writings; this will do our author's caufe no service, unless he can prove that they were made by Chriftians, and that the predictions relating to Chrift, were made after the event; for the manifeft agreement and correfpondence of the events recorded in the New Teftament writings, to the things predicted in the Old, will give fuch a credit to Christianity, as the enemies of it will never be able to weaken, unless they can prove that the predictions were forged, and inferted into the Jewish writings, after the event. And this feems to be our author's fuppofition, tho' he elsewhere contradicts himself p. 112. &c. For he tells us plainly, p 45. that the great clearness of prophecies hath ever been deemed a mark among intelligent people, whether believers or unbelievers in prophecy, that they have been made after the event. I doubt not but our author is one of these very intelligent perfons, a thro' unbeliever in prophecies, and firmly determined to account all the prophetick paffages of the Old Teftament forged and interpolated, which have a plain and manifest reference

19

to, and accomplishment in Jefus Christ; tho' I confcfs, I do not understand (our author, in his great intelligence, may inform us) how a person can be a believer in prophecy, and yet believe every plain, prophecy made after the event. Howe ver, he hath taken care to preclude all poffibility of being convinced himself of the truth of prophecies, and is so extraordinary intelligent, as to refolve to prefevere, at all hazards, in his infidelity. If there be any difficulty or obfcurity in prophecies, and their application to their particular events doth not feem so very natural and cafy; then he is fo intelligent as to think them only allegorical, myftical, typical proofs, i. e. that they prove just nothing at all : but if they are plain and easy to be understood, and do clearly prefignify the coming of any fu ture event; why then alfo it seems that intelligent perfons think them forged, and made after the event.

Tantamne rem tam negligenter?

Do intelligent perfons ufe to judge thus without fufficient reason, or contrary to the plain appearance of evidence? Will

U 4

Our

our author himself affirm, that all the pasfages of the Old Teftament, which now seem to have a reference to, and their ac complishmnnt in Jefus Christ, are meer interpolations? Let him then give some probable reafons when, and by whom these interpolations were made; and particularly that they were made after the event. 'Tis allow'd that plain prophecies, with their exact completions, are not matters very credible, without very good attestation, p. 137; tho' this is no very extraordinary difcovery of our author's; fince perfons of common intelligence know, that as the belief of all past facts depends on teftimony, fo thofe facts will be more or less credible, according to the nature and weight of fuch teftimony. But I cannot agree with him when he tells us, (Ibid.) that it seems most natural, upon the first view of a prophecy plainly fulfilled, to fuppofe the prophecy. made for the fake of the event, or both prophecy and event invented. This it feems is his unprejudiced unbyaffed way of thinking and acting; to pafs his judgment before enquiry, and to condemn

all

all prophecies as cheats, without examin. ning whether or no they are real. Other perfons, of less inteligence than our author, would poffibly think themselves obliged, before they made any determination at all, to enquire, when the things, faid to be prophecies, were delivered, and when their accomplishment is faid to have happened, and to confider the agreement between the prediction and its completi If they find the fame proof and evidence that the prediction was prior to the accomplishment, as they find for the difference of time between any other two ancient facts; I think they will be under. the fame obligation to believe one as well as the other; or elfe teftimony must never be allowed to be a fufficient reafon for belief, and so past facts obtain no credit amongst men.

on.

But however, our author will have it, p. 135. That the books of the Old Teftament are greatly corrupted, i. c. greatly changed from what they were, when they proceeded from the authors of them.

I own many literal errors. may have happened thro frequency of tranícribing,

:

tranfcribing, as happens alfo to all other ancient books. But the question is not as to this; but whether the Old Teftament hath been wilfully corrupted, by wicked and designing men; cither by erafing particular paffages out of it, or interpolating others into it. As to the Penta. teuch, or book of the law; he tells us, p. 138. that it must, in a particular manner, have been liable to great alterations, and to fuch as binder us from difcerning now, what truly belongs to Mofes, from that which hath been added by those who fucceeded him. And for this affertion he affigns two reafons: the one a reason which feems to deftroy itself; and the other, if not a falfhood, yet what he will never be able to prove. The first is, that the books of the law were much neglect. ed by the Jews, because very much prone to idolatry. But may we not argue, that if the law was very much neglected by the idolatrous Jews, it must have been, by parity of reason, as much valued by those of them, who worshipped the Lord God of Ifrael only; and that therefore they would be particularly careful to preserve

thofe