*

vastly larger extent than all England; for it is represented as reaching from the Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river, viz. Euphrates; all this was comprehended in the grant, though not fully possessed till the time of David and Solomon. And with regard to the land of Canaan, properly so called, it must be considered that it was a hilly country; and such a country has much more room in it than a plain country of the same extent. And, in fact, we find that great numbers of the Canaanites continued to inhabit many parts of the land for a considerable time after the first entrance of the Israelites into it. And since they and the Canaanites together did no more than fill the land, if the Canaanites had been utterly detroyed at once, some parts of it might have been left desolate, and the beasts might have been multiplied upon them; especially considering that this land was surrounded with great deserts and wildernesses, as well as full of hills and mountains. And, accordingly, long after this, when the people of Israel were much more in number than they were at their first entrance into the land of Canaan, that country was frequently infested with wild beasts, as may be gathered from several instances.

CHAPTER V.

The testimony given by St. Paul to the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old Testament vindicated against the author's exceptions. The apostle recom. mended those sacred writings as of divine authority to the churches which he founded among the Gentiles. He regarded the law of Moses as having been originally of divine institution, though he knew by revelation it was no longer to be in force under the gospel. Objections against this obviated. The typical reference of that law vindicated. His attempt to prove that St. Paul was not the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, considered.

THE author, in his former book, had undertaken to show, that the law of Moses was not originally a divine institution or revelation from God, to be afterwards abolished and set aside by another revelation, but was a mere piece of carnal worldly policy.' And what was more extraordinary, he declared, that if he could not make it appear that St. Paul was on his side, he would give up the argument.' In opposition to this I showed, by the most express testimonies, that the apostle Paul did look upon the law of Moses to have been originally a divine institution or revelation from God. One passage I produced to that purpose was

* See Deut. xi. 22, 23, 24. Jos. i. 3, 4, 5.

that remarkable one to Timothy, where he commends him, for that from a child he had known the Holy Scriptures,' and declares, that they were able to make him wise unto salvation.' And then adds that all Scripture (or the whole Scripture) is given by inspiration of God,' &c. I observed, that by the Holy Scriptures he incontestably refers to the writings of the Old Testament, viz. those of Moses and the Prophets. Now what does our author say to this? Can he deny that the Scriptures there referred to are the writings of Moses and the Prophets? He cannot deny this. But he would have it, that by all Scripture the apostle only means the moral precepts of Scripture, p. 79. And at this rate any writing in the world, that has any good moral precepts in it, though mixed with many things that are false and of a pernicious tendency, and containing a scheme of superstition and enthusiasm, contrary to all reason and common sense, falsely set up under the popular pretence of a divine institution or revelation from God,' which is the idea he is pleased to give us of the Old Testament writings, may be safely recommended, and pronounced to be divine, and given by inspiration from God. But whether this be consistent with common honesty, may be left to the judgment of every reader. And, I am persuaded, that even this writer himself, though none of the most scrupulous, yet in the notions he now hath of the Jewish Scriptures, would not recommend them to mankind under that general character, which he here pretends the apostle gave of them, who, he would make us believe, had the same notions of them with himself: and yet he confidently puts it upon his reader, that 'St. Paul's principles and practice are perfectly consistent in his scheme,' and that he cannot be charged with anything of artifice or prevarication,' p. 92.

But he urges, that when the apostle Paul here talks of the Holy Scriptures, and recommends them as written by inspiration of God, he could not understand it of the whole Scripture in gross, or of every thing that the Jews had received as authentic Scripture: because this would be to make him assert a thing contrary to all truth, sense, and reason,' p. 80. All that I can make of the argument is this, that because this author looks upon it to be absurd to hold all the Scripture to be divinely inspired, therefore the apostle Paul did not and could not hold it to be divinely inspired, though he plainly represents it in that view. But it is urged, that he could not mean the bare historical parts of Scripture, nor could he mean that part of those writings which relate to the ordinances of the ceremonial law, which this apostle every where condemns and explodes. As to the ceremonial law, it has been shown, that St. Paul all along supposes and asserts it to have been originally of divine institution, designed to be preparatory to the gospel, and subservient to it.* Nor hath this writer been able to answer the clear proofs that were brought for that. And, indeed, it would be a strange thing to suppose, that when the apostle gives this noble cha

