reasons why he fufpects them.-But if by this af sertion he means only to repeat the principle, for which he all along contends; that every part of the New Testament which does not relate to a Moral Duty is forged, or unauthorised by CHRIST It is only neceffary to remind him, that repeating this affertion is not proving it; but merely taking for granted the very point it is his business to prove; but the falfehood of which we have already feen by examining all the direct arguments he has alleged in its fupport. When the author fays" It appears that the "It "writers of the New Teftament were fometimes, " left to themselves *;"-he would infinuate, that they were fometimes left to themselves in writing the New Teftament, and that they wrote from themselves without apprizing us of it. But this we have seen already, in the laft Section, is evidently falfe. But he adds, though without any proof, "That "the Copyers and Tranflators were always left to "themselves t"-And quotes a writer (Mr. Nye) as having faid from Mr. Gregory, "That no "Author whatever had fuffered fo much by the "hand of time as the Bible "And faying of himself, "That the New Teftament is altered in many places, and fome of the greateft mo ment: "And from all this, our Author concludes,- "That if this be the cafe, Deifts may "juftly boaft, that Reafon far outfhines the light "of the Gofpel; at least as it ftands in the En"glish Translation §." In return to which we will freely allow him, that the Copiers and Tranflators were left to themfelves, and not infpired. But what will justly fol *P. 333. Ibid. + Ibid. P. 334. H P. 348. low low from this? Not that the New Teftament, as we have it, is not the word of God; Not that every paffage of the New Teftament except fuch as relate to Moral Duties is forged; the point for which the Author contends, and which this is improperly alleged to prove; but, that those who are qualified for the talk, fhould examine the various copies and tranflations with critical care, in order to fettle the genuine text, as well as its true meaning; and that thofe, who choose to busy their thoughts about it, without being themselves qualified for this examination; as the Author has told us is his own cafe; fhould acquaint themfelves with the refult of the labours of those who have actually made it; and modeftly derive their notions of the errors which Copiers and Tranflators have introduced, from those who will give them the best information on the fubject. And' when the Author fhall have done this, which he ought to have done before he prefumed to say any thing upon the point; he will know, if he does not know it already, and choose to keep it unnoticed; that the many thousands of variations, which have been discovered, are almost all of a trifling nature; and as to the reft, that no Moral Duty is at all affected by thein, nor does any Doctrinal Dispute whatever depend upon them; and confequently, that if the Deift is forced to have recourse to this topic, the cause of Deifin is certainly a moft wretched cause indeed. The truth is, that both Mr. Gregory and Mr. Nye have gone much too far in their affertions, as the more accurate labours of later learned men' have fhewn. And what reason therefore will the Author be able to give us, for having chosen to refer his readers to Mr. Gregory and Mr. Nye upon Introd. p. 36 this point, without any mention of those later. And the Latter fays, within two pages after our agreements that are material and weighty, a "fincere perfon may easily fatisfy himself about them, either by the manifeft reafon of the thing "in queftion; or by what the Holy Scriptures "generally deliver up and down elsewhere.". His Book indeed is purpofely written in defence of Revealed, as well as Natural Religion. But befides, what shall we fay to the contradictions of this Rational Chriftian; who can even put the fuppofition, That the errors of Copiers and Tranfla-. tors have fo obfcured the Gofpel as to make the light of Reafon out-fhine it; when the very fundamental principle of the body of his Book, is this ;"That the Moral Part of the New Teftament" (the English New Testament)" is a perfect Transcript "of the Religion of Nature *;" and, "That the "Moral Doctrines and Precepts of CHRIST (as) they are to be found delivered in our English Tranflation,) are exactly such as Nature teaches, fuch as his confcience approves †?"-And indeed, what can be more incredible, than that the 66 *Introd. Re4gbrota. ↑ P. 373- Supernatural t Supernatural Parts fhould have fuffered fo dreadfully by Copiers and Tranflators; while, even upon the Author's own Syftem, the Moral Parts have not fuffered at all? 66 Still the Author's friend in the Preface remains to be heard. Nobody knows, fays he, by "whom the Compilation called the New Tefta"ment was made. But by whomfoever it was done, " doubtless the collection was formed according "to the knowledge, tafte, genius, tempers, views, "and difpofitions, of the Compiler, or Compilers; "who adopted and rejected according to their "inclinations, interefts, and defigns. However "it is generally allowed, that there were upwards "of a Dozen Gofpels, fome fay many more, which "were current, and stood on an almost equal footing of authority, for more than an hundred "years after CHRIST; and that the Canon was 66 not fettled till after that period. And again"To affert that thofe who compiled the New Tef "tament were guided by Inspiration; or that they were too honest to be corrupted, too wife to be deceived, too cautious to be abused, too difin"terested to be prejudiced; I fay, to aver all this, without knowing who the Compilers were; efpecially as the Compilation was certainly made "in an age when imposture abounded; muft tend to provoke ridicule, rather than procure cre"dence; at least with persons of judgment, who are not under the influence of intereft.Hence "it is clear, that we cannot be fatisfied of the Di"vine Authority of the mysterious parts of the "Scriptures at least §." Though it is neither known by Whom the Canon was fettled, nor When it was fettled, yet it has been unanswerably fhewn, by Those who have examined the fact to the bottom, that we have the concurrent teftimony of the earliest Christian Wris ters so strong in its favour, that we muft abfolutely renounce all hiftorical evidence if we will not receive it. Nay, this very circumftance, that it is not known When, or by Whom, the books of the New Teftament were firft received as Scriptural, is itself one of the strongest proofs, that they are of unqueftionable authority; fince the caufe of it is, That the First Writers always mention them as of acknowledged authority, without thinking it at all neceffary to cite any teftimony in their fupport. What ftronger evidence can we rationally defire, that the authority of thefe writings was at that time fo clear as not to admit of doubt, than this, That the Earliest Writers continually appeal to them as undoubted, and needing no proof? That there were many other Gofpels, as this Writer fays; and he might have faid many other As and Epiftles too; is a circumftance fo far from shaking the authority of thofe, of which the New Teftament is composed; that it fupplies us with an additional argument in their favour. The very nature of the thing obliges us to fuppofe, that many of the firft Chriftians in different places would write down, for the affiftance of their own memories, and the information of others,' what they had learnt concerning the history and difcourfes of our Lord; and that what they wrote in this manner, though with the beft intentions, would be not only defective, but even blended with mistakes. And fuch feem to be the perfons of whom St. Luke fpeaks in the beginning of his Gofpel. The Apoftles and their companions would of courfe be defired by their converts, if not before these imperfect Gofpels appeared, yet as |