YOU are desirous, Sir, that I should inform you more par­ticularly about the thoughts of Mr. N. concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writers; and you ask me if our Friends do not suspect him to be tainted with Deism? He that gave me the Essay, which I send you, told me nothing of his other Opi­nions, nor of his Manner of Life: And for his Thoughts concerning that Di­vine Inspiration, which the Sacred Pen­men received from God, it is conceived that from thence he cannot be conclud­ed to be a Deist. It is presumed on the contrary, without entring into the Ex­amination of what he says, that he believes by this Method he better an­swers the Objections, which the Deists and Atheists have used to make against the Stile of Holy Scriptures: And it [Page 10] appears by this Essay, that he is far from being of their Opinions.

We ought not always to measure, or judg of the extent of any Man's Thoughts, in reference to Religion, by the manner of his explaining or de­fending them; as if all those who do not defend well their Religion, were Men of ill Design, that only seemingly defend, in order to destroy it. 'Tis said that the impious Vannini designed to shew there is no God, in making as if he would prove there is one. But it does not fol­low from thence, that all others do the same, who defend, or oppose, weakly any Opinion. Otherwise we must believe many Writers both Catholicks and Prote­stants, who injudiciously oppose the Opi­nions of their Adversaries, and as ill de­fend their own, to be guilty of ill Design. If a Man would make an exact Catalogue of all the Catholick Authors, who have made impertinent Answers to the Pro­testants, and have used as impertinent Objections against them, it would a­mount to several Volumes in Folio; and the number of Protestant Authors, who have succeeded no better, would be little less. Nevertheless, I do not believe there is any Body so unjust, as [Page 11] to pretend, That the generality of those Authors, on both sides, have been Cheats, who maintained what they did not Believe, or opposed what they did.

You Sir, have too much knowledg of the Frame and Constitution of Man's Mind, to be ignorant, that it is capa­ble of believing in good earnest the most ridiculous things in the World; and, which is yet more astonishing, of giving its Assent at the same time to two things directly opposite. If you should, on purpose, invent the most ri­diculous Religion imaginable, there would be People found in Asia, whose Opinions would not appear more rati­onal. You have read Mr. Bernier's Travels, and the History of the Bra­mins. What do you think of the Hea­thens of the great Mogul's Country, and of those famous Indian Philosophers? Do you think there is none among them, that believes the monstrous Prin­ciples of their Theology? For my part I am perswaded there are very few that see the absurdity of it. You will say per­haps, That those Nations are under a blindness, which is next to down-right. Foolishness; and that the Europeans are [Page 12] not to be judged of by Indians. But are there not, in your Opinion, some even a­mong the Christians, who believe things absurd, and against all sort of appea­rance? The Protestants at least do pass that censure upon many of the Roman Catholic Doctrines, as Transubstantiation, the Infallibility of the Pope, or Council, &c. And the Catholicks are not wanting to make like reproaches to Protestants.

The Catholicks believe, That many Units make more than a single one; and do so much believe it, that he would pass for a Fool amongst them, as well as amongst other Christians, that would undertake to deny it; and nevertheless they believe that a Million of Humane Bodies, separate from one another, make but One. This is a visible Con­tradiction: Yet you know this is their Opinion concerning the Body of Christ. There are some that assuredly believe, That God is not the Author of Sin, &c. Who at the same time assert, That he created Man with a Design to let him fall into Sin; as a means to make his Justice Eminent, in punishing the greatest part; and his Mercy, in par­doning some few. It is evident, that to say God ordered Sin should be, on [Page 13] purpose to accomplish thereby his Ends, is to make him the Author of it. But this is the frailty of Man's Mind; he sees not these Contradictions, be­cause he has been so long accustomed to shut his Eyes, when they are pre­sented to him.

A Man may then not only defend an ill Opinion that he believes, but also believe things absurd, and even contrary to one another, without being aware. And that's the Reason our Friends suspect not Mr. N. to be a Deist, though some may think his Opinions favour those that are so called. But that you may be able to judg, I send you here an abridgment of what he says; which one of my Friends imparted to me a while ago.

There are, says Mr. N. three sorts of things in Holy Writ, Prophecies, Hi­stories, and Doctrines, which are not ascribed to particular Revelation.

To begin with the First; God made himself known to the Prophets after several manners; but it seems as if they might be reduced to these three. They had Visions by Day or by Night; they heard Voices; or they were inwardly In­spired. It is not our business here to [Page 14] examine these things in themselves. We only enquire after what manner they have written that which they learnt by these Visions, bythese Voices, or by these Inspirations.

Prophecies 1. Of Pro­phecies. have been written by God's express Command; by the Prophets themselves, or by others. For we can­not tell whether the Prophets them­selves have always Written, or Dictated them; or whether their Disciples have Collected and Written them as exactly as their memory would serve. How­ever it be, we cannot doubt but God made known to the Prophets that which we find in their Books, and that we ought to believe St. Peter, 2 Pet. 1. 21. when he says, Prophecy came not in old time by the Will of Man, but holy Men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

To tell us that which appeared to them in Visions, whether it be they themselves that writ it, or others that heard them tell it; there need­ed nothing but a good memory. A Man has no need of inspiration to re­late faithfully what he has seen, e­specially when the impression it made upon him was strong; as commonly [Page 15] happen'd to those to whom God sent any Vision. Hence it is observed, that eve­ry Prophet has his particular Stile; by which it appears that they related what they had seen, as they used to relate other things. Their Stile was the same when they spake by the Order of God, with that which they us'd in their or­dinary Discourse.

The same Judgment is to be made concerning the recital of the words they heard. There needed no more but a good Memory to retain them. But we cannot be Assured that they have always recited exactly the very words they heard, and not sometimes thought it sufficient only to tell us the sense. When God told them the Name of some Person, it was necessa­ry they should retain the Syllables of that Name; as when God ordered Isai­ah to foretel that Cyrus should give the Jews liberty to return into Palestine, it behoved Isaiah to remember those two Syllables, Co-res. But there is no likeli­hood, that in the rest of his Discourse Isaiah has related word for word what he heard. The diversity of Stile does moreover prove, that the Prophets ex­pressed after their own manner the sense [Page 16] of what they heard. There is, for ex­ample, much difference between the Stiles of Isaiah and Amos. Isaiah's man­ner of writing is high and lofty. On the contrary, that of Amos is low and vulgar; and we find in it divers popular Expressions, and many Pro­verbs, which sufficiently testify that this Prophet, who was a Shepherd, ex­pressed after his own way what God had said to him. This is the Opi­nion of St. Ierom, in the Preface of his Commentary on this Prophet. Amos Prophe­ta fuit imperitus Sermone, sed non Scientia: Idem enim qui per om­nes Prophetas in eo Spiritus San­ctus loquebatur. The Prophet Amos, saith he, was skil­led in Knowledg, not in Language; for the same Holy Spirit spoke in him that spoke by all the Prophets. This Doctrine attributes clearly the expression to the Prophets, and the thing it self to the Holy Spirit; which appears also by the Remark he makes on Chap. III. saying, Diximus illum artis suae usum Sermonibus: & quia Pastor gre­gum nibil terri­bilius Leone cog­noverat, iram Domini Leoni­bus comparat. We told you that he uses the Terms of his own Profession; and because a Shepherd knows nothing more terrible than a Lion; he compares the Anger of God to Lions. St. Ierom should have said, according to the common Opinion, that God made use, in speaking to Amos, of po­pular terms, and suitable to his Pro­fession, whereas he attributes plainly [Page 17] to the Prophet the choice of the Terms in which the Prophecy is expressed. Vt verba ae Deo Prophetis dictata sint, sicuti interum evenisse non est negandum, ita non videtur per­petuum. Atque hinc factum est ut pro temporum atque loquentium varietate etiam Sermo Propheta­rum differret. That words were dictated by God to the Prophets, (says a late Learned Critick) as it cannot be denied to have been done some­times, so it does not seem to have been done always: And hence it is, that according to the variety of the Times, and the Speakers, the Phrase of the Prophets is also different.

But it is commonly alledged, that the Prophets recite the same words they heard; Because they introduce God himself, speaking, Thus saith the Lord, &c. That is no Proof. For it is the custom, both of the He­brews and Greeks, to bring in always those, whose Sense they relate, as speaking in their own Persons; though in doing so, they tye not themselves to their words. I will give you a plain Example thereof. It is the different manner in which the Decalogue is set down in Exodus and in Deuteronomy; although God is said to speak personal­ly in both places. God says in Exodus, Remember the Sabbath day, &c. In Deutero­nomy, Keep the Sabbath-day, &c. It is in Exodus, To keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, &c. In Deuteronomy, To keep it holy, as the Lord thy God commanded thee. Six [Page 18] days shalt thou labour, &c. It is in Exodus, Nor thy Cattel &c. In Deuteronomy, Nor thine Ox, nor thine Ass, nor any of thy Cattel, &c. And this Commandment ends thus, That thy Man-Servant, and thy Maid-Servant, may rest as well as thou; And remember that thou wast a Servant in the Land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence, thrô a mighty Hand, and a stretched-out-Arm; therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath Day. In Exodus, the reason of keeping the Sabbath, is taken from the Crea­tion of the World in Six Days, with­out any mention of Slaves, or of the slavery of Egypt. There are some other Differences in that which follows, but not considerable. However it appears by this, that either Moses in Deuteronomy, or the Author of the Book of Exodus, did not tie themselves scrupulously to exact words, as the Jews now a-days do; altho both these Authors bring in God speaking personally. Grotius has hereupon made this judicious Remark.Sciendum est autem quae in Exodo hoc loco habentur verba per An­gelum Dei nomine pro­lata, quae vero sunt Deu­ter. V. esse Mosis eadem memoriter referentis, & quidem ea libertate, ut voces transponat inter­dum, quasdam cum idem significantibus commutet, omittat quaedam satis no­ta ex prioribus, addat a­lia interpretamenti vice. Par mutandi verba liber­tas & aliis in locis Sacrae Scripturae non indiligentiejus lectori apparet. Ut Gen. XVII. 4. collato 7. Gen. XXIV. 17. collato 43. Exod. XI. 4. collato XII. 28. Exod. XXXII. 11. & seq. collato Deut. IX. 27. & seq. Pertinet autem haec observatio eò ne in Sacris Literis simus VOCULARUM AUCU­PES, ut Judaei quidam, qui & illa quae in Exodo & quae in Deuteronomio sunt verba pariter, uno eodem (que) puncto tempo­ris prolata, simul (que) ubi transpositio est inverso ordine, quae prius fuerant dicta & posterius, poste­riora eundem sensum continentia prius etiam dicta somniant. Satis mul­ta sunt in sacris Historiis miracula, ut nova extra necessitatem, nullo (que) usui comminisci nihil sit opus. It is to be observed, says he, that the Words set down in this place in Exodus, were pronounced by an Angel in the Name of God; but those which are in Deutero­nomy, [Page 19] are the words of Moses repeating the same things; and that with so great liberty, that sometimes he transposes words; changes some for others of the same signification; omits some as sufficiently known by those gone before; and adds others by way of Interpretation. The like liberty of changing words is obvious to a careful Reader in other places of Sacred Writ, as Gen. XVII. 4. compared with 7. Gen. XXIV. 17. compar'd with 43 Exod. XI. 4. compar'd with XII. 28. Exod. XXXII. 11, &c. compar'd with Deut. IX. 27, &c. Now this shews, That we should not catch at words in Holy Writ, as some of the Iews do, who fancy that those words in Exodus, and those in Deuteronomy were pronounc'd in one and the same moment of time. They fancy al­so that where there is transposi­tion, and changing the order of what was said first, what last; that the last importing the same sense were also said first. There are in the Holy Histories [Page 20] so many Miracles, that we ought not to invent new ones without necessity, and such as are of no use.

If you require yet another convin­cing Proof, that this manner of speak­ing personally, does not denote that they are the proper Words of him that is introduc'd speaking after this man­ner, you have no more to do but to look into the Gospels, where the Evan­gelists always make our Saviour to speak personally, and yet recite not the same words that he made use of. For, beside that Christ spoke Syriac or Chaldee, there is oft great difference between their Recitals. The Holy Spirit never tied it self up to words, as many of our Divines do now a-days. He only prompted the Holy Pen-men to give us the true sense of the Words that God made use of to make the Prophets un­derstand his Will; and it is only in re­spect to the sense, and to the things, that the Apostles assure us that they were inspired from God.

The third sort of Prophecy, or man­ner by which God made known his Will, was by inward Inspiration, with­out Vision, and without Voice. Here­of [Page 21] two different sorts may be conceiv'd. For either God might inspire Prophecies or Predictions word for word, as the Prophets should pronounce them: As when there was occasion to tell some Name, unknown before to the Prophet: Or he might inspire only the sense, which they might express afterwards in their own way: As most commonly it happen'd: the first Occasion being ve­ry rare. It seems to me, that when any one does apprehend a sense distinctly, it is not difficult for him to express it faithfully. And we ought to suppose, that the Prophets full of the thoughts wherewith God inspir'd them, had a very clear and distinct Idea thereof: Which will be easily understood, if we consider, that the things wherewith God inspir'd them were easy to be conceiv'd, and proportion'd to the understanding of all the World; at least as to the li­teral sense. It happened also some­times, that without inspiring either Words or Sense, God drew from the Mouth of some Persons, Prophecies which those who spoke them under­stood otherwise, and did not think them to be Prophecies. He cast them into certain Circumstances, and involv'd [Page 22] them in certain Events, which made them say things that were true Pre­dictions, without their knowing them to be so. Such was Caiaphas's Pre­diction, when he says, That it was bet­ter that one Man should die for the People, than that the whole Nation should perish. Now he said not that of himself, says St. Iohn, but being High Priest that Year, he prophesied. To speak pro­perly, God inspir'd him not those words, but the Nature of the Business they were about in the Sanhedrim drew them from him. They were afraid that Jesus would draw all the People to him, and enterprise something against the Roman Authority, which would not then fail to send a puissant Army into Palestine, and totally waste it. Caia­phas thereupon urges a very common Politic Maxim, That is were better to de­stroy one Man, though he were innocent, than to expose the whole State to utter De­solation. In Caiaphas's sense there is no­thing of Prophetic or Inspir'd. But in the Gospel-sense, that which Caiaphas said, signifi'd more than he intended, and contained a true Prophecy. It's very like­ly that more Predictions of this nature may be found in the Old Testament.

[Page 23] For Example: David says of him­self and of his Enemies divers things, without thinking of prophesying, which contain nevertheless Predictions of that which ought to happen to Christ and his Enemies. He says Psal. XLI. 10. He that ate of my Bread hath lift up his Heel against me: He meant surely some of those who were risen against him in Asolom's Conspiracy, as Achitophel or some other, and he speaks plainly of a thing happened to himself. It is this very thing that inspires him, if one may so say, these words; which betoken what should befal Jesus Christ by the Treachery of one of his Disciples, as appears by Iohn XIII. 18. The Author of the LXIXth, and CIXth Psalms, whether it were David, or some other, did not probably think of fore-telling what should one day befal a Disciple of the Messiah, when he curs'd his Enemies: And yet St. Peter in the Acts Acts i. 20. applies some words of these Psalms to Iudas. There needs no great sharpsightedness to see that the Author pretended not to speak of Iudas, and that he was not imme­diately inspir'd by the good and mer­ciful Spirit of God, when he said, Set thou a wicked Man over him, and let Sa­tan [Page 24] stand at his Right-hand: When he shall be judged let him be condemned, and let his Prayer become Sin: Let his days be few, and let another take his Office: Let his Children be Fatherless, and his Wife a Widow: Let his Children continually be Vagabonds and beg; let them seek their Bread also out of their desolate places: Let the Extortioner catch all that he hath, and let the Stranger spoil his Labour: Let there be none to extend Mercy unto him; neither let there be any to favour his Father­less Children: Let his Posterity be cut off, and in the Generation following let their Name be blotted out: Let the Iniquity of his Fathers be remembred with the Lord; and let not the Sin of his Mother be blotted out, &c. It is plain that these are the words of a Man full of excessive Choler, and of an extream desire to be reven­ged. Now the Law of Moses permit­ted not, any more than the Gospel, to with ill, or do it, to Children, in revenge of the Injury received from their Pa­rents. Yet some famous Divines have put in the Title of this Psalm, That David, AS A TYPE OF JESUS CHRIST, being driven on by a singular Zeal, prays that Vengeance may be executed on his Enemies. And where do they find that Jesus [Page 25] Christ does curse his Enemies at that rate? Have they forgotten the words that proceeded from his dying Mouth, in favour of the wickedest Race that ever was? Those that crucified him, were they not the greatest Enemies he had, and the most obstinate Adversaries of the Gospel? And, far from making the Imprecations against them that they deserved, did not he pray to his Fa­ther to forgive them? Has he not or­dered us to imitate him, and to pray for those that persecute us? I cannot understand how it can be said, that David, as a Type of Iesus Christ, made such horrible Imprecations against his Enemies.

I confess, I understand not Christian Religion, if it permit the pronouncing such Curses, and the wishing to be re­venged after so cruel a manner, as does the Author of this Psalm, and those of divers others, in which we find such like Imprecations; As that of Psal. cxxxvii. O Daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed, happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us: Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little Ones against the Stones! God forbid that we should desire to dash out the Brains of [Page 26] Infidel's Children! Yet nevertheless we see that all these Psalms are indifferent­ly sung in Protestant Churches, with­out taking notice that they are not all equally inspir'd. And I remember that asking a Divine, how we could sing Psalms full of such Imprecations? He an­swered me slightly, that it was lawful to use them against the Enemies of the Church, and that for his part he made that Application to them, when he sung these Psalms. Thus you see what the Jewish Opinion of the Inspiration of words, and of the Divinity of each Verse of the Scripture produces.

We may conceive another sort of Prophecies, which consisted not in fore­telling things to come, but in explain­ing the Scripture, and in composing readily Hymns to the Honour of God. There are some Examples of these Hymns in the New Testament, as that of the blessed Virgin Mary, and some others. It seems as if there went only Piety and Zeal to the composing them. At least it is very conceivable, that a pious, zealous Man may easily now a days praise God in that manner, without any Prepa­ration. A good part of the Psalms seems to have been thus compos'd, as also di­vers [Page 27] other Songs which are in the Old Testament. The Psalms where the Verses, or the Pauses, begin with the Letters of the Hebrew Alphabet, seem to have been compos'd at more leisure. For this Regularity shews that there was Meditation and Pains used, as is in A­crosticks. See Psal. cxix. and the La­mentations of Ieremy. So we see too, that in this sort of Works, the Holy Writers do not speak in the Name of God, nor begin their Discourse with, Thus saith the Lord. Yet we may say that the Authors of these pious Songs were full of the Holy Spirit, when they compos'd them; that is to say, it was a Spirit of Piety that carry'd them to take pains in those Compositions; and in that sense we may say that they were inspir'd by God, though not so imme­diately as Predictions. The Spirit of God is often taken for the Spirit of Holiness, that is to say, for a disposition of Spirit conformable to the Command­ments of God; as many Learned Men have observed.

I will now remark briefly in what manner the Sacred Histories have been written: And then, in treating of Doctrines, I will speak of that sort of [Page 28] Prophecy that consists in explaining the Holy Scripture.II. Of the Hi­stories in the ho­ly Scripture.

It is certain that those who took pains in the Histories of the Old and New Testament, were pious Persons; who had not writ those Histories, but out of a Principle of Piety. It was not to satisfy our Curiosity that they under­took those Works; but to show us the Care that the Providence of God hath always taken of good People, and the Punishments it inflicts upon the wicked; to give us Examples of Piety and Ver­tue; and lastly, to inform us of certain matters of Fact, upon which our Faith is founded, and of the Precepts which God had given to Jews and Christians, by the Ministry of his Prophets, Apo­stles, Angels themselves, and even of his own Son. We ought also to believe that they have given us the Truth of the History to the best of their know­ledg, without adding or substracting any thing out of design to deceive us. And as they were very well informed of the principal matters of Fact which they relate, having themselves seen them, or taken them out of good Re­cords, we may be consident that for [Page 29] the main of the History they tell us nothing that is not exactly true. These Qualifications alone are sufficient to ob­lige us to give Credit to them. An Hi­storian that is honest, and well inform'd of that which he relates, is worthy of Credit: And if you add thereto, that he has also suffer'd Death in main­taining the Truth of his History, as the Apostles did, who were put to death for maintaining that they had seen and heard, that which the Gos­pel tells us of Jesus Christ; then not only that History will be worthy of Credit, but they who shall refuse to be­lieve it, can pass for no other than Fools or obstinate Persons. In this manner we may be fully assur'd of the Truth of the History of the New Testament; that is to say, That there was a Jesus who did divers Miracles, who was rais'd from the Dead, & ascended up into Hea­ven, and who taught the Doctrine which we find in the Gospels. And this Jesus having born witness to the History of the Jews, we cannot doubt its truth, at least as to the principal Matters.

This can not be call'd in question, without absolutely renouncing Christia­nity. But People believe commonly two [Page 30] things which seem to me groundless; unless they ground them upon Jewish Tradition, a Principle, as is well known, extreamly uncertain. They believe, first, that the sacred Historians were inspir'd with the Things themselves: And next, that they were inspir'd also with the Terms in which they have express'd them. In a word, that the holy Histo­ry was dictated word for word by the holy Spirit, and that the Authors, whose Names it bears, were no other than Secretaries of that Spirit, who writ exactly as it dictated.

As to what concerns the Inspiration of Historical Matters of Fact, I ob­serve, First, That they suppose it with­out bringing any positive Proof, and that consequently a Man may with good reason reject their Supposition. They say only that if it were not so, we could not be perfectly certain of the truth of the History. But, beside that a Consequence cannot undeniably prove a Fact; and that it may happen that one cannot disprove a Consequence, al­though that which is pretended to be prov'd thereby be not true; I affirm that it is false, that we cannot be per­fectly certain of the main substance of a [Page 31] History unless we suppose it inspir'd. We are, for Example, perfectly certain that Iulius Caesar was kill'd in the Senate by a Conspiracy, whereof Brutus and Cassius were the Chiefs; without believ­ing that they who have inform'd us here­of were inspir'd. There are such like matters in the Histories of all Nations, which we cannot doubt of, without being guilty of Folly and Opiniatrety; and yet without supposing that these Histories were writ by Divine Inspira­tion.

In the second place, this Opinion supposes without necessity a Miracle, of which the Scripture it self says no­thing. To relate faithfully a matter of Fact, which a Man has seen and well observed, requires no Inspiration. The Apostles had no need of Inspi­ration to tell what they had seen, and what they had heard Christ say. There needs nothing for that but Memory and Honesty. Neither had those Authors who writ only the things that came to pass before their time, as the Author of the Books of Chronicles, any more need of Inspiration for copying of good Records. And as for those who made the Records, there was no more re­quisite, [Page 32] than that they should be well inform'd of what they set down, either by their Eyes, or by their Ears, or by faithful Witnesses. It will be said, per­haps, that according to this Opinion, the Faith which we build upon the Scripture will be no other than a Faith purely human, because it will be groun­ded only upon Human Testimonies. To this I answer, That neither do we know, any more than by a Human Faith, that the Book which we call the Gospel of St. Matthew is truly his. It is nothing but the uniform Consent of Christians, since the beginning of Chri­stianity to this day, that makes us be­lieve it; which in truth is no more than a Testimony purely Human. We do not believe it because we are assur'd of it by an Oracle from Heaven, which has told us that this Book is truly that Apostle's; but on the same account that we believe that the Eneid is truly Vir­gil's, and the Iliad Homer's. But that which they here call Human Faith is of as great certainty, as the Demonstra­tions of Geometry. And even Divine Faith it self, as they call it, is built up­on this Certainty. For, in truth, we do not believe in Jesus Christ, but be­cause [Page 33] we are perswaded that the Hi­story we have of him is true. And how do we know that this History is true? Because Eye-witnesses have written it, and have suffer'd Death to maintain the truth of their Testimonies. And how are we certain that these were Eye-witnesses, and that they suffer'd Death rather than deny what they said? By History; that is to say, by the Testimony of Men, who affirm it to us constantly from the time of the Establishment of the Christian Religion to the Age we live in. So that Human Faith is found to be the ground of Divine Faith. But we need not fear that this Foundation is not solid e­nough. For without ceasing to be a Man, and reasoning no more than a Brute, it cannot be disputed; as has been made appear by many Learned Men, who have written of the Truth of Christian Religion.

In the third place; The common Opinion is contrary to the Testimony even of the Sacred Writers. St. Luke begins his Gospel after this manner. For asmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in Order a Declaration of those things, which are most surely believed [Page 34] among us, even as they delivered them un­to us, who from the beginning were Eye­witnesses, and Ministers of the Word: It seemed good to me also, having had per­fect Vnderstanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in or­der▪ most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed. You may observe in these words a Confir­mation of what I have been saying, and a full Proof that St. Luke learn'd not that which he told us by Inspiration, but by Information from those who knew it exactly. Now if you allow St. Luke to have so faithfully related to us the Life and Discourses of Jesus (with­out having been particularly inspir'd) that we ought to receive what he tells us with an entire belief in his Fidelity; you ought not to make any difficulty to grant the same concerning the other Historians of the Scripture. If any of them ought to be inspir'd, certainly they were the Evangelists. And if you will have another Example of a Histo­ory written without Inspiration, you have but to read the Books of Kings, and of the Chronicles, being Extracts out of publick Registers, and out of particular [Page 35] Writings of divers Prophets, to whom the Authors at every turn refer the Reader.

Lastly, It is very plain that the Histori­ans of the Scripture were not inspir'd; by the Contradictions that are found in several Circumstances of their Histories. The Evangelists agree perfectly among themselves in what concerns the main of the History of Jesus Christ, but there are some Circumstances wherein they disagree; a clear proof that every Par­ticular was not inspir'd. For although the Circumstances wherein they differ are things of small Consequence, yet if the holy Spirit had dictated all to them, as is pretended, they would per­fectly agree in every thing; these Cir­cumstances being as well known to God as the main of the History. For Exam­ple; St. Matthew says, That Judas, re­penting that he had delivered our Lord to the Iews, threw the Mony into the Temple; that going away he hang'd himself; and that the Priests, having gathered up the Mony, bought therewith a Field. St. Luke in the Acts brings in Peter saying, That Judas, after having purchased a Field with the Reward of Iniquity, falling headlong, burst asunder in the midst, in­somuch [Page 36] that his Bowels gushed out. Here is a manifest Contradiction, which the Learned in vain endeavour to recon­cile. And there are many other such like

But this, you will say, lessens very much the Authority of the Evangelists. For if they could be deceiv'd in any thing, who will secure us that they were not deceiv'd in every thing? I answer to that in the words of Grotius; Imo hoc ipsum Scriptores illos ab om­ni doli suspicione Libe­rare debet; com sole­ant illi qui falsa testantur, de compacto omnia ita narrare, ut ne in spciem quidem quicquam diver­sum, appareat: Quod si­ex levi aliquâ discre­pantiâ, etiam quae conci­liari nequiret, totis libris fides decederct, jam nul­li libro, praesertim Hi­storiarum, credendum esset; cum tamen Poly­bio & Halicarnassensi, & Livio & Plutarcho, in quibus talia deprehen­duntur, sua apud nos de rerum summa constet autoritas. Even this it self ought to free these Writers from all Suspicion of Deceit, For those who testi­fy Falshoods, use so to agree their Stories, that there may not so much as seem to be any difference. But if because of any small Disagreement, although it could not be reconcil'd, whole Books should lose their Credit, then no Book, especially of Hi­story, would deserve to be be­lieved; whereas the Authority of Polibius, and Halicarnassensis, and Livy, and Plutarch, in whom such things are found, as to the main stands firm among us. St. Chrysostom also in his first Homily on St. Matthew, very [Page 37] plainly assures us, that God permitted the Apostles to fall into these little Con­trarieties; that we might see that they were not agreed to feign a History at Pleasure; and that we might more readi­ly believe them in the main of the Hi­story. When a Man has seen most of the Things which he relates, in those he can hardly be deceiv'd. But he may be easily deceiv'd in some Circum­stances of Things which he has not seen

We might yet add a fifth Proof, which Grotius affords us, in his Notes on that part of his Treatise of the Verity of the Christian Religion, which I lately cited. It is, that the Evangelists, in setting down a certain time, do not determine it exactly; because they did not know it so precisely that they could set down the number of Days or Months. See Luke I. 56. III. 23. Iohn II. 6. VI. 10, 19. XIX. 14. You find in those places, About a certain Time; or, About a cer­tain Number: Which shews evidently, that the History was not dictated im­mediately by the Holy Spirit, who knew exactly the Number and the Time that was in question.

