do I see, upon this supposition, where is the necessity of speaking so often of the faith and patience of the saints, if the persecuted state of the church were to be of such a short duration.

It is not to be wondered at, that there is a considerable obscurity with regard to many circumstances of the prophecies in that book, and particularly as to the precise time of the dates of the events. Several reasons might be offered to show that it was not proper that they should be more distinctly marked out: but yet there is such a plain description of an idolatrous and persecuting power that was to arise in the church; the seat where that power was to be fixed is so plainly pointed out, viz. Rome, and that it was to be under a different form of government in the Roman Empire from that which subsisted in St. John's time, and after the rise of ten kingdoms, into which that empire was to be divided, which did not happen till many hundred years after this prophecy: the arts of seduction and deceit that should be made use of, the general spreading of the apostacy, and the grievous sufferings to which the faithful few should be exposed, are so distinctly and strongly described and we have seen all this so wonderfully accomplished by a power the most strange that ever was in the world, and in which all these characters are to be found, that it is no small confirmation of the divine authority of this prophecy. And it is also foretold that after the destruction of this power, there shall be a glorious state of the church, a state of universal purity and peace, to continue a thousand years our author may call this a fifth monarchy if he pleases, but let him prove that there is any thing in this unbecoming the wisdom and goodness of God. The prospects of it cannot but be very refreshing to every good man that hath any zeal for the glory of God, or for the good of mankind, and for the interests of true religion and righteousness in the world.

But the author objects that this fifth monarchy was to be founded in blood and destruction as the four monarchies before had been successively founded, p. 367, or as he expresseth it, p. 372, that not one Gentile was to be saved: they were all to be given up to the sword, plague, and famine; or such judgments by which God had determined to destroy the fourth to make way for the fifth monarchy, which looks very unlike converting the whole world by argument and reason, and by the motives and inducements of beneficence and love, under a kingdom or state of government, that must depend upon inward conviction and free choice. His insinuations that the Jews only were to be partakers of the benefits of this kingdom have been already sufficiently exposed: but it will be easily allowed, that it is plainly signified in this book that God, after having long borne with them, would inflict severe judgments on his obstinate enemies, who had persecuted his faithful servants with so much cruelty and rage, and had seduced the nations by their wicked arts, and propagated iniquity, vice, and idolatry. This writer here seems to think it is a breach of liberty of conscience for God himself to inflict plague, famine, &c. upon the wicked opposers of his authority and laws and for aught I know, he may think it a breach of liberty,

:

S

and inconsistent with God's governing his creatures by love, to punish the wicked at all either in this world or in the next. But though not to punish the wicked might seem to be a lenity and indulgence to them, yet, which is far worse, it would be a cruelty to good men. It would be a subverting the order and welfare of the moral world, and a suffering vice and wickedness to ravage without control, which would be absolutely inconsistent with a wise and good government. I would fain know of this benevolent author, who is afraid of God's punishing the obstinately wicked, because this would be very unlike converting the world by inducements of beneficence and love, under a kingdom that must depend upon inward conviction and free choice; I would know of him what room there would be for men's acting in religion upon inward conviction and free choice, if God should always suffer persecuting powers to prevail, and set no bounds to their rage. How the punishing and destroying such powers, or which is the same thing, putting a stop to tyranny and persecution, is the way to hinder free choice, he would do well to explain. On the contrary it is evident that the removing such idolatrous persecuting powers is necessary, in the nature of things, to make way for such a happy state of government where truth and love and benevolence must reign.

Thus I have considered our author's objections against the Apocalypse, one of the sacred books of the New Testament. But he is not content with this. He endeavours as far as in him lies to destroy the authority of the whole canon of the New Testament. He represents it as so full of corruptions and interpolations, that it is not at all to be depended upon that the Christian Jews had the revising and publishing that canon in their own hands, and altered it as they pleased in that very age: and that as they left it, and as it now stands, it is a system of Christian Judaism, a jumble of two inconsistent religions; yea that Christ's own disciples reported ed every thing that Jesus did or said according to their own prejudices, and are therefore not to be depended on for a just account either of doctrines or facts.' see p. 440, 441.

