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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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? 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sub audiendum que 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ut hic dicatur non ipse Abraham, sed ejus nepos Jacob emisse monumentum illud; vel dicendum est Stephanum lapsu 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 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 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 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 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 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.

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, 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.

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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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; 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & in illa ad Corinthios, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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; 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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; 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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.

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.

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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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, 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, 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, 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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; 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

This might be a Prophecy, of that sort which we said were sometimes pronounc'd without their being aware who pronounc'd it; of which we brought some Examples: which sort of Prophecy is not inconsistent with a violent Passion; as appears by the Example of Caiaphas. But indeed these Expressions cannot be translated in the future Tense, without extream violence to the Text; and accordingly the ancient Interpreters, as well as modern, have made use of the Imperative or Optative Mood: Nor ought it to seem strange that we think there was in this an Excess of Passion, since it is impossible to explain any other way those words of Psalm CXXXVII. Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the Stones, &c. Let any one compare the words of Psal. CIX. with those which a Heathen Poet puts into the Mouth of a desperate Woman. Vivat, per urbes erret ignotas egens, Exul, pavens, invisus, incerti laris, —quoque non aliud queam Pejus precari, liberos similes Patri, Similes que Matri. In fine, if it were necessary to render all these words in the future Tense, to avoid making the Psalmist pronounce such Curses, there are a great many other places where the Version would need to be reform'd, and where we should be oblig'd to strain the Text; as may easily be perceiv'd in turning over the Book of Psalms.

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 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.

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 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, 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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.

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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 divinitus inspirata; quam multae enim sunt Scripturae humani ingenii? Nec hoc vult omnem eam quae est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; id enim esset nugari: sed hoc vult, Omnem scripturam quae à Deo inspirata est (id est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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. 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 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 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, 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 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 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 4o 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. 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 12o. 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, 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.

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 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 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 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 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. 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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, 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.

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 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 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 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, 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 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 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.

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 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.