[Page 38] It is clear then, in my Judgment, that the Things were not Inspir'd; nor by consequence the Words; which are less considerable than the Things. It is not certain Terms that are the Rule of our Faith; but a certain Sense. And it is little matter what words we make use of, provided we go not astray from the Doctrine which God has reveal'd. Those who read the Originals, are in no better way of being sav'd, than those that can read only the Translati­ons. For there is no Translation so false, but that taken in gross, it ex­presses clearly enough that which is ne­cessary to Salvation. Otherwise it would be necessary that all Christians had learn'd Hebrew and Greek, which is altogether impossible; and we should exclude from Salvation, almost all those who have made profession of the Chri­stian Religion in our Western Parts, from the Time of the Apostles, to the Age we live in

That providence also which has pre­served us these Holy Books, to lead us in the way to Salvation, so many Ages after the death of those that writ them, has preserv'd inviolably nothing but the Sense. It has suffer'd Men to [Page 39] put in Synonimous Words one for ano­ther; and not hinder'd the slipping in of a great many Varieties, little consi­derable as to the Sense, but remarkable as to the Words and Order. There is in St. Matthew, for Example, more than a thousand divers Readings in less than eleven hundred Verses; but where­of there is not perhaps fifty, that can make any change in the Sense; and that change too is but in things of little im­portance to piety. If God had thought it necessary, for the Good of his Church, to inspire into the Sacred Historians the terms which they ought to use, he would undoubtedly have taken more care to preserve them. It is plain therefore that he design'd principally to preserve the Sense.

Thus then neither the Words, nor the things, have been inspir'd into those who have given us the Sacred History; altho in the main that History is very true in the principal Facts. It may be, that in certain Circumstances, little considerable, there may be some Fault; as appears suffici­ently by the contradictory Passages. It is ture, that some have strain'd themselves to reconcile those Passages, as I have already observ'd; but it is after so vio­lent [Page 40] and constrain'd a fashion; and there are such divers Opinions about these Reconciliations; that if we exa­mine the thing never so little, without prejudice, we shall find that the Lear­ned trouble themselves to no purpose; and that they would do much better to confess ingenuously, that there are some Contradictions in things of small im­portance.

Nay further, I know some that believe we ought not to receive all the Jewish Histories, without distin­ction, for true Histories. They Per­tend we ought to except the Book of Esther. And it is true, that if Assuerus, of whom the Book of Esther speaks, be Ochus that raign'd after Artaxerxes Mnemon, this Book would have been written at such a time as there was no Prophet in Israel. But altho Mr. Cappel pretend that Achasueros is the same with [...], his conjecture is not unque­stionable. They pretend also, that this History has all the Characters of a Hi­story made at pleasure. I shall not exa­mine that at present. But however it be, it is no Heresy to reject a Book of the Iewish Canon; as neither is it to re­ject one of our own. At least, the Pro­testants [Page 41] have not call'd a Lutheran an Heretick, for having said that the Epi­stle of St. Iames is anStraminea Epistola. Epistle of Straw; no more than they have many of the Learned, for not receiving the Second Epistle of St. Peter, which a famous Critic stiles,Commentum Veteris Chri­stiani otio suo abutentis. Ios. Scaliger. A Fiction of some ancient Christian misimploying his leasure-Time. The Iewish Sanhedrim may easily have received into their Canon Books that had no Divine Authority.

To come now to the Doctrines which are in the Holy Scriptures,III. Of the Doct. of the Scriptures, and Inspiration of the Apostles. and not there attributed to a partcular Revela­tion; I will begin with examining those which are in the Writings of the Apo­stles, after which I will pass to those of the Old Testament.

It is commonly believed, that the A­postles, as well as the Prophets, were inspir'd both as to Words and Things. Yet with this difference, that the Pro­phets were not always inspir'd, but only when God gave them order to speak to the People in his Name. Whereas the Apo­stles were always inspir'd, without being ravisht into Extasies, as the Prophets were before their prophesying. This Opinion is founded upon the Promise [Page 42] that Christ made his Apostles to send them the holy Spirit, which he performed on the Day of Pentecost. The words of Christ are, Iohn XVI. 13. When he, the Spirit of Truth, shall come, he will guide you into all Truth. He says also else­where to his Apostles; When they bring you into the Synagogues, and unto Magi­strates, and Powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say, for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say, Luk. XII. 11. These are two the most for­mal Passages that can be quoted in this Matter. It is requisite that we exa­mine them with some attention, to see if they prove that which they are pro­duc'd for; viz. ‘That the Apostles were honour'd with a continual pre­sence of the Holy Ghost, who dicta­ted to them all that they said in mat­ter of Religion; insomuch that all their words ought to be considered as Oracles.’

To begin with the latter; I observe first, That he does not promise a per­petual Inspiration, but only upon cer­tain Occasions; viz. when the Apo­stles should be brought before the Tri­bunals of Judges. So that if there were [Page 43] nothing else in it, this Passage would not at all favour the common Opinion. But there is more in it: for it wholly destroys it. If Jesus Christ had resolv'd to give his Apostles the Holy Spirit to in­spire them perpetually, he would not have told them singly, that they should not tro­ble themselves for what they had to say before the Judges, because then the Spirit should speak in them. But he would have said that they need not fear that at any time they should want words, because the holy Spirit should accompany them with­out ceasing, as well before the Powers of the World, as when they should speak to the People. If a Man had a Design to supply another with Mony for all his Expences; Would he say to him, Do not trouble your self to get Mony for the Journies you are to take, for you shall then be supplied? He would rather say to him, doubtless, that he should not fear to want Mony, because he should be suppli'd constantly for all his Occasions. A Man promises not for a particular Occasion, that which he intends to give alike at all Times. And when a Man makes a particular Promise, it is a plain sign that he in­tends to perform it but upon certain Occasions.

[Page 44] In the second place; As I acknow­ledg that the Apostles may have had Prophetick Inspirations on certain Oc­casions, and that in effect they have had them; so I confess that I find my self tempted to believe, that by these words, The Holy Ghost shall teach you in that hour what ye ought to say: Or as St. Mat­thew has expressed it, It is not ye that speak, it is the Spirit of your Heavenly Father that speaks in you; I am, I say, tempted to believe, that by these words Christ meant only to say this; viz. The Spirit of Courage and Holiness, which the Gospel produces in your Hearts, will teach ye what ye ought to say. That is to say, That the Apostles had no more to do, but to believe in the Go­spel, to be assur'd that the Disposition of Spirit which that Heavenly Doctrine would give them, would never let them want words; not even when they were to defend themselves before the Tribu­nals of the greatest Powers. That which inclines me to this Explication of Christ's words, is, that in comparing this Promise with the Event, it seems not to have been performed in any other sense than that which I have now ob­serv'd; and that neither ought it to be [Page 45] interpreted so strictly, as if on these Occasions a Word might not slip from the Apostles, that were not conformable to the Spirit of the Go­spel.

St. Luke tell us, Acts XXIII. that St. Paul having been brought before the Sanhedrim, began to speak after this manner; Men and Brethren, I have liv'd in all good Conscience before God until this day. Here is nothing yet that one might not say without Inspiration; as neither is there any thing but what is confor­mable to the Gospel. But what follows is a sign of Passion, wherewith neither the Spirit of Prophecy, nor the Pati­ent Spirit of the Gospel inspired St. Paul. At that words, says St. Luke, Ananias the High Priest commanded them that stood by, to smite him on the Mouth. The A­postle, provok'd by this Unjustice, an­swers him angrily, God shall smite thee, thou whited Wall. For sittest thou to judg me according to the Law, and commandest thou me to be smitten contrary to the Law? And they that stood by, says St. Luke, said to Paul, Revilest thou God's High Priest? Then said Paul, I wist not Brethren that he was the High Priest: For it is written, Thou shalt not speak Evil of the Ruler of [Page 46] thy People. It is plain, me-thinks, that if the Spirit of Prophecy had inspir'd St. Paul with the beginning of this Dis­course; it did not so neither with the An­swer he made the High Priest; nor with the Excuse he made use of afterward when they told him he was the High Priest that he spoke to. He gave Sentence against himself by his Answer, supposing that he had known him who order'd him to be smitten. And as for the Excuse, it is plain it is not very good; because the Gospel allows not to revile any Man; whether he be a Magistrate, or a private Man. Iesus Christ, says St. Peter, has suffered for us, leaving us an Example that we should follow his steps; who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, threatned not, but committed him­self to him that judgeth righteously.

Neither do I believe that the Spirit of Prophecy inspir'd St. Paul with what he said afterward: At least there is no Bo­dy but could have said as much, without Inspiration. Now St. Paul knowing, says the Historian, that the one part were Sad­duces, and the other Pharisees, cried out in the Council, Men and Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the Son of a Pharisee: of the Hope and Resurrection of the Dead, I am [Page 47] called in question. This expression also of St. Luke, (Paul knowing) makes it evident that his Speech was an Effect of his Pru­dence, rather than of Prophetic Inspi­ration.

I am not the first that has made such-like Observations. St. Ierom in his Dialogue a­gainst the Pelagians, Lib. 3. brings in Atticus, who bears the part of an Orthodox Doctor, speaking of St. Paul; Putasne Apostolum eo tempore quo scribebat; Lacernam sive penulam, quam reliqui Troade veniens affer, ac libros & maximè membranas; de coelestibus cogitasse misteriis & non de his quae in usu com­munis vitae vel corpori necessaria sunt, &c? Cae­ditur Apostolus à Mini­stro, & contra Pontificem qui caedere imperaverat sententiam dirigit: Per­cutiet te Deus Paries de­albate. Ubi est illa pa­tientia Salvatoris qui quasi agnus ductus ad victimam non aperuit os suum, sed clementer lo­quitur verberanti? Si malè loquutus sum argue de malo, sin autem benè quid me caedis? Non Apostolo detrahimus, sed gloriam domini praedicamus, qui in carne passus carnis inju­riam superat & fragilita­tem. Ut taceam illud quod commemorat; Alexander Aerarius multa mihi mala ostendit: reddet illi Domi­nus in die illa Justus Judex. Do you think St. Paul, at that time when he writ, (The Cloak which I left at Troas, when thou comest bring with thee, and the Books, but especially the Parchments) did think of the Heavenly Mysteries, and not of those things which are useful to Humane Life, and necessary to the Body, &c? The Apostle is struck by an Officer, and he falls foul upon the High Priest that commanded him to be smitten: God shall smite thee thou whi­ted Wall. Where is that pati­ence of our Saviour, who as a Lamb led to the Slaughter open'd not his Mouth, but answered mildly to him that struck him? [Page 48] If I have spoken Ill, convince me of the ill; but if Well, why do you strike me? We do not detract from the Apostle, but we declare the Glory of our Lord; who suffering in the Flesh, overcame the diffi­culties and weaknesses of the Flesh. Not to mention what he says in another place. Alexander the Copper-smith did me much Evil; the Lord, the Righteous Iudg, will reward him in that day. It is true, St. Ie­rom elsewhere disapproves a part of that which here he makes his Orthodox Doctor speak; but it is plain, at least, that one might speak it without being guilty of Heresy.

Lastly; When we examine the Dis­courses which we have of Christ's Dis­ciples before divers Judges, we may easily perceive that they speak with much Piety and Courage; but it seems not that they say any thing which one might not as well say without Inspira­tion. If we read the Histories of those that have been put to death for Reli­gion in the last Ages, we shall find ma­ny that were not Prophets, making ex­cellent. Discourses at their Trials, with­out being prepar'd before-hand. St. Stephen was full of the Gospel-Spirit, when he made the Harangue we read [Page 49] Acts VII. It seems nevertheless, that he therein mix'd divers Circumstances of History, which were nothing to the purpose of the matter he spoke about; and which neither can tolerably be re­concil'd with the History of the Old Testament. And indeed very learned Men have been of Opinion, that St. Stephen's Memory fail'd him. Mr. Cap­pel in his Spicilegium on Vers. 16. says: Certum est hoc loco le­gendū esse [...], sub audiendum (que) [...], ut hic dicatur non ipse Abraham, sed ejus nepos Jacob emisse monumentum illud; vel di­cendum est Stephanum lapsu [...] duo similia facta confudisse, em­tionem nempe ab Abrahamo factam de qua Gen. c. XXIII. cum eâ quae à Jacobo facta est, de quâ Gen. XXXIII. 19. It is certain that in this place we should read [...], and understand [...], that it might not be said Abra­ham, but his Grandchild Jacob bought this Monument. Or we may say, that Stephen, by the fault of his Memory, confounded two Facts that were somewhat alike, to wit, the Purchase made by Abraham, whereof Gen. XXIII. with that made by Jacob, Gen. XXXIII. 19.

However, it is no ways incongru­ous, that by the Holy Spirit, or the Spi­rit of God, we should understand the Spirit of Holiness and Constancy, which the Gospel gives; or such a disposition of Mind, as is an Effect of our Faith. We know it is a manner of speaking common in the Old and New Testa­ment; and that the Hebrews call the Spirit of Iealousy, the Spirit of Stupidity, [Page 50] the Spirit of Fear, the Spirit of Courage, the Spirit of Meekness, &c. the different dispositions of Mind, that render a Man Jealous, Stupid, Fearful, Couragious, Meek, &c. The Criticks have observ'd this long ago.

But I must needs desire you once again to take notice, that when I say the Dis­ciples of Christ had not Prophetic In­spirations, for answering before the Tri­bunal of Judges, to the Accusations brought against them; I do not mean thereby that it never so fell out; but on­ly that ordinarily they spoke without particular Inspiration. I conceive in­deed, that if one of them had appeared before a Judg, whose Language he na­turally understood not, it would have been necessary that God should have dictated to him the proper words he was to make use of. And I doubt not but God has often done even that, in favour of such of the Apostles as have preach'd the Gospel to barbarous Nations beyond the Limits of the Roman Empire, and perhaps too sometimes amongst the Ro­mans and Greeks.

However it be, it seems to me that if what I have been saying be consider'd, it must be granted that the Passages of [Page 51] St. Luke and St. Matthew, where Christ promises his Spirit to his Disciples, are not strong enough to render the com­mon Opinion indisputable.

This, Sir, is about half the Writing which was given me concerning the thoughts of Mr. N. on this Subject. It is too long to make an end of transcri­bing it at present. But you shall have the rest by the next Post: upon condi­tion you will promise me to peruse it carefully, and give me your sense of it. It were extreamly to be wished, that some able and judicious Person would undertake to handle this Matter thorowly, in opposition to our Author, but without Heat and Passion. This Opi­nion is maintain'd by so many Proofs, and Arguments that seem so strong; that tho I know it may be render'd very odious, and that very malicious Conse­quences may be drawn from it; yet I must confess I do not know by what Princi­ples it can be overthrown. And that which gives this Author yet more ad­vantage, is, That this Matter has been so little handled, that all the Writings upon the Scripture to this day afford us scarce any light therein. A Man must fetch all out of his own Stock, to answer [Page 52] him. And it is no small trouble to have one's Mind continually exercised in clearing up the Difficulties of a Sub­ject so little known, and giving clear Principles in so obscure a Matter.

I would be glad, Sir, that there were any in your Province, or elsewhere, that would undertake to clear it: for I know none of my Friends here that will in­gage in it. If you could prevail with some learned and moderate Divine to take that task in hand, without railing as Divines too often do, when they know not how to answer their Antagonist, you would infinitely oblige those who have read this little Writing. I am, &c.

I Am not surpriz'd, Sir, at your desire to see the latter part of that Wri­ting, whereof I sent you the for­mer by last Post, before your are wil­ling to give me your Judgment on it. A matter so important and so delicate requires to be considered with much Attentiveness. We must lay aside then once again the Examination of the cri­tical History, to resume it next Post. For I cannot transcribe the rest of the Writing of Mr. N. and entertain you at the same time upon any other Sub­ject. Mr. —whom you mention, is well qualified to instruct his Flock in matters of Piety, but has not, I doubt, Learning sufficient, nor Parts strong enough to master the Difficulties that attend the answering directly, and by positive Arguments, a Writing which some other very able Divines dare not [Page 54] meddle with. It were better, in my Judgment, not to answer at all than to answer ill; and to seek only to defame an Author whom one cannot confute. I should be the more troubled to see that done, by how much I understand that the Author is a very pious Man, and one who assuredly believes not the evil Consequences, which some Men, (too ready to judg of their Neighbours) may draw from his Notions. I fear that he you speak of would content himself in gathering together a great number of those odious Consequences, and would think that he had thereby sufficiently refuted the Opinion, without considering, that tho a Man cannot dis­ingage a Doctrine from the absurd Con­sequences that by some may be link'd to it, it does not therefore follow that the Doctrine is false. It should first be made appear that the Arguments brought for an Opinion are not solid; and after that one may come to the Consequences. Otherwise while the Arguments that prove an Opinion sub­sist in full force, all the Consequences that may be deriv'd from it cannot overthrow it. Nevertheless if you be­lieve him capable to acquit himself of [Page 55] this undertaking, you may perswade him to it when you think fit. But put him in Mind at the same time, that it is the part of an honest Man, and of one that would bestow his Pains to some good purpose, to do it with all the Moderation and Meekness imaginable. St. Ierom commends Nepotien, Quod so­leret libenter audire, respon­dere verecun­dè, recta susci­pere, prava non acriter confu­tare, disputan­tem contra se magis docere quam vincere. That he used to hear willingly, answer modestly, allow Truth, not sharply confute Error, and teach rather than conquer whom he disputed with. And it were to be wished that our Divines now adays would make it their business to deserve so good an Elogy; whereas it seems that they strive only to attain to the Name of great Railers, and value not Peoples having an ill Opinion of their Manners, provided that they pass for Men of Parts. I speak not this as if I suspected that Mr. — resembles one of those Divines I find fault with; but because I believe a Man cannot be too much caution'd against so general a Defect.

But these Moralities would carry me too far, if I should give my self the li­berty to pursue them. It is better that I keep my word with you, and give you the following part of that Writing. And here it is.

[Page 56] Let us now examine that Passage of St. Iohn, When the Spirit of Truth shall come, he will lead you into all Truth. Interpreters observe that we must not understand by All Truths, any others than those which the ApostlesContinuation of the Writing of Mr. N. concern­ing the Inspirati­on of the Apostles. were ignorant of, and which it was needful for them to know, that they might be able to acquit themselves as they ought to do of their Charge. They receiv'd not the holy Spirit to learn, for Example, that there was a God; nor to be instructed in the Mathematicks. They knew already this first Truth, and of the other they had no need.

The generality of Interpreters be­lieve that these words denote a perpe­tual Assistance of the holy Spirit, that made the Apostles absolutely infallible. To know whether they are in the right or no, we must examine the Accom­plishment of the Promise; and if it ap­pear that it agrees not with this Ex­planation of our Saviour's words, we must seek another sense, and try to discover wherein the Infallibility of the Apostles consists.

We find a Story Acts xv. whereby it appears manifestly that the Apostles did not pass in their own time for per­sons, whose every word was an Oracle, [Page 57] as they are now reputed to have done. Some Jews converted to the Christian Religion, not being able to shake off their ancient Opinion concerning Cere­monies, would have had the Gentiles circumcis'd. St. Paul, and St. Barnabas were against this: but their Authority was not sufficient to put to silence the Judaizing Christians. Altho St. Paul was as much an Apostle, as those whom our Lord had chosen while he was on Earth, yet they would not believe him. The Church at Ierusalem must be con­sulted.

Further also, the Apostles and Elders of the Church, being assembl'd to ex­amine and determine this Affair, di­spute a great while before they agree upon it; and it was not till after they had heard St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Barna­has, and St. Iames, that the Assembly came to a Resolution. If they had been fill'd with the Spirit of Infallibility, such as is conceiv'd now adays, they would have been all at first of one Mind; and there would have needed no more to be done, but to charge one of them to give out the Oracle in the Name of the whole Assembly.

[Page 58] There happen'd likewise, before that, another thing related by St. Luke, Acts x. which makes it also very evident, that the Holy Ghost which the Apostles re­ceiv'd the day of Pentecost, had not taught them all they ought to know, (so far was it from rendring them at first dash infallible) and that they were not then consider'd as Persons out of dan­ger of falling into Error, as they have been since accounted. St. Peter needed a Vision, as appears by the Story of Cornelius the Centurion, to learn that he ought not to scruple preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles; although Christ had order'd his Apostles before his ascending into Heaven, to preach the Gospel unto all Creatures; whereby he clearly enough denoted the Gentiles as well as the Iews.

St. Peter after having obey'd the ex­press Order which he receiv'd from God, to preach the Gospel to Cornelius, was no sooner returned to Ierusalem, but the faithful Ones of the Circum­cision, not dreaming that his Apostle­ship render'd him infallible, dispute with him; and tell him, after a manner that shows that the Infallibility which we now attribute to him, was to them un­known, [Page 59] Thou wentest unto Men uncircum­cis'd, and didst eat with them.

Many Years, as it seems after that, Peter being at Antioch, had not the Cou­rage to maintain openly that the Jews might eat with the Gentiles without scruple. For before that certain Persons came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come he with­drew, and separated himself, fearing them which were of the Circumcision: And the other Iews dissembled likewise with him, in­somuch that St. Paul observing, that they walked not uprightly, was obliged to tell Peter before them all, If thou being a Iew livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Iews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Iews? It is said that St. Peter. was guilty of a fault only in his Conduct, and not in his Do­ctrine; that he believ'd and maintain'd the same with St. Paul, but that on this occasion he dissembled his Opinion; and that he did not otherways constrain the Gentiles to live as the Iews, but in abstaining to eat with them. The Gen­tiles, say they, seeing that St. Peter did not eat with them because they were uncircumcis'd, did, by reason of this his Conduct, believe themselves oblig'd [Page 60] to be circumcis'd, and consequently to observe the other Ceremonies of the Law. They believ'd that it was a Sin to continue uncircumcis'd, because St. Pe­ter forbore to live familiarly with them on that account; and on the contrary that it was a Duty to observe the Cir­cumcision. So that it was by his Conduct only that St. Peter forc'd them to live as Iews. And indeed it is true that by efficaciously engaging one to do a thing, after what manner soever it be, we are said to force one to do it. See Gen. xix. 3. Luke xxiv. 19.

I believe really that this is the best Explanation. But it proves clearly that the Metaphysical Infallibility which is attributed to the Apostles is not of Apostolick Tradition. For, in truth, to dissemble a true Doctrine when they ought to preach it, and to ingage Peo­ple in an Error by their Conduct, is visibly a human Weakness, and which becomes not those who are look'd up­on as the simple Instruments of the holy Spirit speaking by their Mouths. St. Peter's Conduct gave the Gentiles to understand, as well as if he had told it them, that they must observe the Circumcision; and to give them [Page 61] to understand it by forbearing to eat with them, was almost the same thing as to tell it them by word of Mouth. Nay more, it is not unlikely that St. Peter believed that this Dissimu­lation was lawful, as well as St. Bar­nabas, and the other Iews who had fol­lowed his Example; otherwise it is not credible that so pious Men, who were the first Ministers of the Gospel, would have done it. And so we must confess that they were guilty of some weak­ness even in Doctrine, although they recanted it soon, nor was it of great importance.

There is also a great difference ob­servable in the manner of Christ's speaking (He that had received the Spirit without measure) and that in which the Apostles express themselves; whereas according to the common Opinion it ought to be the same. If the same Spirit had render'd them infallible, they had right to declare to the World the Doctrine of Salvation with the same Power, and to speak as authoritatively as Jesus Christ. But we see the contra­ry in their Writings. Christ spoke as one having Authority. You have heard it was said of old, &c. But I say unto [Page 62] you, &c. The Apostles, on the contra­ry, declare that they say nothing of themselves, and refer all to the Pro­phets, and to Jesus Christ: Acts xxvi. 22. 1 Cor. xi. 23.

And that which is yet more conside­rable is, that they distinguish manifest­ly that which they say themselves from that which Christ had said. And un­to the Married, I command, yet not I, but the Lord, &c. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord, &c. So St. Paul speaks, 1 Cor. vii. 10, 12. which he would not have done, had he been aware that his Audi­tors had believ'd his words as infallible as the words of Christ.

Methinks these are convincing Proofs that the Apostles had not a perpetual Inspiration, which might give their words an indisputable Authority. I do not deny but they had many imme­diate Inspirations, and divers Heavenly Visions; as appears by the Acts, by the Revelations, and by divers other places of Scripture; Nay, I am so fully perswaded they had, that I think him no good Christian who doubts of it. But the Question here is concerning an uniform, constant and ordinary Inspi­ration, [Page 63] as it is commonly explained in the Divinity-Schools.

It may be you will say there are di­vers Arguments for this sort of Inspira­tion as strong as those I have brought to shew the contrary. The Apostles began their Letter Acts xv. after this manner, It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us. By which it appears, say some, that they were fill'd with the Spirit of In­fallibility, which dictated to them what they ought to say, I desire first, that those who say so, reconcile this Sup­position with the Dispute that was a­mong the Apostles, before they came to this Conclusion. In the second place: It is not likely that if the Holy Ghost had possess'd them in such a man­ner, that they had been only simple Instruments by which He express'd his Will they should not have plac'd them­selves in equal Rank with the Him; but should have said simply, It has appear'd good to the Holy Ghost, who speaks by us. What Prophet ever said, it seem'd good to God and to me? In the third place: Suppose there be here, as the Critics say, a Figure by which is express'd one and the same thing by two words; and that this manner of [Page 64] speaking amounts to no more but this, It has seemed good to us who are full of the Holy Ghost; The perpetual Inspiration about which I am now arguing cannot be hence concluded. The Apostles and all the Church of Ierusalem were ani­mated by the Spirit of the Gospel, with­out being continually full of the Spirit of Prophecy. If it were otherwise, we should be forced to say that the whole Church of Ierusalem, not only the Apo­stles, but also the Elders of the Church, and all those who were assembled, were perpetually accompanied with a Spirit of Infallibility; which no body ever yet said, nor is it at all likely. In the fourth place; The Conclusion of the Letter they write, seems extreamly weak for the Conclu­sion of a positive Law. FROM WHICH YOU SHALL DO WELL TO KEEP YOUR SELVES. A Prophet under the Old Te­stament would have said, From which keep your selves; for so saith the Lord, whose Commandments you cannot slight without your own Destruction, &c.