* See Divine Authority, pp. 48, 49, 52-57.

racter of the Scriptures in general, he should have no regard to the writings of Moses, which made so eminent a part of those Scriptures. As to the historical parts of Scripture, though this writer seems to think it absurd to suppose that they could be profitable for correction or instruction in righteousness, &c. yet it is certain, the apostle Paul did not think so. He represents the historical parts of Scripture as written for our admonition, and for our learning, see 1 Cor. x. 6-11, compared with Rom. xv. 4. And he frequently refers to the historical books of the Old Testament, under the notion of Scripture. Thus we find him referring to some historical passages in the book of Genesis, Rom. iv. 3: Gal. iii. 8; iv. 30. And to an historical passage in the book of Exodus, Rom. ix. 16; and to another in the first book of Kings xi. 2, 3, 4. All these he evidently cites and refers to as Scripture, and as of divine authority.*

But our anthor urges, that the historical writings, which the Jews received as authentic Scripture, abound with many mistakes and inconsistencies in history and chronology.' This is the notion he has of them: but the question is, whether this was also the notion the apostle Paul entertained of them. And, I am persuaded, if this had been the case, he would not have given so glorious a character of the Holy Scriptures in general without distinction, as he does, in this passage, and which must necessarily have been understood by Timothy, and all others in that age, as relating to the sacred writings of the Old Testament in general. I am very little concerned about the author's charge of inconsistencies; when he produces them, they may be considered. Though if it should be admitted, that some mistakes, with regard to names, numeral letters, computations of years, and other matters of small conse quence, have in process of time crept into those original writings, through the mistake or negligence of transcribers, it would not destroy the authority of those writings, or show that the original authors of them were not divinely inspired.

He next goes into a digression, pp. 80, 81, concerning inspiration, the design of which is to show, that no more regard is to be had to

It is evident to any one that impartially reads the historical writings of the Old Testament, that the main design of them is not merely to gratify a curiosity, but to beget and maintain in the minds of the people a veneration for the Supreme Being, a detestation of vice and idolatry, a dread of his justice, and a thankful sense of his great goodness, by letting them know how they and their rulers prospered, when they adhered to the worship of God, and the practice of righteousness; and, on the contrary, what calamities befel them, when they fell into idolatry and wickedness. These are the important lessons which the sacred historical writings are designed to convey to posterity. All things there are made subservient to the great ends of religion: and in this they are gloriously distinguished from all other historical writings. This author, indeed, represents the Hebrew historians as every where discovering a visible and strong prejudice and prepossession in favour of their own nation,' p. 28. But the contrary is evident. If the wonderful actings of divine providence for them are recorded, so also are the ungrateful returns they frequently made to the divine goodness. The follies, the idolatries and revolts of their own people, and the faults even of their greatest and most admired good men and heroes, are related without any arts of palliation or disguise, with a fairness, a simplicity, and impartiality that cannot be sufficiently admired.

C C

what comes by extraordinary inspiration, or is confirmed by miracles, than if it had come only in the ordinary way. What he offers here to this purpose hath been already considered; see above p. 343, and pp. 364, 365, &c. At present I shall only observe, that whatever this writer's way of thinking may be, which is of little importance to the world, he should not pretend to put this upon us as the apostle Paul's sentiment; or as if it was his opinion too, that divine inspiration is of no authority at all, and no more to be depended on than if there had been no inspiration; and as if by saying, that the Scriptures are given by inspiration of God, he intended that they are no more to be regarded than any common writings that do not pretend to be written by inspiration at all. But it is urged, that under that extraordinary dispensation of the Spirit, men were not to receive and believe every spirit, or every matter of inspiration, but to try the spirits or doctrines of inspiration, whether they were of God, or not.' But does it follow, that they were to have no regard to true inspiration, because they were to take care not to be deceived or imposed upon by falsely pretended ones? When Christians are commanded in the New Testament to try the spirits, it is evident that this is not designed to derogate from the authority of the Scriptures, since one test, by which they were to try them, was their agreeing with the Holy Scriptures. So the Bereans tried the doctrines of the apostles by the Scriptures, and are commended for it, Acts xvii. 11, 12. And another test, whereby they were to try the spirits in that first age, was their agreeing with the doctrine of Christ and his apostles. Hence they are commanded to mark those which taught things contrary to the doctrines which they had learned, and to avoid them,' Rom. xvi. 17. And St. Paul earnestly exhorts the Galatians not to receive any doctrine different from what he had taught them. And why were they so firmly to adhere to the gospel he had taught them? Because it was what he himself had received by revelation from Jesus Christ, Gal. i. 8, 9, 11, 12, and which was confirmed by the most illustrious attestations and gifts of the Holy Spirit, chap. iii. 2, 5.

