriage as this, which was contracted in a state of Heathe­nism. For certainly Christianity does not allow the Wife to put away her Husband upon any ac­count whatsoever: since that was never allowed by Moses's Law, nor ever practis'd among the Jews till Herod's time, when Salome sent a Bill of Divorce to her Husband, which was done contrary to the Jewish Laws, as Josephus Antiq. l. 15. c. 9. p. 532. B., who re­lates it, observes. And if this be the true state of the case concern­ing Marriage, where one party is a Convert to Christianity, and the true ground of S. Paul's resolving the question proposed to him con­cerning this matter; the reason is plain why he introduces his an­swer with this Preface, I, not the [Page 51] Lord 1 Cor. 7.12.; for this case is of the same nature with the other Indifferent things S. Paul discourses of in the same Chapter, where he gives his judgement about the state of Vir­ginity and Widowhood. The doubts concerning which matters he resolves by the Rules of Pru­dence, and with respect to the pre­sent Distress 1 Cor. 7.26., and the difficulties which attended the Profession of Christianity. The Apostle indeed says, I give my Opinion about these questions, as one that hath obtain'd mercy of the Lord to be faithful 1 Cor. 7.25., and again, After my judgement, and I think that I also have the Spirit of God ver. 40.. But this is not spoke with the Authority of an Apostle or Teacher sent by God, but in such a style as implies only an ordinary Assistance, such as any Pious skil­ful Pastor may still expect: for 'tis as if he had said, ‘I do sincere­ly give you the best Advice I can, my judgement is not byass'd by any corrupt end, I have no other design but to promote God's Glory and your good, and [Page 52] therefore I may be pretty confi­dent that the Spirit of God whose influences I have often felt, hath now so far Assisted me, that I have advised you for the best.’

3. Another Instance wherein we may reasonably suppose the Apo­stles spoke without Inspiration, is when they discourse of such things as our Saviour told them they must be con­tent to be ignorant of. Such as was the time when the Day of Judgment should come, which was a secret God had reservedMatt. 24.36. to himself: and of Restoring the Kingdom to Israel Act. 1.6.. As to the former of these, 'tis plain the Apostles thought the Day of Judgement would come in their own time, or within a very little while afterwardSee 1 Thes. 4.14. 2 Thes. 2.2. 1 Cor. 10, 11. —15.52. 2 Cor. 5.3. 2 Pet. 3.4. 1 Pet. 4.7. Heb. 9.26.. But this they only gathered by Humane Reason­ing, and conjectures drawn from some Expressions found in the Old Testament, or used by our Saviour, such as the Calling the times of the Gospel the Latter Days, an Expression often used by the Pro­phets, and our Saviour's joining [Page 53] together the Destruction of Jeru­rusalem, and the End of the World in S. Matthew the 24th. And as the event has proved that they were mistaken, so they themselves did not pretend to Revelation for what they said in this case, but spoke of it in doubtful terms, as may be seen in the place above cited2 Cor. 5.3. [...]., If so be we shall be found Cloth'd, not naked, for so the Words should be Trans­lated.

In these cases I think 'twill be no prejudice to the Divine Inspi­ration of the Apostles, to allow them to have spoke like Men. And 'tis unreasonable for any to pre­tend, that if we grant thus much, we do in effect give up the Cause, and that then 'twill be impossible to distinguish what the Apostles say by the Spirit, and what they speak of themselves. For sure Men may distinguish if they please, the Mysteries of Faith, and the Rules of Practice, from a Cloke and Parchments, or a Journey to Corinth: which belong to the first excepted Case. And in the second, we have [Page 54] the Apostle himself plainly distin­guishing this from his usual way of Writing, and telling us that 'tis he speaks, not the Lord 1 Cor. 7.12. V. 2 Cor. 11.17., and that he had no Commandment from the Lord, but only gave his Judgement 1 Cor. 7.25.. The same Expression we find elsewhere in a like case2 Cor. 8.8, 10., viz. concerning the measures of Charity, which are to be settled by the Rules of Pru­dence, and don't fall under a Di­vine Command. Now if an Ex­ception confirms a Rule in Cases not Excepted, we may justly infer from the Apostles setting a mark upon these Discourses to distinguish them from Divine Commands, that where there is no such distinguish­ing mark, we must suppose him to deliver what he says under the Character of an Apostle and a Messenger of God, unless the na­ture of the Discourse do plainly imply the contrary, and be such as properly belongs to the two o­ther Heads of excepted Cases. As to the third Instance of Excepted Cases, the Evangelists have suffi­ciently forewarn'd us not to look [Page 55] upon any Mans Judgement as In­fallible in this matter, since they have RecordedMatt. 24.36. Mark 13.32. those words of our Saviour, where he tells his Disciples, that the Day and Hour of the General Judgement was a secret God has reserved to him­self, and has not thought fit to re­veal it to any Creature of what Rank or Degree soever; no not to the Son himself: and tho he were the great Prophet of the Church, yet 'twas no part of his Commis­sion to reveal the Counsel of God in this matter: and therefore to be sure his Disciples would never pretend to know more then their Master.

Having thus considered the Cases in which the Apostles spake or writ without Inspiration, I pro­ceed in the

II. Place to shew, that Excepting those Cases, the Apostles writ and spake by the particular Assistance and Dire­ction of the Spirit.

Our Author confines the Infal­libility of their Preaching and Writing to those things which they [Page 56] Learn'd from Christ, or related as spoken by him Fr. p. 256, 257. Eng. p. 69, 70.. But as to the Ar­guments which they fram'd upon those Principles, and the Conse­quences they deduc'd from the Old Testament, here he supposes them to have used only their own Me­mory and Judgment, tho he grants these Discourses of theirs are to be received, because there's nothing in them but what is conformable to the Doctrine of Christ and to right Reason, and nothing that can lead us into the Belief of what is false or contrary to Piety En. p. 112, 131, 135. Fr. p. 282, 283. 224, 227.. This, as exactly as I can gather, is all the Authority he allows the Sermons and Writings of the Apostles: and this indeed is as much Authority as can be given to any Humane Discourse, and tho it does not exclude all possi­bility, yet it excludes all likelyhood of error. But as we look upon the A­postles to have been somewhat more than Sound Divines, or Men that ve­ry well understood the Doctrine which they were to teach others: so their Discourses and Writings have been always esteem'd of an [Page 57] higher Rank than any Religious Treatises purely Humane, which however solid and true they may be, are to be judged of by these Writings, and are no further true than they agree with them. The Scripture makes this the Characte­ristick of an Apostle, whereby he was distinguisht from the other Inspir'd persons who were then in the Church, viz. that he did not learn the Gospel in an Humane way [...]. Gal. 1.11. compar. with ver. 12. & 1. v. 1 Cor. 2.10., but purely by Revelation. S. Paul might have been sufficiently in­structed in the Gospel, by those who were Pillars in the Church v. Gal. 2.6, 9., so as to have been out of all likely­hood either of mistaking any part of it himself, or leading others in­to error: but we see this way of Instruction was not sufficient to advance him to the Dignity of the Apostolate, and therefore Christ himself made a particular Revela­tion of the whole Gospel to himv. Ubi supr. & 1 Cor. 11.23. Eph. 3.3, 4., that he might not be Inferior in a­ny respect to the chiefest Apostles. And since the Gospel was commu­nicated to him and the rest of the [Page 58] Apostles by Divine Revelation, only that they might teach it to others, whether by Word or Wri­ting, with the greater assurance and certainty, and without any danger of error, their Discourses which were design'd for the In­struction of the Church, must be the effects of this supernatural ha­bit of Christian Knowledge, which God infus'd into their minds. I have shewed in the former Chap­terP. 29., that the same Assistance accom­panied the Apostles in their Writing which did in their Preaching, and therefore shall now speak of these two indifferently, and shew what kind of Authority the Apostles claim'd in either of them. S. Paul says1 Cor. 2.10. that God has revealed the deep things, and the Mysteries of the Gospel to the Apostles by the Spirit: which probably were the same things Christ told his Disciples, they were not able to bear while he was with them John 16.12.. Such was particularly the Doctrine of the Cross, which S. Paul's Discourse chiefly relates to in that place1 Cor. 1.18, &c &c. 2.2. These things S. Paul says [Page 59] Ib. ver. 13. they spoke and taught others, and that too in the Words which the Holy Ghost taught them. Where the word [...] comprehends their styleVer. 1. & 4. as well as their Arguments, and shews there's a greater regard to be had to the style of the Apo­stles, than our Authorv. loc. supr. citat. p. 35. is willing to allow, and even for that very Reason which he alledges as an Argument, why 'tis not dictated by the Spirit, viz. because 'tis plain and without any Affectation of Wit or Learning, and conform'd to the style of the Old Testament. For this style however Negligent and Careless our Author may think itFr. p. 233. En. p. 145., the Apostles used by the di­rection of the Holy Ghost, as ap­pears from this place. It follows immediately, Comparing Spiritual things with Spiritual, where the word [...] may signify Ex­plaining, Illustrating v. Grot. in locum., i. e. proving one Divine Revelation by another, the Revelations of the New Te­stament by those of the Old. At last the Apostle concludes,Ib. ver. 16. We have the mind of the Christ, and there­fore [Page 60] ye are to hearken to us, and receive what we say, tho in many things not agreeing with the Prin­ciples of Philosophy, or Worldly Wisdom, which the Apostle in the Verses before1 Cor. 1.20, &c. c. 2.1, &c. had undervalued, in comparison of the Gospel. In all which Discourse S. Paul plainly ascribes his and the rest of the A­postles Preaching to the Instructi­ons the Holy Ghost gave them, without making any restrictions, and particularly that part of it which consisted in drawing Conse­quences, and bringing Proofs from the Old Testament.

Again we find the same Apostle threatning those that despise his Advice, as not despising man but God, who gave the Apostles his holy Spirit 1 Thes. 4.8., that they might teach with un­controulable Authority. And I think we may fairly conclude from hence, that St. Paul expected all his Precepts and Instructions should be submitted to, not meerly as coming from one of the Gover­nours of the Church, but as having something more then Humane Au­thority, [Page 61] and being derived from the Spirit of God. For what he says in this place, tho it immedi­ately respect only those Advices which are contain'd in the fore­going part of the Chapter, may by parity of Reason be applied to all other Apostolical injunctions: for as the words are general, and do not specify that the Apostle de­liver'd these particular Rules by an extraordinary Revelation, more than any others which he else­where gives, so neither are the Advices such in their own Nature, as require a greater degree of In­spiration to deliver them, than the other Exhortations and Commands which are every where to be found in the Apostolical Writings. From whence I conclude, we ought to look upon those Writings as a Divine Rule of Faith and Practise, and that he who despises or un­dervalues them, despises not man, but God, who gave his holy Spirit to the Authors of them. And how far our Author may be guilty of this fault, I leave it to God and his [Page 62] own Conscience to Judge. I pro­ceed to shew

III. That the Assistance which the Holy Spirit gave to the Apostles did not consist only in refreshing their Memories, or Improving their Na­tural Faculties, but was in several respects a new degree of supernatural Knowledge.

Our Author is willing to believe, as appears by the placesFr. p. 254.-257. Eng. p. 66.—70. I have before cited, that the Assistance the Holy Ghost gave to the Apo­stles, did chiefly, and in a manner only consist in refreshing their memory, and recalling to their mind what our Saviour had taught them. And agree­ably to this opinion he tells usFr. p. 255. En. p. 67., that when our Saviour promises his Disciples John 15.26., That the Holy Ghost shall teach them all things, and bring all things to their remem­brance, these latter words apparently explain the foregoing, as if the Holy Ghost's teaching them was nothing else but bringing to their remem­brance what Christ had taught them before. Now I deny not but that our Saviour declar'd to [Page 63] his Disciples the whole Counsel of God, and therefore when he gave them Commission to go and teach all Nations, he makes this the Rule they were to go by in Preaching, viz. to teach whatever he had com­manded them Matt. 28.20., as containing the whole Doctrine of Christianity: but granting all this, yet 'twill ap­pear from several instances, that the Assistance of the Spirit was something more than bringing to their remembrance what Christ had said unto them. For

1. Some things our Saviour did not only not explain to them fully, but like­wise made use of such Expressions when he spoke of them, as were accommoda­ted to the Notions the Apostles were prepossess'd with. Thus when He discoursed to them of the Nature of his Kingdom, he made use of such Expressions as in their most natural and obvious Sense did im­ply, that 'twas to be a Temporal One: for he described the happi­ness which his Disciples were to enjoy in it, by eating and drinking at his Table, and sitting upon twelve [Page 64] Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel Luke 22.30. Matt. 19.28.. Which Expressions did tend directly to confirm them in their prejudices concerning the Worldly Grandeur of Christ's king­dom: our Saviour not thinking it a proper season as yet to wean them from these Opinions, which had taken such deep root in their minds, that they could not be ex­tirpated all of a sudden, but must be removed by gentle and easy degrees. Now to give the Apo­stles a right understanding as to this matter, 'twas not sufficient the holy Spirit should recall to their memory the words which our Sa­viour had used upon this subject, for those alone would rather confirm them in the false Notions they had entertain'd concerning these things, than instruct them in the true one: but 'twas further requisite, that the Spirit should give them a clear and distinct apprehension of the Spiritual Nature of Christ's King­dom, and wherein the Glory and Happiness it promises, consists: and should further inform them [Page 65] for what Reasons our Saviour chose, in compliance with their apprehensions, and in conformity to the Style of the Old Testament, to wrap up these things in Obscu­rity, and discourse of them under the vail of Types and Figures. And I think this was to inlighten their minds with a new degree of Supernatural Knowledge.

2. But besides those things which our Saviour concealed under Types and Figures, There were others he obscurely Express'd in Parables. As the Calling of the Gentiles in the ParableMatt. 20.5, 6. of the Housholder that went out at the latter end of the Day to hire Labourers into his Vineyard. The rejection of the Jews under the ParableMatt. 22.1. of the persons invited to a Marriage Feast, who would not come. Several other instances of the same kind might be given. Now to understand these things per­fectly, something more was re­quisite than just to remember our Saviour's words: as is plain by the Disciples asking our Saviour the meaning of another Parable of his, [Page 66] viz. That of the tares of the Field Matt. 13.36. v. c. 15.15.. The words they remembred per­fectly well, but were at a loss for the meaning and design of them, and therefore desir'd him to ex­plain it to them. And by the same Reason there was need of a greater degree of Illumination, to certify them that the Gentiles were to be Fellow-heirs, and partakers of the Promises of Christ, than the bare putting them in mind of those short hints our Saviour had given them concerning this matter, would a­mount to. And accordingly we find that St. Peter had need of a VisionAct. 10. to instruct him in this matter: and even that extraordi­nary Revelation seem'd scarce suf­ficient to convince him of this truth. For afterward, notwith­standing the Vision he had formerly seen, he relapsed again into his old notions, and separated himself from the Gentile-Converts at An­tioch Gal. 2.11.. Which is a pregnant in­stance how much need the Apostles had of an extraordinary degree of Clearness and Evidence, fully to [Page 67] instruct and convince them in those points of Christianity that were opposite to the Opinions they had formerly imbraced: and that some­thing more was requisite to that purpose, than just to remember what our Saviour had said upon this Subject. For even that Vi­sion it self did not fully explain to St. Peter God's Counsel and pur­pose, and 'tis likely he thought there was no more implied by it, than that he should receive those Gentiles, who voluntarily offer'd themselves. The first that were sent to Preach the Gospel to the Gentiles were S. Paul and S. Barna­bas, when the Holy Ghost separated them for this purposeActs 13.2. comp. with ver. 46.. And 'tis upon this Account that St. Paul calls himselfRom. 11.13. Gal. 2.9 Eph. 3.1. 1 Tim. 2.7. the Apostle of the Gentiles: and says in express terms that the Salvation of the Gentiles, by their being Incorporated into the Church, and making one Body with the Jews, was a Doctrine which was but then newlyEph. 3.5, 6. RE­VEALED to the Apostles and Prophets by the SPIRIT. And we may ob­serve [Page 68] that the same S. Paul some­times expresses the Knowledge of the Gospel, with which the holy Spirit furnisht the Apostles, and In­spir'd persons of those times, by the word1 Cor. 14.6, 26, 30. —2.10. Eph. 1.17. —3.5. [...], to imply that in several respects, it was not so much a Revival of what our Sa­viour taught them while he was up­on Earth, as a piece of Knowledge intirely new, and a distinct Reve­lation.

3. We may instance in another sort of true and proper Inspiration which belong'd to the Apostles, and that is, The gift of Prophecy it self, and of applying the Prophecies of the Old Testament to the times of the Gospel, and shewing that they are truly fulfilled in Christ and his Church.

Our Author grantsFr. p. 283. En. p. 113. that God im­mediately imparted to the Apostles those Prophecies which are to be found in their Writings, so that this point need not to be further Insisted up­on. I proceed therefore to con­sider their gift of Explaining the Prophecies of the Old Testament, and applying them to the times of the [Page 69] Gospel. And here 'tis to be con­sidered, that tho our Saviour did explain many Prophecies to his Disciples after his Resurrection, concerning his own Sufferings and Exaltation, and the Preaching of the Gospel to all NationsLuk. 24.27, 45, 46, 47., yet there were several other Prophecies which they could not understand, till they were indued with Power from on High, and thereby inabled to comprehend the great Mysteries of God's Oeconomy, as in several other Instances, so particularly in the Rejecting of the Jews and Calling of the Gentiles. And therefore those Dispensations of the Old Testa­ment which the Apostles apply to these purposes, viz. the Allegory of Ismael and Isaac Rom. 9.7. Gal. 4.24., of Jacob and Esau Rom. 9.10. &c., by which S. Paul illustrates this matter: the words of Moses in his Song Deut. 32.21., which he applies to the same purposeRom. 10.19.: as also the words of Habakkuk Acts 13.41.: I say the explaining the Mystical Sense and Design of these, and such like Occurrences and Prophecies of the Old Testament, is to be reckon'd [Page 70] a peculiar gift bestowed upon the Apostles by the holy Spirit. 1. Be­cause they themselves look upon it as such, as appears by St. Paul's reckoning [...] among the [...] 1 Cor. 12.8., which word certainly signi­fies the gift of Interpreting the My­steries of the Old Testament and ap­plying them to the State of things under the New. 2. Because those Providential Occurrences had a secret and hidden design in them, which could be discover'd by none but God that order'd them: who as he comprehends the most distant Ages in one single view, so in his dispo­sing and ordering the more Re­markable Events under the Old Testament, had all along an Eye to the times under the New. 3. As to the Prophecies, 'tis not likely that any persons without a Super­natural Illumination, could look to the end and utmost Completion of them, since the Prophets them­selves had not this priviledge grant­ed them, as appears from those placesRom. 16.25. 1 Cor. 2.7. Eph. 3.9. Colos. 1.26. where the Gospel is called a Mystery kept secret since the World [Page 71] began: a hidden Mystery, and hid from Ages and Generations: And especially from those remarkable words of St. Peter 1 Pet. 1.10, 11, 12., Of which Sal­vation [by Christ] the Prophets have inquir'd and searched diligently, who prophecied of the Grace that should come unto you, searching what and what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the Suffer­ings of Christ, and the Glory that should follow: To whom it was revealed that not to themselves, but to us they did Minister these things. From whence it appears, that tho the Prophets were very Inquisitive after the Manner how, and the Time when their Prophecies should be fulfill'd, yet they had only this general Sa­tisfaction, that they should not be fulfill'd in their own time. And I think we may infer from thence, that the perfect understanding them was reserv'd to the times of the Messias. And tho the event would sufficiently Interpret the meaning of several of them, yet there were some that needed a [Page 72] greater Light than that to under­stand them, and apply them aright. To which we may add, that the manner of Interpreting the Pro­phecies of the Old Testament which the Apostles used, is a Rule to af­ter Ages how they are to Inter­pret the Prophetical Writings, and prove the Truth of the Gospel by them: and therefore the same rea­sons which prove the Writings of the Apostles in general Divinely Inspir'd, because they are a standing Rule of Christian Faith, may be ap­plied to that part of them which consists in explaining the Mystical Sense of the Old Testament Wri­tings. But concerning the Mysti­cal Sense of the Prophets, I shall have an opportunity to speak more fully in the next Chapter. And so much may suffice for the proof of the third general Head, viz. That the Assistance which the holy Spirit gave the Apostles was something more than refreshing their Memories, and recalling to their minds what our Saviour had said unto them. I pro­ceed to shew

[Page 73]IV. That the Apostles had an ex­traordinary Assistance when they were summon'd before Magistrates upon the account of their Religion: and to vin­dicate their Behaviour at that time, from the unbecoming and Irreverent Re­flections of this Author.

One would think the words of our Saviour were plain enough in this pointMatt. 10.19, 20. Mark 13.11.: Take no thought before­hand what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in the same hour what ye ought to say: for 'tis not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost, says S. Mark, the Spirit of your Father, saith S. Matthew, speaks in you. If this had been only a Spirit of Courage and Holiness arising from the Belief of the Gospel, as Mr. N. pretendsFr. p. 241. Eng. p. 44., 'twould have requir'd a great deal of Care, Consideration and Reflection, to keep it warm upon their Hearts, that it might not cool when dan­ger approached. And our Savi­our's precluding the use of Hu­mane means, proves that it was something more than an ordinary Grace, which always requires the Cooperation of our Natural Fa­culties: [Page 74] and shews that 'twas as much a new Impulse which the Apostles were to feel upon their minds on such occasions, as any Prophetick Inspiration whatsoever. But not­withstanding the plain import of the words, rather than own an ex­traordinary Inspiration, the na­tural force of the words must be dwindled away into nothing, un­der the pretence of their being on­ly a Hebrew way of speaking Fr. p. 244 Eng. p. 49., like The Spirit of jealousie, of slumber, &c. which are found in the Old Testament. As if there was no difference in the nature of the Ex­pression between the Holy Ghost, or the Spirit of the Father, and the spirit of jealousie or stupidity. But this is the constant method of our New Interpreters of Scripture, that don't care to believe any thing to be there, but what Natural Powers can effect, and Intellectual ones comprehend. When they are pres­sed with plain words of Scripture, they will not out of Good Man­ners, in downright terms deny their Authority, but think it more [Page 75] decent to evade it, by explaining away all the force of them, and alledging the Metaphorical and Pom­pous way of speaking, which the Eastern Languages use, which seems to imply a great deal more in it, than the Writer really design'd. Thus Spinoza tells usTheol. Polit. c. 6., that tho there are wonderful stories told in the old Testament, yet that is no proof that the things themselves were Miraculous, or such as ex­ceeded the power of Natural A­gents, for the Jews loved to talk big, and make a great deal more of a story by their way of telling it, than the matter of Fact really was. Just so the Socinians when they are pressed with plain Texts of Scripture for the Divinity or Satisfaction of Christ, make this their constant Refuge, that the He­brew Language is full of Metaphors, and the Writers don't mean half so much as they say. Now this is an excellent device to render the Scriptures an insignificant Book, or which is much the same, make it say whatever these New Expo­sitors [Page 76] please. But before this trick will pass, these Gentlemen should convince us, that since 'tis impos­sible to know the meaning of the Scripture by the words, 'tis they only have the secret of telling us its true Sense, and the Key to these Mystical Characters.

And here I shall take occasion to reflect upon another passage in these Letters, which indeed belongs to the Subject treated of in the former part of this Chapter, viz. Concerning the Assistance of the Holy Ghost which our Saviour promised his Disciples: but being another Essay of our Author's dexterity in this new way of Interpreting Scripture, I chose to make my remarks upon it in this place. 'Tis his gloss up­on that place of St. John Joh. 16.13, 14, 15., He shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak, &c. He observesFr. p. 254. En. p. 66. that ‘these words must be extremely figurative, because the Holy Ghost properly speaking, did not hear from God or Jesus Christ, that which he was to Inspire the A­postles with.’ From whence it must [Page 77] follow, (or else this Observation of his is Impertinent) that the words immediately foregoingJohn 16.13., When the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth, must be very Figurative too, and not im­ply that the Spirit really taught the Apostles any thing in a pro­per Sense. Now to pass by this Consequence of his, viz. that plain words are to be understood Me­taphorically, because they are joyn'd with words that have a Metaphor in them, I can't but observe thus much for the clearing the sense of this Text, that our Saviour uses no other expressions concerning the Holy Spirit here, than what he had often used before of himself, when he so often says, that what he taught he had heard and received from the Father John 5.30. c. 8.26.40 c. 15.15.. And I hope 'twill be granted that our Saviour taught his Disciples in a proper Sense, without a Metaphor: and why then must it follow from this way of speaking, that the Holy Ghost did not?

[Page 78]But to return to our present subject. "That he says,Fr. p. 241. En. p. 44. which inclines him to believe that the fore­mention'd Promise of our Saviour, the Holy Ghost, or Spirit of the Father, shall teach you in that hour what ye ought to say, means no more then this, viz. The Spirit of Courage and Holiness which the Gospel produces in your hearts, will teach you what ye ought to say, is, That in comparing this Promise with the Event, it seems not to have been perform'd in any other sense than what he has now given. But has he indeed compar'd it with all the Events mention'd in the History of the Acts? Not at all: only has pick'd out two Instances, which he thought he could make Exceptions against. Sure if he had dealt fairly and impartially in this matter, he would not have pass'd by the Boldness of Peter and John Act. 4.13., which was so Extraordina­ry it made the. Sanhedrim wonder: nor the Couragious Behaviour of all the ApostlesAct. 5.29.: in both which Cases the Apostles told the Sanhe­drim [Page 79] to their faces, of their Hor­rid Sin in Murdering the Messias, and that there was no way to Sal­vation, but by Believing in him whom they had Crucified. The Event in both these Cases seems to come up to the highest Sense of our Savior's Words: and if we had an exact History of the Suf­ferings of the Apostles, I do not question but we should find many more Proofs of the Accomplish­ment of this Promise. Since in those few Remains that we have of the Genuine Acts of the Mar­tyrs, there are eminent Instances of their Courage in Professing the Truth,v Acta Ignat. per Usserium Edit. Martyr. Polycarpi ap. Euseb. H. E. l. 4 c. 15. Acta Martyr. Lugd. & Vienn. Ibid. l. 5. c. 1. Cypriani Passio, o­peribut e­jus prefix. which at First Sight dis­cover something more than Hu­mane, and may justly be look'd upon as one of the greatest and most convincing Arguments of the Truth of Christianity, and the Divine Power which accom­panied its True Professors. I am sure Justin Martyr confesses that this very Argument prevail'd with him to embrace the Christian Re­ligion.Apol. 1. And if the Behaviour of the [Page 80] Martyrs in aftertimes was so Ex­traordinary, we cannot think that the Apostles were in this respect Inferiour to their Disciples. Now a man that had a real Concern for the honour of our Saviour and his Apostles, and was desirous to magnify the Power of God's Grace, and set it in the best Light he could, would not have pass'd over all the Evidences for it, and only insisted upon those Instances, which he thought would lessen and obscure it.

