YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

A ¦
V I N D I C AT I O N
OF THE
Evidences and Authenticity
O F T H E
GOSPELS,
From the Objections of thg late
LORD BOLINGBROKE, IN HIS
LETTERS O N T H E
STUDY OF HISTORY.
By P E t E R W H A L ,L E Y,
Vicar of St. Sepulchre inNorthamptcjii, and late
Fejlow of St. John Baptift College, in Oxford.
— : — -Fragili, quarens illidere dent em
Offmdet folido. H.or. >
LONDON;,
Printed forJoHN and James RiviNGTON,m
St, Paul's Church-yard. M dcc liu.

HU7

10

lS3w

Advertifement.
^ir'H E following vindicatiofi
was beguny foon after I had
read the letters which gave oeca-
Jion to it. They had been puhlifhed
indeed many months before I had
the opportunity of feeing them-:
And the vindication was carried
on, as faflas other neceffary avo
cations would permit me to pro
ceed. It Would have been offered
to the world much fooner, if an
intervening accident had not re-
¦ tarded the^puhUcation. After I
\iad made a confiderahle progrefs^
a defence of the Old and \New
^eftaments by the Lord BifliQp of
' Clogher,

Advertifement:
Clogher, appeared in anfwer to
Lord Bolingbroke. This I have
hitherto denied my f elf the pleafure
cf perufng : but I doubt not that
it is executed in fo mafierly a
manner -i as to render any further
defence of them infome meafure
unneceffary. Yet as writers on
the fame fubjeSi often take a dif
ferent method in the profecution-i
there may poffibly be fomething in
the piece flow fubmitted to the
Reader, that the Bifhop hath
omitted to take notice of If there
fhould be any thing in common
with that, he will truly impute it
to an unavoidable concurrence of
thought, in vindicating the famg
truths. Such

Advertifement.
Such as it is, it is humbly of
fered as a fmall tribute to the
taufe of Chriflianity, and as an
inflame of fincere zeal for that
divine revelation, which it is e-
qually an honour for every pro-
fejfor to defend, as it is the hap-
pinefs of every one to believe and
praBife it.

A
VINDICATION O F THE
Evidences and Authenticity
OF THE
GOSPELS, Sec.
THE hypothefis which lord
Bolingbroke contends for, with
refpeft to the infpiration of the
Old Teftament, lingular as it appears, is
far from being new. One naay obferve
in general, that a partial or occajional in
fpiration of the Scripture, is, in effedt,
no infpiration of it at all : and unlefs we
{hould fuppofe the whole to have paffed
under the divine fuperintendence and in-
fpedion, we fliall be at as great a lofs to
make the requifite diftinftions, as we
B fhould

( o
fhould be to frame or colled a religion
-for ourfelves.
The objediions of'his Lordfhip, which
I propofe to examine, relating wholly to
the evidences and authenticity of the
New Teftament, do hOt require of me
a vindication of the other : and indeed
the defence would be unneceffary, as
the cavils of his LcJrdOiip have been ef
fectually removed by the performance
of a much abler patron j vvhofe labours
and whofe life are equally devoted to
ipromote the glory of that mafter, whom
he hath the honour to ferve *.
ToGonfider his Lordfhip's arguments
in their full extent, it will be neceflary
to review the connection in which they
are placed, and from whence he takes
occasfion to fupport his charge. " Di-
" vines," fays he, " of all religions, have
* It is almoft unneceffary to inform the reader, that
I refer to the Remat ks on Lord Bolingbroke' s Letters,
lately publiflied by my truly learned and ingeliioas
friend, the rev. Mr. Hermey of Wejion-Favel,
•' had

( 3 )
" had great (hare in the corruption of
" hiftory* ; and the Chriftian clergy,
'• in particular, have greatly abufed by
" mifreprefentation and falfe quotation,
" the hiftory they can no longer cor-
" rupt-f-." Th0 accufation, we may
perceive, is general ; and as eafy as his
Lordftiip reprefents the proof, he declines
to enter or enlarge upon it. The clergy,
I believe, will put themfelves in no
great pain, from what is thus objedted in
fo loofe and indeterminate a manner.
Had his Lordfhip been more explicit,
his cenfures would have defcrved a more
particular refutation : and he ought to
have refle<5ted, that every man, who
Js induced by prejudice, by intereft, or
paflion, to difguife or mifreprefent a
jTaft, is himfelf, in tholie inflanccs, a
corrupter of the hiftory which he oflfers
to the public.
Let us pafs then to what his Lord"
ihip hath to fay of thofe, " who rp..ay
* Page 174. f Ibid.
B 2 "be

(4)
" be called divines without a fneerj
" who believe -themfelves, and would
" have mankind believe *." My Lord
is greatly difgufted with the methods
they have taken to filence infidelity, and
fupport the ChrifUan caufe. " It has
5' been long matter of aftonifhment,"
he confeffeth, " how fuch perfon^ as
" thefe could take fo much filly pains
*' to eftablifh myftcry on metaphyfics,
" revelation on philofophy, and mattersi
" of fad on abftrad reafoning. For a .
" religion," as he adds, '* confirmed
" by prophecies and miracles, appeals
•' to fadtsj andthefadts mufl be prov-
" ed, as all other fadts that pafs for au-
" thentic are proved -j-." I am always
an admirer of truth, however inelegant
her drefs, or uncourtly her appearance.
I make no paufe therefore in the leaft,
to fubfcribe to the juftice of his Lord
fhip's remark j though I may reafonably
fcruple the decency of conveyance, and
the candour of his introdudion. I al-
* Page 174. tP-»7S- the

( 5 )
low Chriftianity to be a matter of fad ;
and to be proved in the fame manner,
in which all other fads ought to be
proved. I fubjoin likewife, that Chri
ftianity is not only capable of being thus
proved, but is attefted with much more
illuftrious evidence, than any fad what
ever of parallel antiquity, or perhaps
any in the whole compafs of hiftory,
is able to produce.
To cure his Lordfhip's aftonifhment,
I will endeavour to aflign a reafon for
th.o(Q Jilly pains, which are matter of fo
great furprize. The truth is, that much
Jillier infidels had affeded, what they
might call a metaphyfical kind of writ
ing, to evince the perfedion and immu
tability of natural religion, with the in-
fignificancy and ufeleffnefs of a revela
tion from God. That no objedion from
any quarter might pafs without its pro
per confutation, fome divines of emi
nence condefcended to anfwer them in
their own vi^ay. This they have per-
' formed

(6 )
fcrmed in the moft folid and convincing
manner. Yet, though arguments of this kind
have properly a place in difquifitions on
the being and attributes of God, in dif-
cufling the fitnefs or relation of things,
they are undoubtedly no evidence of
fads, nor can be brought to determine
their authenticity and truth. I do not
know that they have ever been fo
brought. They have been urgfed:,. in
deed, to deted .the fallacies by which
infidelity endeavoured to perplex the ig
norant and unwary j but they were never
refted on as the genuine evidences to
iafcertain the grand fads, which diftiur-
guifh the Chriftian revelation. They
have proofs appropriated to their Nfiture:
and whilft thefe are to be had, we nei
ther want nor defire to produce others
which are lefs pertinent or lefs proper.
His Xordfhip complains, hovvever,
" that thefe proofs are unfairly furnifh-. " ed.

(?)
" ed, in a manner that creates prejui-
" dices, and gives advantages againft
" Chriftianity that require to be remo-
" ved*." What can be his Lordfhip's
objedions to the manner, in which
thefe proofs are brought ? If their tef-
timony is ftrong and cxprefs, where can
be the unfairnefs to produce them to
the world ? They have a rigbt to be
:heard ; they will have power to extort
affent. If they are dubious and weak,
if falfe and inconclufive, whatever they
pretend to be, they are certainly no
pfoofs at all. But his Lordfhip, will ex
plain his meaning. " Falfe hiftory has
" been employed to propagate Chri'-
" ftianity : the fame abufe of it is ftill
" continued; writers copy one another :
" the miftake that was committed, or
'' the falfhood that was invented by one,
" is adopted by hundreds -f." A par
ticular fad referred to, is the evidence
for the gcrfpel of St. Matthew. This is
faid to be cited by Clemens, a difciplc of
* Page i-jS. t p. 177. the

(8)
the apoftles, and to be received by Jgna"
tius and Polycarp. A very eminent pre
late, and a learned minifter, have both
of them affirmed this, in their v^^ritirigs
in defence of Chriftianity.
Now his Lordftiip prefumes they are
both miftaken *. " He queftions whe-
" ther thdfe paffages of the gofpels,
" which are to be found in the fathers
" of the firft century, were really taken
" from the gofpels which we now have:
" and thoughthey are agreeable to what
'* we read in our evangelifts, he afks
" will it follow, that thefe fathers had
" the fame gofpels before them *? "
I will take leave, in my turn, to pro
pofe one queftion : Since we read in the
earlieft fathers, paffages of the gofpels
conformable to what we now read, will
it, follow that thefe fathers had other, or
different gofpels before them ? Becaufe
the critics Longinus, or Dionyfus Hali-
* Page 178. carnaffeusi.

