nation, where regular records have been kept, are so interwoven together, and support each other in such a variety of ways, that it is extremely difficult to keep the ideas of them distinct, so as not to anticipate, and not to prove, more than the exactness of logical method requires one to prove. Or, in other words, the inconsistencies of the contrary supposition are so great, that they can scarcely stand long enough to be confuted. You may easily try this upon the history of England or France, Rome or Greece.

Fourthly. If the books of the Old and New Testaments were written by the persons to whom they are ascribed above; i. e. if they be genuine, the moral characters of these writers afford the strongest assurance that the facts asserted by them are true. Falsehoods and frauds of a common nature shock the moral sense of common men, and are rarely met with except in persons of abandoned characters: how inconsistent, then, must those of the most glaring and impious nature be with the highest moral characters! That such characters are due to the sacred writers appears from the writings themselves, by an internal evidence; but there is also strong external evidence in many cases; and indeed this point is allowed in general by unbelievers. The sufferings which several of the writers underwent both in life and death, in attestation of the facts delivered by them, is a particular argument in favour of these.

Fifthly. The arguments here alleged for proving the truth of the Scripture History from the genuineness of the books, are as conclusive in respect of the miraculous facts, as of the common ones. But besides this, it may be observed, that if we allow the genuineness of the books to be sufficient evidence of the common facts mentioned in them, the miraculous facts must be allowed also, from their close connexion with the common ones. It is necessary to admit both or neither. It is not, for instance, to be conceived, that Moses should have delivered the Israelites from their slavery in Egypt, or conducted them through the wilderness for forty

years, at all, in such manner as the common history represents, unless we suppose the miraculous facts intermixed with it be true also. In like manner, the fame of Christ's miracles, the multitudes which followed him, the adherence of his disciples, the jealousy and hatred of the chief priests, scribes, and pharisees, with many other facts of a common nature, are impossible to be accounted for, unless we allow that he did really work miracles. And similar observations apply in general to the other parts of the Scripture History.

Sixthly. There is even a particular argument in favour of the miraculous part of the Scripture History, to be drawn from the reluctance of mankind to receive miraculous facts. It is true that this reluctance is greater in some ages and nations than in others, and probable reasons may be assigned why this reluctance was, in general, less in ancient times than in the present (which, however are presumptions that some real miracles were then wrought); but it must always be considerable, from the very frame of the human mind, and would be particularly so amongst the Jews at the time of Christ's appearance, as they had then (according to their own account) been without miracles for at least four hundred years. Now this reluctance must make both the writers and readers very much upon their guard; and if it be now one of the chief prejudices against revealed religion, as unbelievers unanimously assert, it is but reasonable to allow also, that it would be a strong check upon the publication of a miraculous history at or near the time when the miracles were said to be performed; i. e. it will be a strong confirmation of such a history, if its genuineness be granted previously.

And, upon the whole, we may conclude certainly, that the principal facts, both common and miraculous, mentioned in the Scriptures, must be true, if their genuineness be allowed. But the particular evidences of miraculous facts, as well as the principal objections which have been urged against them, will be stated more fully in a future letter.

The converse of this proposition is also true, namely, if the principal facts mentioned in the Scriptures be true, they must be genuine writings. This converse proposition is much more important than it may appear at first sight; for there are many evidences for the truth of particular facts mentioned in the Scriptures; such, for example, as those taken from natural history, from geography, and the contemporary profane history, which no way presuppose, but, on the contrary, prove, the genuineness of the Scriptures; and this genuineness, thus proved, may, by the arguments alleged under this proposition, be extended to infer the authenticity of the rest of the facts. Nor is this to argue in a circle, and to prove the truth of the Scripture history from its truth; but to prove the truth of those facts which are not attested by natural or civil history, from those which are, by the medium of the genuineness of the Scriptures.

II. The Language, Style and Manner of Writing, used in the Books of the Old and New Testaments, are Arguments of their Genuineness.