This writer next takes notice of a passage, produced by me, from Rom. iii. 1, 2, where St. Paul calls the writings of the Old Testament, of which the law of Moses was a principal part, the oracles of God: and they are expressly called so by St. Stephen, Acts vii. 38. He has nothing to say to this, but the old story over again, that the apostle could not mean the law of Moses, because he calls its ordinances carnal ordinances, beggarly elements, &c. And this he frequently repeats in this book, though he knows I had proved fully and distinctly, that the apostle did not, and could not, in consistency with himself, intend by those expressions to signify that the law of Moses was not originally of divine institution. Yea, and that he supposes and asserts the contrary, in those very places where he makes use of that manner of expression. He has not thought fit to offer the least answer to the proofs that were brought

for this; and yet repeats what he had said before as securely, as if no notice had been taken of it at all. His following loose harangue, about evils coming from God, as well as good, &c. hath already been considered in the marginal note, pp. 58, 59, to which I refer the reader.

In pp. 83, 84, he charges me as discovering a great deal of artifice and prevarication, but nothing at all of truth and reason;' because I say, that it cannot be denied that St. Paul, in all his epistles, cites the Mosaical and prophetic writings as of divine authority, and that he delivered those writings to all the churches of the Gentiles among whom he preached, and whom he instructed in the Christian religion, under the notion of Scripture, or divinely inspired writings.' He says, that the apostle always argues from the authority of Moses and the prophets against the Jews, but that he never so much as quotes them but to the Jews, where he found them dispersed among the Gentiles, and that the Jewish or Judaizing teachers had been tampering with the Gentiles before, and had furnished them with those writings.' Now the contrary to what this writer here so confidently affirms may be proved with great evidence. And it might seem a trifling thing to attempt to prove a thing so well known, if this author's denying it did not make it necessary.

The epistle to the Romans was principally directed to the Gentiles, see chap. i. 13. And it appears that there were many among them that well understood their Christian liberty, and whom he thought it necessary to urge not to despise the Jewish converts, chap. xiv. 1, 2, 3, 5, 15. And yet he cites the Scriptures all along as of divine authority, not merely in those parts where he is disputing with the Jews, but where he is applying to the Gentiles, chaps. xiv. xv. And in the conclusion of that epistle, speaking of the gospel mystery which was then made manifest, he saith that by the Scripture of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God it was made known to all nations, for the obedience of faith,' chap. xvi. 26. I do not think there can be a clearer proof of what this writer with so much confidence denies, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament were recommended by the apostle to the Gentiles, and represented by him as of divine authority. In his Epistle to the Ephesians, who were a church consisting of Gentile converts, and whom he addresses to, and considers entirely as such, Eph. ii. 1, 2, 11, 12, he declares to them, that they were built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone,' ver. 20; see also Eph. iv. 8, vi. 2. The Corinthians were a church gathered from the Gentiles, and from his first epistle to them it appears that they understood their Christian liberty, and were rather in danger of carrying it to an excess than the contrary. Nor is there any thing at all in that epistle relating to the controversy of those times between the Judaizing teachers and the apostle Paul; and yet he

* See Divine Authority,' pp. 53, &c.