(9)
'carnaffeus, cite paffages from Homer,
¦homDemofihenes, or Plato, which are
iimilar to what we now meet with in
thofe authors ; are we from thence to
conclude, that they took them from dif
ferent or falfe copies, or that they quoted
them from the feveral writers, who are
fcome down to us, and to whom they are
i-efpedively afcribed .? I mention this il-
loftratioh with the greater ftrefs, be
caufe it is attended with fome circum-^
.ftahces that bear a very obvious fimili-
tude |d the point in queftion. Lord
Bfiilingbroke was perhaps unwilling to
allow fuch paffages to be extrads from
the gofpels now in ufe, becaufe they did
hot literally agree with what is exhibited
in the books themfelves. He fhould
have-«onfidered at the fame time, that
fuch accui-acy of citation was far from
being the pradice of the earlier ages.
The fentiment of the paffage, wa§ the
thing principally aimed at; and if that
was prefer ved, they were lefs follicitous
in adhering to the author's words. What
C is

{ lO)
is here remarked, is not peculiar to the
Chriftian fathers, it was the univerfal
cuftom of all antiquity. The very re
verend and learned editor of Longinus
declares, that there is fcarce a pafJage,
throughout his whole difcourfe, that is
an exad verbal citation from the writer
it belongs to *.
If this then was the cafe, even in works
of criticifm, where the elegance and
propriety of the remark depended often
on the ftrudure and arrangement of
the words, why fhould we infift on a
more pundual accuracy, in what the fa
thers quote from the writers of the
gofpels ? or why fhould we imagine, that
fuch variations muft have been owing to
thefe fathers having had falfe gofpels
before them, or to their having drawn
thofe paffages from unwritten tradi-
tion -f* ^ But
* See bifliop Pearcii preface to his edition oi Lon
ginus. I f In the epiftle of Barnabas ; where a paffage from.
the gofpel of St. Matthew is cited, it is exprefsly faid (0

( II )
But allowing it to be merely proble
matical from what gofpels they were
taken, as we affirm them to be taken
from the gofpels now read, it is incum
bent on his Lordfhip, who is inclined
to believe the contrary, to produce fome
pofitive evidence in fupport of his opi
nion. .
" Thefe fathers then," fays my Lord,
" made ufe of other gofpels, wherein
" fuch paffages might be contained, or
•* they might be preferved in unwritten
" tradition *." I muft return an anfwer
to his Lordfhip's affertion, by retorting
the words which he applieth to the bi
fhop and the minifter, who affirm the
contrary: " To fay this, is a manifeft
" abufe of hiftory, and quite inexcu-
" fable" in a writer who knew or fhould
have known, that thefe other gofpels
to be nnritten ; Atteniamus ergo, ne forte, ficut fcriptum
eft, muUi vocati, pauci eieffi, inveniamur, Barnab.
epift. fedl. 4.
* Page 17.8.
C 3 were

(12)
were wholly unheard of, were abfolutelj^
not in being at the time when thefe fa
thers wrote. Rude as this appears, V it
ig my beft excufe for the confidence and
temerity of the expreffion *.
The four gofpels which yve now rcr
ceive, and thofe four gofpels only, were
* It may poffibly be faid, in defence of his Lord
fhip, that what feems to be the pofitive affirmation of a
falfliood, was really owing to a lapfe of memory. Ai
he wrote without the affiftance of many books, he
frequently befpeaks the favour of his reader, not to
examine the matter with too clofe an eye; or at leaff
to exGufe the imperfedlions and omiffions.' I am wil
ling to admit whatever is for the honour of his Lord
fhip's erudition and candour : but was this really the
cafe, it would certainly have been more becoming to
have offered his objeaions with fome little degree of
diffidence and diftruft.' His Lordfhip's memory, I be
lieve, was equally fallible with tha| ©f other men :
perhaps there are manj^ paffages . in l^is letters fufficienfc
to prove this. It may probably, be owing to a defeft
of memory, that his Lorddiip refers us to the Chroni-
eon 4iexan4mum, by the name of the Codex Alexan-
drinus ; and that he twice call's George Syucellus by the
title of George the Monk. Inaccuracies thefe, which
the cenforious and fevere may poffibly imagine could
hardly have proceeded from any other defedl but that
of knowledge. This remark indeed is fomething fo
reign to the prefent debate, and may be thought only
to impeach his Lordihip's knowledge in title pages:
But chronology and hiftory were the fubjefts he was
treating ; and if he difliked the author's charafter oi*
works, it might be expeded that he fliould at leaft have
known his name. received

( 13 )
received by the fathers of the firft and.
fecond centuries, By the latter they are
cited exprefsly by name ; and they are
declared to be neither more nor lefs than
four *. It is not till towards the con-
clufion of the fecond century, that we
find any mention at all made of other
gofpels. Of many there is no mention
made, till the third or fourth centuries,
when the genuine gofpels had been long
exiftihg in the church, and were alone
owned to be authentic and true. The
fatliers of thofe ages arc alfo careful to
diftinguifh them from the falfe gofpels
p.t that time in being ; and the paffagfes
they take from thence, are particularly
faid not to be found in any of the gofpels
* Neque aulem plura numero quam hac funt, neque
rurjiis pauciora capike/fe e'vangelia. Irenxi, lib, 3. cap.
11. p. 2 20. .Edit. Graiie.
' The arguments he uies to prove that the rof.sk
could not be more or lefs than four, were agree; bl, .0
the genius and reafoning of tnat age, though ^.ollb:/
they may hot be logically true, They ferve ro f ,;'.Vs
however, that the four gofpels only were then E.clir: :.;d.
to be genuine. In tne fame chapter, the naire; of the
feveral evangelifts are mentioned, and large cAtraflSj
Agreeable to what we now read, are cited from theqi.
which

C 14 )
which the church receives. One of
^he earlieft we hear of, after thofe of
the evangelifts, is the gofpel according
to the Mgyptians : it is cited by Clemens
oi Alexandria, who died in the third
century ; and he remarks, that the 'paf
fage which he cited was not to be found
in any pf the four gofpels *,
But his Lordfhip is diffatisfied, that
the fathers of the firft century did not
fpecify by name the particular evangelift,
from whom the quotation is made -f- :
neither do they always name the writers
of the Old teftament, whofe words they
borrow. Clemens Romanus introduceth
in his epiftle many citations from the
Pfalms, the Prophets, and the Penta
teuch, without any exprefs mention of
the authors or the book, Many paflages

•vx E%o(*Ei' TO plov, aJ^ 111 Til xar' Aiyuirliss. Clem. Alex..
, Strom. 3.— —The paffage quoted by Clemens from
this gofpel, I fhall .have occafion to take inotice of
h^eafter, and therefpre I omit it herp.
•f Page 178. frbnpi

(i5)
from St. Paur% epiftles are likewife
brought in, without informing us from
whence they are taken. Nor is it a rule
with St. Paul, or with the evangelifts
themfelves, to refer their readers to the
old teftament for the feveral places they
adopt from thence.
If his Lordfhip will advance but one
ftep further, he will find there is all the
fatisfadion to be had, that the moft in-
quifitive, the moft fcrupulous curiofity
can defire. By the fathers of the fe
cond centuiy, exprefs teftimony is given
to the credit and veracity of the gofpels :
and the writers of each are mentioned,
as the feveral compofers of the hiftories
univerfally affigned them. In Juflin
Martyr, mlrenceus, and in many others,
we meet with divers paffages, from al
moft every chapter of the four evange
lifts. Whence then did thefe fathers
receive them, but on the authority of
the preceding age, whofe evidence they
faw no motives to rejed ? they faw con-