Here let it be observed, First, that the Hebrew language, in which the Old Testament was written, being the language of an ancient people, and one that had little intercourse with their neighbours, and whose neighbours also spake a language that had great affinity with their own, would not change so rapidly as modern languages have done, since nations have been variously mixed with one another, and commerce, arts, and sciences, greatly extended. Yet some changes there necessarily must be in about one thousand and fiftyfour years elapsing between the time of Moses and that of Malachi. And accordingly critical Hebrew scholars assure us, that the Biblical Hebrew corresponds to this criterion with so much exactness, that a considerable argument may thence be deduced in favour of the genuineness of the books of the Old Testament.

Secondly. The books of the Old Testament have too considerable a diversity of style to be the work either of one Jew (for a Jew he must be, on account of the

language), or of any set of contemporary Jews. If, therefore, they be all forgeries, there must be a succession of impostors in different ages, who have concurred to impose upon posterity, which is inconceivable. To suppose part forged, and part genuine, is very harsh and unnatural; neither would this supposition, if admitted, be satisfactory.

Thirdly. The Hebrew language ceased to be spoken, as a living language, soon after the time of the Babylonish captivity; but it would be difficult or impossible to forge any thing in it after it was become a dead language. For learned men affirm positively, that there was no grammar made for the Hebrew till many ages after; and, as it is difficult to write in a dead language with exactness, even by the help of a grammar, so it seems impossible without it. All the books of the Old Testament must therefore be, at least, nearly as ancient as the Babylonish captivity; and since they could not all be written in the same age (for the reason just assigned), some must be considerably more ancient : which would bring us again to a succession of conspiring impostors.

Fourthly. This last remark may perhaps afford a new argument for the genuineness of the book of Daniel, if any were wanting. But indeed the SEPTUAGINT translation, executed about two hundred and eighty-seven years before the Christian æra, shows not only this, but all the other books of the Old Testament, to have been considered as ancient and genuine books soon after the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, at least.

Fifthly. There is a simplicity of style, and an unaffected manner of writing, in all the books of the Old Testament (excepting only those parts that are avowedly poetical or prophetical) which is a very strong evidence of their genuineness, even exclusively of the suitableness of this circumstance to the times of the supposed authors.

Sixthly. The style of the New Testament also is remarkably simple and unaffected, and perfectly suited

to the time, places, and persons. There is a diversity of style and idiom, such as infallibly proves them to be the production of different writers. And, though a large proportion of the language of the New Testament is pure Greek; yet it is not like the language of Isocrates, of Demosthenes, of Xenophon, or of Plutarch: then there would have been strong ground to suspect forgery, since such would ill accord with the character of Jews writing in a language not their own. But the use of words and phrases is such, as well as the ideas and method of reasoning, that the books of the New Testament could be written by none but persons originally Jews, which brings the inquiry into a still narrower compass: for I believe it would be impossible to devise any hypothesis which would satisfactorily account for Jews telling such a story, and sacrificing their lives in attestation of it, unless the death and resurrection of Christ make an essential part of that hypothesis.

It may also be observed, that the narrations and precepts of both the Old and New Testaments are delivered without marks of hesitation; the writers teach as having authority; a circumstance peculiar to those who have both a clear knowledge of what they deliver, and a perfect integrity of heart; and this uprightness of intention is, farther, most strikingly evinced by their incessantly relating, either as historians, prophets, or teachers, what runs counter to the whole train of their prejudices as Jews.

And farther, that the care used in specifying that some of the Psalms were composed by Asaph, others by Moses, some of the Proverbs by Lemuel, &c. furnishes another argument in favour of the genuineness of the books of Scripture, and leads us to infer that those books are the real productions of the authors to whom they are ascribed.

III. The very great Number of particular Circumstances of Time and Place, Persons, &c. mentioned in the Scriptures, come in Proof both of their Genuineness and Authenticity.