But let us see whether the In­stances he brings, do really so much lessen the Promise of our Saviour as he imagines. As for St. Paul's Behaviour to the High Priest Act. 23.3., which is our Author's first In­stanceFr. p. 241. Eng. p. 45., he cannot be ignorant that some Expositors of the best NoteGrot. Estius. Beza., as well as his Adversary Mr. Simon Eng. p. 178. Fr. p. 259., understand those words of his, God shall smite thee thou whited wall, as spoken by the Au­thority and in the Style of a Pro­phet, as our Saviour call'd Herod Fox Luk. 13.32., and St. Paul call'd Nero Ly­on 2 Tim. 4.17.. [Page 81] And they that maintain this O­pinion, do not suppose that St. Paul in the next words beg'd Pardon, and confess'd that he was to blame for what he said, as our Author takes for granted that he didUbi sup.. But they take this to be the real Sense of the 5^th v. tho purposely concealed under ambiguous Terms, ‘I can­not believe or own such a man to be High Priest, who came into his Place by those ill Acts as Ananias did, for if I had look'd upon him as High Priest, I should not have transgressed the Law, in giving him such disrespectful Language.’ But if we understand the Place in the same Sense which Mr. N. does, and own the Apostle to have been surpriz'd by Passion, yet still there will appear evident Tokens of a Di­vine Assistance accompanying him, if we take an entire View of the whole history of his Sufferings at Je­rusalem: With what an Undaunted Resolution he went thither, when he knew beforehand, That Bonds and Afflictions did abide him, and did not value his Life, so he might [Page 82] finish his Course with joy Acc. 20.23, 24. How he persisted in the same Resolution, notwithstanding all the Importu­nities and Tears of his Friends, being ready not only to be bound at Jerusalem, but also to die for the Name of the Lord Jesus: Act. 21.14. with what Courage he sets forth the Grounds of his Conversion before the enrag'd MultitudeAct. 22.: with what Authority he Preach'd concern­ing the Faith in Christ, and the Fundamentals of Christianity to Felix, and laid his Sins so home to him that he made him tremble Act. 24.25.: How powerfully he pleaded for himself and his Religion before Agrippa Act. 26., so as to make Impressi­on upon the King himself, and al­most perswade him to be a Christian. He that shall lay all these things together, will see Reason to ad­mire the Power of God's Grace in St. Paul's Behaviour at Jerusa­lem: and will not think that that one Slip, if it were one, is able to obscure the Glory of all the other parts of it.

And as for that Prudential Act of [Page 83] St. Paul, which our Author sayesFr. p. 242. Eng. p. 46. hath nothing of Inspiration in it, viz. his dividing the CouncilAct. 23.6., and thereby making one half of them his Friends; 'twas exactly agree­able to our Savior's Advice to the ApostlesMatth. 10.16., To use all Prudence that was consistent with Innocency, as this certainly was. But besides, it im­plied an excellent Argument ad homines, viz. to Jews, in behalf of Christianity, namely, that it was unreasonable for them to reject that Religion, or persecute the Abetters of it, whose great De­sign 'tis to establish the Doctrine of the Resurrection, the Belief of which Point, the chiefest of their own Sects for Reputation look'd upon as one of the principal Ar­ticles of their Faith. And there­fore we find St. Paul, knowing what force there was in it, insist again and again upon the very same Apology for himselfAct. 24.15. -c. 26.6, 7. -c. 28.20.. Nay God himself approved of it, as ap­pears by the Vision which St. Paul had to incourage him the very next night after his Appearance [Page 84] before the Council, by which our Lord himself gave Testimony to him, that he had witness'd a good ConfessionAct. 23.11..

But 'tis a wonder to me that ourFr. p. 243. Eng. p. 48.49. Author should think St. Ste­phen's Behaviour and HarangueAct. 7 a proper Instance, to shew that the Apostles and primitive Confessors had no immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost, when they ap­pear'd before secular Magistrates. For if Courage to speak the Truth, and to back it with unanswerable Arguments, be a sign of an Ex­traordinary Assistance, certainly no person ever gave greater Evi­dence of it than St. Stephen. To declare publickly that the Temple and its Worship should shortly be de­stroy'd Act. 6.14. was such an Invidious Truth, that the Apostles them­selves did not think fit at first to speak it openly, but shew'd a great respect to the establish'd Worship, by constantly attending upon itAct. 3.1.-18.21.-20 16.-21 26.. The Dissolution of the Mosaical Oeconomy, being a Truth that the new Converts from Judaism were [Page 85] not yet able to bear. But even this Truth St. Stephen had the Bold­ness to profess, and maintain'd it too by a continued series of Ar­gument, from Abraham whom the Jews boasted to be their Father, down to the building of the Temple. Wherein he shews that the Patriarchs and Founders of the Jewish Nation, were accepted by God before the Temple or its Service had a Beginning: nay that Moses himself the Institutor of this Worship, prophecied of Christ Acts 7.37., and design'd the Taberna­cle only for a Pattern of Heavenly things Ibid ver. 44.. Besides this St. Stephen all along made Reflections upon the stubborn and refractory Temper of the Jews from the beginning, and told them that their Reject­ing and Murdering of Christ when he came, was but agreeable to their usage of the Prophets who foretold himIb. ver. 52.. I think he that said these things had the Gift of [...], which the Apostles pray'd forActs 4.29., in a great measure. And tho our Author is pleas'd to say,Ubi supr. that [Page 86] St. Stephen mentions divers Circum­stances of History which were no­thing to the purpose, yet for my part I must declare I see none but what are necessary to make it a full and Complete Narrative, or else serve to set forth the ill manners of the Jews under the se­veral Dispensations of Providence. And I am apt to think St. Luke was of the same mind: for ab­stracting from his Divine Chara­cter, he was too Judicious a man to trouble himself or his Reader, with a Rehearsal of impertinent Circumstances. I am sure there are several particulars which are of great use to explain the Wri­tings of Moses Acts 7.20,—26., which we could never have known, if this Dis­course had not been preserv'd. This Gentleman may call these Impertinencies if he pleases, but I believe few will follow him in this bold and Unscholar-like Censure, and 'tis well St: Luke was of another mind, for we should have had a great Loss, if he had not preser­ved them. And as for those par­ticulars [Page 87] which he saysUbi supr. cannot be reconciled with the History of the Old Testament Acts 7.16., if S. Luke made these Mistakes, they have been accounted for above:Supr. p. 45, 46. if St. Ste­phen himself did, I suppose the same Defence that is made for a Writer, will hold more strongly for a Speaker. And tho we sup­pose St. Stephen to have been full of the Holy Ghost when he spakeActs 6.10.-7.55., yet there's no reason the Spirit should dictate a History to him, which he was before so well ac­quainted with. And why may we not say, that although the Holy Spirit were so remarkably present with him at this time, that the Glories which were shed forth upon his Soul, shin'd thro his Body, and made his face look like the face of an Angel Acts 6.15., yet the Holy Ghost thought fit not to supply the Defect of his Memo­ry in one or two particulars, to shew that Inspir'd persons, e­ven in their Brightest Minutes, are still but men, and that the Excellency might appear to be of [Page 88] God, and not of themselves?

What has been said is sufficient to shew what little ground there is for this Author's unworthy Re­flections, upon the Behaviour of the First Christians before the Hea­then Tribunals, wherein he seems not only to attack two or three Passages of Scripture, but to en­deavour to overthrow one of the principal Arguments for the Truth of Christianity: for certainly ne­ver was there greater Evidence of a Divine Power present with its Professors, than when they were summon'd before the Magistrates, to give a reason of the Hope that was in them. I proceed in the

V^th. place, to Answer the Objections which he has advanc'd against the In­spiration of the Apostles.

1. The first which I shall take notice of is, The Apostles Disputing and Conferring with each other, be­fore they came to a Resolution at the Synod of Jerusalem Fr. p. 248, 249. Eng. p. 57.: which he thinks was needless among per­sons Inspir'd. As likewise that Prophets should submit what they say, [Page 89] to the Judgment of other Prophets, according to St. Paul's order 1 Cor. 14.29..

But the force of this Objection will be taken away, if we consider that God distributed his Gifts to each person severally as he thought fit 1 Cor. 12 11.: so that even the greatest A­postles might think it necessary to advise with their Brethren in mat­ters of Consequence, where the Edification and Peace of the whole Church was nearly concern'd. And indeed one reason why God gave his Spirit by Measure to them seems to be this, that he design'd to en­gage all the Members of the Church into a strict Union and Alliance with each other by this means, because they stood in need of one another's help and direction: and the eye could not say to the hand, I have no need of thee; nor the head to the feet, I have no need of you Ibid. v. 21.: i. e. the more Eminent Members of the Church very often stood in need of the Assistance and Direction of the Inferior and less considerable ones. And accordingly we find the Apostles and Heads of the [Page 90] Church were inform'd by the In­ferior and more ordinary Mem­bers of it, of several particulars they were ignorant of before: so Agabus inform'd St. Paul of his suf­ferings at Jerusalem Act. 21.11., and the Holy Ghost witness'd the same in every City Act. 20.23., no doubt by persons of a much Inferior station in the Church than St. Paul himself. Thus the distri­bution of Spiritual Gifts in different Measures and Degrees, was very effectual to prevent Schism in the Body 1 Cor. 12.25. of the Church, and to oblige the Members to have the same care one for another. And we may ob­serve to this purpose, that our Sa­viour made an especial promise of his presence among his Disciples, where two or three are gather'd toge­ther Matth. 18.2 [...]., to engage them thereby to preserve the Ʋnity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and not to forsake the Assembling themselves together. And as by their exercising their gifts in the publick Assemblies, each Man's private gifts were pro­duced in Common, and made ser­viceable to the Church in general: [Page 91] so this prevented False Prophets creeping in among them, because they would presently be detected. Whereas if private Prophecying had been in use, an Impostor might have took his opportunity, and by imposing upon the weaker sort, have got such a reputation, be­fore the Cheat could have been discovered, that it would have been difficult afterward to have con­vinc'd Men of the Imposture. But by making every one that pretend­ed to Inspiration undergo a pub­lick Tryal, a false Prophet could not hope to escape long without being convinc'd by all and Judg'd by all. And this shews the reason­ableness of that Command of St. Pauls, that the Prophets should sub­mit what they say to the judgement of their Brethren 1 Cor. 14.29.: for since from the very beginning there were False Prophets and deceitful Workers, who indeavour'd to transform themselves into the true Apostles and Messengers of Christ 2 Cor. 11.13.; the Apostles thought fit to lay down Rules for the Try­ing of spirits 1 Cor. 12.3. 1 Joh. 4 1, &c.: and the discerning of [Page 92] spirits was a particular Gift design'd for this purpose1 Cor. 12 10.. Now the fit­test way of doing this, was by the joynt advice of the Governors of the Church assembled together, as we find the Bishops of Asia meet­ing together, discovered the false­ness of Montanus and his Follow­ers pretences to Prophecyv. Euseb. II. E. l. 5. c 16.19.. To all which we may add, that besides the usefulness of this method to secure the Church against Impo­stures, it has this further advan­tage in it, that what several In­spir'd persons did agree in, brought along with it greater evidence of its coming from God, than if it had been deliver'd only by one. For tho every thing which comes from God, deserves equal Credit in It self, yet there may be great­er evidence to Ʋs of the Divine Original of one Doctrine, than of anotherv. Cl. Dodwell. Prole­gom in Dissert. Iren. n. 6-9. & Dissert 2. in Iren. n. 26.. And as there were greater and more evident proofs of the Divine Mission of the Apo­stles, than of the Prophets in the Christian Church, and therefore the Apostles had the Precedence of [Page 93] the Prophets1 Cor 12.28, and the Prophets were to submit to their Orders, and Regulate their Gifts by their Injunctions1 Cor. 14.3 [...]., tho what a true Pro­phet spoke was as much the word of God as what an Apostle did: so in like manner, that which was confirm'd by the concurring Te­stimony of Two or Three Inspir'd Witnesses, brought greater evi­dence of its Divine Authority, than that which relyed wholly upon the Credit and Integrity of One, be­cause two or three were less lyable to mistake than one. And there­fore we find our Saviour himself argues from the common Senti­ments of Men, and appeals to the concurring Testimony of John Joh. 5.33. as a Corroborating Evidence, tho his Miracles sufficiently proved the truth of his Mission: nay he reck­ons that the joint Testimony of his Father and himself is more cre­dible, (Humanely speaking) than either of them singlyJoh 8 17, 18..

And what has been said con­cerning Inspir'd persons of an In­ferior Rank, holds true of the A­postles [Page 94] themselves: for tho I make no question, but the Holy Ghost was always so far present with them, as to guide and direct them in all matters that were of Consequence, such as that was which gave occasion to the Synod at Jerusalem: yet to make them ca­pable of this Assistance, we must suppose that they observed those Rules of our Saviour, which were necessary Conditions in order to the procuring this Assistance, one of which, as I have observ'd al­ready, was their Assembling toge­ther when they had opportunity, and where the Case concern'd the whole Church in general. And since the Apostles themselves did but know in part, and prophesie in part 1 Cor. 13.9., and consequently might re­ceive further Light from others, what the whole College of Apostles agreed in, came with greater Au­thority and Evidence of it's being God's Will, than what was deliver'd by one Apostle only. Just as we are more assur'd of the Truth of those Doctrines which are often repeat­ed [Page 95] by different Writers in the Ho­ly Scripture, than of those which are only mention'd by one: be­cause the Authority of several Writers adds weight to the mat­ter it self, and the comparing them together prevents our mista­king the sense of the Scripture con­cerning it; whereas what is but once mention'd is more liable to Ambi­guities, and the Sense of it more ea­sily mistaken. From what has been said, I hope it appears that there is sufficient reason why Inspir'd per­sons should consult each other; and that this is no prejudice to their Inspiration.

2. The second Objection is,Fr p. 249. Eng p 58. That the Holy Ghost which the Apostles received on the day of Pen­tecost had not taught them all they ought to know, so far was it from rendring them at first dash Infal­libe, so that St. Peter needed a Vi­sion to learn that he ought not to scruple Preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles.

I do not know any body that ever yet maintain'd that the Spi­rit [Page 96] once for all instructed the A­postles in all things that were needful for the Discharge of their Office. 'Tis certain several things were reveal'd to them by Degrees, and in proportion to the Exigen­ces of the Church: and this Au­thor himself owns as much, when he tells us, ‘Fr. p. 252. Eng. p. 62.That the Apostles had MANY Immediate Revelations and DIVERS Heavenly Visions.’ And as for the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon them, in a visible man­ner on the day of Pentecost, the chief Design of that was publickly to Authorize them to preach the Gos­pel, and to Initiate them into the Body of Christ's Church, which was then founded, and to do this by more solemn Tokens of the Di­vine Presence among the first Pro­fessors, than any other Institution could ever pretend to: according to what the Baptist foretoldMatth. 3.11., and our Savior promis'dAct. 1.5., that John indeed baptized, or admitted Pro­selytes with the bare Ceremony of Water, (which had been a Rite made use of by the Jews long be­fore [Page 97] upon such occasions) but the Apostles should be Baptized or ad­mitted into the Church with the Holy Ghost and with fire.

3. The third Objection is, that ‘Fr. p. 248. Eng. p. 57. When the Dispute arose whether the Gentiles that were Converted were to be Circumcised or not, tho St. Paul and St. Barnabas were against this, yet their Authority was not sufficient to put to silence the Judaizing Christians, which was a sign they did not look upon them as Infallible.’ To the same purpose he urges, ‘Fr. p. 249. Eng. p. 58. The Believers that were of the Circumcision contending with St. Peter for going to men un­circumcised and conversing with themAct. 11 2, 3..’

To begin with the latter part of the Objection: to the instance of St. Peter I answer, that the Con­verts of the Circumcision were throughly perswaded, that the Laws and Institutions of Moses were of perpetual Obligation, and therefore 'tis no wonder if at first they were surpriz'd to see any of them laid aside, and a door open'd [Page 98] to let in the Gentiles to the same Privileges with the Jews, and to take away that Discrimination which the Law makes between the Jews and the rest of the worldExod. 19.5, 6. Deut. 7.6.. And since this Action of St. Peter's touch'd them so near­ly in their Privileges and Prero­gative, or at least was contrary to the Traditions they had recei­ved from their Teachers, and held as sacred as the Law it selfMatt. 15.2. Mat. 7.3. Joh. 18.28., 'tis no wonder they were not easily satisfied about it, till they exa­min'd the reasons upon which St. Peter acted in this matter. And the Apostles never laid so much stress upon their Infallibility, as to require their Disciples to be­lieve them upon their own word, as Mr. N. himselfFr. p. 283. Eng. p. 112. observes: or without demanding a reason why they did so. But if we should grant all this Objection contends for, certainly 'tis but a weak Ar­gument that the Apostles were not Infallible, because some new ConvertsSee Mr. Dodwel of Schism ch. 19. sect. 18, 19. did not think so, who 'tis plain did not well understand [Page 99] the Principles of their own Reli­gion, and had not as yet intirely submitted to the Authority of the Apostles. And by the same rea­son we may argue that our Saviour was not Infallible, (which yet Mr. N. himself looks uponFr. p. 257, 260, 281. Eng. p. 70, 75, 109. as a cer­tain Truth) because his Disciples seem not to be satisfied sometimes of the Truth of what he sayesMatth. 16.22., and demand of him a reasonMatth 15.15. of those Doctrines of his that look'd like Paradoxes to them.

A great deal of what has been said will hold much stronger in the case of St. Paul and Barnabas Act 15.: for the admitting the Gentiles into the Church without Circumcision, must needs be thought a great Vio­lation of the Law of Moses, by those that look'd upon it to be of perpetual Obligation in the Church of God. To which may be added, that St. Paul and Bar­nabas had not so clear and indis­putable an Authority as the rest of the Apostles: not being of the number of the Twelve, whose Com­mission was so solemnly seal'd and [Page 100] ratified on the day of Pentecost. And they who were of a diffe­rent Perswasion from them, would in all likelyhood lay hold of this Objection against their Authori­ty, as Men are willing to take advantage of any Exception to an Authority that is against them. And accordingly we find in after times, when the Judaizing Chri­stians found St. Paul zealous in as­serting the Liberties of the Gen­tile Converts, and teaching men every where to Apostatize from Mo­ses, as they term'd it [...]. Act. 21.21., that they did what they could to lessen his Authority, and represented him as far Inferiour to the rest of the Apostles, and therefore that no great stress was to be laid upon his Doctrine, which forc'd him to vindicate himself and his A­postleship at large, Galat. 1. and 2. Chapters.

4. The fourth Objection is,Fr. p. 250. Eng. p. 60. St. Peter's Dissimulation at Anti­och, for which St. Paul reproved him, as he tells usGal. 2.11..

And here I agree with our Au­thor, [Page 101] that St. Peter acted contrary to his Judgment, and dissembled his O­pinion: for he that had been war­ned by a VisionAct. 10.28., that he should not call any man common or unclean, and but just before had a great hand in making the Decree at the Synod of Jerusalem Act. 15 7., whereby the Gentiles were made Members of the Church upon even terms with the Jews, without taking the Yoke of the Law upon them: he after all this could not be re­ally perswaded in his judgment, that he ought not to keep com­pany with the Gentile Converts: tho his former prejudices might put some weight into the oppo­site Scale, and make him doubt­ful and wavering. Which might make his fear of displeasing the Jewish Christians, and giving them offence, work more powerfully upon him, and prevail with him to comply with them in this mat­ter: and St. Paul expresly assigns his fearing [to offend] them of the Circumcision Gal. 2 12., as the cause of this his Behaviour. But tho this be [Page 102] not a sufficient Reason why any man should dissemble the Truth, yet we may observe from St. James's Advice to St. Paul, Act. 21.20. that the A­postles were very tender of giving any offence to the Jewish Con­verts, who were very [...]. Act. 21 20. numerous, and whom they justly look'd up­on as the most considerable part of the Church, and as it were the Elder Brethren, having a prece­dent Right to the Promises be­fore the GentilesAct. 3.26. Rom. 15.27.. This may be pleaded for an Excuse in behalf of St. Peter, tho still we must con­fess as St. Paul tells usGal. 2.14., that he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, in this matter. And neither the Apostles them­selves, nor any in their behalf, e­ver pretended that they were ex­empt from sin: but on the con­trary, we find them freely own themselves to be men of like Pas­sions with others Act. 14 15. Jam. 5.17.: and that they had this Treasure [of the Gospel] in earthen vessels 2 Cor. 4.7., and were of the same make with other men. And therefore, since as our Au­thor [Page 103] truly saysFr. p. 260. Eng. p. 75., He alone is in­dowed with an absolute Infallibility, who is incapable of sinning, I do freely grant that we are no fur­ther assur'd that the Apostles were free from Errour, than we find them free from Sin, which natu­rally leads men into it. I own likewise that this Instance of St. Peter, is a good Argument against the perpetual Inspiration or Infal­libility of the Apostles, if we mean any more by it, than a habitual Knowledge of Divine Truth: for I cannot think S. Peter was under the immediate Conduct of the Holy Spirit, when he was guilty of this Behaviour. But I suppose the Apostles might have such an Assistance as was abundantly suffi­cient to answer all the Necessities of the Church, without being al­ways under the immediate Influ­ence of the Holy Ghost, which must make them Impeccable as as well as Infallible. And even in this case we have reason to ad­mire God's Providence and Care over his Church, for so ordering [Page 104] it, that St. Paul should be upon the place to interpose and put a stop to this ill Conduct, that might else have been of dange­rous Consequence, and made a Breach in the Church that would not easily have been made up. And humanely speaking, 'tis not likely that St. Peter who had such a Preeminence in the Church, would have yielded to a less Au­thority than that of St. Paul's. From whence too may further ap­pear of what use 'twas even for Inspir'd persons to consult with each other, and act by common Advice: which Point I have ex­plained and proved at large a­boveP. 88..

5. The next Exception I shall take notice of is this: Mr. N. tells usFr. p. 258, 259. Eng. p. 72, 73, 74., that the Gift of Wisdom and Knowledge, or the Gift of Prophe­cying, which he makes all one with the two former, was a Disposition of mind which God sometimes infused into those on whom he bestowed it: whereby they became fit to instruct, and that it did not consist in an im­mediate [Page 105] Inspiration of what they were to say. His reasons for this are two: 1. Because this Gift might be improved by Study and Reading, as he proves from 1. Tim. 4.13, 14. 2. Because the Apostle gave directions to the Pro­phets, and order'd them to exercise their Gifts by turns, to prevent that Confusion which the disorderly Use of their Gifts had brought in­to the Church1 Cor. 14.. Now he thinks that if the Spirit had Inspir'd them with what to say, he would likewise have given them directions as to the time and place.

Now methinks he that can con­found the Gifts of Wisdom, Know­ledge and Prophecy, which any Man that consults the place where St. Paul reckons up the several Gifts of the Spirit1 Cor. 8, 9. will see are distinct, and takes no notice of the Ambi­guity of the word Prophecy, which is taken in several Senses in Scri­pture: I say he that confounds things, that any one who has stu­died the places of Scripture which treat of the Gifts of the Spirit, must needs know to be very different, [Page 106] need not have been so nice as to distinguish between ‘a Disposition of mind infus'd into those upon whom God bestowed it, whereby they be­came fit to Instruct, and an Inspi­ring them with what to say.’ For certainly this Disposition infused into the mind, if it mean any thing, must mean God's giving Men a clear and distinct apprehension of what they were to teach others; and I think this is much the same as Inspiring them with what to say, since out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh, and words are only the Expressions of our thoughts: unless our Author sup­poses, that when God Inspires a Man with what to say, he only puts so many words into his mouth, without conveying any Idea of the things themselves to his mind. But let us proceed to examine his rea­sons.