( i6 )
¦¦ ¦ ¦ '¦',.'¦'(¦»
vlricirig rhotives to believe and embrace;
The tradition of thofe apoftolical writers/
Clemens, Ignatius, and Polycarp, wiiSl
the unanimous att^ftation pf the whdle
Chriftian church, placed the authority
of the gofpels beyond all fijfpicion. Siic-
ceeding ehriftians had no grounds of
hefitationy their enquiries were an-
fwered ; their faith cprifirm^d *.
May I borrow a rdfledion of his'
Lprdfhip, not unapplicable to the eafe
* Moral certainty is all we can afriv* at infubjefls'
ijf this it,ature ; and where the teftimony is ftrong and
clear, it is equivalent to abfolute demoiiff ration. 7V«-
_<^/<;5«fl/ evidence is. the only authority, ' by whith we
can determine the authenticity of antient bopks; If
the fourcesof this tradition are pure and uncorrupted,
the ftreams derived from them will be equally untainted.
Hence there can be ho. objeftion againft writers copy-
ing one another'. The evidence is ftretigthened by
this '-funejjme atteftation : writers of a pofteribr date,
muft take fheir accouiits of things from Ihofe who lived
before them ; artd the only obligation they are under,
is to fee that th^y draw from perfons of fenfe, veracity,
and judgment. It is hot thet'efore without reafOn* that
Eufeoitis remarks, the heretical gofpels were judged' un
worthy of notice, 'and were never alledged by thofe
ecclcfiaftical hiftoriaiis, who ha^ wrote in a gradual
fucceffion. flu aJsJ sJosftw; £« s-vy[fayii^i mm x.a.ra. Jfoi-
^Sovas; iK.il'h'/idiaiJ'ux.m tii; Mti^ siq ftX^yLr/i' ayciyat n^iwa-sv.
Eufeb. EccL Hdft. lib, 3. cap. zj.
before'

(17)
before us ? " Divines," fays my Lord,
" objed in their difputes with atheifts,
*' and they objed very juftly, that thefe
" men require improper proofs, and
" then cavil that fuch proofs are not fur-
*' nifhed*." Something of the fame kind
may, I think, with equal juftice be ob-
jeded to his Lordfhip. He requires a
multiplicity of exprefs proofs ; where,
in the nature of the thing, fuch proofs
are impoffible to be had ; where they
ought not with any reafon to be de
manded or expeded. His Lordfhip
knew, or might have known, that the
fathers of the firft century are few in
number; that what remains to us of
their writings, is incpnfiderable in bulk ;
hath been greatly injured by the hand
of time, and that the fubjeds therein
treated, did not lead them to enter on
a formal proof of the authenticity of the
gofpels, or to vindicate the authority of
their refpedive authors. Epiftles wrote

* Page 176. D with

with reference to a particular event*,
would very unaptly digrefs to an exa
mination of the credit and authenticity
of the gofpels. The circumftarice did
. not require, would by no means admit
of it. Sufficient is it, if verbal fimili-
tudes, or fhort detached precepts from
. the evangelical hiftories, are to be found
in any of them ; if the ftyle and phrafe-
ology of fuch epiftles feem to have been
formed by a familiar converfe' with
thofe facred writings •\. Befides, it is to
be confidered, that thefe apoftolical fa
thers addreffed the churches under their
care, by virtue of their own authority ;
and the precepts or diredions, which
• The firft. epiftle of Clemens, as we learn from Eu'
fibius, was occafioned by a diffentioii in the church at
Corinth ; which is made fo much the more probable,
when we confider, that St. Paul himfelf. openly re
proves them for their breach of union and differences
with each other.
\ On this occafion it is v^ry appofitejy faid by Mr.
Jortin, The apoftolical fathers rather allude thar( cite.
. Remarks on Ecflefiaft. Hift. I Vol. p. 62. See alf*
what this very ingenious writer offers on the fubjedl, in
hh Remarks, p. 41, & feq. B.nd in his Difceurjes on the
Truth of the Chriftian Religion. thefe

(19)
thefe churches were commanded to
follow, received a fandion from the ve
nerable charader of the bifhop or the
paftor who enjoined them. Hence
there was the lefs neceffity, there was
the lefs occafion to enforce the obferv-
ance of fuch precepts, by inferences
or examples taken from the hiftory of
Jesus Christ. If then the authority
of the evangelifts was feldom urged,
why fhould it be matter of wonder, that
their names were concealed or omitted ?
But further, granting with his Lord
fhip that falfe gofpels are mentioned by
the fathers, and the writers of eccle^
fiaftical hiftory, doth not this imply,
that the genuine and authentic ones muft
h^iVe firjl exifted ? Had there been ori
ginally no true coin, how could we com
plain of counterfeit and falfe * 1 Was
D 2 I
* I have generally adhered to the commonly re-
eeived divifion of the fcriptures into true znd falfe;
but a threefold diftinflion would, I think, be more juft
»nd compreheafive. They were antiently daffed into
books

(20)
I to have afked his Lordfhip, on what
authority he fo readily believes the ac
counts which are tranfmitted us of thefe
fpurious pieces, he would have an-
fwered, I prefunje, on the authority of
thofe ecclcfiaftical writers who have gi
ven us this intelligence, and whofe ve
racity he had no reafpn to miftruft or
doubt.
books undoubtedly genuine, and, which were owned
by all ; into ¦ thoie of dubious authority; and thofe
which were undoubtedly falfe. In the- number of the
former were (he four gofpels, the afts of the apojlles,
the epiftles of St. Paul, Sec. Among.ft the fecond, were
the epiftles of fames and ^iide, the fecond epiftle of
St. Peter, the fecond and third epiftles of St. John,
and the book of revelations. The authority of thefe
books was queftioned by fome early ehriftians, and ad^
mitted again by others, In the number of thpfe evi
dently fpurious, were the gofpels of Peter, Thomas,
Matthias, and the whole catalogue of heretical fcripr-
tares. Now thefe laft-jnentioned were as unanimoufly
rtjcfted by the chrillian fathers, 3s the former of th?
three were received without any hefitation. It is true,
they have mentioned fuch pieces to be extant ; and
they may have cafually cited fome paffages from thenqe;
but never with a view to enforce any doftrine, or to
inculcate any article of faith. It cannot therefore be
.sffirmed with propriety, that the fathers made ufe of
ather gofpels \ at leail,' they did no.t make the fame
**/e of them, which tlu-y aid of the genuine evange^
lifts. Yet, critically fpeaking, I muft own with Va-
lejius, that the names of '^ofpets oi feriptures is too ho
nourable an appellation to be given to fuch flagrant irar
^ojitioM. - -

( 21 )
But are not thefe the writers, who
bear equal atteftatipn to the true gofpels,
"and to the charader of the real evan
gelifts ? Are not thefe the writers, who
hold Out to us the torch of truth, and
¦who precifely acquaint us with the dif
ference which his Lordfhip fpeaksof ?
Whence could we have known, that any
pretended gofpels were made ufe of by
theantients, if the information of thefe
authors had been wanting ? If their tef
timony then is relied on in the one cafe,
what fhould induce us to refufe it in the
other ? Is the veracity of fads to be
judged of as fancy or inclination fhall
dired us, or to be determined by the
weight of evidence, and the harmony of
opinions, \ I defire leave to afk, why was
this diftindion made, and perp^tu.ated
in writing ? Was it not to prevent the
faithful from being impofed on by the
qonfident defigns of ignorance andfraud?
Was it not to fhew, which were to re
ceive our affent, and which were the
devices of impofture and craft \ The
primitive

( 22 )
primitive Chriftians regarded the fcrip
tures of the New Teftament as the great
Charter of that liberty, wherewith Chrift
had made them free. It was incumbent
on them therefore to be convinced, that
what pretended to be a mandate from
the King of kings, had really the figna-
ture of Heaven. They were concerned
to afcertain the validity of their own
claims, and the reality of the rights
conceded to them. This they were
obliged to do : this they really did. Far
from believing, no previous enquiry
being made, their examination was
adapted to the importance of the fub-
jed, and the merits of the caufe to be
difcuffed, Therefult of their refearches
we know : what was proved to be di
vine, was received with reverential gra
titude ; what was difcovered to be other-
wife,, was rejeded with a mark of re
probation. Thus Eufebius, a very learn
ed and acute, as well as early critic,-
pkceth the four gofpels in the number of

^ 23 j
of thofe facred pieces, whofe authority
had never been difputed •*.
*¦ From the arguments here offered,
with refped to the external evidences of
the "gofpels, we may pafs to thofe which
are internal: to thofe which are fur-
nifhed by the ftilc and compofition, and
the manner of the narration itfelf. When
I mention the evidence arifing from the
ftile and ftrudure of the gofpels, I urge
it only in a partial view, in comparifbn
with what remains of the fpurious and
falfe evangelifts : theferles of my prefent
reafoning obligeth me to nothing fur
ther. Yet I am truly fenfible, that ve
ry convincing arguments, and much to
the advantage of chriftianity, may be
pertinently drawn from thefe topics.

