called POLLIO, and the famed Sybelline books prove this; as do many passages in the Roman historians.

6

There is not a single instance in Scripture, in which any intimation is given, that "it repented the LORD," when a remote prophecy was concerned. The expression always relates to threatening messages, when averted by reformation, or in answer to the prayers of the prophet; or to promises, implying a condition, which was not performed. (Jer. xviii, 7--10.) So that the Bible makes no fool of any man,' but tells him plainly what he is to expect in all possible cases, "whether he will hear or whether "he will forbear." If indeed Revelation were impossible, or could not be communicated; or if it were needless, or ' useless; prophecy must be useless also, and prophecies impostures and lies.' But the contrary to these rash, presumptuous, and profane positions has been proved. For the sake of brevity, I shall only add, that among other uses, it shews us that the scoffs, and calumnies of modern infidels were predicted by the sacred writers. (2 Pet. iii, 3, 4; Jude 18.) "Thus it was written, and "thus it must be:" and in this respect, as in many others, prophecy enables us, as it were, to cut off Goliath's head with his own sword.

CHAP. IV.

The Canon of the Scripture.

Mr. P. says, they decided by vote, which of the books -should be the word of God. Those books which had 'the majority of votes, were voted to be the word of God. 'Had they voted otherwise, all the people, since calling themselves Christians, had believed otherwise.' • Who

the people were that did all this, we know nothing of: they called,-themselves-the church; and this is all we know of the matter.' Surely a man ought to know something more of the time, place, and manner, of this extraordinary transaction; before he venture on such rash, am

biguous, and pernicious assertions as these. Some proof is requisite to convince thinking men, that all Christians, in every age hitherto, have taken their faith upon trust, from they know not whom! And even those who think but slightly, would most likely feel a want of some shadow of proof, or some further information on the subject.

It is well known, and admitted by all competent judges, that the canon of the Old Testament stood, very nearly as we have it, a considerable time before the birth of Christ: and indeed the New Testament fully proves it. The internal evidence proves, that the books called THE APOCRYPHA, were not entitled to a place in the canon; and indeed most of them are of a later date: but the same internal evidence shews on what good grounds, the books now called the Old Testament, were received into it; most probably by inspired men, as Ezra.

Mr. P. says, 'Those, who are not much acquainted with ecclesiastical history, may suppose that the book called the New Testament, has existed ever since the time of Jesus Christ, but the fact is historically otherwise there was no such book as the New Testament, till more than '300 years after the time that Christ is said to have lived.' At the first glance this appears to the well-informed reader, one of the most daring falsehoods, that ever was published: but on further examination it proves to be a mere quibble; though most evidently and artfully devised, to impose upon the uninformed reader. Were it proved beyond doubt, that every book contained in the New Testament, separately existed, and was received as "The Word of God" in the first, second, or third centuries, still the New Testament, as a volume in exactly its present form, did not exist. In this way alone can Mr. P.'s friends exculpate him from the charge of direct and gross falsehood; and this is not a very creditable way of opposing priests and prophets, whom he calls liars and impostors.

It is certainly known, that most of the books constituting the New Testament, were quoted by the most ancient Christian writers, as of divine authority: and as such quoted exclusively. A large proportion of these books might be recovered from the remaining writings of those who lived in the two first centuries. They wrote comments

1

on them, and formed catalogues of them. Both the orthodox, and the hereticks appealed to them: nay, the opposers of Christianity, mention them as the authentick books of Christians. There is the fullest proof, that past transactions can admit of, that all the twenty-seven books which now constitute the New Testament, were received, and read in the assemblies of Christians in the second century; except the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation of John and that most of these, if not all, were extant and well known, though not generally received as divinely inspired. These, however, after the fullest investigation, were received into the sacred canon; while other books, making a similar claim, were, for substantial reasons, rejected.

