SUCH were the fentiments of fome very ancient chriftians refpecting certain books of feripture. As to modern divines,

GROTIUS declares his opinion as follows: "I have truly said, that all the books in the "Hebrew canon were not dictated by the

Holy Ghost. ***** There was no oc"cafion for hiftories to be dictated by the es Holy Spirit. *** If Luke had written his "books by the dictates of divine inspiration, " he would have chofen rather to establish "his authority on that, than on the faith of "the witnesses he followed. So in writing "the Acts, which he had feen done by Paul, " he had no need of inspiration ".'

ARCHBISHOP Tillotfon fays, "If any man "is of opinion, that Mofes might write the "hiftory of thofe actions, which he himself "did or was prefent at, without an imme"diate revelation of them, or that Solomon, by his natural and acquired wisdom, might

speak thofe wife fayings which are in his "Proverbs, or the Evangelifts might write " what they heard and faw, or what they "had good affurance of from others, as St. "Luke tells us he did, &c. without the im"mediate' dictate of the Spirit of God, he "feems to have reafon on his fide. For that

"men

→ Grot. Votum pro pace. Artic. de Canonicis Scripturis. Op. tom. IV. p. 672.

"men may without an immediate revelation "write those things, which they think with"out a revelation, feems very plain. And "that they did fo, there is this probable argument for it; because we find, that the

ce

СС

Сс

evangelifts, in relating the difcourfes of Chrift, are very far from agreeing in the particular expreffions and words: **** "but if the words had been dictated by the Spirit of God, they must have agreed in "them. For when St. Luke differs from "St. Matthew, in relating what our Saviour "faid, it is impoffible that they should both "relate it right as to the words and forms " of expreffion".

σε

DR. Middleton tells us, "As 'tis neceffary "to believe of the fcriptures in general, that

they are divinely inspired; fo it is as neceffary, " from the evidence of plain facts and decla"rations in thofe very fcriptures, to allow "fome exception to this general rule, and "not to infift, as fome do, that every word, "fentence, narration, history, or indeed every book we call canonical, was dictated 'by God. * *** Here then," adds this author, "I fix "I fix my foot, and take upon me "to affert, that we are under no obligation "of reafon or religion to believe, that the "fcriptures are of abfolute and univerfal in

Tillotson's works, vol. III. p. 449.

"spiration,

fpiration, or that every paffage in them was "dictated by a divine spirit .".

WE plainly fee, that these pious and learned divines made no fcruple to declare their opinions very fully and explicitly, and others have done the like, that not only many paffages, but even entire books of the fcriptures, were not dictated by the Holy Ghost.

In order to confirm the sentiments of these great men, and fatisfy ourselves fully on this head, nothing more feems neceffary, but to take an unbiaffed view of fome particular parts of fcripture.

COULD the writer of Ecclefiaftes be divinely inspired when he declared concerning the eftate of the fons of men, "that they "might fee they themselves are beafts? For "that which befalleth the fons of men, be"falleth beafts, even one thing befalleth "them: as the one dieth, fo dieth the other;

yea they have all one breath, fo that a man " hath no pre-eminence above a beast: *** "all go unto one place." Can any thing be stronger against a future state than these texts? Or can the human fpecies be more degraded than by this account of them?

T

WAS David infpired by the merciful Spirit of God when he thus cruelly curfed his A a enemy,

Dr. Middleton's works, vol. II. p. 288.

a Ecclefiaftes iii. 18, 19, 20.

enemy, and his children alfo?" When he” (his enemy)" fhall be judged," fays David, "let him be condemned, and let his prayer " become fin. * * * Let his children be continually vagabonds and beg. * * * Let "there be none to extend mercy unto him; « neither let there be any to favour his father"less children ":" with a great deal more in the fame ftrain.

AND what shall we fay of the account given in the book of Genefis concerning the creation of man, and for what cause he was not only deprived of the happy ftate in which he was originally placed, but both himself and all his pofterity, according to the most common and orthodox opinion, were fen tenced by God to eternal mifery? By an impartial examination of this narrative, we fhall perhaps be able to fatisfy ourselves, whether even this part of the fcriptures, upon which, as fome think, fo much depends, carries with it, if taken in a literal fenfe, as most divines infift that it should be, any appearance of being divinely revealed.

THE account in the fecond and third chapters of Genefis is briefly as follows:

THAT "the Lord God formed man of "the duft of the ground:" that nevertheless "he formed him in his own image, in the -"image

"image of God created he him: male and "female created he them." That" the "Lord God planted a garden, and there he << put the man, one of whofe ribs God took, "and thereof made he woman. And the "Lord God commanded the man, faying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat; for in "the day that thou eateft thereof, thou fhalt "furely die:" that is, as we are taught to believe, thou fhalt live for ever in eternal mifery...

BEFORE We go any further, a query here feems naturally to prefent itself. Would a good man plant in his garden a tree which bore pleasant, but poisonous fruit, and content himself with forbidding his children to eat thereof, telling them, that if they did, they should furely die? On the contrary, if he knew of fuch a tree, would he not immediately destroy it?and more especially if he could be fenfible, that unless he did fo, his children would certainly deftroy themfelves by eating the fruit thereof, and likewife render all their posterity miserable? But to proceed with our narrative:

NOTWITHSTANDING this prohibition against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and the terrible penalty annexed to A a 2 difobedience,