* Ecciefiaft. Hift. lib. 3. cap. 25. where he enume-
rates thofe facred books which were acknowledged by
univerfal confent. To the famepurpofe is the teftimo
ny o{ Origen, as he is cited by Eufebius, 1.6. c. 25.
7 , The

( 24 )
The fubjed hath been treated! by divines
with a happy perfpicuity and force of
convidion. I cannot fuppofe his Lordfhip to be
a ftranger to thefe reaions : I ought not
to prefumc, that he withftood the feve
ral conclufions deduced frotn thence, in
favour of the fcriptures : lam unwilling
to pay fo ill a compliment to his tafte
and underftanding. The whole caft
and colour of the gofpels are fo greatly
removed from eVery thing that bears the.
appearance of impofture, that ftill to ad
vance and infift on it, after what hath
been' fo folidly urged to the contrary,
muft be a very pregnant ihftance of a
weak head, or a worfe heart. Whence
is that undiffeniblcd air of probity and
plainnefs, which marks every page of
the divine hiftorians ? Doth impofture
ufually declare herfelf with that integrity
and opennefs, which prompted them to
publifli, even the failings and vices of
each other to the world ? Whence is
that

, .,: . ( 25 ) .
hat, diffufive ardour and ferenity of
ight, that can no more be cpdnterfeit-
d, than we can rival the genial warmth
nd luftre of the fun ? Truth arid fin-
;erity, beaming from the writers hearts,
fradiatcd every fentence with their own
mfullied arid inimitable'fplendor. In
vhat human .compofition, or indeed in
.ny compofition but the fcriptures, do
ve meet vvith the moft cdnfunfmate ele-
;ance Without defign, the moft artlefs
implicity without meannefs, and the
noft exalted rnajefty without affeda-
ion *. The gofpels ¦vvere truly written
or our learning ; they were written to
nake us wife unto falvation. Hence
hey are accomrhodated to every appre-
lenfion : they are powerful to improve
ivery mind, and to purify every breaft ;

* To ench of thefe evangelifts we may juftly bear
he teftimony of pr.iifes vvhicn the Sioic applies to the
'hi/o/hpher ; Tic, SvnaTui a\u «iT£ii', «5 Exsifo;. Epidl,
up. 23. fett. 2. or the nsore , emphatjcal confeffion
lade by (hsje'wfo officers in honour of the Great
"eacher of inankind. Never ma'N spake like
¦ K i; Ma n, John vii. 46.

E that

( 26 )
that the confcience being thoroughly
purged from dead works, might be turn
ed to ferve the living and true God. But
is this the charader, was this the inten
tion of the apocryphal and forged gof
pels ? Gofpels, if we may judge from
what hath reached us, that were every
where full of lying wonders, ftuffed vwth
an unintelligible jargon of myftical, un
meaning terms, and purpofely defigned
to propagate the whimfies of conceited
heretics, under the facred names of
apoftles and evangelifts. r
The reader will permit me to exem
plify an inftance from the gofpel ac
cording to the .Egyptians. It is one oi
the firft, and poflibly might be the leaft
extravagant and monftrous of any. , Let
us compare it with a paffage of the true
gofpels, which took its rife from a fimi-
lar occurrence, and judge which will
moft effedually recommend itfelf to the
reafon of an impartial enquirer : Oui
5 Lord

( 27)
Lord is related to have been afked, what
would be the fign of his kingdom, or
when thofe appearances fhould happen
he had been then defcribing ? To this
queftion he makes the following reply ;
When two fhall be one, and that which
is without fhall be as that which is with
in ; when the male fhall be with the fe
male, and there fhall be neither male
nor female *. E 2 I
* En-tpaTi|9Ei5 yaf oKt;p;o; VTto tuo;, woIs dIes r, S^o-iXeioi,
etvsit' Orat £r«t ra ffvo m, xj to i^m ug to sera, icxi to
afiTsv jHETa Tr,; GrjTiEia;, oute apo-£ii, ovle fljjAu. f quote
this paffage as it occurs in the fecond epiftle of Clemens
Romanus, if that be really his > as the words u¦^der
confideration, in conjunAion with other circumftances, ,
may induce us to think it is not, or at leaft that it
hath fuffered through the dexterity of fome interpola
tor. The paffage itfelf, with a few immaterial varia
tions, is to be met with likewife in Clemens Akxandri-
nus Stromat. 3. He tells us, that the queftion was pro-
pofed to our Saviour by Salome,nvviamjii.m': 'ryii'ZaKoj/.in,
&c. and perhaps the obfcure manner ot the anfwer, was
judged a proper reproof of a difpofition too inquifitive
and curious to be infornied. — Tfiough feveral women
are reported to be in the number of Chrifs difciples,
and probably might perform offices of domeftic bufinefs
and civility, yet we do not find they ever were admitted
to that degree of intimacy, as gave them a privilege
to enquire into matters of fuch interefting importance :
nor indeed do we read that our Saviour himfelf gave
partii ulax

( 28 )
I ftay not to enquire what is really
the meaning,- or what is fuppofed to be
the meaning of this dark and allegorical
reply. We may fee in how different a
manner pur bleffed Saviour vouchfafpd
to anfwer, when his difciples came tq
him privately, faying, TV// us when fhall
thefe things be * ^ It is unneceffary liket
wife, I imagine, tp point out the infinite
advantage in which the condefcending
but authoritative information of our Sa
viour appears, as reported by the facred
hiftorian. The apocryphal gofpels were knowi^
to be the inventions of heretics, deceived
themfelves, or defirous of deceiving
others. It is true, they were rejeded

particular intim-ations of the approaching calamitous
period to any but the twelve apoftles. None, how
ever, but a bungling impoftor, or one who had a mind
to be impertinently witty, would have put fo momen
tous a queftion into the mouth of a woman, undiftin-
guiftied by any extraordinary favours, or by any inti
mate relation.
* Ma't. xxiv. X, &r. «

by

:( 29 )
by the prthodpx ; nor in.deed were they
much adapted to gain many followers :
yet fp^iething pf this kind, they thought
it neceffary tp have j at leaft in imitation
of, if not in pppofitio;i tp the gpfpel§
pf the true evangelifts. And fome of
them fubiiiitted to receive apart of thefe
gofpels, though -they denied the autho
rity pf the ptljer. And by this ftrongr
eiflt atteftation, the teftimony of an ene-
niy, they thernf^lves gave credit to thofe
very fads, which they difputed or dif-
jbelieved.

The familiar but commanding elo
quence of Chrifi, comprehended every
thing that was proper to excite attention
and regard. .It taught without afperity
or pain ; or rather, the hearers were
direded to infprm and teach themfelves.
What was thus taught, it impreffed
upon the heart with a force as irrefiftible,
as the infinuations were captivating and
fweet. His dodrines were of a moral, fliould

(3o)
fhould I fay, or fpiritual nature j tending
to reclaim men from their vices, and
to lead them to happinefs by the means
of duty. All was intelligible j all was
adequate to the human mind : not con
founding his difciples with a vifionary
account oiMoni, with the operations of
Bythus and Sige, and a more mytholo
gical cofmogony than poets ever feigned,
or the earlieft antiquity ever believed*.
Can his Lordfhip imagine, that dodrines
like thefe met with any reception from
the Chriftian fathers, or that they fhould
be placed in competition with the ra
tional and confiftent hiftories of the four
evangelifts ? Hiftories, in which are no
traces to be found of difhonefty or ig
norance; which have every internal
charader of being compofed at the time,
when the events related are faid to have
happened j and which are attefted alfo

* Alluding to the doftrine of the Valentinian here
tics, of Bafilides, &c. Concerning whom fee Irenaus,
1. I. c. I. &feq.

with

( 3f )
with an external evidence, more nume
rous, and more irrefragable, than pro
fane hiftory hath to offer in its favour.
The fpirit o£ fcepticifm, which inclines
men to rejed what all the world re
ceives, is equally abfurd with that un-
difcerning credulity, which receives what
every one clfe rcjeds. There have been
doubters, who denied to Cafar the ho
nour of writing his own commentaries :
an author who, excepting the evan
gelifts, hath perhaps more internal
proofs to fupport his pretenfions, than
any which that age can produce.
In confidering his Lordfhip's objec
tions, one cannot but obferve the preva
lence of prejudice, or the power of at
tachment to a Angular hypothefis. Ob-
jedions, which applied to a clafliic,
would be exploded with the juftice they
deferve, fhall have the force of demon-
ftration when urged againft the truth
of the fcriptures. I may reafonably
conjedure.