As to the First, I see no incon­venience in asserting, that God very often increas'd or withheld his Extraordinary Gifts, in pro­portion to the Industry of the Pos­sessors. [Page 107] For since the Extraordi­nary and Ordinary Gifts agree in this, that they are both design'd to assist our Natural Faculties, not to supersede them, and to incou­rage our Industry, not to slacken it, I can't see why that Rule of our Saviour's, To him that has shall be given, and from him that has not, i. e. does not improve and make a good use of what he has, shall be taken way Matth. 13.12., may not be applied to the Extraordinary Gifts as well as to the Ordinary: and why Men might not hope God would bestow these Gifts upon them in a greater degree, as a reward of their In­dustry; and might not have rea­son to fear he should withdraw them, if they took advantage from thence to be negligent. And thus much seems to be implied in that advice of St. Paul 1 Thess. 5.19., Not to quench the Spirit, viz. that God may be provok'd to take away these Gifts, when he sees them abused: or Men's sins may render them Un­worthy to be the Instruments of the holy Spirit. The story of the [Page 108] Ethiopian Eunuch who was Reading the Prophet Isaiah Act. 8., and to whom God sent Philip to instruct him, may not unfitly illustrate this mat­ter. Perhaps the utmost diligence the Ethiopian could use, would ne­ver have given him a clear Un­derstanding of that place of the Prophet: but God to reward his Industry, sent him an Inspir'd In­terpreter to instruct him in the meaning of it. And in like man­ner God may reward Men's Natu­ral endeavours to find out the truth, with such degrees of Know­ledge as are Supernatural. Nor does his instance of the Miraculous Gift of curing Diseases, which he saysUbi sup., can't be increas'd by Applica­tion of Mind, come up to our case. For curing Diseases after the man­ner the Apostles did, is a Power perfectly beyond the Sphere of Humane ability: whereas the Gifts we speak of, being of an Intelle­ctual Nature, are most of them in some measure adequate to the Faculties of the Soul, and in some degree attainable by Industry; so [Page 109] that in this case what is Miraculous in one Man, may be Natural in another. For example, the Gift of speaking in a strange Lan­guage was Miraculous in the Apo­stles, but would not be so in a Man that should get the perfect com­mand of the same Language by in­dustry. For the illustration of this point, I will put this case, viz. of two men, one of them arriv'd to a good degree of Learning by study, and the other Illiterate: supposing these two to have equal skill in expounding Scripture; this gift would be thought to proceed from Natural causes in the Former, but would be miracu­lous in the Latter: now putting this Case, 'tis no Incongruity to suppose that God should reward the Industry of the Former with a degree of Infus'd Knowledge, as much above the Supernatural Indowments of the Latter, as his Natural Talents and acquir'd Knowledge are above the others. For my part I can see no absurdity in supposing, that God may incourage Men to im­prove their Natural Talents as [Page 110] much as they can, by promi­sing them a proportionable in­crease of Supernatural Knowledge. For this, as has been observ'd be­foreSupr. p. 37, 38., is God's constant method, to make use of Natural means as far as they will go, and than to sup­ply as much as he thinks fit over and above.

2. As to his Second Reason, which is taken from the Directions the Apostle gives to Spiritual persons, 1. Cor. 14. 'tis plain by that very Chapter, that the Spirit usually left Gifted Men to themselves, to exercise their Gifts as they thought fit: for the Apostle tells them1 Cor. 14.32., that the Spirits of the Prophets are sub­ject to the Prophets: and from seve­ral places of the same ChapterVers. 5. 12, 13, &c. it appears, that Men spake in Un­known Tongues in their Assem­blies, when there was no body present that understood the Lan­guage they spake in. Which cer­tainly they would never have done, if they had been under the imme­diate direction of the Spirit as to the use of their Gifts. And the [Page 111] speaking with Tongues Mr. N. himself owns to be a proper kind of Inspiration, but saysFr. p. 267. Eng. p. 87. that when they thus abus'd their Gifts they did not speak by immediate Inspiration, but had the same command of those Languages, as if they had Learn'd them from their Infancy: as if a Su­pernatural Habit were not as much a Gift, as a single Act. And this likewise shews that the Inspiration of the Gifted Men in the Primi­tive Church, consisted rather in a constant and permanent Faculty, habitually residing in their mind, and exerting it self, either as they were moved by the Holy GhostAct. 4. 8, 31., or as they themselves thought fitAct. 17. 16.-18.5., than in such a kind of Inspi­ration as the Prophets had, which was often discontinued and inter­rupted: which was the reason the Latter never spake till they felt a New Impulse, and therefore usher'd in what they were about to say, with Thus saith the Lord, and left off when that Impulse ceased. And this difference between the Pro­phetical Inspiration of the Old Te­stament, and the Apostolical of [Page 112] the New, is a sufficient reason why the Apostles never begin their Exhortations or Instructions, with Thus saith the Lord, which yet is thought a good Argument by Spi­noza Theol. Polit. c. 11. against the Inspiration of the Apostolical Writings: tho I think 'tis a very weak one; for the prefixing their Names before their Epistles, gives them sufficient Authority, and a just Title to In­spiration.

And now I have run through the most considerable Objections which this Author has rais'd against the Inspiration of the Apostles. I think 'tis hardly worth while to spend time in Refuting other little Cavils, asFr. p. 251, 252. Eng. p. 61, 62. ‘that the Apostles never speak with the same Authority as Christ did, but declare they say no­thing of themselves, and refer all to Christ:’ for sure 'tis enough for Disciples to speak in the Name of their Master, and 'tis equivalent to the Phrase of the Prophets, Thus saith the Lord. And the same Argument if it prove any thing, will hold against the Inspiration of Christ himself, because he says, [Page 113] John 7.16. My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me: and— 12. 49, 50. As the Father gave me Commandment, so I speak.

Mr. N. multiplies Cavils about the Synod of Jerusalem Fr. p. 252, 253. Eng. p. 63, 64., some of which I have answer'd already, and have shew'dP. 89, &c. that there were several reasons why the Apostles should meet together about this weighty affair. To which I shall here add one more, viz. that they met thus, to give a President and be an Example to Future Ages, of settling Church Affairs by the Common advice of Councils and Synods.

I shall not pursue all the Critical Remarks he makesUbi sup. upon the style of their Synodical Letter: for if their own express words, [It seem'd good to the Holy Ghost and to us] will not perswade him that the Apo­stles thought themselves Assisted with the immediate direction of the Holy Ghost in that affair, I I despair of convincing him by a­ny thing I can say. Nor does it follow from hence, that all the persons present were inspir'd: for [Page 114] since the Apostles presided over the Assembly, and the Determina­tion was wholly left to them, if they were Inspir'd, it was suf­ficient to stamp a Divine Au­thority upon the Determination it self, tho it were publish'd in the name of the whole Assembly. But 'tis pity the Apostles had not had some such able Critick as our Au­thor among them, to direct them how to word their Epistle, and if Mr. N. had been Secretary to the Council, no doubt 'twould have been drawn up with much more Exactness: tho as great a Critick as himselfCasaub. ad Act. 10.33., is of Opinion that [...] in the Conclusion of the Letter, which he finds so much fault with, is for all that a very ele­gant Expression. He has printed the Close of this Synodical Epistle in great Letters, as if it had some­thing more than ordinary in it, and were a manifest argument of his side; but as Big as the words look, whoever considers them will find there's very little sense in his Application of them.

I Do not see much in our Au­thor that reflects upon the Au­thority or Inspiration of the Prophets: But since I am engag'd in the Subject of Inspiration, and those persons who have no great esteem for the Sacred Books, fancy there are many things relating to the Prophets liable to Exception, I think it will not be altogether im­pertinent or beside my main De­sign, which is to Vindicate the Au­thority of the Holy Writings, if I take a short View of those Con­siderations which tend to establish the Authority of the Prophets, and to answer some of the most Po­pular Objections against them. I shall therefore

• I. Consider the Personal Qualificati­ons of the Prophets.
• [Page 116]II. I shall consider the chief Design of their Prophecies.
• III. I shall resolve some Difficulties which relate to the Prophets them­selves, or their manner of Wri­ting.

I. As to the first: 'twould in a great measure take off mens Pre­judices against the prophetical Wri­tings, if they would but consider what manner of men the Prophets were, and what excellent Qualifi­cations they were indowed with. Men that are glad of any Argu­ment that makes Religion look like a Cheat, think they have a great Advantage against all sorts of Prophecy, because there have been so many Cheats of this kind: and they find that usually the per­sons that pretend to a prophetick Spirit, are in all other respects of such shallow Intellectuals, and such mean Qualifications, that no wise man would take their Advice in any thing of ordinary concern, and therefore 'tis very unlikely God should make choice of such persons, to be his Messengers and [Page 117] the Conveyers of his Will to men. But if they would likewise consi­der how unlike the Prophets of the Old Testament were to these Pretenders, both as to their Intel­lectuals, and their Morals, 'twould go a great way to discover how vastly different they are from each other, and the Truth and Excel­lency of the one would more evi­dently appear, by comparing it with the evident marks of Impo­sture and Meanness, which are found in the other.

As to the Intellectual Accomplish­ments of the true Prophets, they had usually an Ingenuous and li­beral Education, as appears by the Institution of the Schools of the Pro­phets, so often mention'd in the Hi­story of the Kings. And we find 'twas reckon'd a wonder that Saul should be among the Prophets 1 Sam. 10, 11.-19.24., be­cause he had not been Educated suitably to that Profession. So God's calling Amos to this Office from being a Herds-man, was ex­traordinary and unusual, as he him­self intimatesAmos 8.14.. And indeed the [Page 118] style of the Prophets plainly dis­covers them to have been Men of a good Education, and therefore the Criticks have all observed what great difference there is be­tween Amos's style and that of the other Prophets, which they justly impute to their different Educa­tion. Isaiah's style is ElegantIsaiae di­ctio puris­sima [...]ntor omnes qui post Mo­sen scrip­serunt, & ejus [...] pulcher­rimae. Grot. in Is. 50 4. and Lofty: Jeremy's shews him to have been a great Master of Rhetorick Mirus in affecti­bus conci­tandis Jeremias. Idem.: Ezekiel plainly discovers in his way of writing, great skill in Archi­tecture and Geography: Daniel's Wis­dom was so famous even when he was young, that it became a Pro­verb among the Chaldeans to say, Art thou wiser than Daniel Ezek. 28.3.? And not to descend to any more par­ticulars, we find that all their wri­tings are full of Powerful Exhor­tations to Vertue, of weighty and Pathetick Representations of the heinousness of those Vices which were then prevailing, and the mi­series which would attend them. We find they set forth the absur­dity of Pagan IdolatryIs. 40.18, &c. 44.9, &c with great strength and smartness of Argu­ment: [Page 119] and endeavour to give Men clear and distinct Notions of Gods SpiritualityIs. 40.12. &c., UnityJer. 10.11, 12. Is. 44.6., Om­nipresenceJer. 23.23, 24. Is. 66.1., Universal Providence, (of which the foretelling how Free Agents will determine themselves, is a signal instance) and Justice in rewarding Men according to their worksJer. 18.7. &c. Ezek. 18.. They unfold the me­thods of Providence in disposing of KingdomsJer. 25., and making use of wicked Princes, and Nations to be the Instruments of God's Justice in punishing the sins of othersIs. 10.6. &c. Ezek. 29.18, 19.. Such discourses don't look like the idle dreams of a Melancholy and disturb'd fancy, but do indeed an­swer the Character they pretend to. And those Men who will not be­lieve them to be of Divine Original, ought in reason to allow them to be the Product of a settled Judgement: and can't in Justice but grant, that if the Prophets did not foresee what was to come by a Prophe­tical Spirit, yet they made very probable Conjectures by a Natu­ral Sagacity; since the event has so plainly justifyed a great part of [Page 120] their Predictions. And if they will not be perswaded that God inlightned the minds of the Pro­phets by an extraordinary Reve­lation, yet they can't in Justice deny, but that they discourse of the Nature of God and of his Pro­vidence, and of the Obedience which he requires, with as great a degree of clearness and certainty, as Men's Natural Faculties can ar­rive to. And therefore 'tis not without reason that Origen does often in his Books against Celsus P. 18.-177.-260.-359. Ed. Cant. insist upon this, That Moses and the Prophets instructed Men in the nature of God and of their duty, much better than the acutest Philosophers among the Heathens. So malicious and groundless is that pretence of Spi­noza, where he tells usTheol. Polit. c. 1. p.m. 21., that the Prophets did not agree in their Notions about the Nature of God, because forsooth, different Pro­phets saw different Signs of the Divine Presence. As if they could not distinguish between a Symbol of God's Presence, and the Divine Nature it self. And he may as [Page 121] well say, that Moses took the Cloudy Pillar to be God himself: and by the same reason he must conclude, that Moses thought the Cherubims and the Cloud upon the Mercy-seat, which he himself or­der'd to be made, to be God, or at least to resemble his Essence, and then I think he would have been guilty of greater Idolatry than Aaron was in making the Golden Calf.

2. If we consider the Moral In­dowments of the Prophets, we shall find their Vertues so extraordinary, that none of the Whifling Pre­tenders to Prophecy, can in the least compare with them. With what undaunted Courage and Constancy did they reprove the Popular Vices of the times they lived in? Not sparing the Greatest Persons either out of fear or flat­tery. And if we suppose them to have acted like Men in their Wits, (and ther'es no tolerable reason to suspect the contrary,) we must conclude that nothing but a Sense of their Duty, could prompt them [Page 122] to do this: for they could propose no advantage to themselves by it, but on the contrary were to expect all the scorn and misery which the Angry and Revengeful Temper of wicked Men in Power whom they had offended, could bring upon them. And it could certainly be no pleasure to be continually re­proving Men, when there was lit­tle or no hopes of reclaiming them: nay when they had not so much Civility as to thank them for their good Intentions, and take the good Advice which they of­fer'd, kindly at their hands. If it had not been purely out of a prin­ciple of Conscience, and that they were perswaded of the truth and great Concern of these things, and therefore spoke, they might with much more advantage to them­selves, have let Men be quiet and go on securely in their sins. Many of their Troubles and Sufferings we find Recorded in their own BooksJer. 15.10, &c. -c. 18 18.-20. 1. &c. -26.8, &c. -36 26.-37. 15.-38 6. Dan. 6. Amos 7.10., but several other Scrip­ture-WritersMatt. 5.12.-2 [...].37. Acts 7.52. Heb. 11.36, 37, 38. v [...] etiam 1 Kings 19.10. Nehem. 9.26 assure us, that they were generally Martyrs for the [Page 123] truth's sake, and yet none of these Sufferings could prevail with them to retract any thing they had said, or to confess that they had been deluded themselves, or impos'd upon others, and said, The Lord saith, tho he had not spoken. Ori­gen hath an excellent passage to our present purpose, which I shall here set down at lengthc. Cel­sum l. 7. p. 336. Ed. Cant.. He was speaking just before concern­ing the Heathen Prophets and Priests, that utter'd the Oracles, and then he adds these remarkable words: [...] deest vox, f. supplend. [...]. vel le­gend. [...] [...] &c. ex Hebr. [Page 124] 11.37, 38. [...]. "But as for the Jewish Prophets, some of them were honour'd with Divine In­spiration, as being eminent for Wis­dom before, and some of them having their minds inlightned by the very Gift of Prophecy became Wise, being made choice of by Providence, as persons fit to be intrusted with the Divine Spirit and the Dictates of it, by reason of the Inimitable perfections of their Lives, their Boldness, Impartiality, and Cou­rage that could not be daunted by Death or Danger. For reason tells us, that 'twas fit the Prophets of God should be such Men, for Courage and Constancy of mind, that if we should compare the Fortitude of Antisthenes, Crates or Diogenes with theirs, this would look but like Childrens-play to that. And therefore because they spoke the truth, and rebuked Sinners with a great deal of freedom; ‘Heb. 11.37, 38.they were ston'd, sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the Sword, they wander'd about in sheep-skins and goats-skins, being [Page 125] destitute, afflicted, tormented: they wander'd in deserts, in moun­tains, in dens and caves of the earth, of whom the world was not worthy:’ Having their minds always fixed upon God, and upon the invisible things which are with him, which cannot be discern'd by Sense and therefore are Eternal.

A little after the same Author has these words to the same pur­pose, [...]. We, saith he, do not value the Pythian or any other of the fam'd Heathen Oracles, yet we reverence the Prophets that were amongst the Jews, because we see that the unshaken Courage and Constancy of their Lives, made them worthy to receive the Spirit of God, that prophecied quite another way, and had nothing in it like the Ora­cles [Page 126] which the Devils utter'd.

From what has been said we may conclude, That if we consi­der the Prophets with relation to their personal Qualifications only, they will appear to be persons of unquestionable Credit, since their Intellectual Accomplishments were such, that they could not proba­bly be deceived themselves, and the Integrity of their Lives was so great, that we cannot suppose they had any Design to impose upon others. I proceed in the

II. Place to consider the chief Aim and Design of God's sending Prophets to the Jews, and what was the prin­cipal End of their Office.

I confess I am apt to believe that the occasion of Gods promi­sing to send a succession of Pro­phets to the Jews, (as many Lear­ned men understand that placeDeut. 18.15. of Deuteronomy) was, That they might have no Temptation to have re­course to the Heathen Oracles and Soothsayers, to know what should come to pass, for want of Pro­phets of their own. Thus much [Page 127] the words of Moses seem to im­ply,Ibid. à v. 10 ad v. 15. There shall not be any among you that useth Divination, or an Observer of times, or an Enchanter; —for these nations whom thou shalt possess hear­kened to Observers of times and to Diviners, but as for thee the Lord thy God hath not suffer'd thee so to do. The Lord thy God shall raise thee up a Prophet of thy Brethren, like unto me, unto him shall ye hearken. The pro­mise of a Prophet, which tho it emi­nently relate to the Messias, yet the Context shews it was primarily and immediately meant of an or­der of Prophets that should suc­ceed Moses: this promise I say, was given to the Jews, as appears from this place, to prevent their applying themselves to the Hea­then pretenders to Prophecy. This is Origen's Observation upon this place,L. 1. c. Celsum. p. 28. Ed. Cant. and he adds this judici­ous remark. Therefore, saith he, when the nations round about the Jews had their Oracles and several ways of Divination, all which were strictly prohibited among the Jews, if they had not had the satisfaction of [Page 128] foreknowing things to come some way or other, it had been almost impossible, considering the great Curiosity of hu­mane nature, to have kept them from despising the Law of Moses, as hav­ing no mark of Divinity upon it, or rejecting the Prophets who succeeded him, and taking no care to preserve their Discourses; or else apostatizing to the Heathen Oracles, or setting up something like them among themselves. Therefore 'tis no wonder that the Pro­phets now and then gave answers to those that enquir'd of them about or­dinary Accidents, as Samuel1 Sam. 10.2. told Saul that his asses were found, and Ahijah the Prophet1 King. 14.12. foretold the death of Jeroboam's son. Or else how could they that stood up for the Law of Moses reprove them that went to consult Idols, as we find Elias2 King. 1.3. reprov'd Ahaziah, saying, Is it be­cause there is not a God in Isra­el, that ye go to enquire of Baal­zebub the God of Ekron? Thus far that excellent Writer. Which words of his as they give us a ve­ry good account of the original Institution of Prophets among the [Page 129] Jews, and likewise furnish us with a very satisfactory Reason, why the Prophets condescended now and then to satisfy people's de­mands about private and trivial Concerns, which seem to be be­low the Dignity of God's Prophets to meddle with: so I don't que­stion, but God had some further design in Instituting a Succession of Prophets, and charging the peo­ple to have a regard to what they should deliver, than meerly to satisfy the Jews Curiosity, or pre­vent their seeking to Idols for the Knowledge of Futurities. And I suppose that the Institution of Pro­phets was design'd chiefly for these Three ends.

• 1. To admonish the people of their Duty, and press them to practise it, by proposing God's Mercies and Judge­ments, according as they have behaved themselves.
• 2. To keep up a Sense of God's Pro­vidence in their minds.
• 3. To foretell the times of the Mes­sias, and prepare Men's minds for the Reception of Him.

[Page 130]1. The first part of the Prophetical Office was to admonish the people of their Duty, and perswade them to practise it, by setting before them God's Mercies or Judgements, which they would suddenly feel, according as they behaved themselves.

The Prophets were principally intended to be Preachers of Righte­ousness, and generally speaking, foretold future events only in or­der to make their Exhortations successful. And with respect to this part of the Prophetical Office, we find the words Prophet and Pro­phecy used in the New Testament for instructing Men in their DutyActs 15.31. Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 6.14.1, &c.. Without question 'twas properly the Priests business to instruct the people in their Duty, and they were to seek the Law at their mouths Malac. 2.7.: but the refractory temper of the Jews, made them despise the ordi­nary Methods of Reproof and Cor­rection, and their dulness withal made it necessary for God to a­waken them out of their sins, some­times by an Extraordinary Call from Heaven: by sending persons [Page 131] upon a particular Message to them, and giving Testimony to their Di­vine Mission by some Sign or Won­der: (which I suppose was gene­rally the [...] or Trial of a true Prophet, of which more hereafter) and all this to reinforce the Pro­mises and Threatnings contain'd in the Law of Moses, and assure the Jews he would be as good as his word, and they should quickly find, that as if they would amend their ways, there should not fail one word of all his good Promises, so if they persisted in their ill courses, all the Evils that were written in the Law of Moses, should suddenly come upon them and overtake them. And in this respect, the Prophecies of the Old Testament differ very much from all the False Pretences to Prophecy, that in the Former, fu­ture Events are not foretold meer­ly to please Men's Curiosity, but only in order to the making them better; whereas the Latter do not make it any part of their concern to awaken Men to a sense of God's Overruling Providence and Justice, [Page 132] or of the ill Consequences that attend Vice when it grows Pre­dominant: and have no other de­sign but meerly to gratifie that Itching desire Men have to be pry­ing into the secrets of Futurity: which is a piece of Knowledge that of it self will do Men more harm than good, and which God upon that account Conceals for the most part from Men, or if he Reveals it, yet he does it by dark and Imper­fect Hints on purpose: the reasons of which we shall discourse of more at large in the next Chapter. Now as God made the promoting of Vertue and Holiness the prin­cipal design of his sending the Prophets; with respect to those particular persons to whom he sent them: so we find accordingly, that they bestowed their pains and labour chiefly upon this Subject, to perswade Men to break off their sins by Repentance, and to cease to do evil and learn to do well. Witness those Pathetick Disswasives from Sin, and Exhortations to Vertue, which make up far the greater part [Page 133] of their Writings: in which they discover such a Spirit of Piety and Holiness, as is far above the Ru­diments of the Law, and approach­es very near to the perfection of the Gospel. But of this more by and by.

2. The second design of God's In­stituting the Prophetical Office, was to keep up a sense of God's Providence in Men's minds.

The Jews were none of the Acu­test or best Temper'd people in the World, and perhaps the great­est Wisdom and Integrity would have been little enough to make them keep firm to the belief of the True God, the sole Creator and Governour of all things, when the whole World beside was given up to Idolatry. For as strong and prevalent as Truth is, yet 'tis in danger of being overpower'd by Multitude; nay, Singularity makes Truth it self look Suspicious, and Men are apt to think 'tis more like­ly a Few should be mistaken than a great Many. Upon this account 'twas necessary, that God should [Page 134] sometimes Reinforce the Doctrine of his Universal Providence and Government upon the minds of the Jews, by an Extraordinary Method: and by laying open the secrets of his Providence, and shew­ing them first what should befall themselves, if they did not repent, and then their Neighbours; con­vince them that he was the Su­preme Lord and Governour of the World, and the Kingdoms of it were at his disposal. 'Tis further to be consider'd, that when the Jews saw how much greater and more flourishing the Neighbouring King­doms of Assyria and Egypt were, than their own, this was a likely Ar­gument to make an Impression upon them, that judg'd of God's Love or Hatred by what they saw be­fore them; this might make them imagine, that some other Being had a great share in managing Affairs below beside their God, and tempt them to conclude, that since the God whom they Wor­shipped was not so kind to his ser­vants, as the Heathen God's were [Page 135] to their Votaries, either he was not so able, or not so willing to reward his Worshippers, as the Dei­ties of their Neighbouring Coun­tries were. And 'tis probable that in the Latter times of the Jewish Kingdom, when their Enemies made frequent Incursions into their Country, and threatned in­tirely to subdue it, and at length did so, 'twas a temptation to ma­ny of the Jews to forsake the True God, and turn to Idols, because they saw 'twas better with their Worshippers than with those of True Godsee Jer. 44.17, 18.. For these reasons 'twas fit that God should often give this Dull and Unthinking people fresh Assurances that all things were at his disposal, that 'twas in his pow­er to make them Happy or Mise­rable, and that they must expect to be one or t'other, according as they observ'd or neglected his Commands. And tho it might be sufficient for this design, to have given them the Predictions of such things only as were to come to pass in their own times; yet God [Page 136] was pleas'd to discover to his Pro­phets what should come to pass in the Latter days: both to honour them with the prospect of that glorious Scene of things, which he had reserv'd till the Fulness of time should come, and give them a fore­taste of the Joys they were to ex­pect in the Messias's Heavenly king­dom, by discovering to them some part of the Happiness of his Earth­ly one: and likewise to give a convincing Proof to all Ages, that he was the First and the Last, the sole Orderer and Disposer of all things, that when the things them­selves should come to pass, men might say, This hath God done, and might perceive that 'tis his work. And this leads me to consider the

3. The third thing which God in­tended in the Institution of the Pro­phetical Office, which was to foretell the times of the Messias, and to pre­pare men's minds for the Reception of him.

And indeed to give men notice of these things, was God's prin­cipal design in sending the Pro­phets, [Page 137] and the coming of the Mes­sias was what God spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets ever since the world began. And since God seems to have made this the principal part of the Prophetical Office, I shall consider it as carefully as I can, and shall inquire,

• 1. First, For what Reasons God thought fit to reveal this so often and so particularly.
• 2. I shall consider the manner how the Prophets delivered this Pro­phecy.

1. As to the first, we may as­sign two reasons why God reveal'd this so often and so particularly.

1. To shew that this was the Ma­ster-piece of his Providence, if I may so speak, what he had an eye upon in all his particular dispensations to­ward the Jews, and what he design'd as the ultimate End and Completion of them all.

2. To wean the Jews by degrees from the Carnal Institutions of the Law, and by discovering to them a Better State than that they were under, to raise their minds to Spiritual and Hea­venly [Page 138] things, and thereby prepare them for the reception of the Messias.