Some may also here object the Spirit of Miracles and Tongues, which the A­postles received the day of Pentecost. But the Effusion of that miraculous Spirit did not necessarily render all those that [Page 65] receiv'd it infallible in Doctrine. Other­wise all the Christians of that time had been infallible. The Church of Corinth had receiv'd the Holy Ghost, as ap­pears by the Epistles St. Paul directs to it; and so should not have needed that Apostle's Instructions, because it had a great number of infallible Persons within it self: But it appears, on the contrary, that it needed his Instructions, not only to correct its Vices, but also to resolve its Doubts, and even to rectify its Errors.

Thus then the Spirit of Miracles not being accompanied with Infallibility▪ it connot be concluded, because the Apostles receiv'd that Spirit the day of Pentecost, that they became as Gods, and that they were out of all danger of ever falling into the least Error. But what signify then these words; When the Spirit of Truth shall come, he will lead you into all Truth? This Spirit of Truth is it not the miraculous Spirit which the Apostles receiv'd.

I have already observ'd that these words cannot be understood rigorously, as if the Apostles had known all Sciences. I must add further, that there is something extreamly figurative in them; as ap­pears [Page 66] by the following words; For he shall not speak of himself, but what soever he shall hear, that he shall speak; and he shall shew ye things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine; therefore said I that he shall take of mine, and shew it unto you. What Opinion soever a Man may be of concerning the Holy Spirit, it is plain that these words can­not be taken properly, as if the Holy Spirit had heard from God, or Jesus Christ, that with which he ought to in­spire the Apostles.

The most simple sense, and most conformable to the accomplishment of this Promise, which can be given to these words, is, to my thinking, this. I should explain many things to you more clearly than I have done, but you are not yet in condition to receive them as you should. When you shall have received the Spirit of Miracles, he will teach you the rest that you ought to know; either by Visions, or by making you call to mind that which I have told you; so that he will make you appre­hend the sense, and will teach you what you ought to do afterwards. To speak [Page 67] properly, he will tell you nothing new; he will but recal into your memory, to make you better understand it, the Do­ctrine of my Father; which is the same that I have taught you; and which I may also call my Doctrine, because my Father has charg'd me to preach it, as the only Doctor of his Church.

The Holy Spirit led the Apostles in­to all Truths; and took that which was Christ's, without ever speaking of himself; in making them call to mind that which they had forgotten; and in making them understand on divers occasions, or even by extraordinary Revelations, that which Christ had said to them, but which they then understood not. This is plainly that which Christ teaches us in these words; These things have I spo­ken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my Name, he shall teach you ALL THINGS, AND BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMEM­BRANCE, WHATSOEVER I HAVE SAID UN­TO YOU, Iohn XIV. 25 These last words apparently explain the forego­ing, He shall teach you all Things.

In effect, there is nothing in the Do­ctrine of the Apostles, which Christ [Page 68] had not told them; and in leaving them, he gave them no other order for the preaching of the Gospel, but to teach all People to observe all those things which he had commanded them. And the Apostles observe in several places, that it was not till after they had received the Holy Spirit, that they remember'd, and understood divers things which Christ had told them when he was here below. These things understood not the Disciples at the first, says St. Ioh. XII. 16. but when Ie­sus was enter'd into his Glory, then remem­ber'd they that these things were written of him. See the same Evangelist, II. 22. and Acts XI. 16.

This is, in my Opinion, the sense of Christ's words; at least I find nothing among the Interpreters, that answers so well to the Event; which thorowly convinces me that. Christ must have meant some such thing. For when all's done, whatsoever may be said, the Pro­mise ought to be understood by its cor­respondency with the Accomplishment, and there is no better Interpreter of Prophecies than their execution.

This being so, the Infallibility of the Apostles, according to my judgment, consisted in this. They knew clearly [Page 69] the general Principles of the Jewish Re­ligion, which had been taught them from their Cradle; they had heard Christ often tell what the Gospel added to Judaism; or if you will, Christ had explain'd to them more clearly the Will of God, and had shown them the Er­rors of the Pharisees; He had in­structed them concerning the Messiah, and had made appear to them by many Proofs, that himself was HE; God had rais'd him from the Dead, and they had convers'd with him after his Resurrecti­on; and in the last place, they had seen him ascend into Heaven, from whence he assur'd them he would come one Day to judg the Quick and the Dead. They preach'd faithfully that which they had heard, that which they had seen with their Eyes, that which they had ob­serv'd with attention, and that which they had touch'd with their Hands. They could declare, without any mistake, what they had seen; they could preach what they had heard. For the Do­ctrine of Jesus Christ was compris'd in a few Articles, plain enough to be under­stood, and consequently easy to be re­membered. Thus they related infal­libly what they had seen and heard; [Page 70] and therein it is that their Infalli­bility consisted. Perhaps also the Spi­rit of Miracles which Christ sent them, strengthned their Memories, and open'd their Minds after a manner we compre­hend not. But it is certain, as I have made it appear, that this Spirit directed them not in so miraculous a manner, as to make it necessary for us to regard all they said or writ with the same re­spect as the words of Jesus Christ, the only Master, and the only infallible Do­ctor that ever was amongst Men. He was the only Mystical Ark, in which the Godhead dwelt bodily, from whence proceeded nothing but Oracles.

Some may ask, perhaps▪ Whether it might not so happen that the Apostles might abandon the Truth of the Go­spel, and preach a false Doctrine; and if it might be so, how we can be assur'd that they were not Deceivers? I con­fess, that though it was very unlikely, that after having receiv'd so many Illu­minations and Graces, they should fall into Apostacy; yet it was not absolute­ly impossible. But in that case God would not have approv'd by Miracles the Doctrine they taught; and thereby it is that we may know they were no [Page 71] Seducers. There crept in, during their Time, many false Prophets among the Christians; but they were presently discover'd because they could not main­tain by Miracles, a Doctrine contrary to that of the Apostles, which was con­firm'd by an infinity of Wonders. God made appear, by those Prodigies, that the Apostles declar'd nothing but what was conformable to his Will, nor any thing that could be hurtful to Piety; for it is impossible that God would fa­vour a Doctrine which should turn Men from Holiness. But we must not be­lieve neither, as I have already ob­serv'd, that because God wrought Mi­racles in favour of any Person, it there­fore follows that all things pronounced by that Person, were immediately in­spir'd, and ought to be receiv'd as the infallible Decisions of him that never errs. Provided that Person maintained the Substance of the Gospel, and said nothing but what conduced to Piety, God would not cease to bear Witness to his Doctrine, although all his Rea­sonings were not Demonstrations. God would not that this Mark of his Ap­probation should be interpreted, as if he had thereby declared that he would [Page 72] have all the Words of those that had miraculous Gifts receiv'd as Oracles. To be fully convinc'd hereof we need but read the first Epistle to the Co­rinthians.

I must nevertheless ingenuously con­fess, that there is mention made in this Epistle of some miraculous Gifts, which seem to have been pure Inspi­rations; and which ought to make the Speakers attended unto, as if they were the simple Interpreters of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit, says St. Paul, 1 Cor. VII. 8. gives to one the word of Wisdom, to another the word of Knowledg. It seems as if he meant thereby the Gift of prophesying; that is to say, of in­structing others in Piety; of which he says many things in the XIVth Chapter of the same Epistle. This seems con­trary to what I have been saying con­cerning the Inspiration of the Apostles, and I confess I cannot see how, accor­ding to my Notion, this difficulty can be clearly solv'd. I might say that this Gift of Prophecy was perhaps no o­ther than a Disposition of Mind, which God infus'd sometimes into those on whom he bestow'd it, by which they became fit to instruct; although he in­spir'd [Page 73] them not extraordinarily with that which they were to say; which is so much the more likely, by how much this Gift was preserv'd and increas'd by Study and Reading; as appears by those words of St. Paul to Timothy. First Epist. Chap. IV. 13, &c. Vntil I come, give thy self to Reading, to Exhortation, to Instruction: Neglect not the Grace which is in thee, which was given thee by Pro­phecy, through the Imposition of the Presby­tery: Meditate on these things, be always imployed, to the end they Improvement may be known of all Men. Now it is plain that the Gifts which are owing to an actual and immediate Inspiration of the holy Spirit, such as curing Disea­ses, &c. could not be increas'd by Ap­plication of Mind, as not depending upon Man in any sort. The most assi­duous Study cannot contribute any thing to prophetick, or immediate Re­velations.

This Conjecture seems probable e­nough. And indeed I see no other way of explaining what St. Paul says to Ti­mothy. But without determining any thing concerning the Gift of Prophecy, it appears plainly by what St. Paul says, 1 Cor. XIV. that it consisted not in an [Page 74] immediate Revelation of the holy Spi­rit, that forced the Prophets to speak. He there gives them this Advice; Let the Prophets speak two or three, and let another judg; but if any thing be revealed to one of those that sits by, let the first hold his Peace: for ye may all prophesy one by one, to the end that all may learn, and all may be comforted: And the Spirits of the Pro­phets are subject to the Prophets. The Prophets whom the holy Spirit had inspir'd immediately with what they ought to say, had no need of this Ad­vice. Nay it had even been ridiculous. Because the holy Spirit inspiring them with what they had to say, would have inspired them likewise as to the occasion and the place, and would not have put many Persons on speaking at one time in the same place, nor so as to interrupt others who spake by his Inspiration. Moreover St. Paul would have the Pro­phets judg one another, and that the Spirits of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets; which cannot be understood of Pro­phets immediately inspir'd, who are subject to none but God, and who are to give account to none but him. The Prophets of the Old Testament spoke as long as God inspir'd them; after [Page 75] which they held their Peace, without needing any Advertisement; because they easily perceiv'd when the Inspi­ration ceas'd.

It seems to me that we may now conclude, that there never was any body but our Saviour, who had a con­stant and perpetual Inspiration, and all whose words we ought to receive as Oracles. As he alone amongst Men was incapable of sinning, so it was he alone whom God indow'd with an absolute Infallibility. The same Light which perpetually inlighten'd his Mind, regulated also the Motions of his Af­fections: otherwise it would be diffi­cult to conceive how he could chuse but be subject to Error, if he had been sub­ject to Sin. There is so great a Cor­respondence between the Mind and the Affections, that it is not almost possi­ble there should be any Irregularity in the one, without a disorder in the other.

But that you may not believe I am the first Author of this Opinion, and that it is a desire to appear singular, or an Affec­tation of Novelty that has ingag'd me in this Notion, I must also let you see that [Page 76] some great Men have been of the same Mind before me. St. Ierom makes this Observation upon the fifth Chapter of the Prophet Micah, in speaking of this Passage; And thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, &c. which St. Matthew cites otherwise than it is either in the He­brew or Septuagint.Sunt qui asserunt in om­nibus poenè te­stimoniis, quae de veteri Te­stamento su­muntur, istius­modi esse er­rorem; ut aut ordo mutetur, aut verba, & interdum sen­sus quo (que) ipse diversus sit; vel Apostolis vel Evangelistis non ex libro carpentibus Testimonia, sed memoriae cre­dentibus, quae nonnunquam fallitur. There are, says he, that affirm there is the like Error in almost all the Testimonies that are taken out of the Old Testament; that either the Order is chang'd, or the Words, and that sometimes the Sense it self differs; the A­postles or Evangelists not transcribing the Testimonies out of the Book, but trusting to their Memory which sometimes fail'd them. It is true, St. Ierom says not that he approves this Opinion, but he makes it appear elsewhere that he is not very far from it. In his Letter to Pammachi­us (de optimo genere interpretandi) of the best way of interpreting; He gathers together many Examples of the New Testament, by which he shews that the Apostles tie themselves more to the Sense than to the Words; and main­tains, with good reason, that we should not play the Criticks on them for it, [Page 77] nor even for the places where they have mistaken Names. After having com­par'd the Quotation Matth. XXVII. 9. with the Original, he adds;Accusent Apostolum fal­sitatis quod nec cum He­braico, nec cum Septua­ginta congrauat Translatori­bus, & quod his majus est, ERRET IN NOMINE, pro Zacharia quippe Jere­miam posuit. One may accuse the Apostle of falsity in that he a­grees neither with the Hebrew nor with the Septuagint; and which is more, that he is mistaken in the Name, putting Jeremy for Zachary. He seems indeed else­where to disapprove that Opinion; but it is usual with him to accommo­date himself to the common Opinion, and yet not omit to give his own; without being concern'd whether he contradicted himself or no. When he speaks as others do, you must not con­clude presently that he is of the same Opinion with them, because it may be he speaks so by way of Condescen­sion; whereas when he says the con­trary, it seems rather that he speaks his own Thoughts. You need but read what he says of the Dissimulation which he attributes to St. Peter and St. Paul (in his Commentary upon the second Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, and in his Answer to St. Au­stin) to see that he believ'd that St. Paul by a Prudence purely human (which he [Page 78] calls a Dispensation) made shew of be­lieving that St. Peter was in the wrong; insomuch that when St. Paul says that St. Peter was to be reprov'd, because he walked not uprightly according to the Truth of the Gospel; It was not that he be­liev'd so, but only to hinder the con­verted Gentiles from imitating that Apostle. I say not that St. Ierom was herein in the right; but at least it here­by appears that he believ'd not that the Apostles were mov'd by a perpe­tual Inspiration to write what they did. We may joyn with St. Ierom, Origen, (from whom he had this O­pinion concerning the Dispensation that he attributes to these two Apo­stles) and divers Greek Fathers, who also followed Origen; as St. Ierom writing to St. Austin observes, in the Apology he makes for this part of his Commentary.

Thus you see that the most able In­terpreters of Scripture, that Chri­stian Antiquity has had, have been of the same Opinion with me. I may also say that the most Learned Criticks of these last Ages have be­liev'd the same thing, since Erasmus [Page 79] and Grotius have publickly maintain'd it; those two great Men, who are beyond dispute in the first Rank a­mongst the Moderns that have con­cern'd themselves in writing on the Bi­ble. (—Quorum se pectore tota Vetustas Condidit, & major collestis viribus exit.)

Erasmus upon the second Chapter of St. Matthew says thus,Falsitaris crimen a­bominatur Hieronimus in Evangelistis, [...], me­moriae lapsum non item. Ne (que) enim continuo for­te vacillet totius Scrip­turae autoritas, sicubi va­rient vel in verbis vel in sensu, modo summa con­stet earum rerum de quib. agitur, & unde cardo pendet nostrae sa­lutis. Ut enim Spiritus ille Divinus, mentium A­postolicarū moderator, passus est suos ignorare quaedam, & labi, erra­re (que) alicubi, judicio sive affectu, non solum nullo incommodo Evangelii sed hunc etiam ipsum errorem vertit in ad­jumentum nostrae Fider; ita fieri potuit ut sic temperarit organum A­postolicae memoriae ut etiamsi quid humano more fugisset, id non so­lum non deroget fidei Divinae Scripturae, verum etiam fidem arroget a­pud eos, qui alicqui de composito scriptum ca­lumniari poterant. Quod genus sit, si nomen pro nomine sit positum, id quod alicubi factum fa­tetur Hieronimus, aut si quid non suo narretur ordine, &c. Solus Chri­stus dictus est veritas, unus ille caruit omni er­rore. St. Jerom abhors the Im­putation of Falshood to the Apo­stles, not that of slips of Memo­ry. Nor is the Authority of the Scripture forthwith questionable because they differ in Words or Sense, as long as the main of the Matter treated of, and that whereon our Salvation depends, is clear. For as that Divine Spirit, that govern'd the Mind of the Apostles, suffered them to be ignorant of some things, to make Mistakes, and to err (either in Iudgment or Affecti­on) without any damage to the Gospel; nay it improves that failing to the help of our Faith; so it is not unlikely that it so influ­enced the Faculty of their Memory [Page 80] that though something after the manner of Men might scape them, yet that should not only not derogate from the Credit of the Holy Scripture, but might even gain Credit to it, with those who otherwise might be apt to slan­der it as written by Confederacy. Of this sort is that of putting one Name for another, which Je­rom confesses to be somewhere done; or of relating things out of order, &c. Christ only is stiled the Truth, He alone was free from all Error. He says also upon Acts X. Ne (que) vero necesse est, o­pinor, quic­quid fuit in Apostolis pro­tinus tribuere miraculo. Ho­mines erant, quaedam igno­rabant, in non­nullis errabant. Neither do I think it necessary to attribute every thing that was in the Apostles to a Miracle. They were Men, some things they were ignorant of, in some they were mistaken. He maintains likewise the same Opinion at large in his Epistles, (lib. 2. Ep. 6.) against Eckius, who had blam'd him in a Letter he had written to him; and he thus concludes all that matter, Passus est errare suos Christus etiam post acceptum Paracletum; at non us (que) ad fidei pericu­lum: Quem­admodum & hodie fatemur Ecclesiam labi posse citra dis­crimen tamen Pietatis ac Fi­dei. Deni (que) qui scis an hanc laudem omnib. modis absolutam sibi servari voluit Christus, qui se unum Veritatem dixit? Ut unus ille abs (que) naevo Inno­cens, juxta veterum opinionem, ita fortassis unus citra omnem exceptionem verax. Christ suffer'd his own to err, even after they had receiv'd the Comfor­ter; but without danger of Apostatizing from the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith; even as at this day we confess the Church may err witthout that danger. And to [Page 81] conclude; how do you know, whether Christ would not that this compleat Praise should be kept only for himself, who stiles himself alone the Truth? As he alone was without Spot or Blemish of Sin, according to the Opinion of the Antients, so perhaps he only was beyond all exception true.

Nothing could be said more formal­ly upon this Subject. But Grotius who speaks not so plainly, is not wanting for all that to explain himself sufficiently; giving us to understand that all that the Apostles said was not, in his Opi­nion, immediately inspir'd.Paulus du­obus in locis 1 Thess. IV. 14. & 2 Cor. XV. 22. de Resur­rectione agens, resurrecturos in duo dividit genera, in eos qui praemortui erant, & in eos qui vivent eo tempore; his autem se ac­censet, utens pronomine [...], & in il­la ad Corinthi­os, [...] nimi­rum quod ex­istimaret ad id us (que) tempus fieri posse ut resurrectio ac­cideret intra il­lud spatium quo ipse erat victurus; loquens hac in re non [...], sed [...], ut de itinere per Hispaniam: Rom. XV. 28. & alibi saepe. Sicut Prophetae, ita & Apostoli non de omnib. habuere Revelationem: In quib. Revelationem non habent, aut nondum accepere, de iis loquuntur [...] quomodo homines caeteri. Exempla ha­bemus, 1 Sam. XVI. 6. 2 Sam. VII. 3. Paul, says he in his Appendix to his Commentary concerning Anti-Christ, in two places, 1 Thess. IV. 14. and 2 Cor. XV. 22. speaking of the Resurection, divides those that are to rise again into two kinds; Those who are already dead, and those who shall be alive at that time: But of this last num­ber he makes himself one, using this Pronoun We: And in that to the Corinthians, We that shall be alive; as much as to say, he made account that the Resurrection would happen within the time of his Life; [Page 82] speaking herein not dogmatically, but conjectu­rally; as he does also concerning his Iourney into Spain, Rom. XV. 28. and frequently in other places. As not the Prophets, so neither had the Apostles constant Revelations in all things. And the things in which they had not receiv'd Revelation, of those they speak conjecturally as other Men. We have Ex­amples thereof 1 Sam. XVI. 6. 2 Sam. VII. 3.

The ablest Divine among the Armini­ans was also of this Opinion,Episc. Instit. Theol. lib. 4. Sect. 1. §. 4. p. 232. as you may see by consulting the place in the Mar­gent; but to ease you of seek­ing it, if you are not at leisure, or want convenience, I will transcribe some of the words. Nihil vetat ut conce­damus Spiritum Dei san­ctum reliquisse Scriptores sacrorum librorum hu­manae conditioni, & fra­gilitati suae, in narrandis istis quae ad circumstan­tiam facti pertinebant, ad quae sufficiebat sensata notitia & memoria, quan­quam ea lapsui erat ob­noxia. It is not absurd to grant (says he) that the holy Spirit may have left the Writers of the sacred Books to the common Condition of Man­kind, and to their own Frailty, in relating those things that belonged to the Circumstance of a Fact, for [Page 83] which a due knowledg, and Memory was suffi­cient; even altho that was subject to fail­ing. He says also a little lower; Satius enim potius (que) est, & calumnia minus obnoxium forte effet li­beraliter lubenter (que) le­vem lapsum memoriae agnoscere, ne manifestè absurdis & contortis fa­vere videamur, quam absurdâ nimis interpre­tatione uti ad lapsuum leviorum excusationem; alioquin suspicio lapsus non niodo non tollitur, sed augetur; & quia cul­pa non agnoscitur, non bonâ fide veritas à nobis quaeri sed pertinacia pro qualibet causâ indui vi­detur; quod non potest, ac non debet videri Chri­stianae Religionis Pro­fessorib. esse quam pro­brosissimum. It is better, and would perhaps cause less Scandal, to acknowledg freely and willingly a light fail­ing of Memory (that so we may not seem to favour things wrested and absurd) rather than to make use of absurd Interpretations in ex­cuse of lighter failings. Otherwise the suspicion of a failing is not only not avoided, but it is increa­sed; and because the Fault is not acknowledged, it seems as if Truth were not in good earnest sought by us, but that Obstinacy were for some reason or other made use of; which ought to be look'd upon as the greatest Reproach ima­ginable to Professors of the Chri­stian Religion. He shows after­wards, That it follows not, be­cause the Apostles might be deceived in things of small importance, that there­fore they could fall into any considera­ble Error for want of Memory. And the principal Reason he gives is, For that the Fundamental Doctrines de­pend not on a Circumstance, which [Page 84] they could forget; nor have they any thing in them obscure, or hard to be retain'd; Which is so true, says he, that I make no difficulty to affirm, That if any one says there is a Sense in the Scripture necessary to Salvation, which ap­pears at first contrary to Reason, we ought thereby to judg he attributes to the Scripture a Sense it has not. And this is what I be­lieve, and am convinc'd of by reading the sacred Books.

I confess that the most part of Divines now a days are of a contrary Opini­on. But as I pretend not to oblige any body to approve my Judgment by the Authority of those I have quoted, so neither do I hold my self obliged to submit to the Authority of a crowd of Learned Men, who do but say the same thing one after another, without ever ex­amining or bringing Reasons for it.

We must however observe here two things of very great importance, which are not ordinarily reflected on: The first is, That in one Controversy which we have with the Roman Church, our Divines do all agree, that we ought not to have so much regard to Words as Things; for, upon supposition that in the Apocryphal Books there is no­thing [Page 85] contrary to Piety, they say that the Controversy about them is not considerable. Now if there be no dan­ger in believing Expressions to be di­vine that have nothing in them but hu­man, when the Doctrines therein con­tain'd are not contrary to the reveal'd Truth; What danger can there be in believing that any Truths which we ac­knowledg to be Divine, are express'd in Terms not divinely inspir'd? The same reason that makes us believe there is no danger in the one, perswades us also there is none in the other. It is because we are not sav'd by the Words, but by the Things.

The other thing observable is, that we receive amongst the Canonical Books of the New Testament, Writings whose Authors are not well known; which we could not do, if we thought it ne­cessary, in receiving a Book as Canonical, to be assur'd that every Word was inspir'd; since to be assur'd thereof we sought to have evident Proofs that it was a Man inspir'd by God who was the Author of that Book. For Example, it is not known who writ the Epistle to the Hebrews, whether it were an Apostle, or some Disci­ple of the Apostles; so that we cannot [Page 86] know whether the words of that Epistle were inspir'd or not. But for all that, it is receiv'd; because it is certain it was written in the Apostles time, and because it contains nothing that is not perfectly conformable to their Doctrine. Thus it is generally thought of little impor­tance, whether the words be divinely inspir'd or no, provided the things they express be true. So that one may say, that in truth Divines are generally very favourable to the Opinion I maintain, although themselves are not aware of it.

I do not think it necessary to insist much in proving that God has not al­ways dictated to the Apostles the very words that they used; since it is evident that he did not always dictate to them the things. Not that I make any doubt but he has often reveal'd to them the things, and even inspir'd them with the very words, as in the Prophecies where there was need to remember divers Names, and when they spoke strange Languages. Tho it may nevertheless be suppos'd, that (as to what concerns the Gift of Tongues) God dispos'd at once the Brains of them that receiv'd it, in such a manner that they could without trouble joyn certain Sounds to certain I­deas; just as they would have done if they [Page 87] had been us'd to it from their Infancy; and that afterwards he left them at li­berty to make use of those new Lan­guages according as they should think fit. And thus those that learn'd, by In­spiration the Language of the Medes, for Example, had their Brains dispos'd in the same manner as they would have had if they had learn'd that Language from their Infancy, and could make use of it as easily as their Mother-Tongue. At least it is evident that some who had receiv'd this miraculous Gift did some­times abuse it; which they would not have done, if they never had spoken those Languages but by present imme­diate Inspiration. See 1 Cor. XIV.

But without determining that Point, I believe, with Erasmus, that the Apostles learn'd not the Greek they us'd by Inspiration; because if it were so, they would have spoke it like the Native Grecians; whereas they mix'd with it a world of Hebraisms, as the French that speak Latin do Gallicisms. See Erasmus upon Acts X.

Not that I believe, neither, that they had learn'd the Greek Language by the Commerce they had with the Greeks during the Functions of their Charge, as [Page 88] Erasmus thought probable: it is more likely they had learn'd it from their Infancy. For St. Paul who was born in Cilicia, where they spoke nothing but Greek, undoubtedly had learn'd it young; but he corrupted it after­wards by his long dwelling in Iudaea; where besides the Greek, they spake a broken Chaldee, whose Dialect mix­ing with the Greek render'd it ob­scure and difficult, such as is the Stile of that Apostle.

The others that were born in Iudaea had learn'd it also from their Infancy, as it was commonly there spoken; that is to say, extreamly corrupted by the ancient Language of the Country, which was still spoken there, as appears by divers places of the New Testament. This the same Erasmus has well ob­serv'd in the places already cited:Dum excuso Apo­stolos, qui Graecitatem suam non ex orationib. Demosthenis, sed ex vul­gi colloquio didicerint, non nego donum lingua­rum; ne (que) tamen inde se­quitur eos non potuisse Graecè discere ex vulgi colloquio: Certe Syri­ace didicerant ex vulgi colloquio; quidni potue­runt & Graecè? quandoquidem ob Alexandrū Victorem, & Romanum Im­perium, Ae­gyptus ac Sy­riae maxima pars, tota (que) minor Asia, i­mò totus fere Oriens, ut lo­quitur Hiero­nimus, Graecè loqueretur. Ne (que) enim ar­bitror Spiri­tum illum ob­livione oblite­rasse quod an­tea didice­runt. When I excuse the Apostles, says he in his Let­ter to Eckius, who learn'd their Greek not out of Demosthenes his Orations, but out of the Dis­course of the common People, I deny not their Gift of Tongues; nor does it thence follow that they might not learn Greek by common [Page 89] Converse. Assuredly they learn'd the Syriac by common Converse. Why might they not in like manner learn the Greek? For (by means of Alexander, the Great, and the Roman Empire) Aegypt, and the greater part of Syria, and all the lesser Asia, nay almost all the East, as Jerom says, spoke Greek. And I cannot think that the holy Spirit made them to forget what they had formerly learn'd. The Greek Language then was spoken in Iudaea, together with the ancient Language which the Jews brought from Babylon, that is to say the Chaldean; but corrupted in pro­cess of time, as the French and Flemish are spoke together now adays in Flan­ders. And as the French they now speak in Flanders is full of the Flemish Dia­lect, and of Terms unknown in France, so the Greek of Iudaea vvas heretofore full of Chaldaisms, and of barbarous ways of speaking, which undoubtedly grated the Grecian's Ears.