( 32 ) ,
conjedure, that his Lordfhip did riot-
fcruple to receive the hiftory pf Pater-
ciilUs, or the fables of Ph^edruSy as the
genuine cortlppfitions of the authors
whofe names they bear; But vvhat evi
dence could he alledge in their behalf/
that in point of i^eal teftimony, either
as cotemporary or traditional, may com
pare, in merit or in number, 'with the
atteftation s which are the bafis of the
gofpel-hiftory. Let the fame feverity
of criticifm, that hath been indulged
againft- the facred authors, be exerted
againft other antient writings, and which
of them will approve themfelves to the
tejl, with an equal purity of ore, and
with a greater freedom fro"m alloy.
The Chriftian religion, at its firft ap
pearance, wanted not' enemies to op-
pofe its progrefs ; nor did thofe enemies
want fagacity to difccrn, or inclination
to deted a forgery. But thofe enemies
themfelves agreed, that the Chriftians had

( 33 )
had_ antient books or gofpels ^cpntaining
their religion ; nor were they ever re
proached with forging them, or afcrib-
ing them to authors who had no title
to fuch claims. Neither Celfus, nor Por
phyry, nor Julian, have objedions of
this kind to oppofe ; and I'rypho the Jew,, "
who in his difpute with Jujiin Martyr,
confeffeth he had perufed thefe gofpels,
as readily owns them to be genuine and
true. After fo long, fo uninterrupted
a poffeffion, it may probably be matter
of aftonifhment to find the rights of
their authors fhould be at laft conteft-
ed * ; and the aftonifhment will naturally
iricreare, when the pretended flaws are
difcovered to be only the errors of a rafh
examination, or miftakes of judgment
in a hafty cenfurer.

* Atleihpts, that are thus made, to abjudicate the
gofpels from their real authors, reinind one of the mi-
ihary itDphnduindsinTirgil, which ejefts the antient
ppffeffors with a
Vtterts migrate Colani. Eclog. ix.
F What

( 34 )
What I am now going to offer, in
further vindication of the facred text, if
confidered in all its circumftances, car
ries in it fome degree of weight. The
entire prefervation of the fcriptures, un-
difguifed with any foreign mixture, is
a ptobable argument in favour of their
true original. The Divine Providence
hath fo far interefted itfelf in their conr
veyance, that they have paffed through
ages of very different genius and tem
pers ; they have been handed down by
perfons of very oppofite inclinations and
talents, without corruption, without ad
dition, without diminution. What was
of God, hath withftood the fhocks of
' time : what was of man, hath Ipng
been perifhed in the ceafelefs revolution
of things. The fcriptures of truth are
the living monuments of Almighty
Wifdom, and Almighty Power : but
the iffues of deceit, like their authors,
are nothing but a name.
4 • — OWj,

( 35 )
-*— Cinisy & manes, & fabula fiunt.
Of all the fuppofititious books which
were publifhed by the heterodox, not
one hath reached us whole and untouch
ed. Scarce a part is to be found, fuf-
ficiently confiderahle to engage attention.
Titles and fragments are preferved in
antient Chriftian writers ; where tl^ey
appear, not unlike the ftraws and infeds
that are inclofed in valuable and pre
cious gems. \
The circumftance is deferving our
refledion ; and the confequence we
draw from it, will add ftrength to the
evidences which prove the authenticity
of the gofpels. Little variations of read
ing may naturally be fuppofed to occur,
in fo immenfe a multiplicity of books ;
,but the purity of the fcriptures is un
hurt, notwithftanding the number of
thefe various ledions ; for they are
commonly of very fmall importance.
F 2 The

( 36 ) , -
The fentiment is unaffeded, and not a
fingle articleor point of faith is weakened
or disfigured by them. His Lordfhip
hath touched on this point, in relation
to the old teftament And I greatly
differ from his opinion, when I think
God hath aded agreeably to the moral
fitnefs of things, in tranfmitting the fa
cred records through fucceffive genera
tions. Had they come down to us mu
tilated and confufed ; had the text been
faulty, OP had the general fenfe been
remote from our apprehenfions, and in
terrupted by the lofs of neceffary paf
fages; corriplaints might have been
brought, with fome fhew of reafon,
againft the condud and proceedings of
Providence. .But in the prefent . cafe,
it can only b? objeded, that literal or
verbal diffisrences are fometimes exhi
bited by an infinity of different copies |
^ circumftance impoffible to have been
avoided, unlefs God had been pleafed
equally to guide the hands of copyifis
and tfanfcrjbers, with the fame unerring
"ceftitude,

( 37 )
certitude, wherewith he guided the
hands of the infpired penmen them
felves. But his Lordfhip hath objedions of
another kind to be propofed; and which,
even admitting the authenticity pf thc-
fcriptures, are defigned to prove, that
thefe fcriptures cannot poffibly be the
ftandard of our faith. " Writers," fays
my Lord, " of the Roman religion have
"attempted to fhew, that the text pf
" the holy writ is on many accounts
- " infufficient to be the fple criterion of
*' orthodoxy : I apptehend too that they
" have fhewn it *." Orthodoxy is a word
whofe fignification, fhould I attempt to
define it, , might poffibly occafion a dif
pute : but as it ftands in connedion with
the reft of the fentence, it ought to be
¦reftrained to the faith of the RPman re
ligion. If I may be allowed 'to take it
in this fenfe, I do agree with' his Lord
mip, that the text of the holy writ is
• Page 179, greatly

( 38 )
greatly infufficient to be the fole criterion
of Prthodoxy, or of believing as the
church of Rome believes. Dodrines,
which are the inventions and command
ments of men, will in vain be fought
for amongft the precepts of God. In
this view it is eafy to fhew, what his
Lordfhip hath here afferted. But if or-
thodoxy be underftood to fignify the true
faith of a Chriftian derived from the
fcriptures, then I apprehend the: writers
of the Roman religion have failed in
their attempt. They have not fhewn,
nor will they be ever able to fhew, that
the text of the fcriptures is infufficient
to be the criterion of orthodoxy *, In
• The writer of the Roman church, to whom his
Lordfhip alludes, is, I conjefture, the celebrated fa
ther Simon ; whofe obfequious difciple he hath proved
himfelf by the feveral objeftions he hath taken from
him. When I fay this, I would not be thought to
enter into any perfonal refleftions, or to caft the leaft
flur upon the moral or religious principles of lord
Bolingbroke ; but I call him the obfequious difciple of
father Simon, as he hath implicitly drawn the greater
part, I might fay the nvhole of his objeftions, both
againft the infpiration and hiftory of the old teftament,
and the fufficiency of the ninju, from that author's cri
tical

(39)
. . In proof of his affertion, his Lord
fhip proceeds to fet before us the great
ambiguity of holy writ; to what dif
ferent and contradidory putpofes the
fame texts may be applied by different
and difagreeing parties. Indeed the re-
prefentation which he gives us of the
fcriptures, might lead the ignorant or
inconfiderate to imagine, that they were
really a mere chaos of words and names;
without order, without accuracy, with
out meaning. " Experience," fays his
Lordfhip, " fhews abundantly, with

tical hiftory. It will be faid, perhaps, that his Lord
fhip had a right to borrow his arguments from whom
he pleafed ; and if they were convincing to himfelf,
he might as juftly propofe them to the notice and con
fideration of others. I very readily own it. Yiet in
a point of fuch importance, it is incumbent on every
impartial enquirer after truth, to confider what may be
urged on the contrary part, in defence and vindication
of the fcriptures. Had this been really the cafe with
lord Bolingbroke, had he as candidly examined what
proteftant divinesj and efpecially thofe of Holland, have
replied to the hiftories of father Simon, he would not,
I prefume, have retaled objections that had long been
anfwered in a very folid and fatisfaftory manner.
" how

( 40 )
" how much cafe and fuccefs the mofl
« oppofite, the moft extravagant, nay,
" the. moft impious opinions, and the
" moft contradidory faiths, may be
" founded on the fame text, and plau-
" fibly defended by the fame autho-
" rity*."
His Lordfhip poffeffed a much greater
fhareboth of knowledge and experience,
than what I pretend to : but the little
|)ortion which I have of either, will not ,
permit me wholly to aflfent to what he
hath here affirmed. That fome paffages
of fcripture may be dubious and ob
fcure, is a fad to which I readily agree :
but they are paffages perhaps, Ifpeakit
with all reverence and fubmiffion, by
which the falvation of a Chriftian would
not be at all endangered, were it utterly
impoflible to afcertain their fenfe. I
agree further with his Lordfhip; that in
religious difputes the contending parties.
ufually carry their appeal to the fcrip-
* Page 179. tures.