I shall not repeat what I have elsewhere offered to show that never were there more unexceptionable witnesses than the apostles, and that the New Testament writings have all the marks of genuine purity and integrity that any writings can have, and that it was not in the power of any persons if they had been willing, to have introduced a general corruption into those writings* either with regard to the doctrines or facts. I shall only observe at present, that the supposition this writer makes of their being corrupted by the Jews, those very Jews who he tells us would have crucified a thousand Messiahs, rather than take in the Gentiles as partakers in the kingdom with the primitive elect people of God; and who at last, being disappointed in Jesus set up another Messiah, one Barchochab, pp. 374, 440, is the wildest, the most extravagant supposition in the world. For not to urge, that it was not in their

* See answer to Christianity as Old as the Creation, vol. ii. Chap. 2, and 5.

power to have corrupted the original sacred writings of the New Testament which were immediately dispersed far and wide among the Gentile churches, we have a manifest proof in fact that they did not interpolate and corrupt them in favour of their own Jewish notions and prejudices, because none of those which this writer represents as their notions and doctrines, and as making up what he calls a Jewish gospel, such as the doctrines concerning Christ's being only a temporal Messiah, and national deliverer of the Jews, concerning the observation of the law of Moses as absolutely necessary to justification and acceptance with God, concerning the worshipping of angels, and setting up many mediators and intercessors instead of one, concerning the confining salvation to the Jews only, and raising them to a height of power and dominion over all nations, that they might be thoroughly revenged on the Gentile world; I say, none of those doctrines are to be found in the New Testament writings. And to imagine that the Christian Jews, as he calls them, should interpolate and corrupt the New Testament writings in order to accommodate them to their own notions and prejudices, and yet should leave the entire scheme of religion there laid down quite contrary to those notions and prejudices, and neither alter those passages that are most inconsistent with those notions, nor insert any passages in favour of them, is the most absurd and unaccountable supposition that ever was made.

But our author is pleased to instance in some things which he looks upon to be proofs of such interpolations and corruptions. Such he would have those passages to be that relate to the divinity of our Saviour; but he would do well to tell us what inducements the Christian Jews could have to foist in such interpolations. The Ebionites, Cerinthians, and others who called themselves Christians, and yet urged the necessity of the observation of the law of Moses, would never have inserted those passages, but rather the contrary,. since they did not acknowledge our Lord's divinity. And besides, it is evident that no part of the New Testament affords stronger passages to this purpose than are to be found in the writings of St. Paul. But certainly if we should suppose that the Christian Jews had it in their power to have corrupted his epistles (which is a most absurd supposition) it would have appeared by their altering or corrupting some of the passages that seem to be strongest against the obligation of the law of Moses, and that relate to the Gentiles being taken in as fellow-heirs and members of the same body but the whole frame of his epistles bears the plain characters of genuine purity and integrity. Another instance he brings is, that in favour of their old national prejudices, Christ's own disciples made him a false prophet, they made him prophesy of the end of the world, and of his second coming to judgment, as a thing very shortly to happen during that present generation, p. 440. And he observes farther, that they expected Christ's second coming in that very age or generation, with all the powers of heaven to restore the kingdom to the house of David, in an everlasting succession of power and dominion over all nations to the end of the world, p. 441. But no

where do any of the apostles assign the precise time of Christ's coming to the general judgment; on the contrary, they plainly let us know that the exact time of it was not revealed to them. The coming they speak of, as foretold by our Lord to happen in that very age, is his coming, not to restore the kingdom to the house of David in the Jewish sense, and to raise the Jews to a height of power and dominion over all nations, as this writer is pleased to represent it; but to destroy Jerusalem, and to put an utter end to that state and polity, and inflict the most dreadful punishment and desolation upon them that ever was inflicted in any age, or upon any nation. And this is so far from making Christ a false prophet, that it furnisheth a glorious proof among many others that might be produced of his divine mission. And it is remarkable, that though they assure us that our Lord so clearly foretold the utter destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem, yet when they give us an account of this, they never add the least hint of his foretelling that the kingdom should be restored to the Jews, and that they should be fully revenged on the Gentiles, which one should think they would have done if they had interpolated these predictions in favour of their own national prejudices.

