to give his judgment or opinion concerning them; namely, that these facts thus happen'd, that the following fcriptures might be fulfilled, viz. a bone of him fhall not be broken, and they shall look on him whom they have pierced. As to the first, viz. the truth of the facts here referred to, that depends upon the bonefty and integrity of the reporter, who declares for himself that he was an eye-witness of those facts: but then as to the fecond point, viz. the judgment, or opinion of the hiftorian with refpect to thofe facts, viz. that they came to pafs, that the forementioned fcriptures might be fulfilled, this does not depend on his honefty and integrity, because honesty and integrity do not fecure a man's judgment from error. And therefore the hiftorian's judgment or opinion must be tried by examining the principles, upon which it is grounded; that is, the prophefies referred to must be examined, as to the fenfe and meaning of them; and likewise the facts referred to must be examined, and compared with those prophesies, to fee whether one does anfwer the other, before we can fairly and juftly form a judgment of the truth of the hiftorian's opinion in the prefent cafe, viz. that those facts took place, that the abovementioned fcripture prophefies might be fulfilled. And if upon examination this appears to be the cafe, then there is just ground to receive the historian's opinion, as truth: not because it is his opinion, but because it appears to be the truth,

from

from an examination of the principles, upon which that opinion is founded.

"If it fhould be urged, fuppofing that the biflorical parts of the New Teftament were not written by divine infpiration, yet the cafe is much the fame with refpect to the judgment, or opinion, which the writer might give upon any part or parts of that history; becaufe God conferr'd infallibility, or an unerring judgment upon the hiftorians, which fecured them from error, with refpect to the fenfe, and meaning of fcripture prophefies, and the application of them to the facts they related. And that this is the cafe, is evident, not only from the reafon of the thing, which fhews that fuch an infallible judgment was neceffary to qualify them for the work they undertook of writing Chrift's history; and alfo to enable them to enforce the argument, drawn from fcripture prophesy, to prove the Meffiahfhip and divine miffion of their master; and likewife to fecure them from misleading their readers; but it is alfo evident from Chrift's promife, that he would give or fend the Holy Spirit, which fhould lead them into all truth.

To this I anfwer, first in general: The whole body of the firft Chriftians erred greatly in a very important point, viz. that the gofpel was to be preached to the Jews only, and that the Gentiles were not to be fharers in it. And they alfo continued in that error for many years, and confequently the whole bo

dy

dy of Chriftians (in which the writers of the gofpel hiftory, or fome of them at least were included), erred greatly with refpect to the true fenfe of thofe fcripture prophefies, in which the election and calling of the Gentileswere foretold. From which it appears, they were not endowed with that general infallibility, which fecured them from error in all points as is here fuppofed. Again,

I answer, fecondly, and more particularly, as the writers of the gofpel hiftory wrote of their own accord, they not having any special call to that work, (it feemed good to me alfo, faith St. Luke, chap. i. ver. 3.) fo the facts which conftitute that hiftory were fuch, as they themselves had feen or heard, or they received their informations from thofe who were eye and ear-witnesses of them, and therefore an infallible judgment was not neceffary to that work. Again, How far an infallible judgment might be neceffary, or useful to clear up the argument drawn from fcripture prophesy, to prove Chrift's divine character, I fhall not here enquire, it being fufficient to my purpose to observe, that to clear up and enforce the argument drawn from fcripture prophefy, to prove Chrift's divine million, was not the work and bufinefs of an hiftorian; it was what the writers of Chrift's hiftory were not called to, and therefore it is not to be expected, that an infallible judgment fhould attend them to answer fuch a purpose. Befides, in fome of thofe inftances in which

C

the

the gospel biftorians have given their judgments with refpect to fcripture prophefies, it is to be feared they have rather perplexed, than inforced and cleared up the argument drawn from them. Again, As to an infallible judgment being neceffary to the writers of Chrift's hiftory in order to prevent their misleading their readers, this may be true in thofe points, in which the falvation of men's fouls was immediately concerned, but not in any other point. And therefore in other points thofe writers not only could, but did err, as I have shewn above. And this likewife ferves as an answer to what is urged with respect to Chrift's promife of fending his spirit to lead them into all truth. By which furely cannot be meant truth at large, viz. mathematical truth, and philofophical truth, &c. but only all truth, in which the faving of men's fouls is immediately concerned; this being fufficient for his purpofe, as the Saviour of mankind, and with refpect to other points, it is evident they did err.

So that what is before urged in favour of an infallible judgment attending the writers of gofpel hiftory, is manifeftly reafoning against fact. The immediate followers of Christ were fo far from being endowed with an infallible judgment, with refpect to the true fenfe and meaning of fcripture prophefies, even after the effufion of the Holy Ghoft on the day of Pentecof, that on the contrary they erred greatly (as I have already obferved) with refpect

to

to the true fenfe of all thofe prophefies, in which the election and calling of the Gentiles were foretold. And if they erred with respect to fome fcripture prophefies, then they were liable to err with refpect to others, and confequently with respect to fuch as we have now under confideration, for any thing we know, or for any grounds we have, from which we may justly conclude the contrary.

;

What I would infer is, that as the writers of the gospel hiftory were liable to err with respect to the true fenfe and meaning of fcripture prophefies, and confequently in the application of thofe prophefies to the facts they related; fo, if in any inftance the prophefy, and the fact applied to it, do not appear to correfpond with each other, nothing can fairly be concluded from hence, in prejudice of the argument, drawn from literal prophefy, to prove the Meffiahfhip or divine million of our blefied Lord but that argument remains in its full ftrength, notwithftanding fuch difagreement. All that can fairly be concluded, is only this, viz. that the hiftorian erred in his judgment, with refpect to fcripture prophefy, in the inftance where fuch difagreement appears. I fay, that nothing more than this can fairly be concluded in the prefent cafe. For, as the gofpel hiftorians were not divinely conflituted to be judges for others of the fenfe of fcripture prophefies; and therefore were not divinely qualified for fuch a work, but in that refpect C 2 flood