which are not to be reduced to a certain and determinate Meaning? And yet the Argument is as good, nay, just the fame, in this Cafe, as when it is applied to Revelation; and a Man argues with the fame Shrewdness, who tells us we have no Gospel, or none that we ought to admit, because the Gospel we pretend to has many difficult Paffages in it, many Things that are hard to be understood: For the Obfcurity of fome Laws is as good an Argument against the Authority of the Statute-Book, as the Obfcurity of fome Texts is against the Authority of the Gospel.

This will further appear to be true, if we confider the proper Proofs of a Revelation, and how they operate: For they will be found to take place, and have their full Effect upon the Mind, antecedently to our having a diftin&t Understanding of all the Parts of a Revelation: And confequently our not having a distinct Understanding of all the Parts of a Revelation is no Objection to the Authority of a Revelation, which is founded upon Proofs the Objection cannot reach. Now these Proofs are three: The Qualities of the Perfon who is fent to make the Revelation: The main End and Purpose of his Coming: And the Miracles which he gives in Evidence of his Commiffion. If the Perfon

Perfon be fufficiently qualified to be entrusted with fo great Charge; if nothing appears to make it justly suspected that he is a Deceiver; if no private Views, no Self-intereft, no Ambition are discoverable; if he be in all Refpect's fuch an one as we may reasonably suppose God would make Choice of to fend on his Errand: If the End and Design of his Coming is fuch as we may well fuppofe God to be the Author of; if it tends to promote the Honour of God, and true Religion, to fecure the general Happiness and Welfare of Mankind, without any partial Views and Regards: If his Miffion be attefted by fuch Signs and Wonders, as plainly point out to us the Hand of God fupporting and en.couraging the Work; if they are openly fhewn before Friends and Foes, and attended with fuch other Circumstances, as are neceffary to place them above Sufpicion : In this Cafe we have a certain Evidence of the Miffion and Authority of this Perfon to make known to us the Will of God, and are bound to receive what he shall publifh in God's Name, as the Law of God. Now all these Proofs we certainly may have, without being able to understand, or fully comprehend, all that fuch a Perfon delivers; and yet, in Force of thefe Proofs,

we

we are bound to believe what he delivers to be the Word of God. Men do not speak accurately when they fay, the Doctrines are proved by Miracles; for, in truth, there is no Connection between any Miracles and Doctrines: Miracles prove the Authority of the Berfon, and the Authority of the Perfon is the Ground of receiving the Doctrine. Now it is one Thing to know the Authority of the Person, another Thing to know what he fays. His Authority makes what the fays to be Law, and your Want of Knowledge in the Meaning of what he fays will not unmake the Law: For if it could, Ignorance would be the fupreme Authority, fince no Authority could make a Law, which Ignorance could not repeal. How far we are concerned in these Obfcurities, or what Obligations they lay upon us, which perhaps may be none at all, is another Question: But I think it is evident, that no Body of Laws, human or divine, becomes void and of none Effect, because fome Parts are hard to be underftood, or not to be understood. And if Men dispute upon fuch Places, and divide into a thousand Opinions about them, fuch Divifions do ftill lefs affect the Law,

which owes not its Authority to the Agrees ment or Difagreement of Interpreters.

But it may be said, and I think very just ly, To what Purpose is any thing delivered as Law, or Revelation, which is too obfcure to be understood? The very End of the Law is, to be the Rule of our Actions and how is this End to be attained, whilft we continue ignorant of the Meaning of the Lawgiver? Men may blunder, and make dark Laws, and fo mifs the Scope they aimed at; and the Wonder is not great: But how should any Obfcurity darken the Law of God? fince we cannot but fuppofe, from the very End and Nature of a Law, that his Intention was to be understood; and his Wifdom permits us not to doubt but that he was able to explain his Meaning.

This brings us to confider the Fact, Whether the Gofpel has fuch Difficulties and Obfcurities in it, as may make us esteem it unworthy of the Wisdom of God.

The Chriftian Revelation is contained in the Books of the New Testament; but they are not all of the fame Kind, nor do they fall under the fame Confideration in this Queftion. Had Men given themselves Time to think coolly, and to make the

true

true Separation in this Cafe, we had not perhaps been told, that the Difficulties of fome Parts of the Scripture are an Objection to the Revelation itself.

The Books of the New Teftament may be confidered either as Hiftorical, as Doctrinal, or as Controverfial, and fome as a Mixture of the two laft. By the Historical, I understand the Narrative of our Saviour's Life and Death, and of the Preaching of his Apostles after his Refurrection and Afcenfion. These, as they are merely Hiftorical, afford none of thofe Difficulties which are fo much complained of: The Story is plain and fimple, and the different Accounts of it, in the feveral Gospels, vary no more from each other, than may naturally be expected from different Pens.

By the Doctrinal, I understand those Matters of Faith, and Rules of Duty, which do not regard this or that particular Case, but were intended for the Ufe of the whole World, and are to continue to the End of it. And if there be a clear Law, and clearly expreffed, in the World, this is the Law. Can Words more clearly express the Honour and Worship we are to pay to God, or can more familiar Directions be given in this Cafe, than are to

be