non, an Epistle or Two excepted, were admitted as Scriptural at That Time, we have all the reason to believe, that the nature of the thing requires; fince we find them appealed to by the earliest Writers as univerfally acknowledged, without putting themselves to the trouble of citing any particular authority in their fupport. And he, who fhall refufe to believe the Books of the New Teftament to be of Apoftolical Authority, when he is authentically informed by the early Writers, that those who were able to know the truth admitted them as fuch; merely because they have not told us at what precife time, and by means of what particular perfons, Each Book in its turn became firft more univerfally known, poffeffed, and received; is only laying before us an inconteftable proof of his own irrational, and fceptical difpofition, to pass for an argument against the Authority of the Canon.

But, befides the vanity of this objection itself, what can be faid for a Writer, who first afferts for his fundamental principle, that the moral parts of the Books of the New Testament were written by the Apostles, and that only the other parts were not; nay, and that perhaps the Apostles wrote the whole, though without the Authority of Jesus; and then, in order to prove this, attempts to fhew, that the Entire Books, including all the Moral Parts, as well as the reft, were not written by the Apostles to whom they are ascribed?

The inconfiftencies, and contradictions of these Writers are really fomewhat curious, and fuch as are not often to be met with. The Prefacer says

*

That no fooner had CHRIST in fome degree "fucceeded in his benevolent defign, than his followers corrupted his Religion, and restored

·P. 30.

again

"again the kingdom of darkness." He muft therefore hold, that the New Teftament was a corruption of CHRIST'S Religion from the firft. But the Author, though he does fometimes put this fuppofition, infifts almost wholly upon its having been corrupted fince. The Prefacer fays †,

"Many of the Pagans objected, that the im“pieties, abfurdities, inexplicable doctrines, and "Incomprehenfible Myfteries, contained in the "Books of the Old and New Testament, rendered "Christianity fo incredible, that they thought it "ridiculous to embrace it."-"That the Doc"trine of a dying God was rejected by their Phi" lofophers with difdain and contempt. And that "this, and many other of the Mysteries of Chrif"tianity, gave to the Pagans in general, as well

as the Philofophers, an utter averfion to it." The Author fays §, on the contrary," So fuc"cessful and efficacious were the endeavours of "CHRIST, that the power and influence of the "Heathen Priefts began foon to decline, and "their temples were no longer crowded. This

46

was the event in almost every country where "CHRIST and his Apoftles made their appear"ance. The Philofophers and wife men em

braced Chriftianity as their own; and the igno"rant foon found the practice of it productive "of happiness."- Both the Prefacer ‡, and the Author, affert from Mr. Claude; though Neither of them quotes the place where he fays it; "that "had it not been for the fevere edicts of Conftan"tine and his Son, against Paganifm, or the old "Gentile Religion, three parts in four of all Eu

rope would have been at this day Pagans." Yet the Author, in the very fame page, where he thus attributes the overthrow of Paganifm to the perse

cution of Paganism itself; imputes the spreading of Chriftianity to the perfecution not of the Pa gans, but of the Chriftians themselves. "The "perfecutions which they, the Chriftians, met "with tended to the fpreading of the Religion " which they taught, and their deaths established "their Pious System." That is, the Pagans became Christians to avoid being perfecuted for Pa ganifm, and had it not been for this perfecution of Paganism almost all Europe would have been Pagans to this day; and yet the Pagans became Chriftians, when they faw they fhould be perfecuted for embracing Chriftianity. So admirably do our Two new Teachers agree with truth, with each other, and with themselves.As to what the Prefacer has prefumed to affert, that the myfteries of the Scriptures in general, and the notion of a dying God in particular, made the Pagans, including the Philofophers, reject the Gospel with ridicule, difdain, and contempt; the fact is, that thefe fame Philofophers worshipped numbers of Gods who had died upon earth, and had numbers of myfteries, and never more of either, than when Christianity was fpreading; and That had fpread itself over the Roman Empire, and even far beyond it, before the Edicts of Conftantine. And let thefe Writers inform us, whether the New Teftament was interpolated before Chriftianity was thus spread, and had done all this good; or whether it could be corrupted afterwards, and neither Chriftians, Jews, nor Heathens, be able to discover any thing of the fraud, till these twò great Luminaries arofe, to give light to those whò have remained fo long in darkness.

SECT.

SECT. XIV.

The Author's Mifreprefentations of the Old Teftament, and the Law of Mofes, confidered.

H

AD the Author confined himself to the fundamental point which he profeffedly fets himself to prove; as both his principles themfelves, and his arguments in their fupport, have now been confidered, nothing more would have remained to be done. But fince he has chofen to throw out fome reflexions; though unconnected with the grand, immediate point in difpute; tending to prejudice his readers against the Scriptures in general, by mifreprefenting the accounts they give of the Divine Difpenfations; it would be improper to leave unnoticed what he has thus industriously advanced.

Whoever is a disclaimer of the Gofpel of CHRIST," as a Revelation properly fo called, is no lefs fo, we may be fure, of the Law published by Mofes, confidered in the fame light; accordingly we find the Author afferting, as follows.

Whatever notions Mofes, the Jewish Law"giver, might himself have of the Supreme Being, "it is evident that the ideas which the generality "of the Jews had of him," (that is, as he would' infinuate, the ideas which the Law of Mofes taught them to have of him;)" were low, gro“ véling, partial, and imperfect. Inftead of be"lieving God to be the Maker and Governor, the

4

Father, Friend, and Benefactor, of the Uni-' ❝ verfe, they vainly thought him to be the God' of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, the God of the Jews' "only: A local, partial, finite, comprehenfible, "vifible, capricious, and revengeful, Being, like

2

"themselves;

"themselves; that he loved only them, and hat"ed all the world befides; And from this principle they were led to hate and despise all man"kind, except themfelves.'

"That Charity and Univerfal Benevolence, thofe grand and effential parts of the Religion of Na"ture and of CHRIST, do not appear to have "been inculcated among the Jews, or to be a part " of Mofes's Plan; and that it does not appear, "that he impreffed on their minds any ideas of a "future ftate. That their Religion confifted

“

principally in Ceremonies, in which there could "be no real virtue; in which the purity of the "heart could have but little fhare, and therefore

that it is not fo apparently ftamped with the "Divine Seal. That the virtues of Justice, Chari

66

ty, and Benevolence, were nowife influenced, or "the practice of them promoted by this Religion. "That God was to be appealed, and rendered "kind to them, by Sacrifices and Ceremonies, CL not by virtuous actions *. That Power seems to

be almoft the only attribute of the Deity known "to the Jews themfelves, and Fear feems to be "the fole motive of their worship +."

Again the Author fays," Priefts have cloath"ed God with almost all the frailties of Human Nature, as may be seen in the Old Teftament; "where he is spoken of as being a jealous God,

66

vifiting the fins of the fathers on the children, to "the third and fourth generation: as being impla "cable, and that he would not be reconciled to "his creatures, nor accept the moft virtuous "conduct, unless he was rendered propitious by "Sacrifices:With fuch notions as thefe, and "with others which were equally injurious to the "character of the infinitely perfect God; and And fee p. 394. + P. 396.

↑ Introd. p. 14, 15. Introd. p. 15, 16.

" which