The Christians, who lived in the primitive times, must have had many and great advantages above all in subsequent ages for determining this important concern: yet learned men are capable of judging on the grounds on which they decided: and Christians, learned and unlearned, however discordant in other things, have generally and justly acquiesced in this decision. Brevity forbids, or this might easily be shewn from ecclesiastical historians, ancient and modern, protestant and popish.

Had the books bearing the name of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, or Peter, been published long after their death; having never before been heard of; they must have been treated as forgeries. The claim would have been absurd and self-refuted.

The hesitation concerning the books, which were not fully received, till a later period, arose from circumstances, in some small degree similar; and from the scrupulous caution of Christian pastors; till internal evidence fully convinced the most accurate judges, that these scruples were ungrounded.

At what time, and in what manner could it have been possible to fabricate the apostolical epistles, and obtain credit to them, as well known and received from the days, in which the supposed writers lived? And how could histories and letters be forged, to coincide so exactly and minutely with

each other, without the least appearance of design? If ever books had internal marks of being genuine, the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul's Epistles, have those marks. I am fully convinced that the combined genius of all the impostors on earth, could not write a history, and a number of letters, so manifestly open, frank, artless, and often immethodical; and yet make the one so perfectly to confirm the other. Let the disciples of Mr. P. or of Voltaire, or more learned revilers of Christianity, attempt to fabricate some epistles, ascribing them to Luther, Calvin, Beza, Cranmer, or others of the Reformers: and even allowing them the immense advantage of saying, that they were never before published; they will soon learn, that it is much easier to write than to establish a literary forgery: accord'ing to our author's words, the church could write, and so therefore could fabricate them.' A very probable thing it is, truly, which he also supposes, that the very church which holds purgatory, dispensations, and idolatrous worship, and is most exceedingly afraid that her members should learn heresy from the New Testament, should be the forgers of the New Testament!

There is not a religion in the world, except Christianity, which so much as professes to be a Revelation from God, demonstrated to be such by miracles and prophecies; and rendered triumphant by unarmed unlettered men, because attended with a divine power giving success to their zealous preaching, holy example, and patient sufferings, even unto death.---The Jews indeed adhere to the Old Testament; but this clearly foretold, and was terminated in the New. Mohammed, of whom Mr. P. has spoken very incorrectly, obtained little success, till he propagated his imposture by the sword.---What has, therefore, been briefly stated in these chapters, contains such a mass of evidence in proof of Christianity, as is perfectly singular; and nothing in the least like it, occurs in the history of any other religion on earth at this day.

...

CHAP. V.

Mystery.

Mr. P. allows, in one sense, that every thing is a mystery to us: that we, however, know as much as is necessary for us: ... and that it is better, that the Crea'tor should perform all for us, than that we should be let into the secret.'--Yet, with his usual consistency, he calls mystery the antagonist of truth: . . . a fog of human invention, that obscures truth, and represents it in distortion. To believe there is a God may be easy, and necessary. (Atheists, however, would dispute this point with him :) but to know the nature and perfections of God is another matter. The pagan philosopher, who averred, that the more he thought of the Deity, the less he seemed to know concerning him,' spake far more reasonably, than scoffing Deists do, in this Age of Reason.' That religion, which stands in relation to an infinite and incomprehensible God, and a boundless eternity, must be in many respects mysterious, except a finite mind can comprehend infinity.

Mr. P. however, calls ethicks religion; and says that "religious duties' consist in "doing justice and loving mercy," and endeavouring to make our fellow creatures happy. He refers to the words of the prophet, (Mic. vi. 8.) but he prefers an unmeaning repetition, to the subsequent clause, "Walk humbly with thy God."

Mystery, in scripture, generally implies somewhat relating to God, and his truth and will concerning us, which could not have been known, except as revealed: which can be received only by crediting that Revelation; and which stands connected with things yet uurevealed, and incomprehensible; so that we know the. mystery only "in part;" and must wait for further light, till we arrive at heaven; indeed, much must even there, remain mysterious, because a creature cannot comprehend what is infinite. All revealed mysteries, however, as far as made known, are intended and suited to answer most importaut practical purposes.