1. As for the first of these Rea­sons; it seems as if God design'd to raise mens Expectations, and make them look upon this as the great Master-piece of his Power and Wisdom, when he made the coming of the Messias the com­mon Theme of all the Prophets, Mystically impli'd it in all the Pro­mises, and Typically represented it not only in the Ceremonies of the Law, but also in the Lives and Actions of the Eminent Per­sons among the Jews in all Ages. What God himself lays so much Stress upon, men ought to regard as something more than an ordi­nary work of Providence: and surely the Prophets had Great and Noble Ideas of it, since they seem to Vye with each other, who shall excel the rest in setting forth its Glories to the best Advantage, and by the most Emphatical and Lively Representations, with re­spect to the Capacity of the Peo­ple to whom they were to pub­lish [Page 139] those glad Tidings. If the Messias had come into the World without a­ny Notice given of it before hand, the Unexpectedness of it would indeed have caus'd Surprize and Wonder, but it would not have been look'd upon as an effect of the determinate Counsel and Foreknow­ledge of God, and of that [...] which foreordain'd this before the Foundation of the world, Eph. 3.10. v. Grot. in locum. and made all the lesser Dispensa­tions of Providence subservient to this great End, and by Various me­thods and Different measures pur­su'd the same Uniform Design.

2. The second Reason I assign'd why the coming of the Messias did bear so great a part in the Prophe­tical Predictions, was to wean the Jews by degrees from the Legal Cere­monies and Institutions: and by dis­covering to them a Better Covenant than that they were under, to raise their Minds to Spiritual and Heavenly things, and thereby prepare them for the Reception of the Messias.

I look upon it as a certain Truth, that God instituted a great [Page 140] part of the Ceremonial Law with respect to the Opinions that were generally receiv'd at the time when it was enacted, and in complyance with the Rites that the Nations of the World used in the Worship of their Godsv. Mai­monid. More Nevoch. Par. 3. c. 32. p. 432.: that so by this Con­descension, he might check that hankering after the Religious Rites of the Nations round about them, which the Jews upon all occasions discover'd to be in their Temper. 'Tis upon this account, that St. Paul calls the Ceremonial Law the Elements of the world Gal. 4.3., and weak and beggerly Elements Ib. v. 9.. But 'tis true withal, that God in his Wisdom so contrived it, that these Rudiments which were ta­ken from the Rites and Usages of the Heathen world, were to the Jews the Rudiments or first Be­ginnings of Christianity, accord­ing to what the same Apostle says, that the Law was our Schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ Gal. 3.24.. It was in­deed like the first Rudiments of Learning, which young Beginners at first do not know the use of, [Page 141] but when they are gone on a pretty way, then they find those Beginnings made the way easier for that which comes after. And in like manner, tho the Jews un­derstood not at first God's Design in prescribing so many several kinds of Expiation for sin, yet when the way to the Holiest by the Blood of Christ was laid open, then they might easily discover, that all those different Rites were design'd to represent that one Sacrifice of the Lamb of God which was offer'd for the Sins of the World. And as God thus complied with the Ig­norance of the Jews in that state of Non-age, and fed them like Children, with milk and not with meat, with such Instructions as were suitable to their Capacities: so he reveal'd this Great and Ulti­mate End of the Law, by gentle and easie degrees, as they were able to Bear it. He first discove­red it faintly under the shadows of the Law, which seem'd by their own Weakness and Imperfection to aim at something more perfect [Page 142] than themselves. But then by the Prophets God manifested this grand Intention of his more clear­ly: by them he gave large and di­stinct Predictions of a New and Better State of things to come, of a New Covenant, establish'd up­on Better Promises, and consisting of more Excellent PreceptsJer. 31.31.: that God's Kingdom should be inlarg'd, and all Nations should flow unto it Is. 2.2.: than he would take Priests and Le­vites out of other Nations -66.21., and inMal. 1.11. every place Incense should be offer'd to him and a pure Offering. And in or­der to prepare men's minds for this New State, the Prophets often speak after a slighting manner of the Levitical Rites and Ceremo­niesIs. 1.11. &c. -66.3. Jer. 7.22, 23. Hos. 6.6. Amos 5.21-24. Micah 6.6, 7, 8., and press men to the Pra­ctice of the Weightier matters of the Law, Judgment, Mercy and the Love of God: and require inward Purity of heartEzek. 18.31., instead of out­ward Ceremonial Worship. Which is such a pitch of Perfection in obedience, as Moses's Law seldom recommends: for indeed that was chiefly design'd to be a Political [Page 143] Law, instituted for the Govern­ment of the Jewish Common­wealth, and therefore as all Poli­tical Laws are, 'tis more careful to restrain Men from the Overt-Acts of Sin, than to make them sincer­ly and Inwardly Good. In which respect St. Paul says1 Tim. 1.9. that the Law was not made for a Rule to the Righ­teous, but for a Restraint to the Lawless and Disobedient. And there­fore the Prophets by refining up­on the Law, and exhorting Men to fulfil the Righteousness of the Law, by walking not after the Flesh but af­ter the Spirit, did contribute very much toward the preparing Men's minds for the times of the Mes­siasProphe­tae omnes Egregii ad Evan­gelium Duces. Grot. in Jer. 7.9., as they wean'd them from the overfondness they had to the Levitical Rites, by shewing them a more excellent way to please God: and as they gave them to understand, that God did not de­sign the Mosaical Covenant to be Perpetual, but that that it should at last give way to a Better. And these discourses which the Pro­phets made to the Jews, together [Page 144] with the several Afflictions God brought upon them, both in the Captivity and afterward, on pur­pose to take off their minds from the Temporal Promises, and make them look up to Spiritual and Heavenly Ones, had so great an effect upon the generality of that People, that in the latter times we find their Writers discourse of the Nature of Religion in a style much more agreeable to the Spi­rit of the Gospel, than they used formerly, as appears by the Book of Ecclesiasticus: and speak of a Future State with much greater Clearness and Assurance, as may be seen in the Dying Speeches of the Maccabees 2 Macc. 7., and in several other parts of the Apocryphal WritingsWisd. 3. &c. 5. Tob. 3.6.. And all this contributed very much to raise in the minds of the Jews that Expectation of the Messias, which we find the generality of them had at the time of our Saviour's ComingJohn 1.20, 21.-7.40, 41. Luke 2.38.-3.15.. I proceed to consider

2. The manner how the Prophets de­liver'd this Prophecy, and that was Twofold,

[Page 145]1. There were some Prophecies which in the Proper, Literal and Primary meaning related to Christ, and can't in any Tolerable Sense be applied to any other.

2. Others, tho in their Literal and Direct sense, they foretold some other Event which was nearer at hand, yet had a further and Mystical sense con­tain'd in them, which related to Christ and his Kingdom.

1. Concerning the First sort, I need not say much, for they are but few in Comparison with those of the Second, but are withal so plain, that all the Art of the Ad­versaries of Christianity has not been able to avoid the force of them, or wrest them to any other sense, but what the Christians give of them. Origen is very copious upon this Subjectv. Cels. l. 1. p. 39, &c., and proves at large that several Texts of Scri­pture, never were fulfill'd in any person but our Saviour. The In­stances he gives are Gen. 49.10. Mich. 5.2. Isaiah c. 52. and 53. Psalm 45. To which we may add, Dan. 9.24, &c. Psalm 110. Psalm [Page 146] 22.16, 18.—69.21. The greatest difficulties concern the Second sort of Prophecies, which have a dou­ble sense, Literal and Mystical, for the explaining of which I shall lay down these following Obser­vations.

1. That most of the Prophecies con­cerning Christ have a double sense, Li­teral and Mystical.

2. That those Prophecies concerning Christ, which do Directly point at some­thing which happen'd before the time of our Saviour, yet have some evident Marks in them, which shew that they have some Further meaning than that which was first intended.

3. That there are several very good Reasons upon which this Opinion of a Double sense in the Prophets, Literal and Mystical is grounded.

1. The First Observation I lay down is, That most of the Prophecies concerning Christ have a Double sense, Literal and Mystical.

Now to avoid all Cavilling about words, I shall first premise that by the Literal sense, I mean that which the Prophet more immedi­ately [Page 147] intended, and which pointed at some Event that was nearer the Prophets own time, than the My­stical Completion was: and by the Mystical sense I understand, that which had a respect to the times of the Gospel, tho sometimes this Latter sense is more properly ex­press'd by the words, and more a­greeable to their Natural Import than the former, as we shall see presently. Having premised this, I proceed to shew that there is a Literal as well a Mystical sense in most of the Prophecies relating to Christ.

Without allowing this we shall make great Confusion and Disor­der in the Prophetical Writings, if we suppose them to break off Abruptly from the matter in hand, and without any visible Transition go to a quite different Subject. And this is, to speak more parti­cularly, very unreasonable to sup­pose in the Prophet Isaiah, who as he is most eminent for the clear­ness of his Prophecies concerning the Messias, so he is as remarkable [Page 148] for the Regular Order and Con­texture of his Prophecies, and their Coherence one with another. And the Historical Relations which he intersperses in his WritingsChap. 7. c. 36-37.-39., serve as a Key to open the Primary and Literal Intention of his whole Prophecy. But the Beauty of it taken all together, will be quite spoil'd, except we suppose him in most Cases to have some regard to the Subject he is upon, and ra­ther to take Hints from thence to discourse concerning the state of the Gospel, than to fly out into a Forreign Subject without any Respect to Order or Coherence. The wonderful Restauration of the Jewish Nation and Deliverance out of their Captivity, gave a very fit occasion to the Prophet to fore­tell at the same time, that Great Salvation which Christ the Re­deemer of Israel should Accom­plish, and was a proper Represen­tation of our Saviour's giving Light to the Gentiles who sat in dark­ness, and Isaiah 61.1. proclaiming liberty to the Captives of Sin and Satan. And [Page 149] accordingly the Prophet pursues this with a pompous Eloquence from the 40th. Chapter, almost to the end of his Prophecy. But yet there's no reason to think, that he was so intent upon this Latter Subject, as quite to forget the Former: for he was not only an Evangelical Prophet, but likewise knew how to speak a word in season to him that was weary Isaiah 50.4. under op­pression and exile, and preach de­liverance to the Captives of Israel. But I shall give a more evident Instance of this, in that Famous Prophecy of his,Isaiah 7.14. Behold a Virgin shall conceive, &c. It appears by the beginning of the Chapter, that the occasion of this Prophecy was Ahaz's fear of the Kings of Syria and Israel, and his distrust of God's delivering him out of that distress. Upon which the Prophet gives the King his choice of asking any sign of GodIbid ver. 11. as a pledge of his Deliverance: and upon his refu­sing to name any, which he did rather out of Despairver. 13., than a modest Unwillingness to prescribe [Page 150] to God; the Prophet by God's order gives him this Sign, A virgin shall conceive, &c. Now 'tis plain both by the Occasion and the In­tent of God's giving this Sign, that the words must in their primary and Immediate sense, relate to something which should come to pass very Shortly, or else how could it be an assurance to Ahaz of a speedy Deliverance? For I pray, what sense would there be in such words as these, ‘I assure you of a speedy Deliverance, by the same Token that above 700. years hence the Messias shall be born of a Virgin?’ The use of a Sign is to go before the thing sig­nified, not to come after it, at least not to keep such a distance be­hind it. Whereas if we suppose the First intended sense of this Prophe­cy to be this, ‘that before one who is now a Virgin can bear a Son, and that child come to some de­grees of Understanding, and know how to refuse the evil and choose the good Ib. v. 16.,’ God will deliver Ahaz: the intent and meaning of the Pro­phecy [Page 151] perfectly answers the occa­sion of it, and exactly agrees with the scope of the Context from the 16^th verse of this, to the latter end of the next Chapter. This Prophecy I thought fit to treat of at large, because it makes out the Double sense of Prophecies which I contend for so clearly: for there are as evident Marks of its being intended further than its Primary sense and design, as there are of the Primary sense it self, as I shall shew by and by.

I shall only just mention two or three Prophecies more, which plainly and at first sight, imply a Literal sense distinct from the Mystical. The first shall be that of Hosea, Hos. 11.1. Out of Egypt have I call'd my Son, which was certainly first meant of God's delivering the Is­raelites out of the Egyptian See Exod. 4.22, 23. Bon­dage. Another instance is that of Jeremy, Jer 31 15. In Ramah was there a voice heard, Rachel weeping for her chil­dren, &c. which without question was first spoken of the Captivity of Benjamin by Nebuchadnezer. The [Page 152] last I shall mention is that of the Psalmist,Psal. 41.9. He that eats of my bread hath magnified himself against me, which was originally spoken by David concerning some of his own servants, who combin'd against him in Absalom's Conspiracy. Ma­ny others of the same nature might be alledg'd2 Sam. 7.14. Psal. 72.-129..

2. My second Observation is, That the Prophecies which have a Li­teral sense beside the Mystical, yet have evident Marks that something further is design'd by them than what is con­tain'd in the Literal sense.

Tho we allow that many of those Prophecies which the Wri­ters of the New Testament quote as irrefragable Proofs of Christia­nity, pointed Directly and Imme­diately at some thing that came to pass before: yet if we examine them throughly, we shall find that generally speaking, the Primary and Literal sense does not come up to the full Force and Import of the Words, but that they im­ply much more than can be true of the things or persons which [Page 153] were first intended: from whence we may conclude that they have a Regard to something further, in which they are properly Veri­fied and Fulfill'd. As to instance in the Prophecy before mention'd, Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son: who does not see that the first Sense and Completion, viz. One that is now a Virgin shall marry and bear a Son, comes infi­nitely short of the full Force and true Meaning of the words? and therefore they certainly look fur­ther than their first intended Sense. So there are several Prophecies in which some of the most Remar­kable Passages were never fulfill'd in the Persons of those concern­ing whom they were first spoken: as those Passages in David's Psalms,Psal. 22.18, 19. They pierced my hands and my feet, they parted my garments, and cast lots upon my vesture. Is. 69.21. They gave me gall to eat, and vineger to drink, were never, that we can find, literally true of David, tho 'tis likely Both those Psalms were at first pen'd by him with regard to his own Cir­cumstances. [Page 154] In short, let any man compare the Literal Sense of the Prophecies relating to Christ, as 'tis Explain'd by Grotius, (who has took more pains to Clear this Mat­ter than any other Expositor) with the Mystical, and he will find that generally speaking, the Primary or Literal Sense does not come up to the full Import and Meaning of the Words: but looks Narrow and Forc'd in many places, in compa­rison of the Mystical. From whence 'twill appear that the Prophecies which are applied by the Apostles to Christ and the Gospel, are not wrested from their Natural Sense, nor applied only by way of Accom­modation, (as some men love to speak, and Mr. N. Fr. p. 227. Eng. p. 22, 23. seems to be of the same mind) just as men apply the Sentences of an Author to quite different purposes from what he at first intended by it, and as Homer's and Virgil's Verses have been made use of to express such things as never came into their thoughts.

[Page 155]3. The third Observation I lay down is, That there are several good Reasons upon which this Opinion of a Literal and Mystical Sense in Prophe­cies is grounded.

1. To suppose a Double Sense in the Prophetical Writings, is to suppose them writ in a style agreeable to that of the Law, and suitable to the Rude and Carnal apprehensions of Religion which prevailed among the Jews. They always lookt upon the Law as con­taining something Mysterious and Divine, under the Obvious and common Sense of it. This the Psalmist acknowledg'd, when he pray'd that God would Open his eyes, that he might behold wondrous things out of his Law Psal. 119.18.: and St. Paul when he calls the Rites and Ceremonies of the Law, the Shadows and pat­terns of Heavenly things Hebr. 8.5.-9.23, 24., a Figure or Parable [...]. Heb. 9.9. for the time then present, and the shadow of good things to come Heb. 10.1.. This Mystical way of expressing and representing things was in Vogue among the Wise Men of the First Ages in the World, and received in the Religious Rites and Myste­ries [Page 156] of all the Ancient, especially the Eastern NationsV. Clem. Aleuand. Strom. l. 5. per tot.. And there­fore God, who, as has been observed alreadyP. 140., adapted the Mosaical In­stitutions to the Opinions and Cu­stoms already receiv'd in the world, thought fit so to contrive the Ce­remonial part of the Law, that the more remarkable Rites and Usages of it should be a shadow of Spiritual and Heavenly things: and by this means suited it both to the Greatest and Meanest Capa­cities; retaining the latter in a sense of their Duty, by the Gau­diness and External Pomp of his Service, which struck and affected their Senses; and imploying the Inquisitive in the search of those Spiritual and Heavenly things, which were wrapt up in Figures and Shadows, and were the Wisdom of God hid in a Mystery. And as the Diligence of Industrious persons, and those who were Lovers of Truth, was sufficiently rewarded with the finding out of these Deep things of God which were hid un­der a Vail, so the Slothfulness of [Page 157] Carnal and Worldly Men and their Contempt of Divine Truths, was punish'd by leaving them in Igno­rance, with the Veil still drawn over the Rites and Institutions of the Law, so that they could not look to the Ultimate End and Design of it. Which is the very Reason our Saviour gives, why he spake to the multitude in Para­bles, Matth. 13.11, &c. where he tells his Disciples, that they who would not be at any pains in the search of the Truth, when it con­cerns their Souls, do not deserve to know it: whereas the Disciples that were careful Hearers of what Christ said unto them, were Re­warded with the Knowledge of the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Hea­ven.

But to return: Since the Law had its double Meaning and As­pect, 'twas reasonable that the Prophets should have so too. The Jews having been used to this way of Instruction would expect it: the Reasons why God used it be­fore, were the same still; for the [Page 158] Jewish Nation, to whom the Pro­phets were sent, was the same Car­nally minded people they ever were, their Thoughts were not much af­fected with any thing but Temporal Blessings, and therefore 'twas neces­sary to set forth the Glories of the Messiah's Kingdom, by the splendid Representations of Worldly Gran­deur, which being a Happiness that they understood and valued, might serve to raise in their dull and earthly Minds, some Desire and Expectation of his Coming. Whereas if the nature of his King­dom had been set forth plainly as it was in it self, the Spiritual Glo­ries of it were too Refin'd for them to understand, they would have been far above out of their sight, and if they had seen some Glimpse of them, yet they would have disco­ver'd no Beauty in them that they should desire them. 'Tis for this Rea­son the Prophets set forth the State of the Gospel, by the Re­presentation of such things as were in Use among the Jews, and were most Glorious and Excellent [Page 159] in their Eyes to whom they wrote. So Isaiah expresses the Conspicu­ousness of Christ's Kingdom, and the Figure it was to make in the World, by saying that the Mount of the Lord's House shall be establish'd upon the top of the mountains Is. 2.1.. And both he and the Prophet Zachary describe the Conversion of the Gentiles, by the Nations going up to Jerusalem to worship there, and keep the solemn Feasts appointed by the LawIs. 66.20.23. Zech. 14.16., because Worshipping at Jerusalem, was the highest No­tion of Religious Worship which the Jews could apprehend. For the same Reason 'twas necessary, that the Temporal Deliverances which were wrought by those per­sons, whom God rais'd up to be Saviours to the Jews in their Di­stress, should be the Types and Fi­gures of that great Salvation which the Messias was to purchase: and therefore 'twas fit that the Prophets should joyn both together in their Writings, and make use of the Former to Illustrate the Latter by.

[Page 160]2. God's making the Great Persons and remarkable Actions of Former Ages, the Types and Figures of what should come to pass in the Latter days, the times of the Messias, is as I ob­served beforeP. 138, 139., an Argument that God made all his Dispensations subser­vient to this one Great Design, and made all the different Lines of his Pro­vidence meet in this one Center. Which shews that the Coming of Christ was the End of the Law and the Prophets, and the Eternal Purpose which God purposed with himself be­fore the World began. And accord­ingly St. Paul says1 Cor. 10.11., that all things happen'd to the Jews as Types [...]. of what should come to pass under the Gospel. And therefore he1 Cor. 10.2. and likewise St. Peter 1 Pet. 3.20, 21., speak of the Deluge and the Israelites passing thro the Red Sea, as Types of Bap­tism: he argues from Jacob and E­sau, Isaac and Ishmael Rom. 9.6, &c. Gal. 4.21, &c., as Prefigu­rations of the Rejection of the Jews and the Calling of the Gen­tiles. And several other Allego­rical Applications of the Rites and Histories of the Old Testament, [Page 161] to the times of the New, are to be found in the Apostolical Writings. Which kind of Interpretations are not so Precarious as some are apt to imagine, since besides that the Divine Assistance did certainly accompany these Expositors, and that this way of Interpreting Scri­pture was allowed by the Jews, for whose use the Writings of the Apostles were immediately and principally design'd: I say besides these Considerations, the Exposi­tions themselves of this kind may be reduced to Fixt Rules and Prin­ciples, the chief of which are these two: the First, that which I men­tion'd just now out of St. Paul 1 Cor. 10.11.: the Second is this, viz. Whatever Priviledges belong'd to the Jews as the Segullah or Peculiar People of God, do in a more Eminent manner belong to the Christian Church, which is the Mystical IsraelSee 1 Pet. 2.9. compar. with Exod. 19.5.6. and Deut. 7.6. 1 Cor. 9.13.14.. Which Rules if Men would have a regard to, and take Directions from the Mystical Interpretations of the Old Testa­ment which are to be found in the Writings of the Apostles, [Page 162] 'twould keep them from indulging their Fancies too much in these Expositions, and thereby making the Sense of Scripture Precarious, which are the usual Objections a­gainst this way of Expounding it, and to which many Men's Exposi­tions of this kind are liable.

3. A third Reason why the Prophe­cies should have a Mystical Sense as well as a Literal, may be taken from the Nature and Ʋse of Prophecy in general, which makes it requisite that Prophecies should be deliver'd with some degree of Obscurity: and there­fore the Involving a Mystical sense within a Literal One, is a proper Style for a Prophetical Writing, where the matters spoken of ought not to be express'd in too plain words. I deny not but there are some plain Prophecies in Scripture, but as much the greater part of them have something of Obscurity, so I doubt not but to make it appear, that the Obscurity of the Prophe­cies is so far from being an Obje­ction against them, as some pre­tend, that on the contrary, 'tis [Page 163] absolutely requisite that most Pro­phecies should be Obscure, or else they would not answer the Designs for which they were given, nor be Accomplish'd in a way agreeable to the Methods of Providence. But of this in the next Chap­ter.

The Sum of what I have hi­therto said concerning the Au­thority of the Prophetical Wri­tings is this; That if we consider the Prophets only as men, that were the Teachers of Vertue and Religion, the least that can be said of them is, That in respect of their great Improvements in the several parts of Knowledge, the Excellency of their Precepts, the Integrity of their Lives, their Contempt of the World, and con­stant Adhering to their Principles, they were equal to the greatest Philosophers: but if we consider them as Inlightned from above, and the Messengers of God to the world, they discover to us the Various Methods of the Divine Government, they unravel the In­tricate [Page 164] Turnings and Windings of that Dark Labyrinth, they dis­play the Scene of Providence, from the Beginning of this World to the End, and then give us a Pro­spect of Another to come: the Signal Accomplishment of their Predictions already fulfilled, con­firms our Belief in Providence, and incourages us to trust in God, and in the Words of his Prophets for the Future. They do not open the Scene of things to come, on­ly to gratify a Vain Curiosity, or with a Design to incourage the Belief of a Fatal Necessity, but to assure us that God interests him­self in the Government of the World, that all things are Guided by his Unerring Hand, and that the Changes which come to pass in the World, are not the Effects of Blind Chance or Surly Fate, but the Results of Infinite Wis­dom and Goodness, which is able to bring Good out of Evil, and make the Rage and Fierceness, the Folly and Madness of man turn to God's Praise, and be Instrumen­tal [Page 165] in bringing about his Great Purposes and Designs. Thus the Holy Prophets teach us to depend upon God, and acknowledge that our Sufficiency is of him, and yet withal to believe that 'tis in our own Power in a great measure, whether we will be Happy or Mi­serable. Thus their Doctrine pro­motes God's Honour, without super­seding men's Diligence and Indea­vours, and instructs us to give him the Glory when we do well, and not to charge him foolishly, when we do amiss.

And as to their way of Writ­ing, which includes a Hidden and Mysterious Sense under a Literal and Obvious one, this was agree­able to the Method of Instructi­on which the great Sages of the world practis'd in those early Ages: 'twas what the Jews had been accustom'd to, what they al­ways believ'd to be the Style of Scripture, and do so still, tho it make against them; it tends to discover the Chain of Providence, and the Dependance which by [Page 166] the Appointment of the Divine Wisdom, the Occurrences of one Age have upon those of another which is at a great distance. The Prophets themselves have in most Cases, left us Certain Marks to know where we are to seek for Mysteries, and a Key to unlock their true Meaning: and where such an Indication is wanting, we have the Apostles to direct us, who have given abundant Evi­dence of their Divine Credentials, that they were appointed by God to be the Interpreters of his Ora­cles, and Publishers of his Will.

III. I Proceed to discourse con­cerning the Third General Head, I propos'd at the Be­ginning of the last Chapter to be consider'd, in relation to the Pro­phets: which is to Resolve some Diffi­culties concerning the Prophets them­selves or their Prophecies. And here 'tis not my Design to give a particular Answer, to all the Objections that have been rais'd against the Prophe­tical Writings: most of which have been fully answer'd by several Ex­cellent Writers of lateBp Stil­lingfleet, Orig. Sac. Letter to a Deist. Huetii demonst. Evangel. M. Smith of Pro­phecy. Dr. Spen­cers Va­nity of Vulgar Prophe­cies., not to mention the Ancients: I intend only in this Chapter to consider Two Difficulties, one relating to the Prophets themselves, and the other to their manner of Writing, which have not yet, that I know [Page 168] of, been throughly Explain'd by any Writer: the First is, The Ob­scurity of the Prophetical Writings, the other, Concerning the Marks and Signs whereby True Prophets were distin­guish'd from False. The latter of these Inquiries is Embarass'd with Great Difficulties, for the Scrip­ture gives us very little Light in this matter, insomuch that one would wonder, since there are so many Contests between the True and False Prophets related in Scri­pture, and so many Cautions gi­ven against hearkening to False Prophets and Seducers, that there should be so little said concerning the Marks whereby they might be distinguish'd from the True ones.