( 40
tures. Their authority is oWned by
both, and would be fubmitted to by
both, as decifive of the point in queftion.
Yet may it not happen [it doth often
happen] that texts may be alledged,
which are prefumed by the one fide not
to anfwer the purpofe, for which they
are brought by the other. And this will
be frequently the cafe, where truth,
not viSiory, is the end in view ; where
integrity and candour, not prejudice or
paflion, dired and moderate the en
quiry. • It is fometimes difficult to fettle
the precife meaning of words, in a lan
guage that hath been long out of ufe.
Many of the terms will be neceffarily
obfcure ; and this obfcurity proceeds
from our being unable to fix in our
minds the fame exad ideas, which the
authors annexed to thofe particular
phrafes, they had occafion to employ."
This refledion is applidable to all antient
books whatever. Cpuld his Lordfhip
fingle out any one claff^, in which no
paffages would be found of dubious and
G uncertain

(42)
Uncertain meaning? none that would
minifter an occafion of debate and
doubt? Numbers may be mentioned,
even of the moft clear and corred ; or,
to fpeak more juftly, none are to be ex
cepted from this general remark. I
will take the liberty, however, parti
cularly to point out one, whofe fenti-
ments have given rife to much altercalion
among critics. Senfe and meaning he
had undoubtedly ; but the labour hath
been, to determine that fenfe and mean
ing with exadnefs and precifion. . The
author I defign is T^acitus, the darling
objed of his Lordfhip's ftudy. Every
writer hath his peculiarities of ftile, and
'\tacitus hath his to a remarkable degree.
Thefe, in conjundion with difficulties
common to the language, have contri
buted to create obfcurity in places^ where
it ought leaft to have been found. Hengc
many different, many contradidory opi
nions have had their birth, founded on
the fame paflage, and plaufibly defend-.
ed by the fame authority.
Whea

(43 )
When his Lordfhip complains there
fore, that the interpretation of the fcrip
tures cannot always be laid down with
indifputable clearnefs ; or that expofitors
have differed in the fenfes they have af-
ffgned to particular texts and particular
expreffions ; what doth he fay more, in
effed, than that the fentiments of au
thors, xwho wrote in a language now
dead, are fometimes fiable to mifcon-
.ftrudion, or mifinterpretation ; and that
we cannot explain them with the fame
advantage and precifion, with which
we can explicate the terms of a language
yet in being, and which is made more
familiar by popular ufe.
But to come ftill clofer to the point.
Are thefe feveral difputes, thefe oppofite
and contradidory faiths, occafioned by
the/^^.f related 'by the gofpel, or by
¦ doBrines that may, in fome fenfe, be
looked on aspofterior to the introdudion
. G 2 of

(44)
of the gofpel ? Are they occafioned by
debates vefpediing fundamentals, and what
is really cfjential to the faith of a chri
ftian ; or are they not principally occa
fioned by the circumfiantials of religion ;
by certain formi artd modes of worfhip-,
that are pradifed by different ' commu
nions in the church of Chrift ? Do not
the greater part of thofe diffentions^
which divide, the Chriftian world, arife
from their different opinions with regard
to antient rites ; with regard to ceremo
nial inftitutions ; to points of ecclefiafti-
cal government and difciplihe } And
unhappily for Chriftians, if not for
Chriftianity itfelf, thefe difputes have
commonly been maintained with greater
enmity and ardour, than points which
are confcffedly of greater importance.
Men have combated in defence of fyf-
tems of their own framing, with a
heartier zeal, than they have c/poufed
the interefts of genuine and pure reli
gion. The fcriptures have been preffed into

. • ( 45 )
into the fervice, and tortured to fpeak A
language Which ihey never mfeaiit.
It is owing to the weaknefs and the
prepoffefjions of mankind, that fuch ex-
traVagant Or impioiisfuperftrbdures have
beferi raifed on a plan the moft uniform
and fimple. The pride of fcience hath
often pufhed me;- to attempt excUrfions,
beyond the fphere of limited arid finite
capacities. Dodrines revealed only, in
part, have given great fcope foir huriaan"
ignorance arid vanity to expatiate at
large : and the conclufions they have
formed, were rather an indication Of
faculties imperfed and confined, than
of coritradidion in the fubjeds they at
tempted to explain. But notwithftand
ing the diverfity of opinions with refped
to thefe articles, or to articles of a fimi-
lar nature, the Sacred Text hath fuF-
ficient clearnefs, and fufficierit accuracy
to determine and to fix our faith. Can
it ev'er be a qu'efti'on with the candid
and ingenuous reader, whether thtfa^f which

C 46 )
which charaderize the gofpel revela
tion, are related in a manner that fhould
induce him to y^/^^W his affent? Can
he hefitate a moment, to pronounce
what is there recorded moft infallible
and certain ? As certain and infallible,
as that Divine Spirit which guided the
writers into all truth. Not Scepticifm
itfelf can paufe, or the moft bigotted in
credulity demur.
It would be a needlefs fervice, or ra
ther an affront to the underftanding of
the reader, to enumerate every Inftance
by a particular indudion. His own
memory and reafon will fuggeft to him
. proofs fufficient ; and from thefe he will
perceive, the affertiori is neither arbitrary
nor groundlefs, when we declare what
ever is^w^zW to falvation, tpbe clearly
revealed in the fcriptures.
It is probable however, after all, that
in the pidure exhibited by his Lordfhip,
snd which we have been juft confider- ing»

(47 )
ing, he had really in his view a religion
the moft degenerate and corrupt, that
can poffibly pretend to the appellation
of Chriftianity. It is not Chriftianity,
as delineated in the Gofpel, but Chri
ftianity as it appears in the Country
where his Lordfhip then refided, that
furnifhed him with fuch a reprefentation
of it. His Lordfhip would have us un-
derftand him, as defcribing Evangelical'
Chriftianity ; but by a change impofed
upon the reader,' he hath fubftituted
Popery in the place of it. The fenti
ments which precede, and the reafbn-
ings which immediately follow, naturally
lead us to this conjedure. For, as his
Lordfhip proceeds, " Writers of the
" Reformed Religion have ereded their
" batteries againft tradition ; and the
" only difficulty they had to encounter
" in this enterprize, lay in levelling and
" pointing their cannon, fo as to avoid
" demolifhing in one common ruin
" the traditions they retain, and thofe
" they rejed." His Lordftiip then con
tinues

( 48 )
tinues to reprefent each Side, as endea
vouring to weaken the caufe of their
adverfary, whilft Chriftianity was joint
ly demoUflied by them both*.'
Doth his Lordfhip mean by this, that
all traditions are equally credible ; or to
exprefs his fentiments more juftly, equal
ly incredible and abfurd ? Or doth he
mean to fhew, that the writers of the
reformed religion have been unable to
play off the batteries they planted, pf
that they have played them off, but
without fuccefs ? Or laftly, did he de
fign to reprefent the attempt itfelf as.
impradicable and foolifh ? '
Now I think it is apparent, that the
writers of the refbrrried religion have
proceeded in a method not rnorefuccefs-
ful than judicious. The method waSi
judicious, as they have avoided the prin
cipal difficulty which, in his Lordfhip's
* Page 179, 180.
2 opinion,