Our author farther pretends that Christ's disciples ascribed several miracles to him, in which there could have been only an exertion of power without wisdom or goodness, but as he does not condescend to mention them, I need not take any particular notice of this insinuation. I shall only observe, that the miracles they relate are things which they themselves heard and saw, yea, which were done in open view of multitudes, and even of their most watchful and malicious enemies. And the accounts were published in the very age in which those facts were said to be done, and when it would have been the easiest thing in the world to have detected and contradicted them if they had not been true. And indeed, never were there, all things considered, more credible witnesses. They appeared by their whole conduct to be men of great probity and simplicity. The doctrine they preached, and which was confirmed by those miracles, was contrary to all their most rooted and favoured prejudices, and former notions of things. They themselves received that doctrine on the credit of the facts they relate, and to which they were witnesses. And they persevered in their accounts of those facts, and in their profession of that doctrine, with an unparalleled constancy, and even with a wonderful satisfaction and joy of mind, under the most grievous sufferings, and at length sealed their testimony with their blood. Nor is it conceivable to any that impartially considers these things, and the pure and self-denying scheme of religion they taught, upon what other principles they could proceed in all this, than what they themselves professed, a regard to the glory of God, and to the good of mankind, and an earnest desire of promoting true religion, piety, and virtue in the world, together with the hopes of a glorious reward and happiness in a future state. And the being acted by these principles is absolutely inconsistent with their being imposters and deceivers; who put a deliberate solemn cheat upon

mankind in the name of God, and witnessed to facts which they themselves knew to be false. And our author himselt, after putting a case which pretty exactly answers to that of the apostles, seems to acknowledge, that it is very probable that men qualified and acting as is here supposed could have no design to deceive us. See p. 90-93.

CHAPTER XVI.

The Moral Philosopher sets up for rectifying the errors of Christians with regard to some of the particular doctrines of Christianity. His objections against the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction considered. There is nothing in it contrary to justice. The fulness of the satisfaction not inconsistent with a free pardon. It doth not rob God of the glory of his mercy, and give the whole praise to Christ. The pretence that Christ's satisfaction is needless, because repentance alone is sufficient without it, examined. It doth not destroy the necessity of personal repentance and obedience, but establisheth it. Christ's prayer to the Father that the cup might pass from him not inconsistent with the notion of his dying for the sins of the world. The author's assertion that there was no such thing as vicarious sacrifices under the law of Moses; and the way he takes to account for Christ's being called a propitiation, examined. The representation he makes of the gospel doctrine of pardon upon repentance. His absurdity and inconsistency in this shown. His attempt against the positive precepts of Christianity, considered. The arguments he draws from the differences among Christians, to prove that none of the doctrines of revealed religion are of any certainty or use to mankind, shown to be vain and inconclusive. His encomium on moral philosophy. The conclusion.

I HAVE now gone through the several objections of our pretended moral philosopher as far as they affect the authority of the Holy Scriptures in general, whether of the Old Testament or of the New. It doth not properly come within my design to enter upon the consideration of the particular doctrines of Christianity, especially those that are controverted among Christians. I might therefore entirely pass by those parts of our author's book, where he pretends to set up for rectifying the errors and mistakes that have obtained among Christians with regard to some of the doctrines of the gospel. He is certainly a very unfit person to bring Christians to the true original Christianity, and to the purity of doctrine as laid down in the New Testament, who does all he can to subvert and destroy the authority of those sacred writings. There is no one doctrine against which he exerts himself with so much force and vigour, as that of Christ's satisfaction. He is pleased on this occasion to give us a specimen of his sermonising faculty, as 'a sample how the clergy ought to preach, and what doctrines they are to instruct us in as from Christ and the apostles.' And the discourse he entertaineth