I. I begin with the former Dif­ficulty, viz. The Obscurity of the Prophecies. But here I shall first Premise that Obscurity is not In­separable from Prophecy, for there are some very plain Prophecies in Scripture: as the Foretelling the 70. years Captivity of the Jews, and that Cyrus, after that time was ex­pired, [Page 169] should Restore them to their Land and Rebuild Jerusalem Jer. 25.11, 12.-29.10. Is. 44.28., the Succession of the Monarchies in Da­niel Dan. 2. c. 7. c. 8., and those Prophecies concer­ning the Messias, which foretell his Coming, while the Second Temple was standing, and before the Destru­ction of the Jewish Commonwealth Dan. 9.25, &c. Hagg. 2. 6.-9. Malac. 3.1.-4.1.. But notwithstanding some few Ex­ceptions, generally speaking, there is something of Obscurity in the Delivery of Prophecies. Now be­side the Causes of this which a­rise from the Prophetical Style, which is full of Metaphors, and of lofty Expressions, such as na­turally flow from a Heat of Fan­cy, where Great and Surprizing Ideas have made a deep Impression, besides this there are other Reasons to be assign'd for this Obscurity, which are taken from the very Nature and Design of Prophecies, and the manner how they are Fulfilled.

1. With Respect to the first of these, viz. the Design of Prophe­cies, I lay down this Rule,

[Page 170] That Prophecies are not so much design'd by God to give men the Knowledge of things before-hand, as to confirm mens Faith after they are come to pass, and convince them that this was God's Work.

I willingly grant, that God did Reveal things to come to his Pro­phets, both to do them a particu­lar HonourGen. 18.17., by making them Privy to his secret Counsels and Designs, and likewise to prepare and fit men for the Blessings fore­told, of which I have discours'd in the last ChapterP. 139. &c.: but yet I think the Use of Prophecies chief­ly consists in the Comparing the Event with the Prophecy, which when they are found perfectly to agree, 'tis a great Evidence of God's Providence in General, and that this particular Event which the Prophecy relates to, was an Effect of his Overruling Power. There are several passages in the Prophets that plainly shew, this was the Intent of many of their Prophecies. God himself gives this Reason why he foretold the Re­stauration [Page 171] of the Jewish Captivi­tyIs. 48.5., I have even from the beginning declar'd it to thee, before it came to pass I shewed it thee, lest thou shouldest say, My Idol hath done them, and my Graven Image, and my Mol­ten Image hath commanded them. And such Events as the Jews were rea­dy to ascribe to their Idols, if God had not prevented it, many others would willingly ascribe to Fate or Chance, and not acknow­ledge the hand of God in them. And therefore God to vindicate his Providence, and shew that he Interests himself in the Govern­ment of the world, and more e­specially in such Cases where his Church is concern'd, has been pleas'd to Foretell several Future Events, that when they came to pass, men might be convinc'd that they were the Lord's doing. The same thing is intimated in those Remarkable Passages of Daniel. Dan. 12.4. See ver. 9, 10. Thou O Daniel, shut up the words and seal the Book even to the time of the End: Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. And [Page 172] to the same purpose, c. 8.26. Shut thou up the Vision, for yet it shall be for many days. The meaning of which places is, ‘Lay this Prophecy up safe till after times, for it can't be understoodSee Is. 29.11. Rev. 52. as yet; but when the things themselves are near, and ready to be brought to pass, then men shall begin to under­stand it: the Gradual Comple­tion of the Prophecies shall open their Understandings, and the comparing those parts of the Prophecy which are al­ready fulfilled with the event, shall give light into, and direct Men to Judge of those parti­culars which are yet to be ful­filled.’ We find St. John Rev. 22.10. receives a Command quite contrary to this which was given to Daniel, ground­ed upon the contrary Reason, Seal not the sayings of the Prophecy of this Book, for the time is at hand. 'Tis indeed very probable that a great part of the Revelations is not yet fulfill'd, and therefore one would think that this Prophecy might have been Order'd to be [Page 173] Seal'd up at the first Delivery of it as well as Daniel's But the dif­ference between these two Pro­phecies seems to lie here, that tho some parts of the Revelations be­long to the Latter times of the Church, yet others relate to the First Ages of it, and upon that account 'twas fit that it should not be Sealed up, but laid open to be ReadRev. 1.3. and Consider'd, from the very time when it was deliver'd, because the Accomplishment of some parts of it Commenc'd very early: and therefore the things contain'd in it, are said to be such as must shortly come to pass Rev. 1.1.. Where­as that Prophecy of Daniel's which relates to Antichrist, (and I sup­pose the Command of Sealing up the Book belongs only to that par­ticular Prophecy, as will appear by comparing the Context of the two foremention'd passagesDan. 11.36, &c. to c. 12.5-8 13, to 26. to­gether) I say, the coming of Anti­christ foretold by Daniel, was a great way off of Daniels own time, and no part of the Prophecy relating to it, shortly to be accomplish'd.

[Page 174]I think from these places 'tis evident, that the Use of several Prophecies according to God's own Intention, did chiefly consist in Comparing them with the Event, after they were fulfill'd: and that they were in a manner useless, as a Book that is Sealed up, till the things themselves appear'd. Now if Pro­phecies were design'd to be Explain­ed by the Event, this supposes that the words in which they are deli­ver'd, are not to be plain of them­selves. But there is another Reason why God should not give Men a Clear and Distinct Knowledge of what is to come, and that is, because

2. The fulfilling of Prophecies, if the things are distinctly Revealed, is Inconsistent with the Freedom of Hu­mane Actions, and the Manner how Providence brings the things Foretold to pass: which is a Second Reason why Prophecies should be Obscure.

God always makes use of Men to be the Instruments of his Pro­vidence, but if they certainly knew what was to come to pass, and how it was to be brought to pass, they [Page 175] could not be Instrumental in bring­ing it to pass in a Rational and Free way of Acting; because it would not leave them wholly to themselves, to have a full Power over, and a free Determination of their own Actions. And that whether the thing foreknown be Good or Bad: if it be Good, it tempts Men to Carelesness, and to presume too much upon God's promise, for then Men are apt to argue thus, ‘What need we trou­ble our selves with helping to fulfil God's promises, as if he were not able to bring about his Designs without our Assistance? God is obliged in Honour to see his Words made good, and we need not fear but he will take care that they be perform'd.’ On the other side, if the Prophecy foretell some Sinful Action to be committed, such a Prophecy would Humanely speaking, very often destroy it self, and the very fore­telling it plainly, would hinder the thing foretold from coming to pass. For if such Prophecies were so [Page 176] plain that every body at first sight could see the whole Contrivance, and look thro all the Scenes of the Action, they could not be brought to pass without offering violence to Men's Voluntary De­terminations, and making them purely Passive in producing the foretold Events, and meer Tools in the Hand of God Almighty. For Instance, if our Saviours Cru­cifixion had been foretold with all the particular Circumstances, the Manner how, and the precise Time when it was to be brought to pass, and the Persons that were to be concern'd in it, we can't imagine so many of the Chief and Princi­pal Men among the Jews would have had a Hand in it, without being perfectly carried on to it by an Overruling Power against their own Inclinations: which besides its thwarting the Principles of Hu­mane Nature, must make God the Author of Sin. But since the Pro­phecies concerning the Messias and his Sufferings, were deliver'd with such a mixture of Obscurity, as [Page 177] never to be fully understood till after the Event, this gave Room for the Jews Malice to concur with God's Providence in bring­ing this to pass, and so as St. Paul tells them,Acts 13.27. Because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the Prophets, they fulfilled them in condemning him.

Again, as plainly foretelling who are to be Actors in Wickedness, would, without supposing manifest Violence offer'd to Men's Inclina­tions, in many Cases hinder some of them from being Instrumental in bringing about God's Designs, so perhaps it would be a new Tem­ptation to others, and make them more furiously bent upon Evil: just as the mentioning wick­edness stirs up some Men's Ill In­clinations, and makes them eager to commit it. Especially since the foretelling it as certainly to come to pass, affords a Plea for Men's Wickedness: for Men that are bent upon Evil, and are glad of any Colour to justify their Sin, will conclude from thence, that it can be no Sin to be subservient to [Page 178] God's Providence, and Assisting in the Accomplishment of his Will and Purpose; or if it be a Sin, it must lie at his door. So that if Prophecies were too plainly deliver'd, this would often be the consequence, that the bringing the Event to pass would be wholly imputed to the Clear­ness of the Prediction: just as Pub­lick Commotions do often take their Rise from the spreading a­bout of Prophecies concerning the Death of the Prince or the Change of the Government. Now this is contrary to God's method of dealing with Men: for tho we cannot comprehend after what manner he foresees how Free A­gents will Determine themselves, yet we have all the Reason in the World to believe, that Gods Pre­science does not Interfere with mens Free-will. And therefore as we believe that things do not come to pass meerly because God Foresees them, but rather that he Foresees them because their own proper Causes will bring them to pass: so 'tis agreeable to the methods of [Page 179] Providence, that Prophecies should be so worded, as not to have any Influence upon the parties con­cern'd in bringing them about; that it might not be said, The thing came to pass because it was Foretold, but it was foretold be­cause it would come to pass, as an Ordinary effect of a Natural Cause. 'Tis true indeed, we may observe that some Scripture Prophecies by being too plainly deliver'd, have made the Hearts of Wicked Men wholly set in them, to bring to pass the Evil foretoldSee 1 King. 11.31, 32. 2 King. 8.12, 13, 15 —10.10.. But perhaps God might do this on purpose to take off the minds of the Jews from that greedy desire they had to search into Futurity, when they saw what Ill Consequences did some­times attend that Knowledge. The Sum of the Argument is this: that the Evil which if Foretold Darkly and Obscurely, needed nothing to bring it to pass, but only God's suffering Men's Wickedness to break out, and permitting them to act according as their Ill Incli­nations prompt them: if it were [Page 180] foretold Plainly and Clearly, could not be effected without supposing him to offer Violence to Humane Nature, and making him a Party concern'd, and a Tempter of men to Wickedness.

From all that has been said up­on this head it appears, that whe­ther the thing foretold be Good or Evil, the foretelling it too Pun­ctually and Distinctly, would make Prophecy a Felo de se, and be an effectual way to defeat its Accom­plishment, for then it could not be brought to pass in a way that is suitable to the Divine Purity and Wisdom. For this is one of the Master-pieces of the Divine Wisdom, to bring about its De­signs in such a manner, as never to put any Force upon the Free­dom of man's Will, so that the Events may rather seem the Na­tural Effects of Free Agents, than the Works of an Overruling Pro­vidence. To this purpose speaks the Author of the Book of Wis­domWisd. 8.1., Thy Wisdom, O Lord, reach­eth from one end to another Mightily, [Page 181] and Sweetly doth she order all things. God sees every Link of that Vast Chain of Causes, and knows how they depend upon each other: what Force each Circumstance has in determining mens Resolutions, and what it is that turns the Ba­lance of the Mind one way or t'other: and therefore tho he brings to pass all his Purposes in an Irresistable manner, yet he does it withall in so Easie and Gentle a one, that the Events look like the Result of mens own Free Determi­nations, and one would think that the Natural Agents, let alone to themselves would have produc'd the same Effect.

These two Reasons fully justi­fie the Obscurity of Prophecies, and shew us the Use of them, that we are not to look upon them as deliver'd meerly to gratifie the Curiosity men have to pry into what is Future, but to be an Ar­gument to us of Gods Overruling Providence, which extends it self to the most Minute Actions, and very often makes such Accidents, [Page 182] as seem to us to be Trivial and In­significant, Instrumental in bring­ing to pass the Greatest and most Surprizing Events: and especially to shew us, That nothing befalls his Church but by his determinate Counsel and Foreknowledge.

I will conclude this Head with a Brief Caution to those, who do not think the Prophecies concer­ning Christ and the Gospel Clear enough to be an Argument for our Belief: and that is this, That they ought not to expect that the Prophecies should give as distinct an Account of Christ as the Gos­pels do, nor because they do not, should they slight them as Insigni­ficant: but they should first of all consider the Evidence of Truth, which the Gospel brings along with it, and then Compare it with the Prophecies. And thus, tho the Prophecies be Obscure in them­selves, yet when they are com­par'd with the Event, as they will receive Light from it, so they will add Light to it. Just as that Ob­scure Saying of our Saviour's,Joh. 2.19. De­stroy [Page 183] this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up, was not understood by his Disciples when he spoke it, but afterward when they Compar'd it with the Event which it foretold, it was a new Argument to them that he came forth from GodVer. 22..

II. Another Difficulty concern­ing Prophecy, the Resolving of which will tend to Establish the Authority of the Prophets, is, Con­cerning the Signs whereby True Pro­phets were distinguish'd from False ones. 'Tis plain by the Prophetick Writings, that there were False Prophets that oppos'd themselves to the True ones, and utter'd quite contrary Prophecies to theirs. But tho the True Prophets warn the People often not to be seduc'd by these False pretenders, yet we can discover but little out of their Writings, concerning the Marks whereby the True Prophets were to be distinguish'd from the False ones. Those which I can gather from the Holy Writings are these following.

1. If a Prophet indeavour'd to per­swade the people to Idolatry, this was [Page 184] a certain Mark that he was a False Prophet, tho he should confirm what he said by a Sign. This Rule is laid down by Moses Deut. 13.1., and is grounded upon very good reason: For since God had manifested his Power to the Israelites by so many Undeni­able Miracles and Proofs, 'twas not reasonable that working a single Wonder, or foretelling one Event which might come to pass by meer Chance, should overthrow the Authority of so many more and greater Works. For tho God doth suffer Impostors to work Strange Feats sometimes for the Trial of his peopleDeut. 13.3. Matth, 24.24., yet I doubt not but he always takes care that his own Works shall visibly exceed theirs, both in Power, in Gravity, and in Ʋsefulness: so that their Tricks shall appear as just nothing when com­par'd with his Miracles, as Aaron's Rod swallowed up those of the Magi­cians Exod. 8.12.. Or else God would allow too great an Authority to Impostors, and make Miracles by themselves no Evidence of a Divine Mission, since 'twould be in some Cases im­possible [Page 185] to distinguish True ones from Counterfeit. And this I take to be a satisfactory Answer to that Question, Whether God's permitting Evil Spirits and Seducers to shew Signs and Wonders, does not eva­cuate the Authority of Miracles in general: tho I grant there are o­ther MarksV. Orig. c. Cels. l. 1. p. 53. l. 2. p. 90, 91. Ed. Cant. Bp. Stil­lingfl. Orig. sacr. l. 2. c. 10. whereby to distin­guish True Miracles from False, which 'tis not my Business at pre­sent to discourse of.

2. 'Tis reasonable to think that the Prophets, when they first entred upon their Prophetick Office, gave some Sign of their Mission, either by wor­king a Miracle, or by revealing some Secret, Remote or Future thing, which was not within the Compass of Hu­mane Knowledge, and the Nature of which was such, that a little time would quickly discover, whether the Prophet spake True or not. We may find footsteps in Scripture of these several ways being accounted the Marks of a Prophet. We find the Pharisees demand a sign from Hea­ven Matth. 16.1. Joh. 6.30. Matth. 12.38. of our Saviour, such as Jo­shua Jos. 10.12., Samuel 1 Sam. 12.18., Isaiah Is. 38.8., and Elias 2 King. 1.10. [Page 186] had wrought. And the Samaritan Woman judg'd our Saviour to be the Christ, because he told her all things that ever she did John 4.29.. This shews that in the common Opinion, the Discovering of some Hidden thing, and out of the ordinary reach of Humane Knowledge, was esteem'd the Mark of a Prophet: and the Messias being the Prophet the Jews at that time Expected, the Woman concludes from thence that he who knew such Secrets must be the Messias. And perhaps for this Reason the Jews who lookt upon our Saviour as a Pretender only to Prophecy, demand of him the Discovery of a Mock-secretMatth. 26.68., viz. Who it was that smote him when he was Blindfolded.

It appears from other places, that the Prophets did commonly foretell something which should Shortly come to pass, and the Ac­complishment of this their Predi­diction did establish their Autho­rity for the Future, and gave Cre­dibility to those Prophecies of theirs, whose Accomplishment [Page 187] was at a greater distance. So the Man of God that Prophesied a­gainst the altar of Bethel 1 Kings 13.1, 2., beside his foretelling above 300. years before the Birth of that Prince, that one of David's Family Josiah by name, should Defile that Altar; at the same time gave another Sign of his Mission that was presently to come to pass, viz. that the Altar should be rent, and the Ashes of it pour'd out Ib. v. 3.. The fulfilling of which was an Argument of his Veracity as to the other part of his Pro­phecy; where the Event was at such a Distance, that tho it should not Correspond with the Pro­phecy, it could not at present be Disproved, and therefore the bare Foretelling it did not bring along with it sufficient Evidence that the Prophet who spoke it, was really sent from God. In like manner 'tis said of Samuel 1 Sam. 3.19, 20. -c. 9.6., that all Israel knew him to be an Establisht Prophet of the Lord's, when they saw that none of his Prophetick words fell to the ground. So Ezekiel having de­liver'd a Prediction, adds,Ezek. 33.33. When [Page 188] this shall come to pass, then they shall know that a Prophet has been among them: as if he had said, ‘However Men may slight my Words now, and value them no more than a Song ver. 32. which Men hearken to only to pass away the time, yet the fulfilling of what I say will establish my Authority beyond Contradiction.’ Which is an Ar­gument that Men commonly sus­pended their Judgement concern­ing the Authority of a Prophet, till they had Tried his Veracity, by seeing whether some one Pro­phecy of his, which he delivered as a Test of his Mission, came to pass or no.

3. Tho Prophets usually gave a Sign in Testimony of their Mission, yet Some Prophets did not, who were there­fore to be Tried by other Rules.

'Tis Recorded particularly of John Baptist, that he did no Miracle John 10.41., and yet the people counted him a Pro­phet Matth. 21.26., which they would not have done, if a Prophet had always given a Sign, before he was ac­counted so: and we see that even [Page 189] the Priests and Elders could not find any thing to Object against his AuthorityIbid ver. 25.. Now in such a Case, I suppose they judged of a Prophet's Pretences by some of these following Tokens, by the Holiness of his Life and Doctrine, by the Agreement of what he said with the Predictions or discourses of other Prophets, and especially if a­nother Prophet of undoubted Authority bare witness to him: according to that Maxime of the Jewish Ma­stersMaimo­nid. Fun­dam. Le­gis. c. 10. Sect. 9., The Prophet, of whom some other Ʋndoubted Prophet witnesseth that he is a Prophet, is assuredly such. All these Marks concurr'd in John Baptist; his Office was plainly de­scrib'd by Isaiah Is. 40.3., and both that and his Person by Malachi Mal. 3.1. —4.5.: his Doctrine was Holy, and his Life an exact Copy of what he taught; so here was no room to suspect him a Counterfeit, tho he gave no Sign to attest his Mission.

We may farther observe, that the Prophets of the Old Testament insist upon these three things, viz. Purity of Doctrine, Holiness of Life, [Page 190] and Agreement with other Prophets, as the Tokens whereby they di­stinguisht themselves from the False Prophets. They tell us, there is as plain a difference between the Visions of True Prophets and the Dreams of False Ones, as betwixt Chaff and Wheat Jer. 23.28.: which must be upon this account, that the one sort tends to discourage Sin, and set forth the terrible Consequences of itIbid. ver. 29., whereas the other designs to sooth Men up in their Vices, by Healing the Wounds of the Con­science Slightly, saying, Peace, Peace Jer. 6.14., and promising Men Pros­perity without their Repentance and Amendment of Life. To the same purpose Ezekiel says of the False Prophets, that they Sow pil­lows to men's elbows Ezek. 13.18., that they may sleep on securely in their Sins. The True Prophets accuse the False Ones of several Vices in their Con­versation and Manner of Living: of makingJer. 6.13. Ezek. 13.19. Mich. 3.5, 11. This was one of the Argu­ments made use of to prove Monta­nus his followers False Prophets, because they took Mony for Prophesying: beside that they were guilty of Theft and other Crimes. v. Euseb. H. E. l. 5. c. 18. a gain of their Pro­fession, and speaking smooth things [Page 191] for advantageIs. 30.10.: of AdulteryJer. 23.14.-29.23. and RiotIs. 28.7. Mic. 2.11., of being Fearless and Un­concern'd at God's Judgements, and not indeavouring by Prayers or other eminent Acts of Piety to avert themEzek. 13.5. Jer. 27.18.. And as to the o­ther Mark of True Prophets, viz. their Agreement with other Prophets, we find Jeremy Appealing to it, in the Contest between him and Ha­naniah, who ProphesiedJer. 28 3, 4. of the re­turn of Jechoniah's Captivity, con­trary to what Jeremy had foretold. Upon which Jeremy tells himIb. ver 8, 9., The Prophets that were before me and be­fore thee of old, prophesied of War and Evil and Pestilence, the Prophet that prophesieth of Peace, when the word of the Prophet shall come to pass, then shall the Prophet be known that the Lord hath sent him. Where Jeremy argues against the Truth of Hananiah's Prophecy, and proves that what himself had prophesied was much more Credible of the two, because many other Pro­phets agreed with him in prophe­sying evil against the Jews, and several other Countries, whereas [Page 192] he being single in his Prophecy concerning Peace, nothing but the Punctual Answering of the E­vent, could give him the Autho­rity of a Prophet: and people must Suspend their judgments till Time shouuld discover whether he were in the Right or no. Which place seems likewise to imply, that Hananiah had never before given a Sign to attest his Mission, and therefore his Credit would justly be questionable, till men could see whether his Sign came to pass or not.

From what has been said, we may conclude it probable, that where a Prophet gave no Sign whereby men might make Tryal of the Reality of his Pretensions, they made a judgment of it by considering his Education, whe­ther he had been brought up in the Schools of the Prophets, which were the Seminaries of Inspir'd persons; by examining his Man­ner of Life, his Doctrine, and his Agreement with other Prophets: and the more any of these was liable to Exceptions, the more [Page 193] need was there that he should give a Sign to attest his Mission. So for Example, 'twas more re­quisite that Amos should give a Sign who was no Prophet by Edu­cation or Prophets Son, but a Herd­man Amos 8.14. by Profession, than any of those Prophets who were of the Priestly Order, or brought up a­mong the Sons of the Prophets.

THe Two Preceding Chapters concerning Prophecy being a Digression with respect to the Book which I undertook to Answer, tho not with Respect to the General Design of this Treatise, which is to Vindicate the [Page 194] Authority of the Scriptures: I re­turn to Mr. N's Memorial, as 'tis Communicated by the Author of the Letters, and shall Examine in this Chapter the Exceptions which he makes against the Authority of the Old Testament Writings. Which are of two sorts, General and Particular: The General Ex­ceptions are levell'd against the Authority of the Old Testament Ca­non, which this Author supposesFr. p. 279. En. p 106. to consist of all the Ancient Writings, whether Perfect or Imperfect, whe­ther Inspir'd or not, which were remaining among the Jews at the time when this Collection was made. The Particular Exceptions relate to Particular Books, which he sup­poses not to be Inspir'd, either because the matter of them is such as Men may know and faithfully re­late without Inspiration, such as are the Historical BooksFr. p. 233. En. p. 31.: or else because they contain something in them which is Ʋnworthy of God being its Author, which Exception he advances against several Passages in the Psalms and the Proverbs, and [Page 195] against the Intire Books of Job, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solo­mon Fr. p. 271, &c Eng. p. 93, &c..

In Answer to these Twofold Ex­ceptions, I shall

• I. Say something concerning the Au­thority and Inspiration of the Old-Testament Canon in General.
• II. I shall make a Reply to his Ob­jections against the Particular Books which are part of this Canon.

1. As to the First, it must be confess'd that we cannot give an Exact Account, by whose Autho­rity the Canon of the Old Testa­ment was setled, for we have no Writings extant that give us a History of that Affair. But 'tis very probable the Collection of the Canonical Books, was made in Ezra's time, or not long after: 1. Because the Scripture-History ends about that time. I know no­thing of later date in it, than the mention of Jaddus by Nehe­miah Neh. 12.10, 22. who was Contemporary with Ezra, which Jaddus was High [Page 196] Priest at the Beginning of Alexan­der the Great's Reign. And what­ever others may have objected to the contrary, the mentioning of this Jaddus, is very reconcileable with the time when Nehemiah writ, as a Great Prelate has lately made out with Incomparable Lear­ning and ClearnessLetter to Dr. Sherlock about a passage in Josephus, &c.. 2. Because Malachi the Prophet, that lived much about the same time, seems to Seal up the Vision and Prophecy a­mong the Jews, by referring them to the Law of Moses as their stan­ding Instructor, till the Gospel should be revealed: and pointing out to Elias the Forerunner of the Messiah, as the next great Prophet that was to be reveal'dMal. 4.4, 5.. And indeed his Prophecy looks as if it were design'd to Con­nect the Old and New Testament together, by putting a period to the Old Testament Revelati­on, and directing men to the New for further Instruction. This Argument will appear more pro­bable, if we consider 3^ly, That under the Maccabees, the Jews [Page 197] look'd upon the Gift of Prophecy as wholly ceased, and were of Opini­on it had been so for a considerable timeSee 1 Macc. 4.46.-9.27.-14.41.. The same Opinion is confirm'd not long after by the Author of Ecclesiasticus Ecclus. 36.14, 15, 16.. 4. If we suppose the LXX. Interpreters Translated all the Old Testament, which is an Opinion that Learned menWal­ton. Pro­legom. 9. in Bibl. Polygl. n. 11. Vales. in Eus. H.E. l. 5. c. 8. have brought good Reasons for, then 'tis plain the Canon must have been settled before the time when that Version was made, which was done under Ptolomee Philadelphus, and as 'tis very probable, at the Beginning of his ReignVales. ibid.. 5. How­ever that be, yet 'tis certain that when the Book of Ecclesiasticus was writ, the Canon of the Old Te­stament was settled: for he makes mention of the Twelve Prophets al­togetherEcclus. 49.10., which is an Argument that the Smaller Prophets were then Collected, and Compil'd in­to one Book, which Book was af­terward call'd the Book of the Pro­phets See Act. 7.42. Justin M. c. Tryph. p. 45.50.57. (Ed. Steph.) Cyprian. Epist. 59. Ed. Oxon.. Nay further, the Author of the Prologue to that Book, speaks of the Law, Prophets and [Page 198] other Books of Scripture, as then Translated into Greek, which is an Undeniable Argument that the Canon was then Completed. And tho we suppose that Prologue to be made by the Grandchild of the principal Author Jesus the son of Syrach, which Younger Sy­racides lived in the time of Euer­getes II. commonly called Ptolomee Physcon: yet it appears by the Be­ginning of that Prologue, that his Grandfather studied the same Ho­ly Books, which he afterwards says were turn'd into Greek. And this Elder Siracides speaks of Simon the son of Onias the High Priest, as one whom he very well remem­bredc. 50. 1, &c.: now that Simon was High Priest in the Beginning of Philopa­tor's ReignSee 3 Macc. 2.1. com. with c. 1.1., who was next in Succession but one to Philadelphus. So that the Canon of Scripture will appear to be as old as Phila­delphus's time, because 'tis evident from hence that 'twas Transla­ted all into Greek in a little time after, tho we should not suppose the whole work performed by the [Page 199] LXX. Lastly, to these Conside­rations we may add the Concur­ring Testimony of all the Ancient Writers, both Jewish and Christi­an, who agree in supposing the Ca­non of the Old Testament, to have been Compil'd in or about Ezra's time, and who probably had the Authority of some Ancient Wri­ters for what they say, which now are lost. And if these Considera­tions taken all together, have any Force in them to prove the Canon of the Old Testament, to have been settled in Ezra's time, or in the next Age; I say if it were settled so early, this very thing will add great Weight to its Au­thority.