(49)
opinion, they had to encounter. It was
equally fuccefsful, as Chriftianity fhone
out with a more excelling luftre, when
the rubblfh of tradition was removed.
For, to purfue the hint ftarted by his
Lordfhip, their axes were laid not to
the root pf Chriftianity, but to clear away
thofe fhrubs and briars which twined
around the tree, mutually contributing
to impair its health, and to prevent its
growth. In thus difcarding groundlefs or im
pious traditions, can his Lordfhip accufe
thefe writers of being aduated by an
unreafonable or unchrifiian fpirit ? Doth
he fay, they have retained traditions
which they ought to have rejeded ; or
that they have rejeded thofe which they
ought to have retained ? No fuch mat
ter. The dafficulty lay in making the
neceffary diftindion ; in adhering to
thofe which were defenfible, and in giv
ing up all others as indefenfible and
falfe. If this therefore really is done,
H and

( so )
arid done with judgment, what detri
ment can poffibly enfue to the interefts
of Chriftianity ? Neither the clearnefs
of the text, nor the authenticity of the
evidences fupporting it, arc injured or
offended by the arguments they have
offered. The traditions they rejededi
were incongruous with the dodrines of
the gofpel, and inconfiftent with each
other ; were fuppprted only by a par
tial evidence, whom intereft had bribed
to their favour. Whilft thofe which
they retained, were not only probable
and confiftent with themfelves, but had
alfo the xoncurrence of unqueflionable
hiftorical authority to witnefs for them*.
Suppofe this to be the cafe, Chrifti
anity becomes ftill more accurate and
* When I. mention Protefiant divines aS retaining
fime traditions, I mean no more than the accounts
tranfmitted us by ecclefiaftical hiflorians pf the authors
and evidences of the New Teftament ; and thefe in
his Lordfhip's phrafe may ' be called, though impro
perly enough, 'written traditions. For as to oral tra
ditions, or ftories derived from we know not who, and
fupported by we know not what authority, and with
refpeft to dodrines which are built upon them, Pro-
teftants withjufticer^>i9 t.hem <>//.
more

( 51 )
more precife. The multiplicity of er
roneous gloffes, which tended to create
confufion, are entirely removed : the
.light of the gofpel is made more uni
form and fteady ; we neither wander in
the dark for want of it, nor are we un^
der the necefllty of following thofe falfe
fires, which the imagination oi credulous
or defignirig men had fet up for the di-
redion pf others. The confequence
.therefore which his Lordfhip draws, to
the prejudice of the facred text, is neither
natural nor juft ; and that terrible dilem
ma, as he ftiles it*,'is rendered per-
fedly innocent and harmlefs. Chriftian
ity hath all the neceffary clearnefs and
authenticity to eftablifh it, as a certain
rule of faith and pradice; and if cor
rupt traditions have at any time vitiated
the belief of Chriftians, it hath been
owing to their ©ot recurring to the fcrip
tures, as the genuine criterion erf" their
faith, and the only infallible gUide in
• P?ge 1 81. H 2 points

( 52 )
points of controverfy. It is by no means
a neceffary confequence, that Chriftianity
was not originally of Dmwinftitution,
becaufe the purity and fplendour of it
may have been cafually fullied by the
mixture of human traditions. The ore
is eafily feparated from the -drofs ; and
the gofpel, the true ftandard of a right
faith, remains uncorrupted with any fo
reign appendages, the inventioris -of
worldly policy and craft.
I apprehend alfo, that his Lordfhip
hath miftaken the nature of our Sa
viour's promife to his church ; wherein
it is declared, that the gates of hell'
fhould not prevail againft it Our Sa
viour did not mean, that np diffentions
fhould diftrad his church; that it fhould
perpetually continue in a ftate of unity,
uhdifturbed with herefies and fchifms ;
or in a ftate of peace,' un vexed with the
fury or the arts of perfecution. This
v/as a bleffing which the militant con
dition of the church had little reafon to
exped :

f 53 )
exped: itis refervddfor the triumphant
period of the church of Chrift. But
the prophetic promife of our Saviour
was defigned to fhew, that notwithftand
ing the weaknefs of his difciples, and the
malice pi his enemies, the gates of hell
fhould not prevail againft it ; fhould be
unable to extirpate his religion from the
profeffibn and the heart-s of men. And
indeed hiftory might have informed his
Lordfhip, that in the darkeft ages, in a
time when the purity of the gofpel was
the moft contaminated, there were thofe
who maintained the integrity of their
faith, agreeable to evarigelical fimplicity.
But had the cafe been otherwife ; had
the real beauty of Chriftianity been
' wholly overclouded or defaced', the
powers of hell would be defeated,would
fail to accomplifh their intended pur-
pofes; whilft' the belief of redemption^
through a Saviour continued to be an ar
ticle of the Chriftian faith, the bafis of
Chriftianity was firm and unfhaken":
and this capital article of theGof- pel

(54)
pel did not lofe its vital influence, not
withftanding the opprefKve load of tra
ditions under which it groaned. And
fuppofing further, that the faith and
morals of the Chriftian world were de
generated to the: moft extreme depravity,
yet Chriftianity in its moft degenerate
appearances, and under the moft corrupt
forms in which it hath ever been ad-
miniftered, is infinitely fuperior to the
impurities of Heat|ienifm, and deferveth
on every account to be preferred be
fore it.
, The Gofpel, as a law or rule of life,
contains things likewife: to be done and
pradifed, by all who fubmit to its au
thority. Moral precepts, precepts re-
fpeding fociety, with private offices and
.duties, are enjoined to every one :, Noysr
thefe fhould be particularly j&/^/» and
clear; fhould be expreffed in a manner
that will allow np room fpr anihiguity
and doubt. And co^ild his Lordfhip
ferioiifly fay, that they are not fo ? Could he

(55)
he fay, that they either exceed the level
of common underftandings, or that ft
is difficult to afcertain their meaning ?
Never were any injundipns delivered in
a manner lefs liable to perverfion, or
more obvious and eafy to be apprehend
ed. No rules of life, calculated for ge
neral obfcrvation, arid to operate on the
bulk of mankind, were ever laid down
with a happier perfpicuity, or enforced
by an authority more irrefiftible or more
affeding. The rules are fhort, clear,
and comprehenfive : thefandiong which
bind us to the performance, are of a
nature peculiarly adapted to excite our
hopes and fears, and to aduate the fe
veral fpririgs within uS,
T A diligent . advertence to thefe pre
cepts, where the heart is uninfluenced
by that knowledge which puffeth up,
will naturally produce in us the proper
force of religion ; that force which, as
his Lordfhip well expreffeth it, fubdues
the mind, and awes the confcience by
6 convidion.

( 5(> )
convidion. But to acquire this force,
or to give it a proper authority, the will
muft be reftrained, and the paflions con-
trouled. Where either of them exercife
undue degrees of power, the didates of
reafon and religion will be equally neg-
leded : the underftanding will be indif-
pofed to affent to proofs, reafonable in
themfelves, and compatible with the
fubjed ; the affedions will ceafe to be
moderated by any Icffons of wifdom,
or checked by the hopes or dread arifing
from futurity. For it fhould always be
remembered, that the proofs of Chri
ftianity, though highly reafonable and
convincing, have not that felf-evident
and over-ruling power, which will ne-
ceffarily compel us to receive them.
They are not irre/ifiible ; they may be
rejeSied. Yet this proceeds not from the
defedi oi evidence, but from fome ^xe-
yioui incapacity of mind in the enquirer
himfelf J either prejudice or vice are
ufually at the bottom of fuch a total re-
jedion; whilft the fecret of the Lord is

(57 )
is amongft them that fear him. There
is kerit even in believing, as it indicates
a proper application to the fubjed, and
our examination into the nature of the
proofs which are alledged in its fupport.
An evidence which extorts affent, may
in fome cafes be our happinefs, but can
not be our virtue, or the trial of our
difpofition and readinefs to receive what
is propofed to us upon juft and reafonable
grourids. I have now gone through with the
moft rnaterial objedions, which the no
ble Lord hath made to the credibility
and fufficiency of the gofpels. The
anfwers I have given are what I take to
be really true, or what have prevailed
with me, from their likenefs and refem-
blance to truth. If then it fhould hap
pen that I deceive others, it will be be
caufe I am 'deceived myfelf But what
ever may be their power of convidion,
I have endeavoured to be accurate in
examining, impartial in feleding, and
I honeft