The History of the Acts of the A­postles, that tells us in several places that Hebrew or Chaldean was spoken in Iudaea, tells us also that they us'd another Language, which could be no other than Greek. St. Luke observes Acts XXII. that St. Paul haranguing the [Page 90] Jews, began to speak to them in Hebrew, and that when they understood him speak to them in the Hebrew Language, they hearken'd to him with the greater silence; which gives us to understand that he might have spoke to the People in ano­ther Language; for otherwise there had been no ground to observe that they listn'd more attentively, when they perceiv'd he spake Hebrew; seeing that in speaking any other Language but Hebrew they could not have under­stood him. It appears then that Greek was spoken in Iudaea, and it is likely Pilat spoke Greek to our Lord, and that our Lord answer'd him in the same. The People only preferr'd the Language of the Country before the Greek; which was not so ancient, and which they had not learn'd but by force, because of the Kings of Syria that tyranniz'd over them; and so they spoke it not exactly.

It is true, there were Iews that spoke Greek very purely; but they were such as were born in Countries where only Greek was spoken, as Philo; or they had acquir'd a habit of speaking good Greek by reading or studying, as Iosephus. So at this day there are Walloons that speak French very well, (altho the gene­rality [Page 91] of that People speak it extream­ly ill) because they have taken much pains to correct in themselves the Faults which others commit, they have apply'd themselves to reading, or they have tra­vell'd in France. These Jews born in the Countries where nothing but Greek was spoken, understood not the ancient He­brew, nor the Hebrew then spoken in Iu­daea. They made use in their Synagogues of the Version of the Septuagint, and because they spoke nothing but Greek, they were call'd the Hellenist Iews. Salma­sius in his Book of the Hellenist Tongue, against Heinsius, shows that these Jews spoke very good Greek; and that it is very absurd in some Learned Men to imagine there was an Hellenish Tongue; as if the Hebrews that knew not their own Language, had a particular one different from that of the places where they dwelt; and that this Language was that of the Septuagint and of the New Testament. If a Name were to be given to this corrupted Greek, it should rather be call'd Hebraistic; because it is full of Hebraisms, or Chaldaisms. But as the Language of the Walloons, or of some of the Provinces of France, can­not pass for a particular Language, [Page 92] being nothing but a corrupted French, so neither ought the barbarous Greek of Iudaea to pass for a Language by it self, different from the Greek Lan­guage.

It is no wonder then if the Apostles, who had liv'd a good part of their Lives in Iudaea, or who were born there, and had not apply'd themselves to learn perfectly the Greek Tongue, nor to speak it in purity, use it so improperly in their Writings. St. Paul himself, born in a Town that spoke nothing but Greek, had so corrupted his Speech by his long dwelling in Iudaea, that he con­fesses, he was ignorant in the Language, 2 Cor. XI. 6. as sufficiently appears by all his Epistles, the Greek whereof is very different from that of Iosephus. And therefore the Greek Fathers have com­plain'd of the obscurity of his Stile, of the barbarous Phrases that are therein, and of apparent Confusion in the order of his Discourses; and those who very readily understood Plato and Demosthe­nes, were oblig'd, as Erasums judiciously observes, to take great pains to under­stand St. Paul. We need but compare his Stile with that of some Greek Author, to find that this Apostle ap­ply'd [Page 93] himself not much to the Greek Eloquence.

It is plain then that the holy Spirit inspir'd not the Apostles with the Ex­pressions they were to use. If it had been so, St. Paul could not have said, he was ignorant in the Language. He should have said, that the holy Spirit inspir'd him with a Language such as was that of the People. And all the Greek Fa­thers would have blasphemed against the holy Spirit, when they observ'd the little Eloquence of St. Paul: for accor­ding to this Supposition, that would not have proceeded from St. Paul, but from the holy Spirit. If any one doubt of this, he need but read Erasmus, in the places I have cited. It is true, that a famous Pro­testant Divine has undertaken to con­fute him, in his Annotations upon the 10th Chapter of the Acts; but he does nothing but declame, as he is us'd to do, against an Author more learned and more judicious than himself, without bringing any solid Reason.

We must now speak a word of some Books of the Old Testament, that con­tain neither History nor Prophecy; such are the Books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and Iob; which last [Page 94] is apparently a Dramatic Piece, where­of nothing but the Subject is true; as are the Tragedies of the Greek Poets.

There is no Proof that what is con­tained in the Proverbs was inspir'd to Solomon by God, after a Prophetic manner. They are Moral Sentences, which a good Man might well pro­nounce, without Inspiration; as are those contain'd in Ecclesiastious. There are very many of them that are but vulgar Proverbs, which carry indeed a good Sense, but have nothing in them of Divine. There are a great many Di­rections about Oeconomy, which Wo­men and Country-People every-where know without Revelation. See Chap. XXIV. 27. and XXVII. 23. and the De­scription of a vertuous Woman at the latter end of the Book. The Name of Prophet is very liberally bestow'd on Agur the Son of Iakeh, for some Mo­ralities that are found under his Name: Prov. XXX. Whereas I dare be bold to say better things might have been said without the Spirit of Prophecy. Three things, says he, for Example, are too marvellouss for me, and even four which I know not; The way of an Eagle in the Air, The way of a Serpent on a Rock, [Page 95] The way of a Ship in the midst of the Sea, and the way of a Man with a Maid. One must have a mean Opinion of the Spirit of Prophecy, to believe that it dictated such things as these. And in­deed neither does the Author pretend to that Eminency; but says modestly concerning himself, That he is more bru­tish than any Man, and has not the Vnder­standing of a Man.

But there is particularly one Precept of good Husbandry, that is often re­peated, which our Merchants now a­days know, as well as the Israelites that liv'd in Solomon's time. It is that which expresly forbids them to be Surety for any body, Chap. VI. 1. XVII. 18. XX. 16. XXII. 26. XXVII. 13. It is true by the Rules of good Husbandry a Man should never be Surety, but there happens oftentimes Cases wherein Charity ought to be preferr'd before good Husbandry; as appears by the Parable of the Sa­maritan, who became Surety for the Expence of the Jew, that was found hurt on the Road. There is, methinks, no great need that God should send Prophets to teach Men good Husban­dry; on the contrary it was very ne­cessary that Christ should preach Libe­rality.

[Page 96] Some Learned Men have believ'd that Ecclesiastes is a Dialogue; where a pious Man disputes with an impious one who is of the Opinion of the Sadduces. And in effect there are things directly op­pos'd one to another, which it cannot be suppos'd the same Person speaks. The Epicurean Conclusion (To eat, drink and be merry, because a Man has nothing else) which is up and down in many places of this Book, is altogether con­trary to that Conclusion at the end of the Work; Fear God, and keep his Com­mandments, &c. But it is extreamly difficult to distinguish the Persons, or to find out exactly in the Name of what Person the Author speaks in every Passage. However it be, there appears in it nothing of Prophetic; and there is little likelihood that the Spirit of God would set out, with so great strength, the Arguments of Sadduces, or perhaps of worse Men, to answer them but in two or three words. Read the beginning of the ninth Chapter, and make Reflection on these words: The living know that they shall die; but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a Reward; for the Memory of them is forgotten. Also their Love and their [Page 97] Hatred, and their Envy is now perish'd; neither have they any more a Portion for ever in any thing that is done under the Sun. Go thy way, eat thy Bread with Ioy, and drink thy Wine with a merry Heart; for God now accepteth thy Works.

Grotius is of Opinion that this Book was not writ by Solomon himself, but that it is a Work compos'd under his Name, by one that had been in Caldea; because there are divers Caldean words in it. If this Conjecture be true, as is not impossible, then this Book will be nothing but a Piece of Wit and Fancy, compos'd by some of those that had been in the Captivity. And I know one who has studied much the Criticks of the holy Scripture, that suspects the Author of this Book to have been of the Opinion that the Sadduces were of afterwards, about the Immortality of the Soul and the World to come. It seems to him that this Author says nothing which a true Sadduce might not say. But for my part, I think it best to determine no­thing herein.

It is commonly believ'd that the Song of Solomon is a Mysterious Book, describing the mutual Love between Christ and his Church. But there is [Page 98] no proof of it neither in the Old nor New Testament, nor in the Book it self. All that can be said is, that the Jews explain this Book allegorically of God, of Moses, and of the Jewish Church. But a Man need but read their Allegories, to see that they are the Visions of Rab­bins, having no Foundation but in the fanciful Extravagance of their Brains; which frame of Mind our Divines have so much inherited from them, that they give themselves wholly up to find Myste­ries in every thing. Nay it must be confess'd that some of them have in that out-done the Rabbins; and that there is nothing so Chimerical in the Chaldee Paraphrast, as in the Commen­taries of those who pretend this Book ought to be explained by Revelations; and that in it are to be found all the Wars about Religion of this past Age, in Germany, the Interim, the League of Smalcald, the Peace of Passau, &c.

There being then no Proof of the My­steries that are pretended to be in this Book; if we judg by the Book it self, we shall find it to be an Idyle, or Eglogue, where Solomon brings himself in as a Shepherd, and one of his Wives (per­haps Pharaoh's Daughter, as the Learned [Page 99] think) as a Shepherdess; That the Stile is the same with that of the Pastoral Poems of the Greeks and Latins, saving that it is more rough and dithyrambic, acccording to the Genius of the Hebrew Poetry. You may compare the Simili­tudes Solomon makes use of in the fourth Chapter with those Ovid uses in the Pastoral Song he makes Polyphemus sing, in the XIIIth Book of his Metamorphosis.

The Book of Iob is also a piece that has nothing in it of Prophetic. The Critics, who have any thing of a nice Judgment, agree that it is a sort of Tra­gi-Comedy. It is likely there was such an one as Iob (since the Prophet Eze­kiel speaks of him) and that he met with great Afflictions, which afforded Subject to some Jew of the Captivity to exercise his Wit upon. There are in this Book, as well as in Ecclesiastes, many Chaldean words, which show that it was compos'd either in Chaldea, or after the return from the Captivity. Divines agree that God inspir'd not Iob's Friends with what the Author makes them say; and this Book being written in Verse, seems to be a Work of Meditation, wherein the Author would make his Parts appear. Neither [Page 100] Iob, nor his Friends could talk in that manner, extempore. The design of the work is to show, that Providence oft­times afflicts good People, not to punish them for any particular Sin, as if they had deserv'd those Afflictions more than others, but simply to try them, and give them occasion to exercise their Vertue. This is without doubt a Truth, but there is no need of being a Prophet to know it. And on the other side there is one very remarkable Fault in this Book. The Author brings in Iob com­plaining Chap. III. with Bitterness, and extream Impatience, unworthy, not on­ly of a pious Man, who had the know­ledg of the true God, but even of a Pagan that had any Wisdom. Let the day perish in which I was born, and the night wherein it was said, a Man-Child in born, &c. This manner of cursing the day of his Birth with so much Passi­on becomes not a pious Man, such as Iob, to what extremity soever he might be reduc'd. It is to be guilty of great Indecorum, to put into a good Man's Mouth so passionate words; as well as those that are in Chap. X. I will say unto God, Do not condemn me; shew me wherefore thou contendest with me. Becomes it thee to [Page 101] oppress? &c. After such Expressions as these, which are very like Blasphemies, God finds, says the Author, that his Servant Job has spoke the thing that is right before him, and is angry with his Friends for believing that Iob was afflicted for his Sins.

It appears, methinks, hereby clearly enough, that there was no Inspiration in this Book, no more than in the three foregoing. Not but that these Books are useful, and may be read with Pro­fit and Edification, as well as Antiqui­ty read those which we at present call Apochrypha. Nay it may be allow'd that they which compos'd them had the Spi­rit of God; that is to say, were full of Piety; and that they writ them with a prospect of leading those that should read them into the ways of Piety.

But it may be objected, that these Books being in the Jews Canon ought to be acknowledg'd for divinely inspir'd, rather than the Apocryphas that never were in it. I answer to that; First, That no clear Reason is brought to convince us, that those who made the Canon, or Catalogue of their Books, were infalli­ble, or had any Inspiration, whereby to distinguish inspir'd Books from those [Page 102] which were not. This Collection is commonly attributed to Esdras and the great Sanhedrim of his Time, amongst whom they say were Zacchary, Haggai and Malachy. But many learned Men be­lieve not this Story, because no proof is brought for it, except a very uncertain Jewish Tradition. There is much more likelihood that this Collection which we have is the remainder of the ancient Books of the Jews, which divers parti­cular Men at first gathered together, and of which afterwards public use was made in the Synagogues; whereas in the time of Nehemiah (as appears by the Book that bears his Name) they read publickly only the Book of the Law.

In the second place, if you will stand to the Jews Canon, it is plainly on my side. They divide the Scripture into three parts; of which the first contains the Books of the Law; the second the Books they call the Prophets; and the third contain others which they call Che­toubim, or simply Writings; that is to say, the Psalms, the Proverbs, Iob, Daniel, Es­dras, Nehemiah, the Chronicles, and those which they call the five little Books, the Song of Solomon, Ruth, the Lamen­tations, [Page 103] Ecclesiastes, and Esther. They believ'd that these Books (which they call'd Chetoubim) were not inspir'd as the other; and therefore they made them a separate part of Scripture, di­stinct from the two former which they believed to be inspir'd. This Division is very ancient, having been in use in the time of our Lord, Luke XXIV. 44. and Iosephus owns it in his first Book against Appion; which makes me believe that this Opinion of the Jews is grounded upon the Judgment, that those who collected the Books of their Canon made of them. It is certain Daniel is truly a Prophet, as well as Isaiah; but it is likely they have rank'd his Book among the Chetou­bim, only because it was brought out of Caldea after the Collection was made; and perhaps because, being written in Chaldean, it was in part translated into Hebrew by some others, as some of the Learned have conjectur'd. For the o­ther Writings which make up this Di­vision of the Scripture, being but Hi­stories, or Books of Morality, or Songs, they had reason to determine that there was nothing of Prophetic in them; at least not of the same kind of Prophe­cy with that of Isaiah, and others who are properly call'd Prophets. It is true [Page 104] indeed there are some Predictions in the Book of Psalms, but they are not of that sort of Predictions that proceed from Inspiration or Revelation, as were those of Isaiah. David never says, Thus saith the Lord; nor is it said in his History that in his time he passed for a Prophet. It only happen'd that in speaking of his own Person, he spoke things that a­greed not so much to himself as to the Messiah, of whom he was (unknown to himself) the Type. But I have al­ready handl'd this sort of Prophecy.

It may be said perhaps, that Christ has acknowledg'd for divinely inspir'd all the Books of the Old Testament, and that for that reason alone, all Chri­stians ought to be of that belief. But there is not any Passage in the Gospel, where Christ tells us that all the Books of the Old Testament were inspir'd by God, both as to the Words and Things. He approves them only in gross, with­out descending to particulars, and ex­amining every Book by it self. It was sufficient that there were divers Prophe­cies in the Old Testament, the Autho­rity whereof was receiv'd among the Jews, that pointed at him. Our Savi­our never undertook to make a Critical [Page 105] Treatise upon the sacred Books, nor to clear the Historical Differences in them. His design was not to make us able Cri­tics, but good Men; and to bring us to render to God the Obedience due to him. He omitted nothing that might instruct us in our Duty, but he never trouble himself to correct certain Er­rors of small importance, which might be among the Jews.

And if we must take all the words of Christ, when he speaks of the Scrip­ture, in a strict sense; as if he ac­knowledg'd the Books he cites to be all inspir'd even to the least sylla­ble, and the others on the contrary to be excluded out of the number of the sacred Books; we must reject many of those that are commonly reputed in­spir'd. Neither he nor his Apostles e­ver cite the Works of Solomon, or the Book of Iob; except that St. Iames praises the Patience of Iob, which, to speak properly, is not to cite the Book but the History. And if we must con­clude from thence that all these Books have been wrongfully put into the Jews Canon, the common Opinion would be found contrary to the Authority of Christ and of his Apostles.

[Page 106] These Books then that we have spoken of are not necessarily to be accounted Divine for being in the Canon, or Ca­talogue of the Books of the Jews; which Jesus Christ never call'd in question: And there is no reason to interpret the word Canonical as if it signified inspir'd of God. The Jews put in their Col­lection all the Fragments they had re­maining of their ancient Books; they left out none, because they had no others. It was all their Library, the rest having been lost in the Captivity, or before, or after; for the Story sets not down the time of that fatal loss. They pretended not at first that this Collecti­on consisted of no other but what was divinely inspir'd. But in process of time as there were therein many Wri­tings that were truly Prophetic, and as these were the only Books that had e­scap'd the general Loss which had in­volv'd the rest, they began to be look'd on with more respect than they had been at first; and at length it came to be believ'd that all these Books, that were in the ancient Catalogue, were truly divine. And whereas before that time▪ Men apply'd themselves to the Obser­vation of what was most considerable [Page 107] in the Law, without making many Commentaries; from thence forwards they grew nice about the words; would take every thing in a strict-sense; and by seeking for Mysteries where there were none, they abandon'd the most essential part of the Jewish Religion. They made the knowledg of Religion to consist in the study of a thousand vain Subtil­ties, and Piety to consist in the scru­pulous Observations of Ceremonial Laws, according as the Doctors in­terpreted them. This the Pharisees did in our Lord's Time, and it is also that which the Divines among the Christi­ans, both Ancient and Modern, have imitated since the Death of the Apo­stles. In their time Men apply'd them­selves to learn their Doctrine, without subtilizing about their Expressions; and this they did upon the assurance they had that those holy Men taught faith­fully what they had learn'd from Christ. Since then, it has been the practice to dispute about their Words, and to strain to the utmost divers of their Expressions, which were not over ex­act; from whence many Factions have been begot amongst Christians, who have fall'n foul one upon another a­bout [Page 108] the meaning of some such parti­cular Expressions of the Apostles, and have neglected at the same time to obey the Precepts of Jesus Christ; that is to say, they have abandon'd the in­ward Substance of Religion, to busy themselves about the Outside. Men have thought it an Honour to be stil'd that which they call zealous Orthodox, to be firmly link'd to a certain Party, to load others with Calumnies, and to damn by an absolute Authority the rest of Mankind; but have taken no care to demonstrate the sincertity and fervor of their Piety, by an exact Observation of the Gospel Morals; which has come to pass by reason that Orthodoxy a­grees very well with our Passions, whereas the severe Morals of the Gos­pel are incompatible with our way of living.

Thus much by the by, to let you see that this great Zeal which Men have for the Letter of the Scripture, is but a Cloak they make use of, to hide the little esteem they have for the Religi­on it self of Jesus Christ; which con­sists not in Criticisms, or Controver­sies, but in keeping God's Command­ments.

[Page 109] But it will be ask'd then, What Au­thority we allow the Holy Scripture, and what use is to be made of it ac­cording to these Principles? To an­swer hereto, I begin with the New Testament, which is the principal Foun­dation of our Faith. In the first place then, Jesus Christ in whom were hid­den all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledg, and whom God had ex­presly commanded us To hear, was ab­solutely infallible. We must believe without questioning it whatever he says; because he says it, and because God hath testified that he speaks nothing but Truth.

In the second place, since we have nothing writ by Christ himself, we ought to believe what his Apostles have said concerning his Life and Doctrine; because God has given Testimony to them by the Miracles he inabl'd them to do; and because they seal'd the Truth of their Deposition with their Blood. They tell us what they had seen and heard, so that it was impossible they should be deceiv'd in the substance of the History and Doctrine. It may be that in some Circumstance of small im­portance they do not relate things exactly [Page 110] as they happen'd, and that therein they do not agree together. But they all agree in the Historical Facts where­on the Faith we have in Jesus Christ, is grounded; his Birth of a Virgin, his Miracles, his Death, his Resurrecti­on, and his Ascension into Heaven; though there may be some difference among them in some Circumstance, which is nothing to the substance of the History. It is not necessary for the Foundation of our Faith, as I have al­ready observ'd, that they should agree exactly in all things to the least tittle; and the trouble the Learned have given themselves to reconcile these sort of Contradictions is of no use. It were better to own ingenuously that there are some, than to strain the sense of their Writings, to make them agree one with another; which instead of converting Libertins, does but excite their Railery and confirms them in their Impiety. As to what concerns the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, there is not the least Contradiction among the Evangelists; although it be express'd in different Terms, and they relate it on divers occasions. We must ob­serve [Page 111] therefore that they relate only the Sense, and keep not exactly the same or­der that Christ kept in preaching it; so neither ought we to insist rigorously upon their Expressions, as if they made use of some words rather than others, to insinuate certain Niceties which are ordinarily attributed to them, without any probable ground; nor ought we to lay such stress upon the order they make use of in their Writings, as to colour thereby certain Inferences, which are not otherwise obvious in the Sense of our Saviour's words. If a Man observe never so little, he will find that they use every where popular Ex­pressions; that they have not aim'd at any Elegancy in their Stile; and that they have been very far from speaking with such Exactness, as Philosophers or Geometricians use in their Writings. We ought not then to insist too much, as commonly Men do, upon the man­ner of their expressing the Doctrine of Christ. We should only indeavour to understand the Genius of the Language they use, and to stick to the substance of things essential; which are express'd in so many places, and after so many ways, that it is not difficult to frame [Page 112] to our selves an Idea thereof, clear enough to instruct us perfectly in our Duty.

In the third place, as for the Epistles of the New Testament, they do not only afford us the same Considerations with those we have last mention'd, in respect of their Stile, but there are also two things further to be observ'd and distinguish'd in them. We find there the same Doctrines we have in the Evan­gelists, and those the Apostles assure us often they learn'd from Christ. But there are others things, which the Apostles speak of their own heads, or which they draw by divers Consequences from the Old. Testament. The first of these are to be believ'd on the same account as the Gospels; that is to say, because of the Authority of Jesus Christ, who preach'd them to the Jews. The se­cond are to be receiv'd, because they contain nothing but what is very con­formable to the Doctrine of Christ, or what is founded upon right Reason. The Apostles will not have us believe them upon their own word. They di­stinguish in that their Authority from the Authority of Christ. See 1 Cor. VII. 10, 12, 25. But as they apply'd them­selves [Page 113] cerefully to mind Doctrines tend­ing to Edification (which are few in number) and never ingag'd in too nice inquiries; they have told us nothing that is not conformable to the Spirit of the Gospel (with which they were fill'd) and which right Reason will not easily admit. It is to be observ'd, that having no extraordinary Inspiration for writing their Epistles, they insert in them divers things that concern their Designs, or their particular Affairs; where we ought by no means to seek for or expect any thing mysterious. Such are the Salutations found at the end of their Epistles; the Order St. Paul gives Timothy to take Mark along with him in his return, to bring the Cloak he had left at Troas with Carpus, the Books, and above all the Parchments; the Coun­sel he gives him to drink a little Wine for his Stomachs sake, and because of his Weaknesses; and other such like things. See St. Ierom's Preface to his Commentary upon the Epistle to Phi­lemon.

In the fourth place, there are divers Prophecies scatter'd in these Epistles; and the Apocalipse is wholly Prophetic. Now we ought to give Credit to these Re­velations; [Page 114] because it is God that impar­ted them immediately to the Apostles. And it is easy to distinguish them from other things, which the Apostles give out only as their own Conjectures; of which you have some Examples in the words of Grotius, which I cited con­cerning the Inspiration of the Pen-Men of the New Testament.

Thus then, according to my Hypo­thesis, the Authority of the Scripture continues in full force. For you see I maintain that we are oblig'd to be­lieve the substance of the History of the New Testament; and generally all the Doctrines of Jesus Christ; all that was inspir'd to the Apostles; and also whatsoever they have said of them­selves, so far as it is conformable to our Saviour's Doctrine, and to right Rea­son. It is plain that nothing farther is necessarily to be believ'd, in order to our Salvation. And it seems also e­vident to me that those new Opinions, brought into the Christian Religion since the Death of the Apostles, which I have here refuted, being altogether imaginary and ungrounded, instead of bringing any advantage to the Christi­an Religion, are really very prejudicial [Page 115] to it. An Inspiration is attributed to the Apostles to which they never pre­tended, and whereof there is not the least mark left in their Writings. Here­upon it happens that very many Persons who have strength enough of Under­standing to deny Assent to a thing for which there is no good proof brought (though preach'd with never so much Gravity); It happens, I say, that these Persons reject all the Christian Religi­on; because they do not distinguish true Christianity from those Dreams of fanciful Divines.

It is easy to guess, after this, what we ought to think of the Authority of the Books of the Old Testament. The Prophecies that are in it ought to be believ'd, because Christ has autho­riz'd them. The substance of the Hi­story ought also to be believed for the same reason; notwithstanding any un­certainty there may be in some inconsi­derable Circumstances; as it appears there is still some uncertainty, by divers Contradictions which the Divines with all their Subtilty have not been able to reconcile, after puzling about it above three thousand Years. The Doctrines that are in it ought also to be receiv'd, so [Page 116] far as they are conformable to those of the Gospel; or, if you will, let us say that the true meaning of the Law is to be learn'd from Christ. No Conclusion is to be drawn from those Books that ap­pear to be only pieces of Wit and Fancy, or wherein nothing but Human is to be found, such as the Song of Solomon, Ec­clesiastes, &c. Lastly, we ought not to strain too far the Sense of particular Expressions, as do the Jews; Because, if we except a very few places, the Expressions are the same with those which the sacred Writers were wont to make use of in explaining their other Thoughts; that is to say, they have worded both the Jewish History, and the Revelations they had from Heaven, after their own ordinary manner of expressing themselves.

These, Sir, are the Thoughts of Mr. N. concerning the Inspiration of the sacred Pen-Men. I am told he draws from these Principles three Conse­quences. The first is, That by admit­ting this Hypothesis we may terminate many great Disputes among Christians, which have risen from the false Subtilty of Divines interpreting too mysteriously the Expressions of the holy Scripture, [Page 117] as if every syllable had been dictated by God. The second is, that whereas by sticking too close to the Letter of the Scripture, the Essence of Religion comes to be neglected; as if God required no more of us at present but to believe that the holy Scripture is divinely in­spir'd; instead, I say, of this Practice, it will be found necessary to apply our selves wholly to the obeying Christ's Precepts, which is the only thing God indispensably requires from us. The third Consequence is, that hereby at one blow will be solv'd an infinite num­ber of Difficulties, which Libertines are wont to alledg against the holy Scripture, and which it is not possible to solve by the ordinary Principles. Their Mouths will be stopp'd, says Mr. N. and it wil no longer avail them to object against Christians the Contra­dictions which are found in the Scrip­tures; the lowness of the Stile of the sacred Writers; the little Order ob­serv'd to be in many of their Discourses; and whatsoever else they have been us'd to say against our Divines, who have in vain puzled themselves to answer them. By imposing nothing upon these Men as necessary to be believ'd, but the Truth [Page 118] of what is most essential in the Histories of the Old and New Testament, and the Divinity of our Saviour's Doctrine, (in which there is nothing that is not conformable to right Reason) they will be brought (says he) to acknowledg that Christian Religion is really descen­ded from Heaven; and will be easily inclin'd to embrace that which hitherto they have obstinately rejected, because it was grounded on Suppositions repug­nant to that Light of Reason by which they are guided.