For 1. 'tis agreed on all hands that Ezra, who calls himself a Ready Scribe in the Law of Mo­ses Ezr 7.6., Revis'd the Holy Writings, Retriev'd them from the Corrup­tions, which the Scarcity of Co­pies, and the Disuse of the He­brew Language during the Capti­ty, had brought into them: sup­plied and completed many of them, [Page 200] and put them into Order and Me­thod: And when a man of so great Authority as Ezra was, had done all this so lately, it cannot be imagin'd but that the Compi­lers of the Canon, must have had a particular Regard to his Judg­ment, and admitted no Books in­to their Collection, but what were allow'd of by Ezra: or if they were of Later date than his time, the Writing of them must have been within the Memory of these Compilers, so that they were pro­per Judges, whether a Book de­serv'd to be esteem'd Sacred or not. So that from hence 'twill fol­low, that the Authority of the main Body of the Canon, bot­toms upon the Judgment and Au­thority of Ezra: whom if we should grant to have been no Prophet, yet we canot think, but in a mat­ter of such Moment, as the Revi­sing and putting in order the Ho­ly Writings, he would not only use the best Skill he had himself, but likewise consult with Haggai, Zechary or Malachi; (the last of [Page 201] which must needs have been alive in his time, and possibly the other Two also) and do no­thing without their Advice. For we find that at the first Re­turn from the Captivity, in a mat­ter of much less moment, viz. where some that pretended to the Priesthood could not prove their Pedigree, the Governour would determine nothing, but left the matter undecided, till a Priest should arise who had Ʋrim and Thummim Ezr. 2.62, 63.. And if any such Priest did arise afterward, as, if we be­lieve Josephus, there did; for he tell us that that Oracle ceas'd but 200. years before his timeAntiq. Jud. l. 3. c. 9. p. 90. C. Ed. Gen., 'tis ve­ry probable that the Judgment of the Canonical Books was left to him, to determine which were such, as the Learned Mr. Dodwell has made appear in the Appendix Sect. 9. to his Lectures, now in the Press.

2. This Early date of the Ca­non of the Old Testament, quite destroys that Fancy of our Au­thorsFr. p. 279. Eng p. 106., that the Jews put together all the Fragments that remain'd of [Page 202] their Ancient Books, so that the Ca­non of Scripture was their whole Li­brary. For in the First place 'tis plain, that the Chronicles are Ex­tracts out of larger Records, which they often Refer to, and yet these Books were Compil'd after the Captivity, as appears by several passages1 Chr. 3.17. [...] &c. in them: and 'tis not likely that the Originals which escaped the Destruction of Re­cords, occasion'd by the Ruine of the Commonwealth and the Cap­tivity which ensu'd, should be lost in so little a time as was between the Compiling the Chronicles, and making the Canon. Especially since Josephus L. 1. c. App. p. 136. D. tells us, that the Genealogies of the High-Priests and their Succession, for above Two Thou­sand years past, were preserved in the Publick Records, and remain'd to his own time.

Again, several Books which never were in the Canon, were Extant when the New Testament was writ, and are Cited there as Writings of Credit and Antiquity; such as are the Prophecy of Enoch, [Page 203] and the Assumption of Moses, both referr'd to by St. Jude Jude [...] and 14.: as also several other Ancient Books, from whence both Christ and his Apo­stles take many Passages concern­ing Historical Matters, which are not Extant in the Canonical Wri­ters [...]ee Matth. 23.3 [...]. Luk. 4.25. Jam. 5.17. Act. 7.22, 52. Heb. 11.37.-12.21. 2 Tim. 3.8. V. Orig. Epist and African.. And 'twas from such An­cient Writings probably, that Jo­sephus took some Stories which he relates of Moses Antiq. l. 2. c. 5., and of other Persons. Besides we find Apocry­phals quoted by Barnabas in every Page of his Epistle almost; by Cle­mens Alexandrinus and other An­cient Writers in several places, many of which 'tis likely, were Written Originally in Hebrew, since by the Matters they Treat of, we may reasonably judge them to be as old as the Collection of the Canon: and were certainly lookt upon as Books of great Antiquity, or else they would not have been Cited by these Authors under the Venerable name of Scripture. From all which it appears, that the Com­pilers of the Canon did not take in Promiscuously whatever Hebrew [Page 204] Writings they could find; but used all possible diligence to distin­guish Sacred Writings, and such as were design'd by God for the Use of the Church, from those which were not so. The Reasons which Confute this Opinion of our Au­thor, concerning the Collection of the Canon of the Old Testa­ment, I thought fit to represent all together, when I was upon this Subject, tho I am sensible that 'tis only the first of these Considera­tions, which can be inferr'd as a Corollary from what has been said concerning the Early Date of the Old Testament Canon.

What I have hitherto said con­cerning the Authority and Anti­quity of the Old Testament Ca­non, I cannot call Absolutely Cer­tain or Demonstrative; but I may safely say thus much, that it car­ries in it a greater Degree of Pro­bability, than any thing the Ad­versaries of the Canon have ad­vanc'd to the Contrary. So that tho we should grant what our Au­thor saysFr. p. 276. Eng. p. 102., That there is no proof at [Page 205] all that Esdras and the Great Sanhe­drim of that time, among whom were Haggai, Zachary and Malachi, Com­pil'd the Canon; yet still 'tis pro­bable 'twas made by those that were so near their time, that they knew what their Sentiments were in this Matter, and made this Col­lection accordingly.

But if this Proof be not thought Satisfactory, I should think any Christian ought to acquiesce in the Judgement of our Saviour: and 'tis plain he lookt upon the Jewish Canon, which was Undoubtedly the same in his time, which is now received in the Protestant Church­es: I say, he lookt upon it as a Collection of Holy Writings de­sign'd by God for the Instruction of his Church, and the Rule the Jews were to have recourse to, when they would inform them­selves what was the Will of God. He bids themJ [...]h. 5.39. Search the Scriptures, without distinguishing as our Au­thor doesFr. p. 277, 279, 285. Eng p. 10 [...], 106, 116., the Truly Inspir'd Books, from those which are not so: for in them, saith he, ye think, [Page 206] and so far ye are in the right, that ye have Eternal Life. 'Tis strange our Saviour should not correct this Mistake of theirs, if some of the Books they had such a great Veneration for, favour'd such Dangerous Doctrines as our Au­thor thinks the Book of Ecclesi­astes doesFr. p. 272. Eng. p. 96., and contain'd Expres­sions very like Blasphemies, as he is pleas'd to speak concerning the Book of Job Fr. p. 275. Eng. p. 101.. For if this were true, 'twas certainly very dange­rous for Men to Search, or be too much Conversant in these Books, especially since they came Recom­mended under the Character of a Divine Inspiration. 'Tis strange our SaviourLuk. 24.44. should prove the Passion and Resurrection of the Messias, not only out of Moses and the Prophets, but also out of the Psalms; by which our AuthorFr. p. 277. Eng. p. 123. understands those Writings which the Jews call Chetubim, if these Books be of so little Authority, as he would perswade us they are, Mr. N. would fain Evade the Force of this Argument taken from [Page 207] our Saviours Authority, by telling usFr. p. 278. Eng. p. 104, 105., that Christ never design'd to Criticize upon the Sacred Books, or to Correct those Errors of the Jews, which were of small Importance. But since our Saviour Criticiz'd so far upon the Sacred Books, as to Con­fute the false GlossesMatt. 5. c. 23. which the Scribes and Pharisees had made upon them, and to Reject the Traditionsc. 15.1. which they had E­quall'd to the Word of God, and in some Cases Prefer'd before it: it seems as necessary for him to have distinguisht between the True Scriptures, and those Books which were Undeservedly esteem'd such. Especially if these Latter advance Doctrines, that do not well agree with the Former, as our AuthorFr. p. 272, &c. Eng p. 95, &c. indeavours to prove, concerning several places of the Proverbs, Ec­clesiastes and Job: for then the Ad­mitting the Authority of such Writings, is of as Ill Consequence as the Receiving the Traditions of the Pharisees could be. Nay with his leave, I think it an Error of more dangerous Consequence, to [Page 206] [...] [Page 207] [...] [Page 208] Equal a Book that is not Inspir'd when it contains False Doctrine, with one that is truly Divine, than to Equal such Traditions as the Pharisees held, with an Inspir'd Writing. Because a Tradition will probably in time be forgotten, and so lose all its Authority, which we see has been the Fate of most of the Pharisaical Traditions; whereas a Book that has once been generally Reputed of Divine Au­thority, 'tis likely will maintain that Character for ever. For its very Character will make Men careful to preserve it, and the Older it grows, the Stronger will the Plea of Prescription be for its Divine Original: and Consequent­ly the More will be Impos'd upon by it, as we see hath Actually happen'd in the Case we are now speaking of, if our Author's Opi­nion be true. For the whole Christian and Jewish Church hath time out of mind, lookt upon the Books contain'd in the Jewish Ca­non to be Inspir'd, and have upon all Occasions appeal'd to their Au­thority [Page 209] as such. From whence it appears, that our Saviours taking notice of this Error, if it had been one, would have been much more beneficial to after Ages, than his Confuting an Unwritten Tradition could be.

But further, we find the Apo­stles Judgment does evidently con­cur with our Saviours in this mat­ter. St. Paul saysRom. 3.2., that the Jews were intrusted [...]. with the Oracles of God: but surely he would have told us that they were not True to their Trust, if he had thought they had mix'd Prophane Books with the Sacred ones. But that Text of the same Apostle,2 Tim. 3.16. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God, is so clear a Proof of the A­postles Judgment in this matter, that 'twill admit of no Evasion. For the Apostle tells Timothy in the foregoing Verse, that from a child he had known the Scriptures, by which he must mean the Body of Writings which the Jews look'd upon as such, for in that Religi­on he had been Educated by the [Page 210] Care of his mother, who was a JewessAct. 16.1.. Then it follows in this verse, All Scripture is given by In­spiration of God: where the Apostle certainly understands the word Scripture in the same sense which he took it in the Verse before, viz. for that Collection of Writings which the Jews received as the Word of God. But pray let us hear our Authors ParaphraseEng. p. 192. Fr. p. 270. upon these two Verses, It is as if he had said to Timothy, that he ought to keep close as he had done hitherto, to the Study of the Old Testament, which would instruct him sufficiently in the way of Salvation, by joyning there­unto Faith in Christ Jesus: because all Scripture Inspired, AS IS A GREAT PART OF THE OLD TESTA­MENT, Is profitable for Instruction. I think I may appeal to any Indif­ferent Man, whether those words of this Paraphrase, [As is a great part of the Old Testament] be not added meerly to serve the present Turn, without the least Intima­tion of such a Restriction from the Text it self: and whether the Co­herence [Page 211] of these two Verses be not plainly this, ‘Continue in the Study of the Old Testament, be­cause all the Books which that consists of are Divinely Inspir'd.’ But I supposes he grounds this In­terpretation of his upon that Read­ing of the Text, for which Grotius In lo­cum. & contr. Rivetum. vouches the Syriack and Vulgar Translations, Omms Scriptura Di­vinitùs Inspirata utilis est. But if we should admit of this Reading, still the Sense will come all to one, and the Words as they lie then, tho they do not in Express terms assert, that all the Old Testament Writings are Divinely Inspir'd, yet they Imply it and take it for grant­ed. For if we read the Greek thus, [...], the word [...] will be an Ex­plicative Epithet to [...], just as if we add the Epithet Rationalis to Homo in such a Proposition as this, Homo Rationalis creatus est ad co­lendum Deum. In which Proposi­tion tho it be not expresly asserted that Homo is Rationalis, yet so much is Implied, and if it were [Page 212] not true, 'twould make the whole Proposition false, as Monsieur Nicol has observed in his Ars Cogitandi Pars 2. c. 5.. And just so in the Proposition we speak of, [...] signifies the Scrip­tures of the Old Testament, in which sense the word is always taken in the New Testament, and [...] is added for a fuller Ex­plication of that term. I know Grotius Votum pro Pace, prout citatur. Fr. p. 270. Fn. p. 193. will needs have the word [...] taken here in its General Sense, and signify simply a Book or Writing. But I can't forbear saying, that this gloss is Unworthy of Grotius, and 'tis a sign of a Bad Cause, when so Great a Man is fain to betake himself to such Piti­ful Sophistry, as is to be seen in the fore-cited Place. For he can't produce one Instance in all the New Testament, where the word is used in that Sense: and if he could, yet [...] added to [...], suffi­ciently Restrains the General sense of it, and makes one Complex Term, which must signify the same with [...] in the Verse before, both which Expressions signify the Old Testament, because 'tis a Col­lection [Page 213] of Inspir'd Writings: and consequently the Phrase it self as­serts so much by way of Implica­tion, or else it would be an Impro­per Expression.

I think it appears from what has been said, what was the Judge­ment of Christ and his Apostles concerning the Canon of the Old Testament: and since 'tis certain that they approved the Canon of the Old Testament, as it was received by the Jewish Church of their own time, I can't guess what evidence of Reason can be suffi­cient to perswade a Christian to Oppose such an Authority. And therefore I can't be of our Author's mind, when he tell usEng. p. 188. Fr. p. 267., He knows not why we may not doubt of the Books of the Old Testament, as well as of some of the New, the Authority of several of the Latter having been question'd. But there is a visible Difference between the Authorities that confirm the Old Testament Canon, and those which give Testimony to the New. To the Former Christ and his Apostles bear Witness, whereas the Credit [Page 214] of the Latter depends upon the Consent and Testimony of much the Greater part of the Church in the Ages succeeding that of the Apostles: which tho it be suffi­cient for any Wise and Unpreju­dic'd Man to ground his assent upon, yet it hath not that Sacred­ness and Infallibility in it which the other hath. For those Ages made use only of Humane Means for settling the New Testament Canon, which was sufficient for that purpose, considering the Near­ness of those times to the Writing of the Books to which they give Testimony.

Nor does the name of Chetubim, which the Jews give to those Wri­tings of the Old Testament, which Mr. N. calls in question, at all ju­stify his Opinion. He fanciesFr. p. 276. En. p. 102. they were call'd Chetubim, i. e. Simply Writings, as he Interprets it, to signify that they were like other Humane Writings, and had no­thing at all of Inspiration in them. But the Jewish Writers say not one Syllable to confirm this Opinion, [Page 215] that I can find. On the contrary, by their placing Daniel among the Chetubim, it appears that they look upon the Writers of that Class to have been Inspir'd, for the Jews all agree that Daniel had really the Gift of Prophecy, tho they fancy it to be in a lower Degree. Fur­ther Maimonides saith expreslyMore Nevoch. p. 2. c. 45. that they are called Chetubim, quia scripta sunt per Spiritum Sanctum. And tho he reckons that Impulse which he calls Spiritus Sanctus, in­feriour to the Degree of Inspira­tion which Isaiah and the other Prophets properly so call'd, had: yet 'tis plain that he looks upon it as a proper kind of Inspiration, for the instances he gives of it are, by his own Confession, real Inspi­rationsSee Mr. Smiths Discourse of Pro­phecy. c. 7.. So that I do not see how Maimonides, take his Expli­cation altogether, gives any Ad­vantage to this Opinion, tho Gro­tius Votum pro pace, prout ci­tatur, Fr. p. 231. Eng. p. 141. quote him for it. The Jews do indeed acknowledge a Diffe­rence between the Inspiration of the Hagiographa and the Propheti­cal Writings, but this doth not [Page 216] prove them to be no part of the Scripture: for I think there is no body that considers the manner of the Spirit's Operation upon the Minds of Inspir'd Persons, but will readily acknowledge that there's no need of the same De­gree of Inspiration, to write a Hi­story or a Book of Morality, as is requisite to make a Prophet. But concerning the different De­grees of Inspiration, I have dis­cours'd already in several places of this Treatise, and shall have Occasion to speak of it hereafter.

But if the Jewish Division of the Old Testament favour'd Mr. N's Opinion never so much, I do not see any Force at all in the Ar­gument taken from thence: for that Division is not of so early a Date, as to be able to vye with the much Ancienter Opinion con­cerning the Inspiration of the whole Jewish Canon. St. Jerom is the first that I find takes notice of this DivisionProlog. Galeat. Praef. in Daniel.: the placing the Prophet Daniel among the Chetu­bim in this Division, besides that [Page 217] there is no shadow of Reason for it, except it be that the Jews bear him a Spight for Prophecying so plainly of our Saviour, discovers that 'tis of no long standing, since 'tis contrary to the Sense of the Ancient Jews. For Josephus often calls Daniel a Prophet Antiq. l. 10. c. 12., nay one of the greatest Ib. p. 353. G. Ed. Ge­nev. Prophets. And agree­ably to the Received Opinion, our Saviour gives him the same TitleMatth. 24.15.. But further, the same Jo­sephus L. 1. c. App. p. 1036. G. makes use of another Di­vision of the Old Testament Wri­tings, viz. into the Books of Moses, the Prophetical, (under which he comprehends the Historical, be­cause they were writ by Prophets, as he with very good Reason sup­poses) and the Poetical Books, as they are commonly call'd, or those which contain Hymns to God, and Precepts of good Life. Which Di­vision agrees much better with that mention'd by our SaviourLuke 24.44., viz. into the Books of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, than the other which the Jews have since that time Invented.

[Page 218]Thus far I have shew'd that Mr. N. by rejecting some of the Re­ceiv'd Books of the Jewish Canon, rejects the Authority of the whole Jewish and Christian Church, nay and of Christ and his Apostles too. What Reasons he has for this we shall see by and by, but at pre­sent let us examine what Autho­rity he has to oppose to such a Powerful one, as all these join'd together amount to. And I can find no body that stands by him in this Opinion but Grotius, and him he calls in to his Assistance at every Turn. But tho I have a great value for Grotius's Judgment, yet I think if it be laid in the Ba­lance to counterpoise that of Christ and his Apostles, 'twill be found too Light. That Great man's Ex­traordinary Learning and Merits, and particularly his having so well deserv'd of several Parts of Scri­pture, and given such Light into their true Sense and Design, makes me willing to pass over his Fai­lures, and not be severe upon his Memory for those False Glosses, [Page 219] and some of them deserve a Har­der Name, which he has made upon other Books of it. Only I can't but observe, that this Opi­nion of his, concerning the Old Testament Canon, is very Incon­sistent with the Main Design of his Votum pro Pace, and those other Treatises where he has asserted it. For the Great Design of those Projects for Peace, is to magnify Antiquity, Tradition, and the Au­thority of the Church, and to shew that Catholick Unity is never to be restor'd, but by submitting all Controversies to the Decision of these three, as so many Arbitra­tors or Umpires between the dif­ferent Parties. And yet at the same time when he Pleads for the Authority of the Church, of An­tiquity and Tradition, he Rejects those Books which have all the Au­thority that the Universal Church, Uninterrupted Tradition, and the Consent of all the Ancients, both Jews and Christians can give them.

[Page 220]II. I come now in the Second Place to consider the Exceptions which our Author makes, against Par­ticular Books of the Old Testament: and the Books he Excepts against are either Historical, or those they commonly call Poetical.

As to the Historical Writings I agree with him thus far, that the Sacred Historians were not usually Inspir'd with the things themselves which they relate, nor with the Words by which they Express the things. But I think I have prov'd in the First ChapterP. 37. of this Treatise, that a Book may be written by God's Direction, and yet not without the Use of Humane means. And as there is no Reason to think, that God Inspir'd the Evan­gelists with the Knowledge of those Passages of our Saviour's Life, which they themselves were Eye­witnesses of, or might easily learn from those that were so: so 'tis every whit as groundless to sup­pose, that God Reveal'd those Par­ticulars to the Writers of the Old Testament History, which they [Page 221] could come to the Knowledge of by Consulting the Records and Ancient Monuments, in which these Matters were related. But notwithstanding this, 'twill appear that these Books were writ by God's Direction, and Design'd by him for the Use of the Church, if we consider what Mr. N. himself grantsFr. p. 231. En. p. 28., That they were not writ meerly to satisfy our Curiosity, but to be a standing proof of a Providence to after Ages, to shew us the Care that God always takes of Good Peo­ple, and the Punishments he inflicts upon the Wicked: to give us Examples of Piety and Vertue, and lastly to inform us of several Matters of Fact, which tend very much to confirm our Faith, as containing many Types and Predictions of our Saviour. To which we may add, that setting aside the Squabbles between F. Simon and his Adversaries, about the Scribes and Keepers of the Pub­lick Registers of the Jews, 'tis highly probable, that the Prophets usually writ the Histories of their Kings, and those Books which are so [Page 222] often quoted under the name of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and Israel, and were Annals from whence the Substance of the Books of Kings and Chronicles are taken. For we find a Considerable part of the History of Hezekiah Incorporated into Isaiah's Pro­phecyIs. c. 36, 37, 38, 39., which is a Strong Pre­sumption that the whole History of that King's Reign, was Recor­ded by the same Hand. And in­deed so much is expresly asserted 2 Chron. 32.32. So the Acts of Da­vid were Recorded by Samuel the Seer, by Nathan the Prophet, and by Gad the Seer1 Chr. 29.29.. The Acts of So­lomon were written in the Book of Nathan the Prophet, in the Pro­phecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the Visions of Iddo the Seer2 Chr. 9.29.. The History of Rehoboam's Reign was written by Shemaiah the Pro­phet, and by Iddo the Seer in his Genealogies 2 Chr. 12.15.: the last of these Re­corded likewise the Acts of Abijah Rehoboam's SonChap. 13.22.. Jehu the Son of Hanani who was a Prophet1 King. 16.1. 2 Chron. 19.2., writ the History of Jehoshaphat 2 Chr. 20.34.. The Acts [Page 223] of Ʋzziah were Recorded by the Prophet Isaiah Ch. 26.22.: and those of Manasses among the sayings of the Seers Ch. 33.19.. To the same purpose I think we may most probably In­terpret those words of Josephus Joseph. c. Appion. l. 1. p. 1036. Ed. Genev., which have been so often quoted of late upon this Subject, where he tells us, that the Histories of the Jewish Nation were writ only by Pro­phets, and therefore they look upon none of them as Authentick, which were writ after Artaxerxe's time, because there was no Clear and Ʋn­doubted Succession of Prophets in the following Ages. Nor is Huetius's ObjectionDemon. Evangel. p. 161. against this Passage of Josephus of any Weight, who af­firms that Josephus Contradicts what he had said but just before, viz. That the Chief Priests as well as the Prophets, had the Care of Writing the Publick Histories committed to them. But that Learned Man seems not to have attended to the whole Scope and Design of Josephus in that place. For that Historian does not say, that the Writing of the Publick Histories, was committed [Page 224] to the Chief Priests as well as the Prophets, but that the Care of the Publick Records was committed to them [...].. And if we take an In­tire view of that Section, we shall find that Josephus speaks, not only of the manner how the Hi­stories of Former times were writ­ten, but likewise how they were Preserved after they are writ. The Care of writing them was com­mitted to the Prophets, as the other Passage assures us, not Excluding those Priests who had the Gift of Prophecy: the Preserving them he here tells us, was particularly the Business of the Priests, who likewise exactly Preserved the Ge­nealogies of their Nation, and re­newed them when the Copies were Impair'd, and in danger to be all lost by Wars and other Accidents, and therefore were lookt upon as the Keepers of the Publick Records. Whence is it that the same Author usually calls the Holy Writings, [...] Antiq. p. 73. G. p. 140. A. p. 176. G., The Books laid up in the Temple un­der the Custody of the Priests. [Page 225] Which was agreeable to the Cu­stoms of the Neighbouring Coun­tries: for so Philo Byblius Ap. Eu­seb. Praep. Evang. l. 1 says of Sanchuniathon, that he Collected the Phenician Antiquities, [...], out of the Re­cords laid up in their Temples.

But to return to our Subject, From those many Instances I have given, which shew 'twas a Custom among the Jews for the Prophets to be their Historians, we may con­clude that the Historical Books of the Old Testament were writ by Men who had the Gift of Prophecy and Inspiration: and tho we sup­pose them to be but Abridgements of the larger Commentaries of the Prophets, yet they are really of as much Authority as those very An­nals would be which were writ by the Prophets themselves, if they were extant. For if an Epitome be faithfully made (and I suppose Mr. N. does not question the Fidelity of the Sacred Historians) whatever is contained in it, hath the same Au­thority and Credibility with the Original Writing. So that if we lay [Page 226] all these things together, the Cha­racter of the Compilers of these Historical Books, the Matter and Design of them, the Authority of the Jewish Canon, and above all that of Christ and his Apostles, these are sufficient Inducements to believe these Books to be Writ­ten by God's Direction for the Benefit of the Church. And this I think is enough to give Divine Authority to an Historical Book, tho neither the Matter nor Words of it be indited by Inspiration.