( 5^ )
honeft in communicating tlje proofs. I
might now difmifs the fubjed to the
reader's" refledions, on \S\efincerity and
learning of his Lordfhip ; and leave him>
to pronounce judgment between us, as
the evidence on either fide Inclines him.
But as the noble Lord, out of \ii%fingu-
lar zeal for Chriftianity, hath advanced
fome other pofitions which deferve our
animad^erfion, Ifhall proceed to confider
what he hath added further on this
head.
. ., " The refurredion of letters," faith
his Lordfhip, " was a fatal period : the
" Chriftian fyftem has been attacked,
" and, wounded too, very feverely fince
*' that time* J' And he tells us in an
other place, that "Chriftianity has been
i' in decay, ever fince the refurredion
." of letters -f ." Had the matter been
X)f fmall importance, it would have
been perfedly indifferent to me what
: * Page 182. -{• Page 185. were

( 59 )
were his Lordfhip's fentiments pn this
point, and whether they were true or
falfe. But as the truth of this affertion
will bear hard upon the caufe of Chri
ftianity, the falfity of it will not beay
lefs hard upon the knowledge and ve
racity of Lord Bolingbroke. If we fup
pofe it true, if implieth that Chriftianity
is unable to ftand the teft of a ftrid
impartial fcrutiny : That confequently,
the reception which it met with, in the
world, muft have been owing to the ig
norance of zealots, the artifice of priefls,
or the compulfive power of magiftrates
and rulers. That when the eyes of men
were opened, and they had liberty to
judge for themfelves, they, immediately
faw through the delufion, and generoufLy
laboured to open the eyes, of others.
I am fatisfied, however, that his Lord
fhip could not affirm this, -whatever be
might defign, of genuine and pure
Chriftianity : He might apply it indeed
to that corrupt fpecies of religion which
was mentioned before. It is true that
I 2 Popery

c 60 )
Popery hath been in decay, ever fince
the refurredion pf letters ; but then it
is as certain, that Chrifiianify itfelf re
vived together with letters ; hath flou-
rifhcd together with them, and will con
tinue to flourifh, whilft real learning
and impartial criticifm fhall dired the
enquiries of all who are willing to be
infornied.

I do acknowledge, with his Lordfhip,
that the Chriftian fyftem hath been fu-
rioufly attacked fince the period he
fpeaks of And I own further with him,
that the defence in general hath been
better made by modern divines, than
by antient fathers and apologifts.
The moderns have invented new me
thods of defence, and have aban
doned fome pofts that were not te
nable." And this advantage Chriftian
ity hath reaped, from the efforts of its
adverfaries. The arguments in defence
of it, and the principles of the Chriftian
faith, have been explained in a clearer, a more

( 6i )
a more rational, and a more intelligible
manner. The feverer the trial hath been,
fo much the more illuftrious hath the
religion of Chrift appeared. Nor do I
fcruple to fay, that we are probably in
pofleffion of fome arguments, which
thofe antient apologifts and fathers
wanted; or which, if they had them,
they negleded to urge in their proper
ftrength and fpirit. Such are the ac-
complifhment of fcripture prophecies,
and thofe in particular which relate to
the deftrudion of Jerufalem, with the
difperfion and ftate of the Jews:.- Nay,
I reckon the defedion of men from the
gofpel, which is manifeftly foretold by
the apoftles, to be no inconfiderable
proof that this religion is a Divine In-
ftitutlon, or was originally didated by
the Spirit of Holinefs and Truth. The
Providence of Almighty God feems to
have adapted proofs of the Chriftian
difpenfation, fuited to the various ages,
and the different exigencies of his church.
Miraculous atteftatioris, fo neceffary to
> work

( 62 )
work on thofe who were the firft con--
verts to Chriftianity, and the witneffes
of its introdudion in the world, were
given in the mofl abundant effufion,
when the period moft required it. The
accounts of thefe miracles, pundually
4 recorded, and as faithfully tranfmitted,
are offered to the reafon and judgment
of fucceeding generations. At the fame
time, predidions from God gradually
opening, and receiving their accomplifti-
ment, come in as a kind oi fupplemental
evidence ; they are more peculiarly ac
commodated to the convidion of thofe,
who live in an age remote from the pri
mary propagation of this religion in the
world. Whilft prophecies yet unful
filled, as, for inftance, amongft others,
the future reftoration of the Jews, will
be vouchers for the gofpel, to tliofe who
will be alive at that period, and perceive
that all will be exadly verified.
But, faith his Lordfhip, " Chrlftian-
" ityhath been feverely wounded," I
6 ' afk

( 63 )
afli in what parts hath it been wounded?
It hath been attacked indeed with out
rage; yet have any of the articles of truit
Chriftianity, any of the fa£is related by
the gofpel, been proved to be improbable
or falfe? The moft induftribus and
fharp-fighted enemy againft it, hath not
.yet been able, and, I truft, never will
be able to demoriftfate this. It will be
faid, however, the number of believ&'s
h diminifhed ; infidelity hath gained ma
ny converts, which the gofpel hath'loft.
I once more afk, whether every theift
is led, from the fenfe of conviSlion, to
believe the reafon s urged againft the
gofpel, fuperior to thofe which are urged
in its behalf? Hath not an indolence ia
thinking ; the want of inclination, or
abilities to go, through a regular deduc
tion of arguments, been frequently th«
occafion of not embracing Chriftianity ?
Singularity hsith made many theifls :
the affedation of appearing v/ifer than
the vulgar; and many more, the affeda
tion , of appealing equally wife with
others,

(64)
others, whom they efteemed of greater
penetration than themfelves. Above all,
the gofpel hath often been rejeded, in
order to throw off the feveral reftraints,
which the perfuafion of its truth will
lay upon every believer.
In fupporting Chriftianity, his Lord
fhip declares further, " there are fome
" pofts, in defending which the mo-
" derns lie under great difadvantages.
" Such are various fads, pioufly be-
" Ueved in former times, but on which
." the truth of Chriftianity hath been
" refted very imprudently in more en-
" lightened ages*," I wifh his Lord
fhip had been pleafed to mention fome
of thofe various fads, to which he here
alludes. If he means the miracles faid
to have been wrought after the days of
Chrifi and his apoftles, and the fuppofed
continuance of thofe powers in the ear
lier ages of the church ; I allow that
* Page 183. the

( 65 )
the truth of Chriftianity hath been very
imprudently refted upon them, in any
age whatever. The falfity of many of
thofe fads, and the grofs improbability
of others, have been made extremely
evident. There is no fort of connedion
between theni, and the genuine attefta-
tions of the gofpel. They are wholly
independent of each other ; and thpfc
Gothic buttreffes are eafily removed,
without injury to the fair and well-pro
portioned ftrudure of Chriftianity. Tp
maintain thefe fads, or to place them
upon an equal footing with the miracles
of our Saviour, muft neceffarily ejfpof?
the defenders to great and unavoidable
difadvantages. Nor did his Lordfhip,
I hope, defign any comparifon between
the former pf thefe fads, and thofe
which we agree to rejed. Yet thefe is
room for tkis fgifpicion.as he thinks they
cannot bQ defended, but by the united
forces of all the clergy, in Chriflendom.-
" It Is high time," he fays, "the clergy
" in all ¦ Chriftian communions fhould
K " join

" join their forces^'' and. gllabliffi,; thofe
'" hiftorical fads which ate thef^finda-
" tions of the whole fyfteni, ori%lear
" and Unqueftibnable hiftorical autho-
" rity, fuch as they redfee^in all c^s*'
" of moment frorri omti^/'" I moft'
readily own this to be a p&M of the ut-
moft confequence and mranent. That
thefe fads, however, have been efta-
blifhed. and upon clfearyj@^ffl|6ftibnablc,
iftorical authority, is vi^naf(|lef advocates
for Chriftianity may juftly boaft in ho
nour of their caufe. I 1 fhould be glad
to add likewife, that their enquiries
have been purfued in the fame fpirit of
truth, through all ages of the church.
Yet foixiething of this, kind hath been
done tbo : arid whenever the enquiry
;j(|i41'|i'e pi^rfcied, let it be carried on in
the manner which a candid exaniiner
hath laid down, as. the mpft effedual
and juft. Not to pronounce thofe things
falfe, which may perhaps be true ; nor
tliofe things certain, which ' are only
probable; nor thofe things probabfe,
¦"•^-l" .which