I shall not undertake, Sir, to examine these Consequences, nor the Principles from whence they are drawn. I pro­mis'd you only a bare account of the Thoughts of Mr. N. And I hope you will use means that some Divine, verss'd in these matters, may satisfy us both upon this Subject, better than I my self am able to do. I am, &c.

YOU have seen, Sir, to how lit­tle purpose it is that Mr. Simon indeavours to defend his par­ticular Opinions, as well as those which are common to him with all other Ro­man-Catholic Doctors. You shall see now that he is no happier in going a­bout to play the Critic on two Letters, in which he was not concern'd. It appears evidently that nothing but the itch he hath of carping at other Mens Writings has made him undertake to examine those Letters. For he em­braces the greatest part of the Opini­ons which the Author there maintains. And I doubt not but those who have judg'd the Opinions of Mr. N. too bold, will be as much scandaliz'd at those of the pious Prior of Bolleville.

That incomparable Critic maintains at first dash, as boldly as if he were [Page 120] assur'd of it by Revelation, that he that is call'd Mr. N. is Noel Aubert de Versé; which I have told you already is no­thing but a Dream of Mr. Simon;'s who thinks he may lawfully say any thing that comes in his Head, and believes that by boldly affirming it he shall make his Reader be of his Mind. That is a Secret of his Rhetoric, which he puts in practice as soon as ever he finds himself puzl'd, or when he imagines he may thereby worst his Antagonist. But by ill fortune he has us'd it so long, that his Art being plainly discover'd, can no more deceive any body. By saying whatever came in his Mind, although in truth he did not believe it, he has so grosly contradicted himself, that he has now lost all Credit with Men of Worth. I need therefore return no other answer to the beginning of our Author's XIIth Chap. than by saying, that I am sorry his Choler does so much blind him, as to make him affirm a Falshood as boldly as the clearest Truth. I pray God, as I have often done, to cure him of a Passion that discomposes him in so de­plorable a manner; and which may in time render him incapable of serving the Public, as he might do, if he considered [Page 121] a little more on what he thinks fit to publish.

I will not spend my Labour singly upon his Remarks; for I write not this to satisfy him. In the ill Humour he is, nothing is so fit to settle his Mind as Time. I will therefore but touch on them as I go along, when the nature of what I have to say leads me to it.

Neither is it my design to defend the Opinions of Mr. N. concerning the In­spiration of the sacred Writers. Tho I said it was hard to answer his Proofs fully, I said not that I was convinc'd. On the contrary, I propos'd them to the Learned, that I might provoke them to examine the matter carefully, and might draw from their Observa­tions some further Light than my own Meditations could furnish me with.

But as Mens Intentions are not inter­preted always so favourably as they ought to be, I find my self oblig'd (that I may satisfy the Scruples of some pious Persons, and repel the Calumnies of some Divines who have more Zeal than Knowledg) to answer four sorts of Reflections that are made upon the Treatise concerning Inspiration.

[Page 122] I. Some Learned Men, who approve the Opinions of Mr. N. conceive never­theless that they ought not to have been publish'd; because in their Judgments it is not fit that all Truths should in­differently be communicated to all Peo­ple. There are, say they, certain things, which though good in themselves, may easily be apply'd to ill uses; and it is better that the Public should be de­priv'd of the advantage it might draw from the knowledg of such Truths, than be visibly expos'd to the danger of abusing them so lamentably as it would be apt to do.

II. Others, who are of the same Mind, in approving the Opinions of Mr. N. believe that since he was willing those his Thoughts should be publish'd, he ought to have express'd them more distinctly; and above all to have pro­pos'd in the first place, the State of the Question between him and the gene­rality of Divines. These Gentlemen think that if he had done as they say, he had prevented a great many Ca­lumnies which are grounded upon no­thing but the Obscurity that is ob­serv'd to be in some places of his Writing.

[Page 123] III. Some of those who look upon the Opinion of Mr. N. as false Do­ctrine, cannot indure that I should have said, It appears not by what Principle it can be overthrown. They say that no­thing is more easy. And to let you see they are in the right, they make divers Answers to the Arguments of Mr. N. and propose some Objections, which they believe sufficient to refute all he has said.

IV. Lastly, the most hot, and the least reasonable of these Objectors affirm, that the Opinions of our Friend lead directly to Deism; and stick not to accuse him of favouring that abo­minable Opinion.

You see, Sir, to what Heads I am oblig'd to make Answer, being of Opi­nion (as I am) that it was convenient to publish that Writing concerning Inspiration. To begin with the first: I acknowledg, Sir, that what they say is true. I grant that all sorts of Truths are not fit to be spoken at all times, and on all occasions. It is undoubtedly a very ill thing to publish any Truth not necessary to be known, how certain soever it may be, when we are assur'd, [Page 124] that those who shall read or understand it will infallibly be so scandaliz'd at it, that the knowledg thereof will produce more hurt than good. On such occa­sions, Christian Prudence indispensably obliges us to the contrary. The Que­stion is not then, Whether the Maxim of these Gentlemen be true or not. In that we are agreed. But my Opini­on was, that this Writing of Mr. N. would do infinitely more good than hurt; and I dare yet maintain, that in the Times wherin we live, it is very fit that such Matters as these be through­ly examin'd, without concealing from the Public any of the Difficulties that attend them.

You know, Sir, that most of the Sciences being arriv'd in this our Age to a greater degree of Perfection than formerly; though from thence it might be expected, that such Improvements should have render'd Christians so much the more wise and more judicious; yet on the contrary, Libertinism and Impiety have prevail'd more scandalously than ever. The Libertines of former Ages profess'd their Opinions only in some extravagant Sallies of Wit, or Debau­chery; and oppos'd the Christian Re­ligion [Page 125] only by some insipid Railleries, which could have no weight with any Persons of sound Judgment and unbi­ass'd Affections. But the Libertines of our Times make use of their Philosophy and Criticism, to overthrow the most sacred and most solid Doctrines of our Religion. Divers impious Books have been publish'd not only in Latin, but also in French, in English, and in Dutch; which many unlearned Persons read with much greediness. Abundance of People are fond of Spinoza's Opinions; because they have read his Books in French, in English, and in Dutch, though they never study'd Philosophy nor Cri­ticism. We are in Times wherein eve­ry body pretends to depth of Learning, freedom of Thought, and strength of Judgment; and this Reputation is easi­ly acquir'd by reading those Books. But that which renders this yet more deplorable, is that it is not a Disease of Youth, that Men grow out of as they advance in Years. They whose Minds are once tainted with these un­happy Opinions do very seldom get quit of them.

This is undoubtedly a great Mis­chief, and to which those who are any [Page 126] ways able to bring Remedy are oblig'd to do it. It has been endeavoured to over­throw the Authority of the holy Scrip­tures, by making appear that the Stile of the sacred Writers was not inspir'd, and that they did not receive every thing they said from immediate Inspiration. And in effect it has happen'd that many People have hereupon believ'd, that the Authority of the Scripture was intirely ruin'd; And imagining that the Rea­sons brought by Spinoza to prove this Opinion were unanswerable, they have fall'n into Deism or into Atheism.

What Remedy, Sir, for this? For my part, I confess, I see but one of these three. Either a way must be found to burn all the Copies of these impious Books, that have corrupted so many Men, and to blot out of Mens Memory the Arguments of these Libertines; or else there must solid Demonstration be made of the Falsity of the Arguments they make use of to maintain their Opi­nions; Or, lastly, in granting to them that the sacred Pen-Men were not in­spir'd, neither as to the Stile, nor as to those things which they might know o­therwise than by Revelation, it must be yet demonstrated that the Authority of [Page 127] the Scriptures ought not for all that to be esteemed less considerable.

It is plain that the first of these three is absolutely impossible; and that, tho an Inquisition should now be settl'd in France, in England, and in Holland, it would already be too late. There is then no other means left to cure this Libertinism that is spread so wide, but one of the two last propos'd Remedies. For my part I could wish with all my Heart that some body would try the second; and would make it evident that God has inspir'd the sacred Au­thors, not only with the matter they have spoken about, but also with the very Expressions. But since no body has yet done, nor that I know under­taken to do it, why should it be ill taken that Mr. N. has made use of the third method, or that I have publish'd his Writing?

It is true, there are some who believe that it were better to hold ones peace in a matter so delicate, than to run the hazard of giving scandal to others, by contradicting the Opinions which they think most reasonable. This indeed would be very well, if Libertines also forbore writing, or if no body read their [Page 128] Books. But since it is otherwise, such silence is not at all seasonable. If any weak Minds take Offence without Rea­son at what is offer'd, there are an hun­dred others that may be brought off from their Inclination to Libertinism, by the same Reasons which those are offended at. If indeed we ought always to be afraid of saying any thing that is not generally approv'd, we should quickly be oblig'd not only to keep si­lence, but also to suppress many things which are both useful and necessary to Salvation. There is no Doctrine in the Gospel, how holy soever, which some Sect of Christians has not perverted and misused. Nay the same is yet done daily.

All the difficulty then lies in know­ing, whether the treating concerning this Question of the Inspiration of the Authors of the Bible will occasion more Good or Hurt? In it self the Thing is good, even by the Concession of those that argue against it; and there is no­thing but the weakness of some Mens Minds that can render it dangerous. Thus then the Good or Evil of this Disquisition depends wholly upon the Event; which therefore these Gentle­men ought to suffer us to expect, before [Page 129] we acknowledg that we have done ill in publishing this Writing of Mr. N.

We must add to this, that Mr. N. is not the first that has spoken, as he does, of the Inspiration of the sacred Wri­ters. We see many Proofs of it in his Dissertation. And besides the places which he has cited out of some Books of Grotius, there are others infinitely more strong and more express in those against Rivet.

Now after having thus answer'd those that would have had this Writing sup­press'd; it is necessary to give some satisfaction to those also who complain that the Author has not express'd his Opinion with sufficient clearness. I have therefore desir'd Mr. N. to ex­plain it to me himself, if it were possi­ble in few words, and more distinct­ly; in order to remove those injurious Suspicions that may have risen from any Obscurity in his Writing, concerning his Faith and his Piety. And these are the Heads to which he has reduc'd his Opinion, and wherein he agrees with us.

In the first place, says he, ‘I be­lieve that no Prophet, either of the Old or New Testament, has said any [Page 130] thing in the Name of God, or as by his order, which God had not effectually order'd him to say; nor has undertaken to foretel any thing, which God had not indeed truly re­veal'd to him; and that this cannot be doubted of without great Impiety. I have said it expresly in many places of my Treatise.’

In the second place, ‘I believe, that there is no matter of Fact, of an im­portance, related in the History of the Old or New Testament, which in effect is not true. And that tho there may be some slight Circumstan­ces, wherein some of the Historians were mistaken; yet we ought never­theless to look upon that History in general as the truest and most holy History that ever was publish'd a­mongst Men. I am perswaded that those who writ it were very well inform'd of all they relate, and that they had not the least intention to deceive us; insomuch that it was im­possible they should fall into any con­siderable Error; as neither can we do, in believing what they have said. And, that there may be no Equivo­cation; By a matter of importance [Page 131] I mean all the Commandments that the sacred Historians assure us were given to the Jews by God; all the Miracles that are found in the Histo­ry of the Scripture; all the principal Events in that History; and generally all the matters of Fact on which our Faith is grounded.’

‘In the third place, I believe, with all Christians, that all the Do­ctrines propos'd by the Authors of the Scriptures to Jews and Christians to be believ'd, are really and truly Divine Doctrines, although it may be suppos'd that they did not imme­diately learn them from Heaven; I am as much perswaded as any Man, that there is no sort of reasoning made use of in the dogmatical places of the holy Scripture (where the Prophets and Apostles instruct us concerning the Promises or the Will of God) that can lead us into Error, or into the belief of any thing that is false, or contrary to Piety.’

‘I believe in the fourth place, That Jesus Christ was absolutely infallible, as well as free from all Sin, because of the Godhead that was always u­nited to him, and which perpetually [Page 132] inspir'd him: insomuch that all that he taught is as certain as if God himself had pronounc'd it. I have explain'd this clearly in my Writing.’

‘In the last place, I believe that God has often dictated to the Prophets and to the Apostles the very words which they should use. Of this I have also given some Examples.’

‘In these things I agree with all Christian Divines. And I believe fur­ther, as well as they, that these five Heads of our Belief may be undenia­bly prov'd against Libertines and Atheists, by the Authority of Jesus Christ and his Apostles; to whom God has born Testimony by an infi­nite number of Miracles, which are more clearly demonstrable to have been really done, than any Fact what­soever of all ancient History. For Example, it may be prov'd by posi­tive Testimonies of Matters of Fact, that Jesus Christ did really rise again from the Dead, and that the Apo­stles had the Gift of Miracles, more clearly than it can be prov'd that ever there was a Roman Emperor call'd Trajan.’

[Page 133] ‘If any one conceive that this kind of Evidence is not sufficient to con­vince us of the Truth of these Facts, or that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the Miracles of his Apo­stles, do not sufficiently prove (with­out any thing further) that they were not Deceivers; I confess I understand not what further Proofs can be given of these things; unless God should raise in our days a Prophet that should do the same Miracles over again be­fore our Eyes. It may be there are some who believe that the holy Spi­rit gives them inward assurance of the Truth of the Gospel, and who imagine that this inward Testimony is a more convincing Proof than all those I have spoken of. But as there are not many that have this Belief, and as those that have it cannot make use of that pretended inward Testimony to convince another, who does not himself feel it; we may, without troubling our selves further with them, leave them to enjoy that Chimerical Satisfaction which their meer Imagination affords them.’

‘The Authority of the holy Scrip­tures being thus settl'd, I will now [Page 134] shew you wherein it seems to me that the generality of Divines are de­ceiv'd, and in what I am not of their Opinion.’

‘They affirm that all that is in the sacred Books, Histories, Prophe­cies, &c. has been immediately in­spir'd both as to the Matter and Words: That all the Books in the Jews Catalogue ought to be reckon'd amongst the inspir'd Books: That when the Apostles preach'd the Gos­pel, they were so inspir'd that they could not be deceiv'd, not even in a thing of no consequence at all; and that they knew at the very first, without any exercise either of Rea­son or Memory, what they were to say.’

‘On the contrary my Opinion is, That it is only in Prophecies, and some other places, as in the Sermons of Jesus Christ, and where God himself is introduc'd speaking, that the Matter or Things have been immediately reveal'd to those who spoke them: That the Stile, for the most part, was left to the liberty of those who spoke or writ: That there are some Books that are not inspir'd, [Page 135] neither as to the Matter nor Words, as Iob, Ecclesiastes, &c. That there are some Passages which Passion di­ctated to those that writ them, as many Curses in the Psalms: That the sacred Historians might commit, and have actually committed some light Faults, which are of no moment: That the Apostles in preaching the Gospel, or in writing their Works, were not ordinarily inspir'd, neither as to the Matter, nor the Words; but that they had recourse to their Me­mory and Judgment, in declaring what Jesus Christ had taught them, or framing Arguments, or drawing Consequences from thence: That the Apostles while they liv'd were only look'd upon as faithful Witnesses of what they had seen and heard, and as Persons well instructed in the Christian Religion, whereof no part was unknown to them, or conceal'd by them from their Disciples; but not as Men that preach'd and taught by perpetual Inspiration. I believe in­deed that they were not deceiv'd in any Point of Doctrine, and that it was very unlikely they should be so; because Christian Religion is easy, [Page 136] and compris'd in a few Articles: That they pretended not to enter into deep Argumentations, and to draw Conse­qrences remote from their Principles: and that they never undertook to treat of nice and controversial Matters, as is plain by reading of their Writings: Or, if it happen'd sometimes that they were mistaken in any thing, as it seems to have happen'd to St. Peter and to St. Barnabas, it has been in things of small consequence, and they soon perceiv'd their Error, as did these two Apostles. This sort of Infalli­bility is easy to be conceiv'd; if it be consider'd that a Man of Sense and Integrity, who is well instructed in his Religion, and who does not much enter into Argumentations and draw­ing of Inferences, can hardly err, so long as he continues in that Temper, and observes that Conduct.’

‘This is the Sum of what I have said in my Writing concerning the Inspiration of the sacred Pen-Men; and it is herein precisely that I dif­fer from the common Opinion of Divines. You see how much these Principles are contrary to those of the Deists, who reject all sort of In­spiration, [Page 137] and who look upon the holy Scripture as a Work full of Fal­sities, and wherein there is nothing but what is purely human. The Di­vines that have accus'd me of Deism on account of this Writing, certain­ly either never took the pains to read it, or did not understand it; for I cannot believe that they would accuse me of so detestable an Opinion out of pure Malice, and against their own Consciences. They were un­doubtedly in some measure mis-led by a false Zeal, that render'd them little attentive to what they read, or made them suspect that the Author had not discover'd all that he had in his Mind. It is an ill Custom that some peevish and ill-natur'd Persons have, to judg of other Mens Opinions rather by the Suspicions which their own de­prav'd Imaginations suggest to them, than by those Mens Expressions and Actions; which are the only Evi­dence that ought to be regarded on these occasions. A Man ought to be judged by what he says, and not by what he says not, nor by what is injuriously imputed to him without any Proof. And if this ought al­ways [Page 138] to be the Rule of our Carriage one towards another, there is more particular Reason that it should be so when a Man protests (as I do at pre­sent) that he is not of any other Opinion than what he expresly sets down; and that he disowns the ill Consequences which are pretended to be drawn from his Discourses, and which to him seem not to be deduci­ble from them.’

By this Explanation of Mr. N's Prin­ciples, which I receiv'd from himself, you may see, Sir, that he is very far from those impious Opinions which some too hot-headed Divines have charg'd him with. Candid and equi­table Readers had no need of this Ex­planation, in which I see nothing but what is plainly enough set down in his first Writing. But as Equity is a Vertue seldom practis'd in Theological Controversies, he thought it necessary to give these further Explications, to those who persisted still in suspecting him to believe things which he abhors. We shall see hereafter if any ill Con­sequence can be drawn from his Opi­nion.

[Page 139] But before I come to that, I will transcribe here what he further adds to that which you have already seen. ‘In reading, says he, the Prior of Bolleville's Answer to the Thoughts of some Holland Divines, I observ'd that Mr. Simon accuses me of having taken part of what I have said out Grotius his Book, call'd Votum pro Pace Ecclesiasticâ. I should be well pleas'd that my Reader believ'd it. I could not then be accus'd, as I am by some, of Innovation. It is true, I have read that Book; but it being long ago, that Passage of Grotius was not in my Mind; otherwise I should not have fail'd to have cited it, as I have cited others of the same Author that are less express. I think it therefore not amiss to take advantage of this Ad­vertisement, and now to set down that Passage, together with another taken out of his Defence of the Vow for Peace, titl'd, Discussio Apologetici Rivetiani.’

‘Grotius had said in a Work where­in he defends his Observations upon the Consultation of Cassander against Rivet,Animadv. in Animadv. Ri­vet. p. 647. that this last Divine was very much deceiv'd in believing that all the [Page 140] Books of the Old Testament, that are in the Hebrew Canon, were dictated by the Holy Ghost; that Esdras in the Opinion of all the Iews was not a Prophet, nor had the holy Spirit; that his Books, and the Collection he made of the more an­cient Books, had been approv'd by the great Synagogue, in which indeed there were some Prophets; although the Iews hold that there was a doubt concerning the Book of Ecclesiastes, &c. Rivet liked not this Opinion of Grotius, and indeavoured to prove the contrary, by Scripture, and by some Jewish Au­thors. Grotius replied to him in these terms, Pdg. 672. in his Vow for Peace. Verè dixi non om­nes libros qui sunt in He­braeo Canone dictatos à Spiritu Sancto; Scriptos esse cum pio animi motu non nego; & hoc est quod judicavit Synago­ga magna, cujus judicio in hac re stant Hebraei. Sed à Spiritu Sancto di­ctari historias nihil fuit opus: satis fuit scripto­rem memoriâ valere cir­ca res spectatas, aut di­ligentiâ in describendis veterum Commentariis. Vox quo (que) Spiritus Sancti­ambigua est; nam aut significat, quomodo ego accepi, afflatum divinum qualem habuere tum Pro­phetae ordinarii, tum in­terdum David & Daniel; aut significat pium mo­tum, sive facultatem im­pellentem ad loquendum salutaria vivendi prae­cepta, vel res politicas & civiles, quomodo vo­cem Spiritus Sancti in­terpretatur Maimonides, ubi de Scriptis illis aut Historicis aut Moralib. agit. Si Lucas divino afflatu dictante sua scrip­sisset, inde potius sibi sumpsisset autoritatem, ut Prophetae faciunt, quam à testibus quorum fidem est sectus, &c. I said indeed that the Books in the Hebrew Canon were not all dictated by the holy Spirit; But I do not deny that they were written with a pious inten­tion of Mind. And this was the Determination of the great Synagogue, whose Iudgment in this matter the Iews submit to. For there was no need that the Histories should be dictated by the holy Spirit. It was sufficient that the Writer had a good Memory, for the things he had [Page 141] seen; or that he were careful in transcribing the ancient Records. The word Holy Spirit is also ambiguous; for either it signi­fies, as I have taken it, a certain divine Inspiration which both the ordinary Prophets had, and sometimes David and Daniel; or it signifies a pious Motion or Faculty stirring a Man up to utter useful Precepts relating to Human Life, or Political or Civil Matters. Thus Maimo­nides interprets the word Holy Spirit, where he treats of those Historical and Moral Writings. If Luke had written by the dictating of the Holy Spirit, he would have fetch'd his Autho­rity from thence, as the Pro­phets do, rather than from Witnesses, whose Credit he follows, &c.’

‘Apologet. §. 118, & 119. Rivet was mightily scandalized, or at least seem'd to be so, at an answer so contradictory to the common O­pinions. But p. 722. Grotius explain'd himself yet more clearly and strongly in his Re­futation of Rivet's Apology. Afflatu Dei locutos quae locuti sunt, scrip­sisse quae scribere jussi sunt Prophetus toto ani­mo ag [...] Grotius: idem [...] de Apo­calypsi & Apostolorum praedictionibus. Christi dicta omnia quin sint Dei dicta dubitari nefas. De Secriptis Historicis & Mo­ralibus Hebraeorum sen­tentiis aliud putat. Satis est quod pi [...]animo scrip­ta sint, & optima fide, & de rebus summis, &c. Ne (que) Esdras, Ne (que) Lucas Prophetae sucre, sed viri graves, prudentes, qui nec fallere vellent, nec [...]alli se sinerent. Dixit­ne Lucas, Factum est ad Lucam verbum Domini, & dixit ei Dominus scribe, ut solent Prophetae? Nihil tale. Quid ergo? Quo­niam quidem multi conati sunt ordinare narrationem, quae nobis completae sunt, re­rum. Dicit se non prae­cepto sed aliorum ex­emplo adductum ut scri­beret. Sicut tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio ipsi vi­derunt, & ministri fuere Sermonis, nempe Maria Mater: Domini, cognati ejus alii, Apostoli, Disci­puli Septuagina, Sancti & resuscitati à Jesu, testes Re­surrectionis complures. Vi­sum est mihi asse­cuto omnia à principio, &c. Quomodo asse­cuto? ex ipsis testibus non ex Revelatione. Scribere non dictata sed di­ligenter ex or­dine. Longè ergo aliter acti Prophetae, ali­ter Lucas: cu­jus tamen pi­um con [...]lium Spiritui Sancto potest adscribi. Grotius, says he, himself, willingly acknowledges, that the [Page 142] Prophets, who were commanded by God to write or speak, did write and spoke by Inspiration from him: His Opinion is also the same as to the Apocalyse, and the Predictions made by the Apostles: He esteems it the highest Impiety to make any doubt that all that was said by Iesus Christ was said by God himself. Concerning the Hi­storical Writings, and the Mo­ral Sentences of the Hebrews, he is of another Opinion: He thinks it sufficient to believe that they were written out of a pious Intention, and with great Ingenuity, and concerning mat­ters of highest importance, &c. Neither Esdras nor Luke were Prophets; but grave and pru­dent Men, who neither were minded to deceive, nor would suffer themselves to be deceived. Did Luke say, The Word of the Lord came to Luke, and the Lord said to him, write, as the Prophets us'd to say? Nothing like it. What then? For as much as many have [Page 143] taken in hand to set forth in order a Declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us: (He says not that by Command, but by the Example of others, he was induced to write): Even as they delivered them to us, who from the beginning were Eye-witnesses, and Ministers of the Word; (viz. Mary the Mother of our Lord, other of his Kinsmen, the Apo­stles, the seventy Disciples, and the Saints that had been rais'd again by Iesus, ma­ny Witnesses of his Resurrection:) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, &c. Vnderstanding, how acquir'd? From Eye-witnesses, not by Revelation. To write, not things di­ctated, but in order. The Prophets then had another sort of Impulse than Luke; whose good Design nevertheless may be ascrib'd to the Holy Spirit.’

‘After the Death of Grotius there came out a third Answer of Rivert's,Grotianae discuss. [...], Sect. 14. §. 3, 4. wherein he strives to defend the com­mon Opinion against his famous An­tagonist. It appears plainly by the manner of his answering, that he be­liev'd that the Holy Spirit had dicta­ted the Scripture word for word; [Page 144] and this Opinion is known to be the common Opinion of Protestants; who on all occasions call the sacred Writers, Amanuenses of the holy Spirit. Nay even Catholick Authors, Gregory de Valence, Bellarmin, Tolet, and Estius, cited by Rivet, seem to have been of the same Opinion. Cornelius à Lapide, whom Mr. Simon cites, holds the same concerning the Law and the Prophets; though he confesses it was not ne­cessary that God should dictate the words, when it was only matter of History, or of Moral Precepts, which might be known otherways. So that it may be reasonably suppos'd that the greatest part of Christian Divines now adays are of the Opinion of verbal Inspiration, if we may so call it; since there are very few that say the contrary; and those who do, say it only of some Books, as Cornelius à Lapide.’

‘Every body knows that not only in Sermons, but also in Divinity-Lectures, upon any part of Scrip­ture, some Men strangely wire-draw the Words of the Scripture; and seek after Reasons why the holy Spi­rit, as they speak, makes use of one [Page 145] Expression rather than another. The same thing they do also in Commenta­ries: Which would be altogether ab­surd if my Supposition were admitted, that the Stile of the Scriptures is for the most part human and even careless enough. But this is because they commonly take the Opinion of the Jews for granted; who have a Pro­verb or general Maxim concerning the Books of the Law (in which they be­lieve all to be inspir'd, even to a sin­gle Letter) that there is not a Letter in the Law, whereon there depends not great Mountains.’

‘I am very glad, however, that Mr. Simon declares himself openly of the same Opinion with me, concerning the Stile of the sacred Writers. I wish all Protestants would do the same. We should then soon be free from many Disputes that are ground­ed upon nothing but Grammatical Subtilties. We should then perceive, that we ought not rigorously to in­sist upon a great many Expressions in the utmost extent of their Significa­tion, as if the sacred Pen-Men had spoken with the same Exactness, as do Geometricians. We should then [Page 146] understand that no Doctrines, which we esteem important, ought to be grounded barely upon certain manners of speaking; which we cannot be sure were exact; because the sacred Wri­ters, not affecting exactness of Stile, may have used that manner of Expres­sion without any design. Such is the Doctrine of the antecedent Imputation of the Sin of Adam, which is found­ed upon the Comparison St. Paul makes (Chap. V. of the Epistle to the Romans) between the Grace that came by Jesus Christ, and the Sin that en­tred into the World by Adam. Men stretch this Comparison with too much Rigor, not considering that St. Paul's Stile is the Stile of one that observes little Exactness in his Expressions, although in the main his Arguments are admirable; and that the laying too great stress upon the turn of his Phrases may expose us to the hazard of falling into gross Error. The general Design that he proposes to himself ought only to be stuck to; without insisting particularly upon every term, and every distinct Pe­riod; which taken separately and strictly, may oft-times prove contrary [Page 147] to what he drives at. Those who are a little conversant in the Disputes amongst Protestants, will easily see the importance of this Remark.’