As for the History of Esther Mr. N. has taken much painsFr. p. 164, &c. Eng. p. 249., and shewed a great deal of Skill in the Rules of Dramatick Poesy, and all to prove that this Book looks like a Fiction and a piece of Tragi-Come­dy. He indeed tells us, that he affirms nothing in this matter, and does not intend to make himself a Par­ty in the Dispute. But a man would hardly take so much pains to make anothers Opinion look probable, if he did not think it so himself. But whatever his own Sentiments be, to shew himself Impartial, and [Page 227] that he is resolv'd not to conceal any thing that may be said on the other side, he Critically remarksEng. p. 169. Fr. p. 252. that one Condition, necessary to be observ'd in Dramatick Wri­tings, is wanting, viz. Ʋnity of Time and Place, which must needs seem a considerable Objection to so nice a Judge. But besides this, there's another Objection which I confess has more Weight with me, and seems quite to turn the Scales, and make his Remarks appear meer Fancy and Fiction, viz. that the Feast of Purim was really ob­served by the Jews, in memory of the Deliverance recorded in this Book. And 'twill be a hard mat­ter to make me believe that a whole Nation should keep an An­niversary Feast, as 'tis certain they did2 Mac [...] 15.36., without some real Ground for it. And if this was not the true Occasion of it, as he seems to insinuateEng. p 170. Fr. p. 253., I desire either he would prove the Feast to be as very a Fiction, as he supposes the History is, or else inform us how the whole Nation of the Jews [Page 228] came to be so far impos'd upon, as to observe it: for till he does one of these two things, I shall still be of opinion, that the one was a Real Feast, and the other a True History.

But tho this Play does not suc­ceed, he is resolved not to give over, but try his Skill upon ano­ther Subject, and turn the Book of Job into a Tragi-Comedy Fr. p. [...]4. Eng. p. 99.. And I confess this Book is made ac­cording to the Rules of Poetry, and with all the Beauties of it too, as an Ordinary Reader may ea­sily discover under all the Dis­advantages of a Translation. And therefore methinks our Author, who understands the Rules and Decorums of Poetry so well, should not be offended with those Pathe­tic Strains, that are in the third Chapter, and some other places of that Book: for tho we should grant that they would not become a grave Philosophical Discourse, yet I believe he might have found se­veral Speeches in the Old Tragedies written with as much Vehemence [Page 229] and Warmth. And yet the seve­rest Philosophers commended those Writings, and look'd upon them as containing very useful Instru­ctions of Life. And I see no Rea­son why God might not in this as well as other things, suffer the Holy Writers to comply so far with their own Genius, and the Humour which then prevail'd a­mong the grave Sages of the World, as to deliver Great and Weighty Truths in Poetical num­bers and Expressions, both to re­commend them to the more Curi­ous and Nice Readers, and to con­vince the Wise men of the World, who are apt to despise the Plainness of the Scriptures, that there are to be found as Elevated Thoughts, and as Noble Expressions in the Holy Writings, as any Greece or Rome can boast of: and therefore when they use a plain popular Style, 'tis not out of Necessity but Choice, and because they rather aim at the Instruction of the ig­norant, than to gain Applause from the LearnedV. Orig. c. Cels. p. 275, 371, 372. Ed. Cant.. But still men [Page 230] perhaps will be ready to say, that these Expressions may do well in a Profane Poem, but are not so proper for a Sacred one, and do not become the mouth of a Per­son eminent for Piety and Pa­tience. In answer to which, I would desire the Objectors in the first place to consider that the Substance of the 3^d Chapter of this Book, which so much offends Mr. N. Fr. p. 275. Eng. p. 100 when 'tis taken in its Plain Sense, without those Stroaks of Passion which are meerly Poetical Ornaments, is no more but this, ‘That 'tis better never to have been Born than to live in a great deal of Misery, and that there is this Benefit in Death, that it puts an End to the Troubles which are incident to Humane Life.’ And this seems not unfit to be spoken by a Wise and Good man. In the next place I would desire them to reflect up­on those many Excellent Sayings in this Book, which are most De­vout Expressions of Jobs Patience, Submission, and Resignation to [Page 231] the Will of GodJob. 1.21.-2.10. c. 9.2, 3, 15. c. 40.4, 5. c. 42.3, &c., and of his Trust and Confidence in himIb. c. 13. 15. -14. 13, 14, 15, -19. 25, 26, 27. in the midst of Afflictions, grounded upon the Testimony of a Good Conscience and the Sense of his own Integrityc 23. 3, &c. c. 29. 31. per tot. -27. 3, &c.. And if they rea­dily acknowledge that upon these Accounts Job's Behaviour is wor­thy to be recorded for an Example of Integrity, of Sufferings, and of Pa­tience, let them withal consider that the other parts of the Book which seem more liable to Excep­tion, are of use to teach us, that the best of men are subject to the Passions and Infirmities to which Humane Nature is obnoxious, and are not able to bear up against the First Assaults of Afflictions, and the sudden and sharp Twinges of Pain, till they have recollected their Strength, arm'd themselves with new Vigour and Resolution, and have incourag'd themselves in God, and call'd in the Divine As­sistance. Thus we find the Spirit of the Psalmist stir'd in him at the Consideration of the Prosperity of the WickedPs. 73.2, 3., and tempted to that [Page 232] Degree of Impatience, as to begin to say, 'Twas in vain to serve God Ib v. 13. 14.: but he presently checks such thoughts as unbecoming a Religi­ous manIb. v. 15.. And I question not but God was pleas'd that those Ex­pressions of Job in which he seems to forget his Character, should be Recorded as well as the Infirmities of other his eminent Servants, on purpose to shew us that they had the Heavenly Treasure of Grace in Earthen Vessels, and thereby teach us to cease from valuing Man, for wherein is he to be accounted of? and to give God the Glory, and Mag­nify the Power of his Grace, whose Strength is made perfect in Weakness, and more eminently seen in the midst of Humane Infirmities.

And notwithstanding these Ex­pressions, 'tis no such unaccountable thing as our Author supposesFr. p. [...]75. En. p. 161., that the Writer of this Book should bring in God Almighty approving what Job had said, and condemning the Assertions of his FriendsJob 42.7.. For we find that just beforeIb ver. 3, 6. Job had begg'd Pardon for his Rash [Page 233] Speeches in a most Submissive man­ner. And as to the main of the Dispute, Job certainly was in the Right: for the Design of the Book, as our AuthorFr. p. 275. Eng. p. 100. himself confesses, is to shew by Job's Example, that God oftentimes Afflicts Good People, not to punish them for any particular Sin, as if they had deserv'd Afflictions more than others; but simply to try them, and give them Occasion to shew their Vertue. And this is what Job maintaines throughout the Dis­pute, and wherein he perfectly a­grees with what our Saviour saith, on purpose to check Men's Rash­ness in taking upon them to In­terpret God's Judgments,Luke 13.2. Suppose ye that these Galileans, whose Blood Pilate mingled with their Sacrifices, were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffer'd these things? I tell you Nay. Whereas Job's Friends all along go upon this Principle, that Good Men are always Pros­perous, and none are Miserable but the Wicked: and to prove this they Appeal to Experience, the Histories of Former AgesJob 8.8. c. 15.10, 18.-20.4, &c.—22.15, 16., and [Page 234] the Examples which their own Times furnisht them withc. 4.7, 8, 9, 10, 11.. From all which they don't only conclude, as our Author Imperfectly Repre­sents it,Fr. p. 275. En. p. 101. that Job was afflicted for his sins, for if this had been all they had maintain'd, Job would never have contested the matter with them, for he freely acknowledges his sins, and owns that they de­serve PunishmentJob 7.2 [...], 21.-9.14, 15.. But that which they contend for is, that Job must needs be a Grievous Sin­ner, and Greater than other Men, however he had made a Shift to conceal his Wickedness from the Eyes of the World, or else he had never been so terribly Afflicted. Nay, Eliphaz is so confident that it must be some Extraordinary Wickedness that had brought down these heavy Judgements upon him, that at last he ventures to give a Catalogue of Job's SinsJob 22.5, &c., for which God had thus Afflicted him. 'Twas this Uncharitable Behaviour of theirs provoked Job to Impatience, more than all the rest of his Af­flictions: 'twas upon this account [Page 235] he tells them, that they had Re­proached him ten times, had vext his soul, and broke him in pieces with words Job 19.2, 3.: this makes him so often protest his Innocency, and appeal to God to Judge him, according to the Integrity that was in him c. 16.17, 21. c. 27.5, 6. c. 31. per tot. c. 23.3, &c.. And here I think Job's Friends were very faulty, not only in pro­nouncing so rashly concerning the Reasons of Providence and of God's Judgements, but likewise in passing such Unkind and Uncha­ritable Censures upon their Friend, whereas they ought to have had pity upon him, as he tells themc. 19.21, 22., since the Hand of God had toucht him, and not persecute him as God, and add Affliction to the Afflicted. And this their Confidence in taking upon them to be Interpreters of God's Judgements, together with their Uncharitable and Inhumane Behaviour toward a Man in Affli­ction, might justly provoke God's Wrath against them for what they had said, when at the same time he pardon'd the Impatient and Undecent Expressions of Job, be­cause [Page 236] he could plead the Infirmity of Humane Nature in his own be­half, which is easily provok'd to be Impatient under violent Affli­ctions, especially where Men per­secute those whom God has smitten: whereas Job's Friends had no such excuse to alledge for themselves.

But still it may be Demanded, Upon what account we Reckon this Book to be Inspir'd? In An­swer to which Question, I shall crave leave to deliver my Opinion Freely, but with all due Submissi­on to Better Judgements. I sup­pose therefore that this Book is not to be reckon'd Inspir'd, upon the account of the Persons who main­tain the Dispute in it: and tho I question not, but that they were Extraordinary Men for Piety and Vertue, yet I see no Reason to be­lieve that either Job or his Friends spoke every thing which they say, by Inspiration. As to the Latter, the Case is plain, for God himself says, that they had not spo­ken of him the thing that is right Job 42.8.. And even Job himself, tho he main­tain'd [Page 237] the Right side in the Con­troversy, yet now and then is guilty of too vehement Expostu­lationsc. 7.11, &c. -10.2. with God Almighty, he stands too much upon his own Justification,c. 9.17.-10.7.-16.17.-13.23. See c. 33.9, 10, 11.-34.5, 6. and Vindication of his Innocency, and takes upon him to Censure the Methods of Pro­vidence too freelyc. 9.22, 23.-19.7.-23.13.; for which Faults we find afterwards he ear­nestly begs God's Pardon, andc. 42.3, &c. Re­pents of them in Dust and Ashes. I willingly acknowledge what the Jews themselves allowSee Bp. Patrick's Appen­dix to his Para­phrase., (tho they are very Jealous of giving this Ho­nour to any that are not of their own Nation) that Job and his Friends were Prophets among the Gen­tiles. And indeed there's reason to grant this: for we find Eliphaz him­self professes, that he had a Night-visionJob 4.13., which was not altogetherSee c. 33.15, 16. unusual in those days. But Job had the Gift of Prophecy in a more Eminent manner, as appears, not only from that Famous Passage of hisJob 19.25, 26, 27, I know that my Redeemer lives, &c. which St. Jerom In lo­cum. justly calls, a Prophecy of the Resurrection; but [Page 238] also because God spakeJob 31.8. to him by a Voice from Heaven, and 'tis probable he saw a Shekinah c. 42.5., or Visible Appearance of the Divine Glory. But allowing all this, I see no proof that the Discourses set down in this Book, ought to be lookt upon as spoken by the Spirit of Prophecy: and therefore the In­spiration of the Book it self, seems to me to consist in this, viz. As 'tis an Historical account of Job's Behaviour before, and under his Afflictions, and of his happy Issue out of them all, together with his re­flections and the discourses he had with his Friends upon that Occasi­on, written by God's Direction for the Use of his Church, to be an Ex­ample of Patience under Sufferings, and a Vindication of God's Pro­vidence in permitting the Righte­ous to be Afflicted. And since by Reason of the Antiquity of the Book, the Author is not certainly known, and Consequently we can­not Argue that 'tis Inspired, from the Character of its Author; the Evidence for its being Inspired, or [Page 239] Written by God's Direction for the Use of the Church, must be Resolved into the Authority of the Jewish Canon, as that is con­firmed to us by Christ and his A­postles, and this Book particularly Recommended by St. James James 5.11., to the Use of Christians: especially since the Design of it does exactly Answer the Character which St. Paul Rom. 15.4. gives of the Old Testament Writings in General, viz. That they were written for our Instruction, that we thro Patience and Comfort of the Scriptures might have Hope.

And thus much I think may suf­fice, in Answer to Mr. N's Obje­ctions against the Book of Job. I shall only add, that besides the Powerful Comforts this Book af­fords to the Afflicted, and the sub­mission it teaches us to yield to God's Will, and to Adore the Un­searchableness of his Judgements, which are the principal and obvi­ous Designs of this Book, 'tis like­wise of excellent Use upon ano­ther account, viz. as it gives us a True Idea of Natural Religion See c. 31., [Page 240] when it was in its Prime, and as it was practis'd in those early Ages, before the Tradition of the Creation was lost, or the World quite overrun with Ido­latry.

I proceed in the next place to consider what our Author alledges against the Book of Psalms: His Opinion concerning these in ge­neral is,Fr. p. 230. Eng. p. 27. ‘That there was no need of Inspiration, but only of Piety and Zeal for the composing them:’ and he further says, ‘That any Devout man may easily now-a-days praise God in that manner.’ But all the Pious men that ever were in the Christian Church have been of another mind, and never look'd upon their own Composures as Equal to the Psalms: whereas if the Authors of the Psalms were assisted only with an Ordinary De­gree of Piety and Devotion, I can not see why the members of the Christian Church should not think themselves as well qualified to make Hymns to God, as any of the Jewish that were no more [Page 241] than Pious and Devout men. But saith Mr. N. Ubi sup. & Fr. p. 277. Eng. p. 104. David never saith, Thus saith the Lord, as the Pro­phets who speak by God's Autho­rity use to do. Now tho it be false that David never uses this Expres­sion, for in several places he uses those very Words, or such as are Equivalent1 Sam. 23.2. Psal. 2.7.110.1.: yet if 'twere true, I do not see what Service 'twould do Mr. N. unless he can prove that Praising God by Inspiration, is the same as Delivering a Message from him and Instructing the people in his Name, which is the only pro­per occasion to usher in what is said with, Thus saith the Lord see Mr. Smith of Prophe­cy, c. 7.. Sure Mr. N. thinks that because we grant Prophecy to be the Highest Degree of Inspiration, therefore there can be really no other sort. But I am much mistaken if St. Paul was not of another mind, when he said with Relation to the Diversity of Spiritual Gifts, Are all Apostles, are all Prophets 1 Cor. 12.29.? And If the foot shall say, because I am not the hand I am not of the body, is it therefore not of the body Ib. v. 15.? And [Page 242] we may easily apply the Apostles Reasoning to our present Case on this manner, ‘If Mr. N. shall say, Because Composing of Psalms and Hymns is not Prophecying, nor bringing a Message from God 'tis not Inspiration, is it therefore not Inspiration?’ On the contrary 'tis plain that the Holy Writers look'd upon Praising God by Spiritual Songs, when 'twas perform'd by Gifted Persons as a Real and Distinct sort of Inspira­tion, and therefore call'd it Pro­phesying1 Sam. 10.5. 1 Chr. 25.1. 1 Cor. 11.5. Exod. 15.20. See Mr. Smith of Prophe­cy, ch. 7. and 8 And Dr. Ham­mond up on St. Luke 1.67., as that word is taken in a large Sense for Inspiration in General.

And methinks without Descant­ing so Nicely upon the several Degrees of Divine Inspiration, and Weighing God's Gifts in a Balance, to try it they can be found Wanting, as our Author does; this might be sufficient to convince Men, that God Design'd the Book of Psalms for the Perpetual Use of the Church, viz. That the Psalms have been one of the most considerable parts of the Publick Worship, both [Page] in the Jewish and Christian Church ever since they were madeSee 1 Chr. 6.31.: they were always us'd at the time of offering the Sacrifices, which was the most solemn part of the Jewish Worship1 Chr. 16.40, 41. Ecclus. 50.16, 17, 18.. Ezra restored this Service assoon as the Foundation of the Second Temple was laidEzr. 3.11.. The Evangelists tell usMatt. 26.30. Mark 14.26., that our Saviour and his Disciples Sung a Hymn after the Paschal Supper, which Learned Men suppose to have been the same Collection of Psalms, which the Jews used upon that Solemnity. St. Paul Exhorts the Colossians that the Word of God should dwell richly in them, and espe­cially recommends the Psalms to their useColoss. 3.16.. The Visions in the Revelations, where Saints and An­gels are represented Worshipping and Praising God, do certainly in many things allude to the Cu­stomsSee Rev. 4. ver. 4, 5, 6, 7. -c. 5, 8.-8.1.-11. 19 which the Jewish and Christian Church at that time used in their Publick Service; which two Churches then differ'd very little in the manner of their Ex­ternal Worship. And in these we [Page 244] find the Heavenly Devotions con­sist altogether of Hymns, and Songs of PraiseRev. 5.9.-14.3.-15.3., which is a good Ar­gument to prove, that the Singing of Psalms was the most conside­rable part of the Christian Wor­ship in that Early AgeV. Cl. Dodwel. c. Grot. c. 4., as it had formerly been of the Jewish. I deny not but in that Inspir'd Age they used several Hymns of their own Composing1 Cor. 14.26. Euseb. H.E. l. 5. c. 28. & l. 7. c. 30.; yet 'tis certain from the Testimony of many An­cient WritersSee Dr. Hamm. Preface to his Paraphr. upon the Psalms., that David's Psalms still were most in use, and in high­est esteem. And this is one Ar­gument of it, viz. because all the Hymns Compos'd by the Ancient Christians have been lost time out of mind, except very few, which can be attributed to nothing so probably, as to the Difuse of them, by reason of the more Frequent and Constant Use of the Book of Psalms. And 'tis not likely the Christian Church would have been beholding to the Jewish Temple for their Forms of Worship, (espe­cially when we consider how much more Noble a Subject for Praises [Page 245] and Hymns the Christians had, by the Clear Revelation of the Gos­pel) if they had not been per­swaded that God design'd the Book of Psalms for the perpetual Use of the Church, to be both a Pat­tern and Treasure of Devotions, at once to Enlighten our Minds, and Warm our Affections, and teach us to Pray and Praise God with the Spirit, and with the under­standing also. And if what I have said, prove that this was God's In­tent in stirring up Holy Men to make these Excellent Pieces of Devotion, I think 'twill be suf­ficient to satisfy any Reasonable Man, that the Book of Psalms de­serves a place among the Inspir'd Writers, without Nicely determi­ning how great a share the Holy Spirit had in making these Com­posures, and how much is to be ascribed to the Authors own Study and Meditation. Since 'tis very hard in any Case, to Define the manner how God's Grace does Cooperate with Man's Indeavours, and the Spirit, like the Wind to [Page 246] which our Saviour compares itJohn 3.8., does sufficiently discover it self by its effects, tho we can't Compre­hend the Manner of its Operation. And 'tis no wonder that should not be easily Intelligible by us, who are Ignorant how our own Soul acts within us, and after what manner Outward Objects make an Impression upon it.

But saith Mr. N. Fr. p. 228. En. p. 23. the Impreca­tions which are found in many of the Psalms, can't proceed from the Good and Merciful Spirit of God, and con­sequently the Authors of those Psalms could not be Inspir'd.

This being the only Conside­rable Objection against the Psalms, to take off all Prejudice against the Use of so Excellent a Book, I shall indeavour to give a distinct An­swer to it, in these Three parti­culars.

1. In the First place therefore, I desire it may be Observed, that many of those Expressions which seems at first Sight to import Wishing Mis­chief and Destruction to others, do really wish no more harm to them, than [Page 247] that they may be Disappointed in their Enterprises and Ʋndertakings. For ex­ample, that ExpressionPsal. 70.2., Let them be [...] Ashamed [or Blush] and [...] which is Synony­mous with the Former, and ren­dred by the LXX. [...]. &c. all which words signify Shame Confound­ed, that seek after my Soul, means no more but this, ‘Let them be fill'd with that shame and Con­fusion of Face which follows a Disappointment.’ Now since 'tis lawful to Oppose the Designs of our Enemies, and to use all ho­nest means to prevent their bring­ing them to pass; it can be no harm to wish and pray that they may be Unsuccessful in their At­tempts against us. And in this Sense are all those Imprecations in the 35th. Psalm to be understood.

2. Secondly, let it be consider­ed, that all those Expressions which are commonly Translated by way of Imprecation, may be as fitly rendred by way of Prediction: and we may Read, They shall be Ashamed, in­stead of Let them be Ashamed. Nay this way of Interpretation is more agreeable to the Letter of the He­brew, where the words are not in the Imperative but in the Future. [Page 248] And if we take these Expressions in this Sense, then they imply no more than a Denouncing God's Judgements against Wicked Men, if they still persist in their Wicked­ness. And thus to Denounce the Terrors of the Lord against Sinners, is so far from being a piece of Un­charitableness, that 'tis the highest Act of Charity we can shew to them, and the most effectual means to awaken them to a sense of their Condition, and what they are to Expect except they Repent. And if this Interpretation be true, as nothing hinders but it may, then all Mr. N's ObjectionsUb. supr. against the 109th. Psalm vanish immedi­ately; for according to this Inter­pretation, it only contains a Pre­diction of the Miseries that were to befall the Person, whoever he was, under whom Judas was Re­presented. And the Denunciati­on of the Psalmist against his Fa­mily, will be liable to no other Exceptions than that Prophecy of Isaiah against Babylon, Isaiah 13.16. Their chil­dren shall be dash'd in pieces before [Page 249] their eyes, their houses shall be spoil­ed, and their wives ravished. And St. Peter himself seems to have un­derstood this Psalm in no other sense, for he tells usActs 1.16. that the Holy Ghost [in this Psalm] spoke be­fore or PROPHESIED [...]. by the mouth of David concerning Judas. But be­sides this, it was an Usual way of Speech among the Jews, to threa­ten or denounce Evils in the form of Imprecation. So the Commi­nations against those that broke the Law, were utter'd by way of Imprecation, Cursed be he that Deut. 27., &c. In like manner Excommunication was denounc'd in the Form of Im­precation, [...]: from whence the Apostle took that Expression, Let him be Anathema Gal. 1.8. 1. Cor. 16.20.. In the same sense we are to understand that Expression of St. Pauls concern­ing Alexander the Coppersmith,2 Tim. 4.14. The Lord reward him according to his works. The Reason of all which Expressions is to be taken from the promiscuous use of the Impe­rative and Future in the Hebrew, and a very little Acquaintance [Page 250] with that Language, will furnish a man with several Examples of this kind.

3. But Thirdly, if we under­stand these Expressions according to their common Acceptation and the Sense that is usually given of them, and suppose them to imply Wishing evil to the Persons of whom they are spoken, I cannot see but 'tis Lawful, nay our Duty in several Cases to pray to God a­gainst our Enemies, and desire him to execute his Vengeance upon them: the Lawfulness of this I shall prove in these following Instances.

1. Where 'tis not a Private Quar­rel, but one of a Publick Nature, between two different Nations, whe­ther upon a Civil or Religious Account. For in this Case, as it is lawful for the Injur'd Party to indeavour to Right themselves by War, so they may certainly Pray to God that he would give them Success, and overthrow their E­nemies: especially if their Attempts be levell'd against the True Reli­gion, for then beside the Reaso­nableness [Page 251] of Praying to God to maintain his own Cause, we may Pray that the Enemies of it may meet with a Remarkable Disap­pointment, upon another Account too: because it will be a power­ful Argument for their Conversi­on, and to bring them to the Ac­knowledgment of the Truth. To which purpose the Psalmist prays,Psal. 83.16. Fill their faces with shame, O Lord, that they may seek thy Name. And accordingly those Psalms which were compos'd against the Ene­mies of the Jewish Church and Nation, may now lawfully be u­sed against the Enemies of the True Religion, and of those that pro­fess it: and we find they have all along been applied so in the Chri­stian Church.

2. 'Tis lawful to pray against our Enemies, when they are the Distur­bers of the Publick Peace. For cer­tainly the Charity which we owe to the Community lays upon us a Precedent and a higher Oliga­tion than that which we owe to Private Persons, and therefore [Page 252] where these two interfere, the First Obligation must take place, and 'tis not only lawful but our Duty to shew no Kindness to Par­ticular persons, where we cannot do it without Prejudice to the Publick. Or else I do not see how it would be consistent with Chri­stian Charity to punish Malefa­ctors: and sure Wishing Evil is not more contrary to the Rules of Charity than Inflicting it. Now many of the Imprecations which we find in the Psalms, are against the Disturbers of the Publick Peace, for they were not the Enemies of a Private man, but of David a King, and one of God's own Ap­pointment too. And certainly in such Cases where men are bound to the utmost of their Ability, to bring Offenders to Condign Pu­nishment, they may every whit as lawfully leave them to God's Judg­ment, and desire him to take the matter into his own Hand, and Reward them according to their Works. Especially if we consider that in David's Case, where a So­vereign [Page 253] Authority was Oppress'd and Injur'd by Wicked men, there no Court upon Earth could do him Right, for he that was ap­pointed by God to be an Avenger and to execute Wrath upon them that do Evil, had this Power taken from him: so that in this Case 'twas ve­ry fit and just for him to Appeal to God, and desire that he would execute Judgment upon obstinate Offenders, who else would escape the Hand of Justice.

