II.

flood, nay, up to Adam; for Adam converfed fome- CHA P.
times with Lamech, Noah's father; for Lamech was
born A. M. 874. Adam died 930; fo that fifty-
fix years, according to that computation, were Adam
and Lamech contemporary. Can we then think
Noah ignorant of the ancient tradition of the world,
when his father was fo long coævous with Adam ;
and Mathufelah his grandfather, who was born A. M.
687, died not till A. M. 1656, according to our most
learned primate of Armagh, i. e. was 600 years con-
temporary with Noah. Sem his fon was probably
living in fome part of Jacob's time, or Ifaac's at
leaft; and how eafily and uninterruptedly might the
general tradition of the ancient hiftory be continued
thence to the time of Mofes, when the number of
families agreeing in this tradition was increafed, and
withal incorporated by a common ligament of reli-
gion! I demand then, where can we fuppofe any ig-
norance, or cutting off this general tradition, in fo
continued a fucceffion as here was? Can we imagine
that the grand-children of Jacob could be ignorant
of their own pedigree, and whence they came into
Egypt? Can we think a thing fo late and fo re-
markable as the account of their coming thither
fhould be forgotten, which was attended with fo
many memorable circumftances; efpecially the fell-
ing and advancement of Jofeph, whofe memory it
was impoffible fhould be obliterated in fo fhort a
time? Could Jacob be ignorant of the country
whence his grandfather Abraham came; efpecially
when he lived fo long in it himself, and married into
that branch of the family that was remaining there,
when he had ferved his uncle Laban? Could Abra-
ham, when he was contemporary with Sem, be ig-
norant of the truth of the flood, when Sem, from
whom he derived himself, was one of the perfons who
escaped it in the ark? Could Sem be ignorant of the
actions before the flood, when Adam, the firft man,

.

BOOK lived fo near the time of Noah? And could Noah

II,

then be ignorant of the creation and the fall of man? Thus we fee it almost impoffible that any age among them then could be ignorant of the paffages of the precedent, which they were fo few generations removed from, that they could with eafe derive themselves from the first man. What then can we say? that any of these had a design of deceiving their posterity, and fo corrupted the tradition? Befides, that it could be hardly poffible at that time, when there were fo many remaining teftimonies of former times. What end can we imagine that any parents fhould have in thus deceiving their children? or what advantage should come to them by fuch a deceit ? Nay, I fhall now manifeft in the fecond place, that the whole interest of their children lay in preferving this tradition certain and entire. For their hopes of poffeffing Canaan, and title to it, depended upon the promise made unto Abraham 400 years before; which would not only keep awake their fenfe of Divine Providence, but would make them careful during their bondage to preserve their genealogies; because all the right they could plead to their poffeffions in Canaan, was from their being of Abraham's feed. And befides this, on purpose to be a memorial to them of paffages between God and Abraham, they had in their flesh a badge of circumcifion, which would ferve to call to mind those transactions which had been between God and their forefathers. These things then do fully demonftrate, that, infifting only on rational evidence, the Ifraelites were the most certain confervators of the ancient hiftory of the world; and can we then think that Mofes, who was the ruler among them, fhould not fully understand those things which every Ifraelite could fcarce be ignorant of, and might correct the mistakes of Mofes in his history, if he had been guilty of any fuch? These things I fuppofe have made the first propofition evi

dent,

II.

dent, that it was morally impoffible Mofes fhould C H AP. be deceived himself, or be ignorant of the things which he reports to others; both because he had abilities fufficient to discover truth from falfehood, and fufficient information of the paffages of former times.

CHAP.

BOOK

II.

1.

CHA P. III.

Mofes's Fidelity and Integrity proved.

I. Mofes confidered as an Hiftorian, and as a Lawgiver; his Fidelity in both proved; clear Evidences that he had no Intent to deceive in his Hiftory, Freedom from private Intereft, Impartiality in his Relations, Plainnefs and Perfpicuity of Stile. II. As a Lawgiver, he came armed with Divine Authority, which being the main Thing, is fixed on to be fully proved from his Actions and Writings. III. The Power of Miracles the great Evidence of Divine Revelation. Two grand Questions propounded. In what Cafes Miracles may be expected, and how known to be true. No Neceffity of a conftant Power of Miracles in a Church: IV. Two Cafes alone wherein they may be expected. When any Thing comes as a Law from God, and when a Divine Law is to be repealed. The Neceffity of Miracles in thofe Cafes as an Evidence of Divine Revelation afferted. V, VI, VII. Objections anfwered. No Ufe of Miracles when the Doctrine is fettled, and owned by Miracles by the firft Revelation. No Need of Miracles in Reformation of a Church.

TH

HE fecond propofition contains the proof of Mofes's fidelity, that he was as far from having any intent to deceive others, as he was from being deceived himself. Two ways Mofes must be confidered; as an hiftorian, and as a lawgiver. The only inducement for him to deceive as an hiftorian, must be some particular intereft which muft draw him afide from an impartial delivery of the truth; as a lawgiver, he might deceive, if he pretended Divine revelation for thofe laws which were only the iffues of his own brain, that they might be received with a greater veneration among the people; as Numa Pompilius

III.

Pompilius and others did. Now if we prove that c HAP. Mofes had no intereft to deceive in his hiftory, and had all rational evidence of Divine revelation in his laws, we shall abundantly evince the undoubted fidelity of Mofes, in every thing recorded by him. We begin then with his fidelity as an hiftorian; and it being contrary to the common intereft of the world to deceive and be deceived, we have no reason to entertain any fufpicions of the veracity of any person, where we cannot difcern fome peculiar intereft that might have a ftronger bias upon him than the common intereft of the world. For it is otherwife in morals than in naturals; for in naturals we fee that every thing will leave its proper intereft to preserve the common intereft of nature; but in morals, there is nothing more common than deferting the common intereft of mankind, to fet up a peculiar interest against it: it being the trueft description of a politician, that he is one who makes himself the centre, and the whole world his circumference; that he regards not how much the whole world is abufed, if any advantage doth accrue to himself by it. Where we fee it then the design of any perfon to advance himself or his pofterity, or to fet up the credit of the nation whose hiftory he writes, we may have just cause to fufpect his partiality; because we then find a fufficient inducement for fuch a one to leave the common road of truth, and to fall into the paths of deceit. But we have not the leaft ground to fufpect any fuch partiality in the history of Mofes; for nothing is more clear than that he was free from the ambitious defign of advancing himself and his pofterity, who, notwithstanding the great honour he enjoyed himself, was content to leave his pofterity in the meaneft fort of attendance upon the tabernacle. And as little have we ground to think he intended to flatter that nation, which he fo lively describes, that one would think he had rather a defign to fet forth the frowardnefs, unbelief, unthankfulness, and difobedience of a

1