‘The ingenuous Acknowledgment of what there is of Human in the sacred Writings, would render the Truth of our Religion more conspi­cuous to the Eyes of the incredu­lous; whereas it is hid from them, by clothing it in certain Notions which common Sense makes them reject, and from among which they are not able to pick out the Heavenly Truths. Men fancy that for the Establishment of Religion it is requisite to maintain every thing, or any thing, that (if true) would be an invincible Proof of it. they cast therefore about in their own Minds for such Foundations as they conceive would make it most stable. With this their Brain be­comes so heated, that in the end they rashly assert that these are the real Foundations of Religion; and that if these be taken away, Religion will fall to the ground and be de­stroy'd. Thus some Romish Doctors have fancy'd that Men, for the most part, not being capable to examine [Page 148] Religion themselves, it was necessary that God should settle a way where­by they might find it, without Ex­amination; viz. by the way of Au­thority. And from thence they have concluded, That to deny there is an Authority in the World to which People ought intirely to submit, is to overthrow Religion. But to these Gentlemen it is answer'd, That it is absurd in them to fancy that God will not preserve the true Religion amongst Men, unless it be in the way that they have imagin'd. The same may be answer'd to our Protestant Divines, who believe the Inspiration of every word; viz. that they are de­ceived in believing that the Truth of Christian Religion is founded upon that Opinion. We ought not to reckon every thing among the Prin­ciples of our Religion, that unto us seems proper to strengthen it; nor to trouble our selves in examining af­ter what manner we would have esta­blish'd it, had the thing depended up­on us; or in asserting how God ought to have done it. But we ought to consider things in themselves as they really are, and learn what has been [Page 149] the Will of God, by what he has done; not conclude that he has done this or the other thing, because we fancy he ought to have will'd it. Libertines who see that to uphold the Truth of Christian Re­ligion, Men bring long Metaphysi­cal Arguments (which often prove nothing, but that, according to the Suppositions they have thought fit to make, it ought to be so) be­lieve presently that Christian Re­ligion has no better Foundation, and so reject it; as much perhaps through the fault of those Divines who argue in that manner, as their own. But if things were repre­sented to them as they are in them­selves, without going about to force them to allow that which is not prov'd, they would submit to our Reasons; and we should not need to teach them any thing but what Re­ligion injoins them, after having con­vinc'd them of its Truth.’

This is, Sir, what Mr. N. has writ to me, upon the desire that was inti­mated of his giving some further [Page 150] Explication of his Thoughts. I hope it will be found sufficient to convince those who may have mistaken his Sense, and who on that account have charg'd him with Opinions which he never had, that he is very far from being guilty of what he is so un­charitably accus'd of. I will send you, by the next, the Answers which he makes to divers Objections that have been propos'd to him.

I Believe, Sir, there is no Condition in the World more deplorable, than theirs that publish any thing in Print; if it be so that they are bound to satisfy all those that censure them. Some Persons have taken it ill that it should be said, It was hard to confute the Opinions of Mr. N. They hold it very easy, and that there needs no great Ability to do it. But they either undertake it not; Or if they make any Objection, they show that they under­stand nothing of the matter; as the Prior of Bolleville, who seems to under­stand neither what Mr. N. has said, nor what himself objects. Others confess that it is a very difficult matter; and pretend that therefore a Man ought not to trouble himself with it; nor raise Scruples in weak Heads which [Page 152] the strongest would find it a difficulty to remove. To satisfy the first, it would be requisite to show, that the Objections propos'd are not strong e­nough to refute Mr. N's Opinions: And that is the very thing that will infallibly offend the others, who would have no­thing said on that Subject. If the Ad­vice of these last be taken, the first will undoubtedly say that we were much in the wrong, to say that it was very hard to confute an Opinion, which they have easily overthrown. They will be apt even to say that it is not without de­sign that we have made use of weak Arguments, and their crazy Fancies will set no bounds to their Suspicions; ac­cording to the Custom of too many Divines, who glory in a shew of diving into other Mens Thoughts. What is to be done in this case? One of the two must unavoidably be displeas'd.

I will not then be afraid, Sir, to communicate to you the Answers of Mr. N. to some Objections. Such as have not read the Explanations which I sent you a while ago, with sufficient Attention, may perhaps by our Friend's Answers better apprehend his true meaning.

[Page 153] Objection 1.

To say that the Prophets have often express'd themselves in their Prophecies,Page 15. after the same manner that they were wont to do on other occasions, and that they were not constantly inspir'd by God with all their Expressions, is to lessen the Authority of the Prophecies.

Answer.

‘They that make this Objection could not say any thing that can give more advantage to the Profane. For it is as clear as day, that the Stile of the Prophets varies according to the diversity of their Genius; as has been observ'd, and as is agreed by the most able Interpreters. Mr. Simon proves it himself, Pag. 123. of his Answer, and makes appear that what the Prophets said was not the less God's Word. But I cannot forbear to observe that our Divines are even more scrupulous than the Jews. For these believe the Inspiration of Words only in the Pentateuch; whereas they believe it throughout all the Old Te­stament. Prophetia Mofis per om­nia tanto dig­nior prastanti­or (que) fuit caete­rorum omnium Prophetarum Prophetiâ; quod his quo tempore Pro­phetiam acci­piebant, tan­tummodo sen­sus, sive res Prophetiâ comprehensa revelabatur: istam autem rem seu sen­sum propriis suis verbis po­pulo enarra­bant. At (que) eâ de causâ usur­pabant hanc loquendi for­mulam: Et lo­quutus Domi­nus mihi: qua­si dicerent, ea quae dicimus, licet verbis no­stris exprima­mus, sensum tamen habent quem à Deo ipso accepimus. The Prophecy of Moses, says Manasseth Ben. Israel, after many [Page 154] other Rabbins, was in every respect more honourable, and more excellent, than the Prophecies of all the other Prophets. For to them, whensoever they receiv'd the Prophecy, the Sense only, or the Sub­stance of the matter to be foretold was reveal'd; but they declar'd to the People this Thing or Matter in their own words. And for that Reason they made use of this form of speaking; And the Lord said unto me; As if they would say, these things which we say to you, although we express them in our words, contain the Sense which we have receiv'd from God, &c. Many Christian Divines have said the same things of all the Prophets in general; as Mr. Huet in his Demonstration; who plainly affirms, that the things are to be attributed to the holy Spirit, but the Words and the Language to the Prophets. He says also elsewhere, that Prophetic Extasy does ordinarily produce a Scabrum salebrorum ac dissi­patum. hard, rough and broken Stile. Many others have held the same thing, without being thought guilty of Heterodoxy.’

[Page 155] Objection 2.

It has been said, that David says ma­ny things of himself,Page 23. and of his Enemies, not thinking to prophesy; which con­tain notwithstanding Predictions of what was to happen to Jesus Christ and his Enemies; as what he says Psal. XLI. 10. LXIX. 26. CIX. 8. places which Christ and his Apostles apply to Iudas. Nevertheless St. Peter, after citing some words of Psal. XVI. where David speaks of himself in the first Person, Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see Corruption, &c. adds, that this cannot be understood of Da­vid, since he was dead and rotten many Years ago; but that as he was a Prophet, and knew that God had sworn with an Oath to him, that of the Fruit of his Loins he would raise up Christ to sit upon his Throne; he seeing this before-hand, spake of the Resurrection of Christ, when he said, that his Soul, &c. by which it appears that David, speaking in the first Per­son, knew nevertheless that he spoke not concerning himself.

Answer.

‘I did not say, that David never prophesy'd, in speaking of himself as [Page 156] of a Type of the Messiah; or that he understood not that in the pro­perest and highest sense of his Words he spake concerning the Messiah, though what he said had also some relation to himself. I make no que­stion but there are in the Psalms di­vers Prophecies of this nature. It is plain, David could not say of him­self, unless in a very Metaphorical Sense, that God would not leave his Soul in Hell, nor suffer his Holy One to see Corruption, although the rest of the Psalm may be suitable enough to him.’

Objection 3.

The Curses in the CIXth Psalm are imputed to a human Passion; yet St. Pe­ter teaches us, Acts I. 20. that it is a Prophecy. It seems the better way therefore to take all those Curses for simple Predictions, and not for Impre­cations, and so to translate in the Fu­ture Tense; Thou shalt set a wicked Man over him, and his Adversary shall, &c.

Answer.

Objection 4.

It has been said,Page 26. that Inspiration seems not absolutely necessary to the composing of pious Hymns; and con­cluded from thence that it ought not to be said that all such Hymns were imme­diately inspir'd. The same sort of Ar­gument has been applied also after­wards to divers other places of Scrip­ture. But it no ways follows, because Inspiration was not absolutely necessa­ry, that therefore there was none.

Answer.

‘My Argument proves not directly that there was no Inspiration on these occasions, but only that there was nothing in the thing it self to induce us to believe that there was any; and consequently, that such Inspiration is suppos'd without any necessity. When a thing may be done by the [Page 159] ordinary course of Nature, we ought not to have recourse to Miracles. Hence I conclude, that there ought to be no recourse to Inspiration, when there is nothing in a Book to make us believe it was inspir'd; and when all that is in it might have been said without Inspiration; unless we have some positive Proof that he who compos'd it was inspir'd. Now I maintain that there is no Proof of this nature, sufficient to perswade us that all the Books of the Scripture were inspir'd in the same manner that they are commonly said to have been.’

Objection 5.

It has been inferr'd from the evident marks of Meditation,Page 27. and Pains taking, which appear in several places of the Scripture (as those where the Verses begin with all the Letters of the Al­phabet in order) that those places have not been inspir'd. But it does not ap­pear that Inspiration excludes all sort of Meditation and Pains-taking, as Mr. Simon has observ'd, &c. Resp. p. 125, &c.

[Page 160] Answer.

‘I acknowledg that it cannot from thence be concluded that the matter was not inspir'd; nor was this Argu­ment made use of, but only against those who hold the Inspiration of the very words; that is to say, principally, against the generality of Protestant Divines. There is certainly little like­lihood that the Spirit of God would inspire such things as those. But the Consequence I have drawn from thence is only this, that the Stile not being inspir'd, we cannot be sure that the things are; unless the Characters of Inspiration appear in those things themselves, or that we have other­wise some positive Proof of it.’

Objection 6.

What has been said concerning the Inspiration of the sacred Historians is not enough:Pag. 28, &c. There ought to have been added also, as Mr. Simon has it, That God directed the Pen of the sacred Historians in such a manner, that they could not fall into Error. They were Men that wrote; and the Spirit that directed them depriv'd them not of their Reason, nor their Memory, to inspire them with [Page 161] matters of Fact, which they themselves knew perfectly: but it determin'd them in general to write of some matters, rather than others, though they knew both alike well. Resp. p. 128.

Answer.

‘This may be granted; provided that by directing the Pen of the sacred Historians be only understood the de­termining them in general to write of some matters rather than others, though they knew both alike well. Mr. Simon fights here with his own Shadow: for no body deny'd that. On the contrary, it was said that the sacred Historians have writ of no matter, whereof they were not well instruct­ed: And this in opposition to those who pretend that the Historians of the Bible were inspir'd with the mat­ters, in the same manner as if they could not have known them any o­ther way. But these People would condemn Mr. Simon as well as me.’

Objection 7.

It is suppos'd,Page 35. without any Reason, that there are sometimes real Contra­dictions amongst the sacred Historians, [Page 162] whereas they are but seeming ones. The Learned have reconcil'd them all, not excepting that about the Death of Iudas, which is cited as an Example of a manifest Contradiction.

Answer.

‘To answer this Objection fully, it would be requisite not only to quote the places, where 'tis believ'd there is some little Contradiction; but al­so all the Explications which many learned Men have given of those places, whereby to show that there is not any of those Explications that clears the Difficulty. But to do this would require a Book for every place; for there is so great variety of Opi­nions upon these Passages, that there may be reckon'd up ten or twelve Interpretations of one single place. One Learned Man has made a Vo­lume in Quarto, J. Gronovius de pernicie & casu Judae. of an hundred and ninety two Pages, upon that single place concerning the Death of Iudas. But if the most of these Interpre­tations be consider'd without pre­possession, they will be found to be very much strain'd. Words are ne­ver wanting. And it is no easy [Page 163] matter to silence a Man of an indiffe­rent Capacity, who undertakes to de­fend an Opinion that cannot be demonstratively disprov'd. Let me therefore, on this occasion, intreat the Reader to examine some of those places, that have given the Learned the most trouble; and then let him ask him­self whether he would admit of those Reconcilements that he finds in the Commentators, if the Question con­cern'd other Authors than those of the Bible. Assuredly he would reject them; and would say that it were better to confess that there is some Contrarie­ty in small things, than to render the whole History doubtful, by persist­ing obstinately in defence of things of no consequence. If this were done in what concerns the Death of Iudas, which is brought for an Ex­ample, I am well assur'd there is no Opinion would appear more reasona­ble than that of Salmasius, in his third Letter to Bartholin concern­ing the Cross.Constat Evangelistis hunc morem fuisse ut minu­tias [...] neglexe­rint, cum de principali Hi­storiâ sibi ra­tionem verita­tis scirent con­stare. Nec vi­deo quomodo aliter id in quo dissident de morte Judae, Matthaeus & Lucas, componi queat. p. 618. It is manifest, says he, that it was usual with the Evan­gelists not to take much heed of minute Circumstances, when they were in the right, as to the principal History: Nor do [Page 164] I see how otherwise that wherein Mat­thew and Luke differ, concerning the Death of Judas, can be reconcil'd.’

Objection 8.

Whereas it is doubted,Page 40. whether it were well done to admit the History of Esther in the Hebrew Canon, because there are some Circumstances in it which seem to be pure Invention; Ought not those Circumstances to have been cited? And supposing they were such; may it not be said, with Mr. Simon (Pag. 129. of his Answer) that the Book might be a Parable, and not the less Canonical for that?

Answer.

‘I might save my self the labour of answering this objection, because I have affirmed nothing in this mat­ter. On the contrary, I said that I would not examine the Opinion of those who believe the History of Esther to be a feigned History. Nei­ther will I make my self at present a Party in the Dispute. But since it is desir'd, I will barely recite the Reasons for which some reject this Book.’

[Page 165] ‘In the, first place; Mordecai and Est­her, Whom the Author represents as pious Persons, and particulaly fa­vour'd by Heaven, agree to do a thing forbidden by the Law. It is where Mordecai counsels Esther to in­deavour to please Ahasuerus, which she consents to; though Moses had ex­presly forbidden them to make Alli­ance with the Heathens.’

‘In the second place; All the Cir­cumstances of this Story are very ob­servable. Esther pleases the King, who proclaims her Queen of the Medes and Persians, but does not ob­lige her to tell him from what Ex­traction she is sprung. Mordecai dis­covers a Conspiracy against Ahasue­rus, and advertises him of it by the means of the Queen, without recei­ving nevertheless any Recompence; only the Conspirators were hang'd, and the whole matter recorded. Haman grows in great favour at Court, insomuch that all the World bowed and reverenced him. Morde­cai thinks not fit to do it. Haman cannot bear his Neglect; and having learn'd that he is a Jew, resolves to make the whole Jewish Nation perish [Page 166] for his sake. He offers King Ahasue­rus ten thousand Talents, if he will consent to that Nation's Destruction. The King presently consents (with­out taking the Money) and gives Haman his Ring; who makes use of it in sealing the Letters, wherein it is order'd to lay violent Hands on all the Jews, not sparing Women nor little Children. Messengers are di­spatch'd to carry theses Letters all over the Kingdom, and the Edict is publish'd at Shushan. Esther, who had not yet told what Extraction she was of, is inform'd that Mordecai was at the King's Gate all in Sackcloath. She sends him Raiment; which he re­fuses, and expects a second Message before he tells what makes him so sad. Esther having learn'd the mat­ter, is afraid to appear before the King; because it was fobidden by the Laws of the Kingdom, unless the King by reaching out his Scepter of Gold dispensed with it; but being blam'd by Mordecai, she resolves to run the hazerd, after a Fast of three days observ'd by her self, her Ladies of Honour, and all the Jews in Shu­shan. Esther appears before the King. [Page 167] He sees her, and reaches out his Scep­ter of Gold that she might come near him. She invites the King and Haman to a Banquet in her Apart­ment. They go, and the King at the Banquet asks the Queen what she would have him grant her. She invites Ahasuerus and Haman again the next day. Haman puff'd up with his good Fortune, boasts of his Happiness to his Wife and all his Friends; but complains at the same time extream­ly of Mordecai the Jew for not doing him Reverence. His Wife advises him to cause a Gibbet to be made fifty Foot high, and to speak unto the King on the Morrow that Mordecai might be hanged thereon. Haman goes to Bed thereupon, secure that the next day he should be reveng'd of the Inso­lence of the Jew. But the King, who could not sleep that Night, causes the Records of State to be read to him, where he finds the good Office that Jew had done him; for which, on Inquiry he was told that no Reward had been given him. Haman comes to Court early in the Morning, to speak to the King that Mordecai might be hang'd. But he is no sooner [Page 168] in the Presence, than the King calls to him, and asks him what should be done to the Man whom the King would extreamly honour. Haman, who fancy'd it was himself that the King was minded so to honour, an­swers in a way that tended to the advantage of the Person that was to be honoured. Immediately the King commands him (what a Thunder­bolt for an ambitious and revengeful Person!) to go do it to Mordecai the Jew. He retires home in Confu­sion, to bewail his Misfortune with his Friends; who tell him plainly that the Jew will be too hard for him. Presently the King's Chamberlains come to call him to the Banquet in the Queen's Apartment. At the Banquet Esther tells the King there was a Design to destroy her and her People. The King in a Passion asks who it was design'd it; and being told it was Haman, he goes out in Wrath into the Garden. Haman, on the other side, stays with the Queen, and throws himself upon her Bed, in­deavouring to pacify, her Wrath. The King returns while he was in that Rosture, and believes Haman was [Page 169] about to force the Queen. Haman is seiz'd upon to be put to Death, and the Gibbet being found ready sitted for Mordecai, Haman by the king's order is hanged upon it. Mordecai succeeds in the place of Haman; and by Esther's means obtains another Edict, whereby the Jews are per­mitted to take Arms, and defend themselves against those that should fall upon them. The day mention'd in the Edict being come, the Jews kill all those that went about to de­stroy them. They slay five hundred in Shushan. And the like leave being given them the next day, they kill three hundred more, besides Haman's ten Sons who were hang'd by the King's order. Now upon the consi­deration of all these Circumstances, it is observ'd by some, that if Vnity of Time and Place had been observ'd in this Story, there would have been nothing wanting to have made it a good Tragi-Comedy. For my part I determine nothing upon the Point.’

‘But this I can say, that in all like­lihood Mr. Simon had not read of a long time this Book, when he writ [Page 170] the 129th Page of his Answer; where he says, That though it should be sup­pos'd that the Books of Esther, Judith, and Tobit are not true Histories, yet it does not follow therefore that they ought to be left out of the Catalogue of Cano­nical Books: And that he has observ'd in his Critical History, after St. Jerom, that the Parabolical Stile has always been in esteem amongst the Eastern People, and that a Book whether it contain a true History, or a plain Parable, or a Hi­story mix'd with Parables, is not there­fore the less true or less Canonical. If the Histories contain'd in these Books are not true, they are certainly not Parables, but Romances. The bare reading them is sufficient to show that those who writ them publish'd them not for Books of Morality, but only as surprizing and wonderful Stories. To say nothing of Iudith and Tobit, it is plain by the Original which the Author of the Book of Esther gives to the Feast of Purim, that he com­pos'd that Book with design to make it look like a true History. See the IXth Chap. v. 27. to the end. The Original of a Feast uses not to be founded upon a Parable; and such a [Page 171] History as that of Esther is not wont to be mix'd with Parables. Mr. Si­mon says well, that there are Para­bles in the New Testament so well circumstantiated, that one would take them for true Histories. But we must not have read either the Book of Esther, or the New Testament, to be perswaded that there is any re­semblance betwixt the History of that Book, and the Parables of our Savi­our. The Parable most like to a Hi­story is that of Dives and Lazarus, but there is nothing in it like the History of Esther. See Ioseph. Antiq. lib. 11. cap. 6.’

Objection 9.

The Prudence and Reason of the Apostles is often spoken of,Page 46. as if the use they made thereof were inconsistent with the Inspiration attributed to them; but these things may well agree toge­ther, as Mr. Simon observes.

Answer.

‘If Mr. Simon understood what he would say, when he speaks of recon­ciling Human Prudence with Inspi­ration, he believes undoubtedly the [Page 172] same thing that I do, concerning the Inspiration of the Apostles. We a­gree that the Terms were not inspir'd. The question is only about the Things. The Inspiration of the things con­sists, either in presenting to the Mind general Principles, from whence they that are inspir'd, according as they have occasion afterward, draw Con­sequences; or in furnishing it with Arguments ready fram'd. If God furnish'd the Minds of the Apostles with Arguments ready fram'd, they made no use of their Reason, having nothing to do but to declare what the holy Spirit had inspir'd them with; as the Prophets were only to express the Sense of what God had said to them. And this is that which every body calls properly Inspiration. But if it be suppos'd that God presented to the Minds of the Apostles only general Principles, of which by their own reasoning they made necessary and fit Application, upon emergent occa­sions; they were in that case no more inspir'd than those, who having care­fully read the holy Scripture, have the Ideas thereof so present in their Minds, that they never fail to make [Page 173] use of it when it is necessary. In this last Supposition Reason indeed is made use of; but in the other it is not. Now it appears that Mr. Si­mon is not of the Opinion that ex­cludes the use of Reason. And there­fore I say it is probable that he is of the same Opinion with me, though he know it not. For I deny not but God might have presented to the Minds of the Apostles, either by su­pernatural or natural ways, the ge­neral Ideas of which they should stand in need, to defend themselves at their Trials. I only deny that God always inspir'd them with all the Arguments they made use of on those occasions. Mr. Simon adds, That to say that the Spirit of Courage and Holiness, which the Gospel produces in our Hearts, dictated to the Apostles what they should say, is to destroy intirely the inward Grace which God did spread abroad in the Hearts of his Apostles, and which he yet daily spreads abroad in the Hearts of the Faithful. But what does he mean by this inward Grace, which is common to the Apostles and the Faithful? Is it not the Spirit of the Gospel? At least the Faithful have [Page 174] nothing else in common with the Apostles. Now if the Apostles by virtue of this Promise, It is not you that speak, it is the Spirit of your Fa­ther that speaks in you, have receiv'd (as Mr. Simon gives us to understand) only the inward Grace which God spreads abroad daily in the Hearts of the Faith­ful, the Inspirations of the Apostles were not different from those of the Faithful now a days.’

Objection 10.

Whereas it is said,Page 45, 48. That the Apo­stles spoke many things at their Trials which might have been spoken without Inspiration, and from thence is inferr'd that it is not necessary to believe that they were inspir'd with those things; This way of arguing may be apply'd to the Prophets, whom nevertheless we acknow­ledg to have been truly inspir'd. Mr. Si­mon Resp. 131.

Answer.

‘Mr. Simon, who sees nothing in Books but what his Passion shows him, might have taken notice that I said, that the Prophets teach us they are inspir'd, when they say Thus saith the Lord, &c. There are two ways to [Page 175] know if a thing be inspir'd. The first consists in observing if those who say this or that thing, maintain that they had it from God by an extraordinary Revelation, whereof they give undeniable Proofs, as did the Prophets. The second is when the thing it self declar'd shows it to be so. When the first way fails, we must have recourse to the second; and where they both fail, we have no reason to believe there is any Inspira­tion. Now this is that which ap­pears in many Discourses of the Apo­stles, where they do not say that God has taught them by extraordinary Re­velation that which they publish; And where the matter it self shows that there was no need of his doing it.’

‘It does not therefore follow, that those who acknowledge the Inspirati­on of the Prophets are obliged to ac­knowledg the like of all other sacred Writers; because there are convin­cing Reasons which oblige us to be­lieve that the Prophets speak Truth, when they say Thus saith the Lord; &c. and no reason to believe that the A­postles were extraordinarily inspir'd, when they say it not; and when their [Page 176] Discourses have in them no mark of such like Inspiration.’

‘If we reflect upon this difference between Prophecies, and Discourses which have nothing of Prophetic in them, we shall take heed of applying to this Subject a loose Maxim, and which is good for nothing; viz. That is happens most frequently that those who distinguish and divide Matters, with design to make use of part and reject the other, do give great advantage to their Adversaries. On the contrary, it scarce ever happens, that in handling a compounded Subject there can be made such general Rules as may be equally apply'd to all the parts of it. Parts of different nature must of ne­cessity be differently handled.’

Objection 11.

It has been said,Page 49. that by the holy Spirit, or the Spirit of God, may be understood the Spirit of Holiness and of Constancy, which the Gospel in­spires; or such a Disposition of Mind as is an Effect of our Faith. But the general Reasons there made use of, which are grounded only upon equivocal words, can prove nothing but Generals: They must [Page 177] be apply'd, and particular Enquiry made, whether the holy Spirit has any other Sig­nification in Scripture or no. Mr. Simon Resp. Pag. 131.

Answer.

‘When a Passage is to be answer'd wherein there is an equivocal word, upon which an Objection is founded, it is sufficient to show that such a word may be understood in ano­ther Sense, than that in which it has been taken. There is no need of examining all the other Significati­ons that it may have. It suffices to show that the Signification then given it is agreeable to the ordinary use of the Language, and suitable to the Subject there treated of. It was Mr. Simon's part therefore to show that where it is said of St. Stephen, (on occasion of whom the Observa­tion was made) That they could not resist the Wisdom and Spirit by which he spoke; I say it was his part to show that by the word Sprit any thing ought to be understood but the Spirit of the Gospel; that is to say, a Disposition of Mind conformable to the Precepts of Jesus Christ. He [Page 178] ought to have shown that this word in this place ought necessarily to be understood in another Sense. But Mr. Simon seldom gives himself the trouble to read the places of Scrip­ture that are cited; as appears in the same Page, where he says that St. Paul told the High Priest with a just In­dignation, God shall smite thee thou whited Wall; and where he compares the words of St. Paul to those of Je­sus Christ, when he calls Herod Fox; and to the Reproaches that the Pro­phets make to the Kings of Israel. But he should have shown us in what place Jesus Christ and the Prophets confess'd they were to blame in doing so, as St. Paul confesses he was. God has Power to censure Princes: But it be­longs not to Subjects to do it, when they think sit. So St. Paul had no right to abuse the High Priest, on his own Head: though those who had receiv'd express Order from God to make such like Reproaches to Princes, cannot be blam'd for it. But Mr. Si­mon, who probably never thought of all this, is not aware of this difference; and argues always on, without under­standing what he finds fault with.’

[Page 179] Obiection 12.

The Promise which Jesus Christ made his Apostles,Page 42, &c. that the holy Spirit should teach them what they should say when they came before the Iudges, seems to have been explain'd as a general Pro­mise for all that they should say; whereas it only relates to what they should say for the defence of the Gos­pel. Luc. Chap. 12. ver. 11.