3. Tis lawful to pray to God to send down Judgments upon our Ene­mies, when 'tis not likely they will be Reform'd by Gentler Methods. Sin­ners often despise the Patience and Long-suffering of God, and take Incouragement from his Forbea­rance to go on in their Sins: and when nothing will work upon them but Judgment and Fiery Indignation, 'tis a piece of Charity to pray to God to correct them and bring them under the Rod, till they know that the most High rules over the Children of men. Thus the Psal­mist prays to God against Harde­ned [Page 254] Sinners,Psal. 59.13. Consume them in thy wrath that they may not be: and let them know that God rules in Jacob, and unto the Ends of the Earth. This severe dealing with such persons will force them at last to Glorifie God, and others warn'd by their Examples, will be the more care­ful not to offend in such a man­ner.

And this leads me to the 4^th and Last Instance I shall mention, wherein 'tis lawful to pray against our Enemies, and that is, When Offenders are in all appearance In­corrigible and past Repentance. When men have made themselves Unca­pable of God's Mercy, 'tis fit that God should be Glorified in them by making them Remarkable In­stances of his Justice: and 'tis the Duty of every one that is Zealous of God's Glory, to desire and pray that he may get Honour by the De­struction of Hardned and Incorri­gible Sinners, as he did by the Overthrow of Pharaoh Exod. 14.17.: and like­wise they ought to Rejoyce when they see it accomplish'd, And surely [Page 255] when Charity has done her work, when Patience and Kindness can­not soften our Enemies, nor Pray­ers for their Conversion do any Good upon them, it seems very agreeable to the Doctrine of the Scriptures, that then we may pray God to execute his Vengeance up­on them: as some of the Christi­ans when they saw Julian the A­postate's Implacable Rage and In­veterate Malice against the Chri­stian Religion, believing him to have Sinn'd the Sin unto Death, pray'd to God for his Destru­ction, that all the Kingdoms of the Earth might know that Jesus whom Julian had reproched, was Lord and Christ Greg. Naz. 2. Invect. in Jul. p. 123, 124. & Orat. Funebr. in Patr. p. 308.. For the Scrip­tures when they teach us to be Patient and Forgive those that injure us, inforce this Duty upon us by this Argument, that Venge­ance belongs to God, and he will re­pay Rom. 12.19. in due time, and do us Ju­stice. Which shews that after we have done what we can to reclaim our Enemies, and have indea­vour'd to win them by Kindness, [Page 256] if they still continue Implacable, we may lawfully expectTertul. c. Marci­on. l. 4. c. 16. Cum dicit, Mi­hi vindi­ctam, & ego vin­dicabo, Patien­tiam do­cet Vin­dictae ex­pectatri­cem. -Ul­tionem mihi per­misisse debuerat, si ipse non praestat, aut si mi­hi non permit­tebat, ip­se praesta­ret. Quo­nium & discipli­nae inter­est in­juriam vindicari: metu enim Ultionis omnis iniqui­tas refraenatur. that God will plead our Cause, and tho we may not Right our selves, yet we may2 Chron. 24.22. desire him to Interpose, and put a stop to the Successes of Wic­ked men, who grow outragious and intolerable by Impunity: and we ought to commit our Cause to him, and rest satisfied with this Consideration, That God will in his due time judge us according to our Righteousness [...]. Secundi Presbyteri jam morituri verba ap. Athanas. Epist. ad Solitar. p. 660.. And that pas­sage, which the Apostle in the place above-mention'd quotes out of the Proverbs as a proof of what he says, does imply as much,Prov. 25.21, 22. If thine Enemy hunger feed him, if he thirst give him drink, for in so doing thou shalt heap Coals of Fire upon his head: i. e. ‘If thy Kind­ness does not reclaim him and make him thy Friend, but he still persist in his Enmity, God [Page 257] himself will avenge thy quarrel, and punish him so much the more severely.’ This is the sense of that place, as appears by com­paring the Expression of Coals of Fire, with the sense of it in other places of Scripture, where it al­ways signifies God's VengeanceSee Ps. 18.8, 13.-120.4.-140.11.. 'Tis the voice of Nature, that Sin ought to be punish'd, and they who do evil should suffer evil. Nay 'tis the Voice of God himself, whom our Saviour proposes to us as the Pattern of Love and Kind­ness which we ought to imitateMatth 5.45: and yet the Scripture often repre­sents him as taking Pleasure and Satisfaction in the Destruction of Incorrigible Sinners, and rejoycing at their Calamities Deut. 28.63. Pro. 1.26. Is. 1.24. Ezek 5.13.. In Imitation of which Example the Righteous are said to Rejoyce when they see God's Vengeance upon Sinners, and wash their Feet in the Blood of the Ʋngodly, [as it were trampling upon their Carcases in a Trium­phant manner] and to glorifie God upon such occasions, saying, Veri­ly there is a Reward for the Righteous, [Page 258] doubtless there is a God that judgeth in the Earth Ps. 58.10, 11.. In like manner, when the Enemies of God's peo­ple have fill'd up the measure of their Iniquities, and sinn'd beyond a possibility of obtaining Pardon, the Prophets denounce God's Jud­gments against them in a trium­phant Style, and at the same time exhort all his Servants to rejoyce and praise God for making his Ju­stice manifest. So we find the Pro­phet Isaiah breaking forth into Joy upon such an occasion,Is. 25.1, 2. O Lord, thou art my God, I will exalt thee, I will praise thy Name. —For thou hast made of a City a Heap, &c. And to the same purpose he speaks a little afterIs. 26.5, 6, 11.. So Jeremy when he foretells the Destruction of Baby­lon, says,Jer. 51.48. The Heavens and Earth and all that is therein shall sing for joy: and exhorts God's people par­ticularly, to declare in Zion the works of the Lord their God Ver. 10.. And when Mystical Babylon falls in the Revelations, the Apostles and Pro­phets are exhorted to Rejoyce over her Rev. 18.20.: and the heavenly Host are repre­sented [Page 259] as giving Solemn Thanks and Praise to God for Executing his Judgments upon herRev. 19.1, &c. See c. 11.16, 17, 18.-15. 2, 3, 4.-16.5,. And al­though in such general Judgments, Children which are Innocent usu­ally suffer as well as the Guilty, yet since God has a Right to take away their Lives when and in what manner he thinks fit, with­out the Imputation of Injustice or Cruelty; and the involving Great and Small, Old and Young in the same common Destruction, adds much to the Dreadfulness and Severity of the Judgment, and consequently makes it more Ex­emplary, upon this account 'tis lawful to wish with the PsalmistPs. 109. 9, &c. -137.9., that God's Judgments may come upon the Children of Notorious and Implacable Enemies: and this not out of a principle of Hatred and Revenge, but only out of a Desire to see his Judgments made more manifest hereby to the World. And as for the Psalmists pronouncing the Executioners of this Decree of God's Blessed Ps. 137.9., at which Mr. N. is so much offen­dedFr. p. 229. Eng. p. 25., [Page 260] there are many Expressions like this in the Prophets: where they incourage and commend, and promise a Reward to those men who are to be Executioners of God's JudgmentsJer. 25.9.-27.6, 7.8.-43.10.-50.14, 21, 26, 29. Ezek. 29.19., and pronounce a CurseJer. 48.10. upon those who will not joyn in bringing his Will and Pur­poses to pass. And where the Pro­phets exhort and incourage men to fulfill God's Judgments, the De­sign of such Expressions is only to set forth in a Pathetical and Ve­hement manner, how desirous the Holy Writers are that such a Work should be accomplish'd, that will so much tend to the Illustrating God's Glory.

I think there is no sort of Impre­cations used in the Psalms, but something which has been offer'd in these Three Considerations will reach to, and will be a sufficient Defence and Justification of. On­ly I will add one brief Remark, for the sake of those who do not converse with the Originals or the Ancient Versions of the Bible, and that is this; That the word [...]. which [Page 261] is sometimes Translated Hell in the Psalms, and in several other places of the Old Testament, signifies on­ly the Grave, and ought to have been always Translated so, to pre­vent the Misunderstanding of these places. So that when the Psalmist says,Psal. 55.15. Let Death come hastily upon them, and let them go down quick in­to Hell, the Expression sounds harsh to a Vulgar ear, and taking it in the most obvious sense of the words can hardly be defended, but it really means no more but this, ‘Let them suddenly go down into the Grave, before they have time to accomplish their Wicked Designs:’ the later words being the same sense with the former, only differently express'd.

Next in order to the Psalms are the Proverbs, and therefore I shall in the next place consider the Ob­jections which our Author advan­ces against them. One would think that the Character which the Sa­cred History1 Kin. 3.12. and all ages have given to Solomon, of being indow­ed by God with an Extraordinary [Page 262] Degree of Wisdom above all other men: together with what he says of himself, that he imploy'd this Talent to the Instruction of the people, and gather'd together many Proverbs Eccles. 12.9. to that end: and besides all this, the Authority of the Jew­ish Canon, especially when 'tis con­firm'd by a Greater than Solomon, our Saviour CHRIST, and several Passages of this very Book dire­ctly quoted by his ApostlesRom. 12.20. Hebr. 12.5, 6. Jam. 4.6. 1 Pet. 5.5., and other places plainly alluded2 Cor. 8.21. 1 Pet. 4.18. to by them: I say, one would be apt to conclude that all these Considera­tions added to the Intrinsecal Worth of the Book it self, might be a sufficient Inducement to look upon it as a Book compos'd by God's Appointment for the Bene­fit of the Church.

But before I proceed any fur­ther upon this Sebject, I cannot but reflect by the way upon a Pas­sage of our Author, which the ob­serving that this Book is quoted by the Apostles puts me in mind of, and that is this: He tells usFr. p. 278. Eng. p. 105 That the Apostles never cite the [Page 263] works of Solomon or the Book of Job. What he says touching the for­mer, I have just now shewed to be manifestly False, and there is as little truth in the later part of his words: for the Book of Job is as formally quoted by St. Paul 1 Cor. 3.19., as any Book of the Old Testament, The Wisdom of the world is Foolishness with God, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, He taketh the Wise in their own Craftiness. Which Citation, as 'tis certainly taken out of Job c. 5. 13., so it shews withal a great Deference given by the A­postle to the Authority of the Book from whence 'tis taken. I thought fit just to observe this Mi­stake of Mr. N.'s, tho it be of no great consequence, on purpose to take down the Confidence of this Gentleman a little, and shew him that he is not so exactly vers'd in the Scripture, as a man that undertakes to Criticize upon it with so much Capriciousness, and so little Reverence and Regard to its Authority, ought to be.

[Page 264]But to return to the Matter in hand. The Sum of the General Charge which our Author has ad­vanc'd against the Divine Autho­rity of the Book of Proverbs isFr. p. 271. En. p. 94., That they are Moral Sentences which a Good Man may pronounce without Inspiration. As if no Book could be writ by God's Direction, but where the matter is such as exceeds the reach of Humane Invention, and cannot be the Product of our Rational Faculties. And then by the same Reason no work must be ascribed to God, but what ex­ceeds the Power of Natural Agents; and so God must be accounted the Author of nothing that happens in the World, but what is purely Miraculous. Now this Argument if it prove any thing at all, it proves not only that this Book is not written by Divine Inspiration, but farther, that no Book of Moral Instructions can be. For Morality is nothing but the Law of Right Rea­son, instructing us how to govern our Actions; and I suppose the Law of Reason contains nothing in it a­bove [Page 265] Reason, and Consequently nothing which is above the Capa­city of a Wise and Good Man to think or speak: from all which it will follow, by our Au­thors Principles, that whatever Book contains nothing in it but what is deducible from the Prin­ciples of meer Reason, must be purely Humane, and can have no­thing Divine, or of the Hand of God in it. But is not Mr. N. sen­sible that the Corruption of Hu­mane Nature, the Degeneracy of the World, the Uncertainty of Humane Reasoning, and especially the Imperfect Knowledge we have of the Nature of God and our own Souls, have so far Obscur'd a great many branches of this Law of Na­ture or Reason, that there was need of a more than Ordinary Il­lumination, to recover some Truths which were in a manner lost to the World, and to set them in a True Light, so as to Convince o­thers of their Certainty and Ex­cellency? Sure our Author will grant, that the Unity of the God­head [Page 266] is a Truth that is Adequate to Humane Reason, nay a Truth so Evident, that one would won­der that Men of Searching Heads could miss of it; and yet we find there were very few among the Heathens that had their Reason so throughly purg'd from the pre­judices which Education and the Establisht Religion of the World had infected it with, as to assent to this Truth. And I think this is a sufficient Proof that Men may stand in need of a Teacher Di­vinely Inlightned to Discover such Truths to them, as may indeed be deduced from the Principles of Reason when 'tis in its true perfe­ction, but yet are such as few Men's Reason hath arrived to, because of the Degeneracy and corruption to which 'tis obnoxious. And many such Truths are to be found in this Book, which tho they are so reasonable that Men can't but assent to them assoon as they hear them, yet 'tis in vain to search for them in the Writings of the Best and Acutest Philosophers. For [Page 267] Instance, we may challenge them to shew such a Wise Instruction in any of their Books as Solomon lays down for the foundation of Mo­rality,Prov. 1.7. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom: or this,Prov. 3.5, 6 Trust in the Lord with all thy Heart and lean not to thy own Ʋnderstanding, In all thy ways acknowledge him. And in­deed thro the whole Book the Duties of Morality are inforc'd upon Men from Religious Con­siderations, and by Arguments taken from the Duty we owe to God, and the Rewards and Punish­ments we must expect from him, according as we behave our selves. Which makes this Book differ ve­ry much from the Moral Writings of the Philosophers, where we shall find little or nothing said concern­ing our Duty to God, his Autho­rity over us, our Dependance up­on him, and the Submission we owe to him, the Methods of Pro­vidence, and the Rewards or Pu­nishments of another Life, all which are often insisted upon in this Book. For this is a visible [Page 268] Defect in the Writings of the Phi­losophers, that as they never in­force our Duty by Arguments which are taken from the Prin­ciples of Religion: so their dis­swasives from Vice are taken from these Topicks, viz. That 'tis be­low the Dignity of Humane Na­ture, and a Contradiction to Rea­son, rather than from this Consi­deration, That 'tis displeasing to God, a Breach of his Law, and an Act of Disobedience which he will Punish. I Confess some Phi­losophers that lived since the Ap­pearance of Christianity, especially the Emperor Antoninus, have very Excellent Sayings concerning God's Providence, and the Submission we owe to him. But I am apt to think, that as the Light of the Gospel Diffus'd it self over the World, it in some measure Inlight­ned the minds even of those who Refus'd to imbrace it, as the Sun gives Light before it reaches our Hemisphere. My meaning is, that the very Account which Inqui­sitive Men received of the Prin­ciples [Page 269] of Christianity helped to Clear up their minds, and gave them more distinct Apprehensi­ons of the Principles of Natural Religon than they had before.

But to return; Beside the Pre­cepts I have already mention'd, there are many Excellent Advices given in the Proverbs to all sorts and Degrees of Men, from Princes and Magistrates to the meanest of their Subjects. And 'tis meer Cavilling in this Author to sayUbi supr., That the Directions about Good Husbandry and House-keeping, Coun­try People know without Inspiration: as if it were below the Wisdom of an Inspired Teacher, to admo­nish the meanest of their Duty; (as certainly 'tis every Man's to be Diligent in his Calling) and in­courage them to attend upon itSee Tit. 3.14. where the Apo­stle gives the same sort of Advice:: or as if People had not need to be put in mind of their Duty, altho they knew it before. As little weight is there in what he saithUbi sup. concerning the Caution which this Book so often gives Men a­gainst Suretiship, or being Bound for [Page 270] others, as if it amounted to a total forbidding Men the Exercise of this sort of Charity. I grant him this may be in some Cases a very good Act of Charity; but if we con­sider it as 'tis generally practis'd, (and Proverbial Sayings are to be understood only to hold true in Most cases) we shall find such ill Ef­fects of it, that 'tis not only Wise but Religious Advice to warn men against it. Experience tells us that men are often Bound for more than they are able to pay, which is the very Case Solomon speaks ofProv. 22.26, 27. in some of those places Mr. N. re­fers to, and so injure the Credi­tor as well as undo themselves and intail Misery upon their Fa­milies, which a man is bound in Justice as well as Charity to pro­vide for in the first place. And Suretiship when it brings men to Beggary, at the same time expo­ses them to those dangerous Tem­ptations to sin, which always ac­company extreme Want. Upon these accounts Suretiship is oftner the occasion of a great deal of [Page 271] Injustice and other Wickedness, than the Exercise of Charity. And since these are the usual Conse­quences of it, 'tis very good Ad­vice to warn men against it, and as proper for this Book as any whatsoever, since the Rules of it, as I observ'd just now, are design'd only for Wise Observations grounded upon Experience, which are general­ly True, but are not to be taken so strictly and rigorously as if they never fail'd in any one In­stancev. Grot. in Matth. 12.30..

As to what Mr. N. objectsUbi supra. a­gainst the Collection of Proverbs ascribed to Agur Prov. 30., if I should grant him that they have nothing of Inspiration in them, I do not see how it prejudices the Autho­rity of Solomon's Proverbs at all. For Solomon's Character will go a great way to Intitle his Proverbs to Inspiration, whereas these are the Sayings of an Unknown Au­thor, who does not pretend to have been bred up in the Schools of the Prophets See Bp. Patrick's Paraph. upon Pro. 30.3., which were look'd upon as the Nurseries of Inspir'd [Page 272] Writers. I know some Learned Men fancy both this and the 31st. Chapter to be Sayings of Solomon, as well as the foregoing; but as they bring no Proof for what they say, so 'tis altogether unaccount­able why Solomon should disgiuse himself under two such different Names, neither of which have the least Affinity with his own. Now supposing the two last Chapters of the Proverbs to have been writ by Uncertain Authors, and added to Solomon's by some Private hand, and afterward to have been con­tinued by those that Copied the Holy Writings, as we see Additions have been made to Daniel and Esther in the Greek Bibles, and as 'tis probable the Hellenists join'd these and the other Apocryphal Writings with the Canonical as early as our Saviour's time: upon this Hypo­thesis, Mr. N.'s Objections against this part of the Proverbs fall short of the Mark, and do not pre­judice the Authority of Solomon's Proverbs at all. And this Sup­position I think has nothing of [Page 273] Absurdity in it, nor can any Con­sequences be drawn from hence to weaken the Authority of the Jewish Canon. For if we should suppose these two Chapters to be Apocryphal, it will neither follow that we cannot tell what is Cano­nical and what not, nor that there may have been Additions made to Books which are all of a piece and go all under one and the same Au­thor's name. We can conclude no­thing from hence but this, that wherever we find a Writing, bear­ing the name of an Unknown Au­thor added to a Book whose Au­thor is known, without any ne­cessary Dependance upon, or Con­nexion with the Book that goes before or that comes after, in such a Case only, 'twill follow from this Hypothesis, that we have no Reason to think both those Wri­tings to be of an Equal Authority. And since this is the only In­stance that can be given in all the Old Testament, of a small Wri­ting made an Appendix to a greater meerly because of the Affinity of [Page 274] the Subject, whatever Hypothe­sis we admit concerning these Two Chapters, it can be no Prejudice to any other part of the Old Testa­ment Canon, because there's no In­stance can be given of a like nature.

But whatever I have said upon this Point, I propose only by way of Supposition, and meerly out of a Design to shew that whatever Ob­jections Mr. N. thinks he can make against these Additions to the Proverbs, they do not at all diminish the Authority of Solo­mon's Writings. For indeed the Authority of the Jewish Canon weighs so much with me, and the Jews seem to have been so scrupu­lous of admitting any Writing in­to their Canon, without due Exa­mining whether it deserv'd to be receiv'd into it or not, that I must confess I cannot easily bring my self to think there are any Apo­cryphals among the Hebrew Wri­tings of the Old Testament. As for the Greek Writings and Tran­slations, we know that the Helle­nists were much more Easie and [Page 275] Remiss as to this matter, and al­lowed great Liberty to Transcri­bers and Commentators to make such Additions to the Text, which in their Opinion did tend to Il­lustrate it. But the Jews being Scrupulous of Adding to, or Di­minishing from the Text, even to Superstition, I think it Unjust to conclude that any part of their Canon is of doubtful Authority, from one single Instance which some may fancy looks suspicious. And therefore taking this Prophecy or Collection [...] of Agur's to have the same External Authority with the rest of the Jewish Canon, I can­not see that the Internal Matter of it affords any Reason to the Con­trary. For there are many wise Observations and a great deal of good Advice contain'd in it, and his Prayer to God for a Competency Prov 3. [...].8, 9. is a very Excellent one, and is so much the more to be valued, be­cause all the Heathen Philosophers were puzzl'd how to advise others about the matter of their PrayersSee Platon. Alcibiad. 2. Juve­nal. Sat. 10., what Blessings 'twas proper to ask [Page 276] of God, and the Vulgar put up very Absurd and Ridiculous Peti­ons to their GodsPers. Sat. 2. Horat. l. 2. Sat. 3. Epist 16. l. 1.. And for those places of this Chapter which are more liable to Exception, if Mr. N. would have consulted what Learned Commentators have said upon them, he would not have thought them so Useless and Tri­fling as he pretends. But our Au­thor himself seems to be at a loss for Objections, since he is willing to take Advantage of Agur's mo­dest Confession of his own Ignorance Prov. 30.2.. and concludes from thence that he can be a man of no Authori­ty. But I believe Mr. N. is the first that ever thought a man's Mo­desty a sign that he wanted Wis­dom, or that Humility made a man Unqualified for Receiving the Influences of God's Spirit.

Our Author objects nothing a­gainst Ecclesiastes and the Canticles, but what has been Objected seve­ral times before, and as often An­swered: for which reason I shall be more Brief in Refuting him.

'Tis certain that the Design of [Page 277] Ecclesiastes is to set forth the Va­nity of Humane Life, which So­lomon does by shewing how Empty and Unsatisfactory all those Ends are which men usually propose to themselves, as the greatest Hap­piness this World can afford: such as are KnowledgeEccles. 1., PleasureCh. 2., Ho­nour and AuthorityCh. 3. and 4., and lastly RichesCh. 5. and 6.. Further, he takes no­tice how men's Ignorance, and the Obscurity in which the Great and Weighty Points concerning the Immortality of the Soul, a Future State, and the Methods of Provi­dence are Involved, do occasion a great deal of Misery and Trouble to Mankind. Whilst Ill men take advantage of the Difficulties which may be objected against these Truths, and from thence conclude that there's no Providence nor Fu­ture Judgment, and thereby har­den themselves inCh. 8. 11, 14. ch. 9. 3. Wickedness, or give themselves up to Sensuality, and say, Let us eat and drink, for to morrow we shall die Ch. 3. 18, &c.. And even good men are now and then in a great Perplexity about these things, [Page 278] by reason of the Obscurity and Difficulties with which they are be­set, and begin to doubt and stag­ger in their FaithCh. 1. 13.-8. 16, 17.. If men would therefore view the Scope and De­sign of the whole Book, and not take it by Piece-meal or examine each Sentence apart, they might easily see, that when the Author propo­ses Doubts concerning Providence and a Future State, he does not speak his own Sense: for in seve­ral places he plainly asserts God's Ordering and Disposing of all thingsCh. 3. 11, 14.-7. 13.-9. 1.-11. 5., and speaks of another Life and a Future Judgment, with the greatest Clearness and Assu­rance of any of the Canonical Wri­ters of the Old TestamentCh. 3. 17.-11. 9.-12. 7. 14.. And therefore the Design of those other places which seem at first to contradict these, is only to shew that the Obscurity of these Great Articles of Faith, had often fill'd his own and o­ther good Men's minds with Per­plexing thoughts, and that the Generality of Men took Incou­ragement from thence to mind [Page 279] only Sensual Pleasures, and make no Conscience of Injuring and Oppressing others. So that the uncertainty and Imperfection of Humane Knowledge as to these things, was a great Ingredient in the Vanities of Life: and one of those sore Travels which God hath given to the Sons of Men, to be ex­ercised therewith Eccles. 1.13.. And we may observe, that when he mentions the Doubts concerning the Immor­tality of the Soul, he Introduces them with this Preface,c. 3. 18. I said in my Heart [...], which may very properly be ren­dred, According to the words or way of speaking used among the Generality of Men: and 'tis the very same Phrase as [...], which St. Paul usesRom. 3.5. in a like Case, where he does not speak his own Sense, but sets down an Inference which Wicked Men would be apt to make from what he had said.

But if any desire further satis­faction concerning this Book or the Song of Solomon, I must refer them to that Excellent Commentary [Page 280] which the Reverend and Learned Bishop Patrick has Publish'd upon these two Books, where he has with great Clearness explain'd the Sense and Design of them both, and particularly as to the Latter, has shewedPreface, how fitly the Mysti­cal Ʋnion between Christ and his Church, is Represented in it under the Persons of a Bridegroom and Bride: that Allegory being agree­able to the Notions of all the Pro­phetical Writers of the Old Testa­ment, who constantly express God's being in Covenant with the Jews by his being Married, and a Husband Ps. 45. Is. 54.5.-62 4.5. Jer. 3.14.-31.32. Hos. 2.2.7.16. Ezek. 16.8. to them; and in pur­suance of the same Metaphor, re­prove their Idolatry under the names of Adultery Is. 57.7.8. Jer. 3.1. &c. Ezek. 16.15, &c. [...] c. 23. Hos. c. 1. & 2., Fornication, and going a Whoring after other Gods: and the same Metaphor is alluded to by Christ and his Apostles in the New TestamentMatt. 22.2. Joh 3 28, 29. 2 Cor. 1.2. Eph. 5.31, 32 Rev. 19.7.-14.4.. All which is made out by that Reverend and Excellent Author with so much Learning and Exactness, and does so fully Vindicate this Book, from the Rash Censures of those who [Page 281] have doubted of its Authority, and from the Profane Interpreta­tions which some Wanton Fancies have applied to it, that 'twould be Unpardonable Presumption for me to think I can add any thing upon this Subject, to that Great Man's Judicious and Accomplisht Labours.