Answer.

‘The promise is express'd in gene­ral terms, and must relate to that which the Apostles should be oblig'd to say as well for the defence of their own Persons, as for that of the Gospel. For it was of the greatest importance that these first Ministers of Jesus Christ should then say no­thing unworthy of the Doctrine of which they were the Heraulds. But if this Promise must not be taken in so large a Sense, in relation to the Discourses which the Apostles should make before Judges; neither ought it to be so taken in relation to their preaching of the Gospel. My De­sign was only to shew, that since the words could not be taken in the [Page 180] whole extent of their Signification, it could not from thence be necessarily inferr'd that the Apostles had then a Prophetic Inspiration,’

Objection 13.

The Promise (Iohn 16.)Page 58. that when the Spirit of Truth shall come, it shall lead you into all Truth, ought not to be un­derstood so, as if it were intirely ac­complish'd the day of Pentecost; but as a thing that should be accomplish'd ac­cording to the occasions and necessities that the Apostles should be in, of know­ing some further Truths. But it seems as if Mr. N. suppos'd that this promise is ordinarily understood, as if it ought to have been accomplish'd all at once.

Answer.

‘The reason of my insisting upon that was to make appear that this Promise, though conceiv'd in so ge­neral terms, ought necessarily to re­ceive some Qualification; and conse­quently that it ought not to be under­stood, like an Axiom of Geometry, in the utmost Signification of its Terms. Now that being once gran­ted, it cannot be made appear that [Page 181] this Promise relates to a Prophetic Inspiration. There is a Passage very like this in the first Epistle of St. Iohn, Chap. 2. ver. 27. But the anointing which ye have received of him, abideth in you: and ye need not that any Man teach you: but, as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is Truth, and is no Lie: and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. It is appa­rent that this cannot be understood strictly, since St. Iohn speaks to all the Christians to whom he writ.’

Objection 14.

Whereas it has been affirmed that the Apostles did not agree (Acts 15.)Page 57. till after they had disputed a great while; it is not said in that Chapter, That the Apostles disputed; but only that When there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, &c.

Answer.

‘Two things were considered in this History. The first is, The Opinion that Men had of the Apostles, viz. That they were not look'd upon as Persons infallible, whensoever they began to speak of the Gospel; since [Page 182] they were not believ'd just at their first speaking. The second is, The Conduct of the Apostles on this oc­casion, which is express'd in these terms: The Apostles and Elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said, &c. The com­mon Opinion is, that when the De­bate was about Doctrinal Matters, the Truth was immediately presented to the Minds of the Apostles, with­out any need of Meditation. This is undoubtedly true as to the things that Jesus Christ had taught them clearly: And they needed no extraor­dinary Inspiration to call them to mind. But this Principle is extended by some to all the Functions of their Charge. Now ask if that were so, what need was there that the Apostles should not only meet, but also talk a long while together? The first that had spoke would have sound all the rest of the same mind, and there would have been no more to do but for him to pro­nounce upon the Question, according to their general, though tacit, Agree­ment. It cannot be said there was no Conference amongst the Apostles [Page 183] and Elders concerning this doctrine; since St. Luke, after having said that the Apostles and Elders came together, imme­diately adds, that there was much dispu­ting, and that Peter rose up and said, &c. Neither can the Principle of Mr. Si­mon be here made use of, who says that the Apostles might not determine any thing by their own Authority, but by the common Consent of all the Church, and that therefore it was that they assembl'd, and expos'd in publick their Reasons for not imposing Jewish Ceremonies upon the Gentiles. If the Apostles were as much inspir'd as the Jewish Prophets of the Old Testament, it is ridiculous to say that they ought to determine nothing by their own Authority, but by the Consent of all the Church. They had no more to do but to declare what the holy Spirit had reveal'd to them, as did the Prophets; who met not together to confer about their prophecies before the pronouncing of them; but pronounc'd them as soon as God had commanded them, without staying for any body's Con­sent. And herein they acted not by their private Authority, but by the [Page 184] Authority that God gave them, in commanding them to speak to the People. No more would the Apo­stles have acted by their own private Authority, in following the Motions of the holy Spirit.’

‘But Mr. Simon has fancy'd a very particular sort of Inspiration in the Apostles.Ibid. He says it was necessary they should declare that they determin'd no­thing, which was not conformable to the holy Scriptures, and to the Doctrine which they had receiv'd from their Master, and that for that Reason it was necessary to deliberate thereupon in As­semblies; in which their Opinions happen'd to be sometimes divided. A Man must be very acute, that can comprehend how Men inspir'd after a Prophetic manner could be of different Opini­ons. But Mr. Simon clears this Diffi­culty wonderfully in the following words. We ought not (says he) to be surpriz'd at this Diversity of Opinions, since every one grounded his particular one upon Inspiration. Now this is that which should have hinder'd them from being of different Opinions; since assuredly God inspires not seve­ral Opinions about one and the same [Page 185] thing. It is all one as if one should say that we ought not to be surpriz'd, that of two Prophets, one should say a thing shall happen, and the other that it shall not happen, because they both ground their Predictions upon Inspiration. And indeed Mr. Simon corrects himself, after a fashion, by adding; Or rather upon the Authority of the Scriptures, and the Light which they had receiv'd from Religion. If he understands by the Inspiration of the Apostles, nothing but the Light which they had receiv'd from Religion, why does he make all this ado; since here­in we agree with him? He ought to tell us whether or no, when the Apo­stles spoke by Inspiration, they did any thing, but express, in their own way, the Reasonings which God had put ready fram'd into their Minds. If that be so, how can we conceive that their Opinions should not be one and the same? And if he in­spir'd them not with the Reasonings they used, then we cannot attribute Prophetic Inspiration to them; since it is therein that Prophetic Inspira­tion consists. It is very absurd there­fore to believe, that all the Reason­ings [Page 186] the Apostles us'd in preaching the Gospel, and all those we read in their Books, were inspir'd. For it is therein that the Inspiration of the Apostles is ordinarily conceiv'd to consist. This is that uniform, con­stant, and ordinary Inspiration which Mr. Simon comprehends not, because he never thought well upon it. Nor indeed does he know what Opinion he is of Sometimes he speaks like the generality of Divines, sometimes again he openly contradicts them, as may be seen by the words I have cited. He must study a little better this matter, if he will have us answer him: For it is very likely that for the most part he understands not himself. I will give but one Example more of it. (It is that which he says concerning the Author of Ecclesiastes▪ p. 138.) For we need but read his words, to find that the Prior of Bolleville minds not what he says. The Author, says he, of this Work did not design ONLY to perswade Men to pass their Time in Pleasure.—To which may be added, that Declamation being the proper Character of a Preacher, it is no wonder to see him despise all the ordinary Business and Imployments of the [Page 187] World, and to prefer an easy commodious Life before all the Troubles that attend a contrary Practice: For which he is not to be censur'd as if he were an Epicure, after the manner that Mr. N. here understands the Opinions of the Epicureans. He would have done well to have told us of what sort of Epicurism the Author of the Ecclesiastes may be accus'd.’

Objection 15.

It is a great piece of Boldness to judg four Books of the Old Testa­ment (three that bear the Name of Solomon, and that of Iob) as unworthy to be in the Hebrew Canon. That Li­berty of censuring would weaken the Principles of our Religion. For every one by the same Rule may say that such or such a Book is not Cano­nical, according to his own fancy.

Answer.

‘Although we may reject some Books of the Old Testament, it does not follow that we may do the same by all of them. Neither does it follow, because many Ancient and Modern Divines have thought it would have been better not to have joined, with the Writings of the Apostles, certain [Page 188] Books that are now in the Canon of the New Testament, that therefore we may reject all the Books of the Apostles. There are Books that are indisputably of those Authors whose Name they bear; and there are others which have been questionable, and are so still amongst the Learned; as the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of St. Iames, the second of St. Peter, the two last of St. Iohn, and that of St. Iude. These Doubts hinder us not from agreeing about the Gospels, and St. Paul's Epistles; nor from pro­ving clearly that they are the Books of those whose Name they bear. I know not why we may not doubt of some of the Books of the Old Te­stament, as well as of some of those of the New; and why ill Conse­quences should be drawn from their Opinions who doubt of some of the former, when none is drawn from theirs that reject the latter. The Canon of the Books of the New Te­stament ought to be of much greater importance with us than that of the Old. It is a mistake that we ought to receive all or reject all. It is not true that we ought to receive all. It [Page 189] is less true that we ought to reject all. But there is a mean betwixt these two Extreams.’

Objection 16.

But what will be said to these words of St. Paul, 2 Tim. III. 16. All Scripture is of Divine Inspiration? For they ought to be read in the vulgar Translation, according to the Greek, and also accor­ding to the ancient vulgar, Omnis Scri­ptura divinitùs inspirata & utilis; where­as Mr. N. reads them, Omnis Scriptura di­vinitùs inspirata utilis est. The Verb est is not in the Greek, but [...], which signifies Et, is before utilis. If this Verb be to be supply'd (because it is often wanting in the Hebrew and the Syriac, and conse­quently in the Greek of the New Testa­ment) it ought to be done in this man­ner, Omnis Scriptura divinitùs inspirata est & utilis.

Answer.

‘Mr. Simon's Decrees are not with­out Appeal. We maintain, against him, that this Passage may very well be thus translated; All Scripture that is divinely inspir'd is also profitable for Instruction, for Reproof, &c. [...], &c. [Page 190] So the vulgar translates it; which Mr. Simon improperly corrects, and which the Gentlemen of Port-Royal have judiciously follow'd. St. Paul's Design favours this Version. He tells Timothy, that the holy Scriptures are able to make him wise unto Salvation: to which he adds, That all Scripture given by Inspiration of God is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Instructi­on in Righteousness; that the Man of God may be perfect, &c. These words are a sort of Explanation of those foregoing, where St. Paul sets down after what manner the holy Scriptures may instruct to Salvation. There is a tacit opposition here between Holy Writ and certain prophane Studies; As will easily appear, if we go back a little higher to find the Thred of St. Paul's Discourse, and observe the occasion of his saying, That all Writ divinely inspir'd is profitable, &c. St. Paul describes in theVer. 1, 2, 3, 4. beginning of the Chapter a sort of wicked People, whom in the 5th Verse he orders Timothy to avoid. The Characters he marks them by suit very well to the Gnostics. But it matters not of whom He speaks. It suffices [Page 191] that we observe that they were Per­sons who boasted of teaching their Hearers many things; witness those Ver. 6, 7. Women they had seduc'd, which were always learning, and never arriv'd to the knowledg of the Truth. Ver. 8, 9, But the Apostle foretels their Seducement should not long continue.Ver. 10, 11. He re­presents to Timothy that he had fully known his Doctrine, his manner of Life, and the Persecutions he had suffer'd; in order to strengthen him by his Example.Ver. 12, 13. He declares that the Good shall always be persecuted, and that there shall still be Seducers, and Persons seduced.V. 14. & fol. But Thou, con­tinues he, be stedfast in the things thou hast learn'd, and hast been assured of, knowing from whom thou hast learn'd them, and that from a Child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto Salvation through Faith in Iesus Christ. He opposes plainly the Study of the holy Scrip­tures to the Study of fabulous Do­ctrines; which some Impostors then taught, and whereof he complains in many places of his two Epistles to Ti­mothy (1 Ep. Ch. 1. v. 4. Ch. 4. v. 7. 2 Ep. Ch. 4. v. 4.) And as here he orders [Page 192] his dear Disciple to continue firm in those things he had learn'd, and which he had been assur'd of; he likewise ends his first Epistle with this Exhortation, O Timothy, keep that which is commit­ted to thy Trust, avoiding profane and vain bablings, and opposition of Science falsly so called; which some professing, have err'd concerning the Faith. And thus when he adds, That all Scripture given by Inspiration, &c. 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 to Salvation, by joining thereunto Faith in Jesus Christ: Be­cause all Scripture inspir'd by God, as is a great part of the Old Testa­ment, is profitable for Instruction: Whereas if he apply'd himself to the false Science that some Impostors then boasted of, he would cultivate Do­ctrines that would be proper for no­thing, but to raise Disputes, instead of edifying; as he had else-where told him. By this it is evident, that all this reasoning of St. Paul does in no wise suppose that all the Scripture of the Old Testament is inspir'd; and that [Page 193] the Apostle pretends thereby only to intimate that the inspir'd Writings (without fixing the number of them) are more profitable than those that some Persons at that time boasted of.’

‘Rivet had objected this Passage to Grotius, against the Opinion of that incomparable Critic concerning the Inspiration of the sacred Books. Let us see how Grotius answers him.Locus 2 Tim. 3. 16. alium sensum habet quam putat D. Rivetus. Non enim hoc dicit Paulus, Omnis Scriptura est [...] divinitus inspi­rata; quam multae enim sunt Scripturae humani ingenii? Nec hoc vult omnem eam quae est [...]; id enim esset nu­gari: sed hoc vult, Om­nem scripturam quae à Deo inspirata est (id est [...] sermo­nem propheticum, ut lo­quitur Petrus 2 Ep. ch. 1. v. 19.) non in hoc tan­tum valuisse suo tempo­re, ut ostenderet Dei Praescientiam, & Prophe­tis auctoritatem daret, verum semperesse uti­lem, quia simul multa continet docu­menta perpe­tua, vitiorum reprehensio­nes, excita­menta and ju­stiam. Hunc sensum recte vidit Syrus, sic interpretans; In Scripturâ, quae per Spiritum scripta est, utilitas est ad doctrinam, &c. The place, says he, (2 Tim. Chap. 3. v. 16.) has another signification than D. Ri­vet thinks: For St. Paul says not, All Writing is divinely in­spir'd. (For how many are the Writings of human Invention?) Nor does he mean that all that is inspir'd is divinely inspir'd. That would be trifling. But this is his meaning: All Scrip­ture that is divinely inspir'd (that is the Word of Prophecy, as St. Peter stiles it, 2 Ep. Chap. 1. v. 19.) is not only useful in its own time, to show God's Praescience, and to give Authority to the Prophets: but is moreover at all times profitable: because it contains [Page 194] many standing Rules, Reproofs of Vices, Incitements to Righteousness, &c. This Sense was rightly observ'd by the Syriac Interpreter who thus renders it; In the Scripture, which is written by the Spirit, there is profit in respect of Doctirne, &c.’

‘This Passage then of St. Paul proves nothing against me; let Mr. Simon say what he pleases. He seems not to understand Christian Religion throughly enough, to treat of these matters.’

These, Sir, are the principal Ob­jetions that have been made to Mr. N. against his Essay concerning the Inspi­ration of the sacred Pen-Men. You may judg whether he has solv'd the Diffi­culties propos'd or no. For my part I will not judg of that Question. But this I dare boldly say; that Mr. Simon is not the Man that will run him down; and that the Answers you have now read, are plausible enough to puzzle an abler Man than he. I am, &c.

I Am perswaded, Sir, that the two last Letters I writ you, will have fully satisfied those among your Friends, who wish'd that the Writing about Inspiration had been suppress'd, or who desir'd some Explanation of the Author's Opinion, or even who believ'd they were in the wrong that said it was hard to confute it. We must now try to give some Satisfaction to those who have said that this Opinion leads to De­ism, and that our Friend was infected with the detestable Opinions of the Deists. Now I having openly main­tain'd the contrary, he has impos'd upon me the Task of justifying him in this Particular. And I think I can evidently demonstrate, that they who have brought this Accusation against our Friend, have therein violated that [Page 196] which is most sacred in Christian Reli­gion; and that while they endeavour to maintain it by a Zeal, not only want­ing Knowledg, but also void of Cha­rity, they have not sufficiently reflected upon the true Proofs of the Divinity of our Religion, and upon the Method us'd by many of those who have un­dertaken to desend it against Atheists and Infidels. But I confess to you I dare not promise to my self ever to satisfy intirely this sort of People; because they are such as fancy they know every thing. They have given o­ver all Study; they examine nothing; and they think they should do a thing unworthy of their Character, if they should confess they had condemn'd a­ny one wrongfully, and if they abated never so little of the heat of their Zeal. This Zeal, or rather blind Passi­on, which is made up of Choler, and animated by Superstition, Pride and Envy, discomposes them so violently, and with so little Intermission, that it is very hard to find a moment where­in they are fit to hear quietly the Ju­stifications of those, whom they have too rashly condemned. It is not amiss however to tell them our Reasons. [Page 197] If they themselves will not hear them, yet perhaps these Reasons may prevent some other Persons of more ingenuous Dispositions from forming such rash Judgments, as the vehement Declama­tions of these implacable Zealots would otherwise move them to.

Two things ought here to be distin­guish'd: The Person, and the Opinions. A Man may have Opinions, the Conse­quences whereof are very evil and very dangerous, without being aware of these Consequences, how necessarily soever they may seem unto others to follow from them. I have made this plain in the beginning of my first Let­ter on this Subject. It ought not then to be concluded, because a Man em­braces a certain Opinion, that there­fore he admits all the Consequences. This Truth is own'd by every one; but little made use of by any, when they pass Judgment upon those that are opposite to their Party. Never­theless, none that are equitable can re­fuse to allow this Justification of our Friend; I mean that protesting, as he does, an utter abhorrence of those impious Consequences, which in his Judgment are unduly wrested from his [Page 198] Opinions, he himself (at least) ought to be absolv'd, although his Doctrine be condemned.

Natural Equity obliges us to believe that a Man is perswaded of a thing when he affirms it, and when we have no evident signs of his design to de­ceive us. This also is a Rule in Mora­lity generally agreed upon, but of which as little use is made as of the fore­going one. But let Men do what they will; it must be acknowledg'd that those who refuse to believe our Friend, when he affirms that he is perfectly convinc'd of the Truth of the Chri­stian Religion, do violate the Charity, and the Equity, which we ought to have naturally one for another; seeing they have no evident sign to convince them that this Protestation of his is hypo­critical.

The Truth is, these Zealots, who judg amiss of his Piety, ground their rash Judgment but upon very light Suspi­cions. They believe that our Friend has discover'd but part of his Opinions concerning the Inspiration of the holy Writers, for fear of too much thwar­ting the Public, and losing altogether his Reputation. But he, on the other [Page 199] side, protests that he has laid open the very bottom of his Thoughts, with­out any Reserve; and without hiding any thing, which he thought might contribute to discover the whole Extent of his Opinion in this matter. This is all he can do to repel so unjust a Suspicion. If they who frame a rash Judgment upon so ill-grounded Suspi­cions, met with the like Usage, none of them would be found innocent. It might always be said, when they main­tain any thing from whence an ill Consequence may be drawn (and from what may not that be done?) that they speak not all they think, for fear of being cry'd down, and losing their Pensions. The Zeal, for example, of which they are so proud, might pass for an Effect of an artificial Policy; by which they endeavour to ren­der themselves Masters of the Peoples Minds; in order to satisfy their Am­bition, and oppress their Enemies. In a word, they should not make one step, which might not be interpreted maliciously, and made look odiously. But it behoves us and them to re­member that Precept of our Saviour, founded upon the plain Light of Na­ture, [Page 200] Do not to another that which ye would not should be done to you. If the Heat of an indiscreet Zeal keep them from observing this Precept, yet nothing shall make us trangress it.

I conclude then that our Friend can­not be ill thought of, without wronging the universal Rules of Equity and Charity; and in this case those Rules will be the more enormously broken, by how much the Impiety which our Friend is accus'd of is more detestable. Rash Judgments and ill-grounded Suspi­cions are always Crimes, although the matter they relate to be of small im­portance: but when the Concern is not only the Reputation of a Person, but also his Life, and which is yet more, his Salvation, they become still more hainous. To affirm that a Man is of an Opinion such as is that of the Deists, without having evident Proofs of it, is to say that a Man is an Enemy of God and Men; that he is in a State wherein he can expect nothing but the Anger of Heaven; wherein he merits even to be no longer suffer'd upon Earth; and it argues that these Ca­lumniators, after having made him lose his good Name, would if they could [Page 201] deprive him also of his Life. Let any reasonable Man judg, if, without cer­tain and convincing Proofs, a Man may pronounce so terrible a Sentence against his Neighbour, and not be guilty of the greatest Injustice imagi­nable.

It seems to me, Sir, that this is so plain I need dwell no longer upon it. The Person of our Friend then being justified against these rash Suspicions; we will now show that the Truth of the Christian Religion may be undenia­bly prov'd, without taking any side about the Doctrine of Inspiration; and consequently without supposing the common Opinion. This I intend to do; after I have first observ'd that seve­ral great Men, and who have pass'd for good Christians, have held this Opinion without losing the Reputation they had of Piety. There is not a Man of Worth and Honour among the Prote­stants, who will dare to say that Eras­mus and Grotius were Libertines; and yet both of them defended openly this same Opinion. But because there are some Divines who esteem none but those that have been of the Society [Page 202] they live in, I will repeat some re­remarkable words of a Divine famous amongst the Presbyterians in England, and even amongst those on this side the Water. It is Mr. Richard Baxter, who speaks thus in an English Book translated not long since into Dutch, and intituled, The Saints everlasting Rest. 22.In 4^o Lond. 1656. Edit. 6. par. 2. ch. 3. Sect. 2. pag. 210. Though all Scripture be of Divine Authority: yet he who believeth but some one Book, that containeth the Substance of the Doctrine of Salvation, may be sav'd: much more they that have doubted but of some particular Books. 23. They that take the Scripture to be but the Writings of godly honest Men, and so to be only a means of making known Christ, having a gradual Precedency to the Writings of other godly Men: and do believe in Christ upon those strong Grounds which are drawn from his Doctrine, Miracles, &c. rather than upon the Testimony of the Writing, it being purely infallible and divine, may yet have a divine and saving Faith. 24. Much more those that believe the whole Writing to be of Divine Inspiration where it handleth the Substance, but doubt whether God infallibly guided them in every Circumstance. And in the next [Page 203] Page. 32. The Circumstantials are many of them divine, yet so as they have in them something humane, as the bringing of St. Paul's Cloke and the Parchments, and (as it seems) his Counsel about Marriage, &c. 33. Much more is there something human in the Method and Phrase, which is not so immediately divine as the Doctrine. 34. Yet is there nothing sinfully humane, and therefore nothing false in all. 35. But all innocent Imperfection here is in the Method and Phrase, which of we deny, we must renounce most of our Logick and Rhetorick. Nothing can be more expresly said for the Justification of our Friend. Those who have a value for Mr. Baxter, must forgo their E­steem of him, or else not condemn so lightly those who in his Judgment may have a saving Faith, together with some Opinions different from those commonly receiv'd.

It may likewise be observ'd, that many of those who have writ of the Truth of the Christian Religion, have prov'd it without supposing the par­ticular Inspiration of the Historians of the New Testament to be such as it is ordinarily taken to be; as Grotius, [Page 204] whose Book has been alike esteem'd by all Parties. Which shows that our Belief is not founded upon this Supposition; and that consequently one may be a good Christian without admitting it. But it is better to represent this by an Example, which will give you a more lively Impression of what I aim at.

I will therefore now indeavour, in as few words as is possible, to give you the Idea of a Method that seems to me very strong, and very proper to convince a Libertine of the Truth of our Religion, without once mentioning any thing of particular Inspiration. I do not pretend thereby to condemn all other Methods that may be used to the like purpose; but it seems to me that this is the simplest of all, and subject to the fewest Difficulties. You will allow me, Sir, this small Digression; which may perhaps not be unuseful, in a time when there are every where so many that doubt of the Truth of the Christian Religi­on.

The first, and the greatest Objection the Libertines make us is, That our [Page 205] Judgments are pre-possess'd, which hin­ders us from being undeceiv'd. We say the same of them; and maintain that it is nothing but sensual Incli­nations that raise those Difficulties in their Minds, which would vanish if they examin'd them without Passion. It is not just that either they or we should take for granted our Pre-possessi­ons, as Principles demonstrated, or which need not be demonstrated. Let us then act on both sides as if we had not yet espous'd any party, and let us urge nothing that is not founded upon Principles which both sides acknow­ledg.

It is agreed that there are certain Characters by which we may be assur'd whether a thing has been done or no, and by which we may distinguish the Truth or Falshood of a History. If we do not agree in that, we are Pyrrhoniens; or, to give it a better Name, altogether senseless: for none but a Mad-Man can doubt of the Truth of all the Histories in the World. But farther, we must also agree in another thing, which is no less certain. It is, that there are certain Matters of Fact, the Truth whereof is better conceiv'd [Page 206] than it can be prov'd; and which are of such a nature, that unless a Man be in a proper Disposition of Mind he can hardly be induc'd to believe them. For Example, If any one should tell us here that the Inquisition of Spain and Italy has approv'd the Works of Calvin, and allow'd the People to read them in Spanish and Italian; although it is im­possible for us to believe it, and that we are firmly perswaded of the con­trary, we should not be able to con­vince a Person who should be obstinate in maintaining it, until we had given him evident Proofs thereof. In like manner, if there were false Witnesses ready to swear that one of our Friends, (whose Vertue had been well known to us for divers Years, and who but just then was gone out of our Compa­ny) went then immediately in cold Blood to assassinate a Person unknown to him, for no other reason but only to make an Anatomical Dissection of his Body; it is certain we should not be­lieve them, although it might not be in our Power to prove judicially the contrary.

It is easy to imagine a thousand Ex­amples of such like Truths, which we [Page 207] apprehend better than we can prove. That being suppos'd, if we come to the Christian Religion, there occurs at the very first a difficulty in discerning what are the Doctrines of this Reli­gion: for Christians have great Con­troversies among themselves about their Belief. There would be no end of going about to examine all these Con­troversies. Let us therefore suspend our Judgment thereupon, and see first wherein all Christians are agreed. They all agree, for Example, that most of the Books of the New Testament are the Writings of those Authors whose Name they bear, and who writ them more than sixteen hundred Years ago; that the History therein is true, and that we ought to obey the Command­ments therein contain'd. This Obe­dience may be reduc'd to these gene­ral Heads; a rendering to God the Service due to him; a trusting in his Promises; and a keeping his Command­ments, in what concerns both our selves and our Neighbour. But this sup­poses a Belief of all those Scriptural Truths without which a Man can­not perfom his Duty; as that there is a God, absolutely perfect, who has [Page 208] sent Jesus Christ into the World to draw Men from their Sins, and guide them to eternal Salvation; that this Jesus has been rais'd from the Dead, and that he now reigns in Heaven, &c. All Christians agree in all this.

Let us suspend still our Jugdment concerning Doctrines, and speak yet only of the practical Part of our Re­ligion. It cannot be deny'd but that if all Men liv'd according to the Precepts of the Gospel; and that, out of the hope of another Life, they betook them­selves with Care to adore the Creator of the Universe, to live always in Temperance, and Sobriety, and to do constantly to their Neighbour as they desire their Neighbour should do to them; It cannot be deny'd, I say, but this manner of living would be very agreeable and very advantagious to Hu­man Society. We should not then hear any words spoken that could cause us Trouble, or that would kindle Divi­sions in Religion. There would be no Sickness through Intemperance, no Vexation, nor any Quarrel occasion'd by Debauchery. The doing Wrong to ones Neighbour, and the suffering any Inconvenience through the Inhu­manity [Page 209] or Malice of Men would be things unknown: Men would help one another in all their Needs, with all the Fervency and Earnestness that could be desir'd: If by mistake any of them had been the occasion of Inconvenience to one another, they would mutually pardon one another, and repair that Damage by all sorts of Services. The love of Honours, or of Riches, would trouble no Man's Mind, nor cause any Envy or Discord. In a word, the Mind being in a perfect Tranquillity, the Bo­dy as healthful as feeble Nature will admit, and both Mind and Body enjoy­ing the innocent Pleasures which the Gospel allows, this amiable Life would not be quitted but for the enjoyment of another, freed from all the inevitable Inconveniences entail'd by Nature up­on the Inhabitants of this Earth.

All that have any Idea of the Rules of Morality taught by Jesus Christ, must necessarily agree in this Truth; that by generally observing them, Men would be exceedingly happy. But it may perhaps be ask'd, Where is there in the World a Society in which, Men live conformably to these Rules of Morality? That is not the Question. [Page 210] It is sufficient for our present purpose that there are at this time many Na­tions that make Profession of it, though they live not up to the Practice. Let us enquire whether these Nations in­vented those Rules, or receiv'd them from their Predecessors? They all tell us they are not the Inventers; and it may well be judg'd, by their way of living, that they say true: For it is not probable they should have invented the Precepts of the Gospel, and yet live so contrary to them. Inventions always savour something of the temper of the Spirit of the Inventors.

But we have no need of Arguments to convince us of this: We may exa­mine from Age to Age the Authors that are left us, beginning at our own, and going backwards to that wherein Christian Religion was first spoken of, to see who they were that brought it into the World. We shall readily find, by reading those Authors, that it is more than thirteen hundred Years since the Roman Emperors being become Christians, Christianity has flourish'd in a great part of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Since that time we may be convinced, by a very great number of [Page 211] Christian Authors, that Profession has been constantly made of believing that the Morality taught us in the Gospel came from Heaven. If we go yet fur­ther backwards, we shall find that even under the Pagan Emperors there was a great multitude of Christians that pro­fess'd the same Doctrine. We have ma­ny Christian Authors, of those times, who assure us of it. But, without staying to reckon up needlesly Authors sufficient­ly known, let us examine in what Age Christianity began first to be spoken of. All Christians agree that it was under the Reign of Tiberius; and if we con­sult Heathen Authors, we shall see that before that time it was altogether un­known. Tacitus, who was born towards the end of the Reign of Claudius, or about the beginning of that of Nero, says that Nero, after having set Rome on fire in divers places, and thereby destroy'd the City, accus'd the Christi­ans of it, and made them suffer hor­rible Punishments. Upon that occasi­on he speaks of the beginning of Chri­stianity in these terms. The Author of this Sect (says he) was Christ, An. l. 15. c. 44. who in the Reign of Tiberius was put to death by Pontius Pilate Governour of Judaea. [Page 212] This dangerous Superstition, continues he, in speaking of the Christian Religion, though nipp'd in the Bud, broke out a fresh, and spread not only through Judaea, where the Mischief first began, but came even into Rome it self, where all things shameful and abominable are brought, and find Persons ready to join with and uphold them. Presently as many as confess'd they were Christians, were seiz'd on, and soon after a great many more were discover'd, but were not found guilty of the Fire, though they were the Objects of the public Hatred, &c. You see here the Testimo­ny of a Heathen Author, who being born in the beginning of Christianity, and very well vers'd in the Passages of his Time, assures us of two things then publickly notorious. The one, that the Authors of the Christian Re­ligion had liv'd in Iudaea in the Reign of Tiberius, and had been punish'd du­ring the Government of Pontius Pilate. The other, that after his Death, in few Years, the Embracers of his Do­ctrine were extreamly multiply'd. Sue­tonius also tells us,In Claud. c. 15. that in the time of the Emperor Claudius, the Christians were banish'd out of Rome; which shows that there were then a great number [Page 213] of them in that Capital City.

We find also by the Testimony of another Author, contemporary to Ta­citus, that the Christians at that time made Profession of the same Morals they teach now a-days. Pliny being Proconsul of Bithynia, about threescore and ten Years after Pontius Pilate had been Governour of Iudaea, by Trajan's Order sought out the Christians with­in his Province, and inform'd himself with all the care imaginable concerning their Opinions: Hereupon he writes a Letter to Trajan, Lib. 10. Ep. 97. which Letter is still preserv'd. I was inform'd, says he, that all their Crime, or Error, consisted only in that they us'd to assemble themselves upon a certain Night, and to sing together a Hymn to Christ, as to a God: That they all oblig'd themselves by Oath not to any Crime; but on the contrary, that they would not commit Felony, Robbery, or Adul­tery; and that they would deceive no Man, nor break a Trust: This done, they dispers'd and return'd again after sometime to eat together, which they did in common, and without any harm: But that they had given over doing it upon my Proclamation, where­in, according to your Orders, I had for­bidden all sorts of Conventicles. This [Page 214] made me believe that I could not get out the Truth better than by putting to the Rack two Women Servants, whom they call Dia­conesses; but I discover'd nothing but a strange and excessive Superstition. They that understand the Latin Tongue, will not wonder that Tacitus and Pliny make use of the word Superstition. The Romans gave that Name to all sorts of Religious Worship that were not establish'd by public Authority.

Two such Witnesses as these cannot be excepted against; Seeing it is evi­dent they had no favour for Christi­ans, and were perhaps the most able Men of their time; but especially if we consider that they treat of matters of Fact, which they themselves had either seen, or which were known by all Men, as was the Death of Jesus Christ under Pontius Pilate. The Wri­tings that we have of Christians living between the times of Pilate and those of Tacitus or Trajan, attest the same Truths: They date the beginning of Christianity from the same Christ that Pilate put to Death, and they preach to us precisely the same Morals.

We must then necessarily allow that there was in Iudaea, during the [Page 215] Reign of Tiberius, a Person that laid the Foundation of the Christian Reli­gion, and had many Disciples. Let us now examine some of his first Disci­ples, and see what sort of People they were. Let us read the Epistle which Clement, Bishop of Rome, writ to the Christians of Corinth, forty Years after the Death of Iesus Christ, and in the beginning of the Raign of Vespasian. There appears in this Epistle a Spirit of Peace, of Charity, of Humility, and many lively and pathetical Exhor­tations to the Observation of the Gos­pel-Morals. He reproves severely those that had not observ'd them, but com­mends those that had. In the begin­ning of that Epistle, he says among other things, That the Christians of Co­rinth had labour'd day and night for their Brethren (to the end that the number of the Elect might be sav'd) in applying them­selves to Works of Mercy, and of a good Conscience; That they had been sincere, without Malice, and without remembring the Ill that any of them might formerly have done to one another; That all Divi­sion and Schism was abhorr'd by them; That they were afflicted for their Neighbour's Failings; That they look'd upon his Necessi­ties [Page 216] as their own; That they never repented them of well-doing, but were always ready to do all sorts of good Works; That in their Conversation, full of Vertue, and worthy of Veneration, they did all things in the fear of God, whose Commandments were writ in their Hearts. He adds afterwards, That he had known may Christians, Page 123. Ed. Ox. in 12^o. who, to re­deem others out of Slavery, had put them­selves in Chains; That many having sold themselves for Slaves, had maintain'd o­thers out of the price of their own Liberty.

The Masters of this Clement were the first Disciples of Iesus of Nazareth, who was the first Teacher of Christia­nity; and he gives Testimony of their great Piety. Indeed if we read their Writings, we find nothing in them but what speaks a profound Veneration of the Deity, an extream Tenderness to­wards all Men, and an extraordinary Strictness in all that concerns the Go­vernment of a Man's Self. Let us chuse which we will of them, we shall find nothing in their Works but what tends to Piety. If some of their Wri­tings have been question'd, let us take those concerning which there never was any Question; Or, without looking further, the Gospel according to St. Luke, [Page 217] and the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, which are cited by Clement, and we shall perceive every where the same Morals which they endeavour to implant in the Hearts of their Disciples.

I suppose all along that the Reader has some knowledg of the Precepts of the Gospel, and has given some attention to what I said at the beginning; And then I dare boldly say, that unless he have lost all Sense, he will acknowledg that there is nothing more reasonable that the Morals of the Gospel; and that it were to be wish'd that all the World observ'd them. The Apostles then in exhorting their Hearers to live after a manner so reasonable, and so profitable to human Society, requir'd nothing of them contrary to Reason, or to the true Interests of all Mankind. And this puts me in mind of the Say­ing of a Person, that once had no great Opinion of the Truth of our Religion. When the Morals, which the Disciples of Jesus Christ preach'd throughout the World, were thus livelily describ'd to him, he could not but fall into these words, which the Evidence of the thing drew from him, I wish all the World had believ'd them.

[Page 218] This Doctrine of the Apostles ought undoubtedly to make all those who love human Society, and their own Ad­vantages, to listen to it. But it may here be objected that perhaps the Apo­stles preach'd not this Doctrine, but in design to insinuate themselves into the Minds of the People; and afterwards, upon pretext of Piety, to get from them whatsoever they had a mind to. But to answer that Objection, in the first place I observe, and suppose it will be granted me, that this Suspicion has no Foundation in the Doctrine which they preach'd. For that condemns the love of Honours, of Riches, and of Pleasures. There cannot so much as one single Passage of their Works be alledg'd that favours Ambition, Cove­tousness, or Concupiscence.

This being so, this Suspicion can be grounded but upon one of these two things; Either that the Apostles could hope to make some advantage of this their Doctrine, when it should be re­ceiv'd; or that they actually made it, when they preach'd it. I understand here by Advantage A Good out-ballan­cing all the Inconveniences that the Apostles underwent in preaching the [Page 219] Gospel, or at least such a one as they esteem'd in that degree. It is not pro­bable, if they were Deceivers, but that they propos'd an Advantage to them­selves greater than the Pains they took: Otherwise they might justly be look'd upon as Fools, which they cannot (without great Impertinence) be sup­pos'd to have been by any that read their Writings.

Now the Apostles could not hope to make any Advantage of their Do­ctrine, unless it were receiv'd by the generality of those amongst whom they preach'd it. For without that, they would have been expos'd to perpetual Persecution. None but Fools could expect to live quietly amongst People vehemently prepossest with Opinions directly contrary to those they resolv'd to profess and teach; People that be­lieved themselves oblig'd for the Interest of the State, and of Religion, to take away both the Estates and Lives of those that oppos'd their Superstition. Such were the Romans, the Greeks, and the Iews, in the times of the Apostles. They must then have hoped that their preaching would take such effect as would draw after them the greatest [Page 220] part of the World. But that was im­possible to be hop'd for, by any that had never so little knowledg of the Disposition of the Heart of Man. And the Apostles, who had a great share of this Knowledg, as appears by their Writings, could less than others ima­gine such a thing. The Iews were so passionately wedded to their Ceremo­nies, that there was not the least likeli­hood of succeeding with them. The Romans and Greeks were so over Head and Ears in Pleasures, so covetous, so ambitious, that the small number a­mongst them who had not lost all thought of Vertue, speak of the Man­ners of that Age with Horror and De­testation. The Histories of both those People (if we judg of them by the Ideas of the Gospel) present us, in the Events of those Times, with a Picture of the most horrible Corrup­tion that ever was. And can it then be imagin'd that the Apostles should hope to draw to their Opinions the genera­lity of those that liv'd in such times? How could they promise themselves, that People so blinded by their Passi­ons, and so harden'd in their Crimes, would ever relent? No, they tell us [Page 221] plainly (after their Master) that they hoped not to make the Gospel be re­ceiv'd by any great number of Persons, in comparison of those that would re­main in Unbelief.

But if yet it be suppos'd that the Simplicity of the Apostles might have incourag'd them to hope for the Con­version of the greatest part of the Roman Empire, Experience however would at length have undeceiv'd them; since after having preach'd many Years they were forc'd to acknowledg they had gain'd very few. History shows us clearly, that for some Ages after the beginning of Christianity there were much fewer Christians in the Roman Empire than Heathens. Thus then we see that the Apostles were necessarily exposed to cruel Persecutions all their Lives; scorn'd, and hated alike by Jews and Gentiles, they could have no Recompence any way proportionable to their Labours. And so they tell us plainly, that they expected nothing but Afflictions in this Life; and that it was all they hoped for from Men of this World, in Recompence of what they undertook in preaching unto them [Page 222] a Doctrine so reasonable as are the Gospel-Morals. Nor were they de­ceiv'd; for after having suffer'd great Torments, they in the end lost their Lives in an ignominious manner, by the hands of Executioners, asserting to the last the Truth of the Doctrine they had preach'd. It was by great Injustice and Malice, says Clement, whom we cited before, that Peter underwent not one or two, but many Pains; and after having thereby born Testimony to the Truth, went to the place of Glory that was due to him. It was through the like Ma­lice of Men that Paul receiv'd the Re­ward of his Patience; having been seven times put in Chains, whipp'd and ston'd; Having been the Herauld of the Gospel in the East and in the West, and having render'd his Faith illustrious; Having preach'd Iustice to all the Earth, and being arriv'd at the utmost part of the West, after having born Testimony to the Truth before the principal Rulers there, he departed out of this World.

This Event of the preaching of the Apostles, absolutely overthrows the second Ground whereon Men might build suspicions of their Sincerity, viz. [Page 223] that they had made an Advantage by their preaching equivalent to the Trou­bles and Dangers they were subject to. If they were esteem'd by a small number of Persons of mean Condition, that hinder'd them not from being despis'd by all the rest of Mankind, Jews and Gentiles; from being ill treated and persecuted; from suffering extream Po­verty; and at last from dying upon Scaffolds and Grosses; as we have seen by what Clement says, and as all their Disciples unanimously affirm. One of the Apostles themselves also tells us the same thing in one of his Epi­stles: Even to this present hour (says he) we hunger and thirst, 1 Cor. IV. 11. and are naked and buffeted, and have no certain dwel­ling-place; and labour, working with our own Hands. Ib. XV. 19. And again If in this Life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all Men most miserable.

There is no body surely that has common Sense, who to obtain the Esteem of a small number of People, without Power and without Reputa­tion, would suffer so great Troubles, become the Horror of Mankind, be us'd as the worst of Men, and as those [Page 224] that were condem'd to the Amphithe­atres, be made a Spectacle to the People. Ib. IV. 9. A Man may be tickl'd with the itch of Glory, when he fancies to himself that most of those among whom he lives will applaud that which he is doing: But it never came into the Mind of any Man to expose himself to long Sufferings, and at last to a cruel and ignominious Death, to the end only to be esteem'd by a very few contemptible People, and in the mean while to be look'd upon as a wicked and as a mad Man, by the greatest part of those with whom he liv'd.

The Truth of these Matters of Fact cannot be deny'd: That they preach'd the Doctrine which we read in their Writings (and whereof the Christians still make Profession) in the Reigns of Tiberius, and some of the following Emperors: That they liv'd in great Trouble, and under many Afflictions: And that at last they dy'd miserably, in maintaining the Doctrine they had for divers Years publish'd. We have seen these Truths attested by Heathens, as well as by their own Disciples.

[Page 225] If we would suppose that the Apo­stles liv'd after a voluptuous manner, and contrary to the Morals they preach'd, we must be oblig'd to deny their having undergone those Sufferings which are attested by their Disciples; the first whereof, in imitation of their Masters, as they themselves say, offer'd themselves couragiously to very many Afflictions, without making any advan­tage thereof in this Life. To these Men, says Clement, speaking of St. Peter and St. Paul, who liv'd after a divine manner, there joyn'd themselves a great number of the Elect, who having suffer'd many Pu­nishments and Torments, have left us a fair Example. Nay, supposing their living so voluptuously, we must also suppose an Absurdity that is inconsistent even with common Sense; viz. That they preaching that Men ought to undergo much Suffering for Religion, exhorting the People to all sorts of Vertue, and yet living themselves at their Ease (without taking care to practise the Precepts they gave to others, except only so far as might serve to deceive the World) did nevertheless make a great number of Disciples, not only [Page 226] sincere Imitators of their Master's pre­tended Vertues, but who also dy'd for a Doctrine, for which those that had taught them it refus'd to suffer any thing.

It is conceiveable enough that se­duc'd Persons may be as thoroughly perswaded of a Falshood, as others are of the most evident Truths; and may consequently, in maintenance of a Fals­hood, do all that the most resolute Men would do in Justification of Truths of the greatest importance. But it cannot be conceiv'd, that Persons prepossess'd from their Infancy with Opinions con­trary to those of the Apostles, would let themselves be so miserably seduc'd, that after having embrac'd their Do­ctrine, they would suffer for it the most cruel Punishments, whilst they saw that their Masters would not undergo any at all for it. Now we see, by the Passage of Tacitus which we cited, that at the beginning of Christianity a great num­ber of People declared themselves Christians, tho they saw that the bare public Profession of that Religion would expose them to the Punishments due to Incendiaries, and to Nero's Fury. The [Page 227] reason of this must necessarily be that some of the first Preachers of the Go­spel, as their Disciples assure us, gave Examples to others. Without that it is impossible to conceive they could draw so many after them, and especi­ally so many who endur'd such horrible Torments for the Religion they learn'd from them.

From all this I draw no other Con­sequence than that the Apostles were sincere Persons, who believed their own Doctrine; as were also those who by their Example dy'd for it. They must have been truly perswaded of the thing, that would suffer so many Inconveniences, Fatigues, and Punishments as they suf­fer'd, rather that abandon it.

Now the Apostles having been in­disputably sincere Persons, we must confess that if ever there were any in the World whose Vertue deserved Esteem, they certainly deserv'd it from all Men. No design could be con­ceiv'd more profitable to Mankind than theirs, as has been shown in treating of the Morals they preach'd. None could go about to bring that Design to pass with more Earnest­ness [Page 228] and Zeal than they did, who sacri­fic'd to it their Fortunes, their Prefer­ments, their Honours, their Pleasures, their Repose and their Lives. They compass'd Sea and Land under a thou­sand Dangers, attempted a thousand Difficulties, suffer'd Inconveniences and Pains unexpressible. They expos'd them­selves to most Mens Scorn, Malice and Cruelty. And to what end? To per­swade the same Men to live one with another after a manner so conforma­ble to Reason, so advantagious to Soci­ty, so pleasant, so sweet, that, except the Soveraign Happiness to be injoy'd in the Life that never ends, nothing can be imagin'd preferable to it.

I ask now, If (being perswaded of the probity and sincerity of the Apo­stles, and otherwise satisfied by their Discourses that they were not at all out of their Wits) we could deny Cre­dit to their Testimony, if they had said they had seen with their own Eyes certain matters of Fact, which they related with many Circumstances; and that they had heard with their own Ears Discourses full of Sense and Wis­dom, which they repeated from be­ginning [Page 229] to end. Let every Man ask himself, if he would refuse to believe one of his Friends, whom he knew to be sincere and judicious, if he assur'd him positively that he had heard such and such a thing. Would one suspect for a Lie the Testimony of a rational Man, and one who gave good signs of Sincerity, when he affirm'd that he had been present at the Execution of one of his Friends, had seen him die, and had heard him say many things which he very distinctly remember'd? I confess they that know not the Sin­cerity or Judgment of a Person, may make a doubt of the Truth of what they hear him say; but if once they are perswaded of his Integrity and Understanding, it is impossible they should refuse to believe him. Eve­ry Man may be convinc'd of this by his own Experience, and may, as I have already observ'd, frame a thousand particular Examples to himself of what I have been saying.

Now the Apostles tell us they liv'd some Years with Jesus of Nazareth, from whom they learn'd all their Doctrine; that they saw him crucified, such a day, [Page 230] of such a Month, of such a Year; that they saw him die upon the Cross, and after that buried in a Sepulchre, hewn out of a Rock for the Family of a Jewish Counsellor call'd Ioseph of Arimathea, who begged the Body of Jesus from Pilate, and who, after having put it into the Sepulchre, roul'd a great Stone to the Door; that they saw the Ro­man Souldiers keep Guard about the Sepulchre, and that the chief of the Jews had carefully seal'd it up, for fear any should take away the Body. Can we, being perswaded as we ought to be of the Sincerity and Wisdom of the Apostles, refuse to believe them in these things? Certainly we must have lost all Sense, to believe that Persons of Wisdom and Integrity would prevaricate, in affirming a thing of this nature with so many Circum­stances. The same Judgment must be made concerning the Discourses of Jesus Christ, which they relate to us after a manner so lively, and so circumstantiated, that we could not relate them better, if we came direct­ly from hearing them.

[Page 231] It is more clear than day, to those who are perswaded that the Apo­stles had but common Sense and Sin­cerity, that they really spoke Truth in all these Particulars.

That being so, Why should we not believe the same Apostles, when they assure us that they have often seen their Master, in a moment, cure many incurable Diseases; restore the Dead to Life; raise himself, after having lain more than thirty hours in the Sepul­chre; eat and drink with them after­wards, for several days; and at last ascend, in their Presence, in a Cloud to Heaven? I perceive indeed that many Persons who would not have question'd the Testimony of the Apo­stles if they had said nothing of the Miracles, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ, do, for that reason only, doubt of it. They would have easily believed that in Iudaea, during the Government of Pontius Pilate, there had been a Man named Jesus, who taught the Morals we read now in the Gospels; that the Jewish Priests through Envy and Malice put him to Death; but that his Disciples refrained not from teach­ing [Page 232] his Precepts, and that the most afrightful Torments hinder'd them not from publishing them. They would praise all Christ's Doctrine, as the most excellent Philosophy that ever was known to have been taught amongst Men, and the best Principles that can be thought on to oblige them to live well one with another. But they re­ject all this, and believe that the Apo­stles were Impostors, only because they speak of Miracles, which they say they saw their Master do. Let us consider a little why these Men do so.

There are but two ways whereby the Falshood of a matter of Fact may be known. The first is, when it is known that the Witnesses who relate it are deceiv'd, or have a design to deceive, though otherwise what they relate seem very possible. The second is, when by clear and evident Proofs we know that the Fact in question is in it self absolutely impossible. That the Apostles design'd not to deceive us has been made appear; nor can it be said that they were themselves constantly deceiv'd in all the Miracles of Jesus Christ which they relate. If the Que­stion [Page 233] were about a small number of Miracles, that could not without diffi­culty be examin'd, this Suspicion might with some probability be started: But they relate so many, and of so many different sorts, that if what they say be not true, it must of necessity be that they have gone about to deceive us. For Example, they could not be mis­taken in Christ's Ascension into Heaven, which they have constantly affirm'd, and of which the Christians from the very beginning have made one of the chief Articles of their Faith. Those who, as Pliny reports, sung Hymns to Jesus Christ as to a God, believ'd with­out doubt that Christ was ascended into Heaven. And indeed I cannot but think that any who will take the Pains to read only the Gospel of St. Luke, and the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (where are related the Circumstances of many of the Miracles of Christ, and particularly of his Resurrection, and after that of his appearing divers times unto the Disciples) must certainly a­gree that those who spoke after that manner were not seduced; and that if what they say be not true, of necessity [Page 234] they must have design'd to deceive those to whom they related these matters.

Now it has been shown demonstra­tively that the Apostles were very sin­cere Persons. And those who [...] to admit their Testimonies do not tax them of having been deceived; Nor do they undertake to oppose directly the Reasons, by which we prove their Sincerity. They content themselves in making Objections upon the nature of Miracles; and so reduce themselves to the second way of knowing the Falshood of a matter of Fact, which consists in showing that the thing re­lated is in it self absolutely impossible.

I cannot ingage my self here in the Examination of their Reasons; neither is it necessary. It is sufficient to observe in general, that all the Arguments, with which Spinoza and those that fol­low his Opinions do dispute against Mi­racles, are not comparable in evidence and force to the Principles we have establish'd. These Men endeavour to show that the extraordinary Effects of the Divine Power, which we call Mi­racles, may be the necessary Conse­quences of some of the Laws of Na­ture, [Page 235] to us unknown; and that they are no more to be made use of as Proofs in this matter, than those which occur daily in the ordinary course of Nature. They bring also some Metaphysical Arguments, to show that every thing comes to pass necessarily. But all this overthrows not the direct Proofs which we have brought of the Truth of these Events, and which are infinitly more clear than their Reasons, which no body can understand, as perhaps neither do they themselves. But there is no dan­ger that they should perswade any Man that the Resurrection of a dead Body, or the Ascension of Jesus Christ into Heaven, could happen as naturally as the Birth of a Man into the World. As long as the direct Proofs of the Truth of those matters of Fact hold good, no Man will be perswaded that the Mira­cles which the Apostles relate are na­tural Effects of certain Laws of Na­ture, unknown to Men: Because it will presently be ask'd, Why then are no more of these Effects produced? How could Jesus Christ know that after he was buried, he should rise again and ascend into Heaven? And how came [Page 236] it to pass, at that instant that he com­manded a lame or a Paralytic Man to go, &c. that the Laws of Nature (un­known to us) were prepared and ready to cause the lame or Paralytic Man to walk.

It is plain then that the Philosophi­cal Difficulties alledg'd against the Te­stimony of the Apostles, are not of so great force as the Arguments we have brought to confirm it; nor can they rake place, so long as a Man is per­swaded of the Sincerity of the first Disciples of Jesus Christ. And the truth is, that those who make these Objections do take this course, only be­cause they cannot possibly alledg any thing against the matters of Fact, which we have prov'd. They indea­vour to confound the Minds of their Admirers by obscure Metaphysical Ar­guments, and Suppositions, which they cannot prove, and which they assert nevetheless to be common Notions.

This being so, it cannot be doubted that Christ Jesus was extraordinarily favoured by God: And as it cannot be suppos'd, with any colour of Rea­son, that God would work Miracles [Page 237] in favour of an Impostor, it must ne­cessarily be acknowledged that he was a Teacher sent from Heaven, to set Men right that were gone astray; and consequently, that his Doctrine is true. But I will not insist upon this Conse­quence, as well because it is evident in it self, as because many Learned Men already have thoroughly handled it. I will add only this Reflection be­fore I end; viz. That we have no Rea­son to suspect that Jesus Christ himself designed to deceive us: Because all the Reasons brought to prove the Sincerity of the Apostles are as strong in respect of him as of them. To be convinc'd of this, we need but apply to him, both as to his Person and Doctrine, all that has been said concerning the Apo­stles. All the Religion which he taught Men, and which we find in the Go­spels, tends only to bring us to the Observation of the most holy and most admirable Morals that can possi­bly be imagin'd. And he could have no other Interest in the Establish­ment thereof than what we all have; that is, the universal Welfare of all Men.

[Page 238] Thus then you see the Christian Re­ligion establish'd after an invincible manner, without supposing any Inspi­ration in the Histories of our Lord and his Apostles. There remains nothing more to be added, but that to appre­hend the Truth of all our Proofs, it is necessary only that we have the same Disposition of Mind towards the Apo­stles, that we have towards any Person whose Sincerity is very well known to us, and whom we could not refuse to believe when he should assure us of a thing he had seen and heard, and in which it is morally impossible that he should be deceived. The chief thing then is, to be well assur'd of the Inte­grity of the Apostles, which is easy to be done in following the Method we have described. Otherwise, while we attend not to the Reasons which give Evidence thereunto, we shall never be sufficiently sensible of the strength of the other Arguments, that may be brought to prove the Divine Original of our Religion.

I intreat you, Sir, to examine what I have said exactly, and to let me know [Page 239] if I have been to blame in affirming that we may be perfectly assured of the Truth of Christianity, without be­lieving the History of the New Testa­ment to be inspir'd. If I would have treated of this Subject thoroughly, I must have compos'd a Book, not writ a Letter. But what I have said is suffi­cient to let you see, that our Friend is not with any sort of Justice to be suspected of Irreligion, upon the ac­count of his not believing the Inspi­ration of the Scriptures as it is com­monly believed. I am, &c.