IMPRIMATUR hic Liber (cui Titulus, A Letter to a DEIST.)  
Feb. 8. 1676. Guil. Jane, R. P. D. Henr. Episc. Lond. a Sacris Domest.   

A LETTER TO A DEIST, In Answer to several OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE TRUTH and AUTHORITY OF THE Scriptures,  
LONDON, Printed by W. G. and are to be sold by M. Pitt, at the Angel in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1677.   

THE PREFACE.  
THis following Discourse was Written for the satisfaction of a particular Person, who owned the Being and Providence of God, but expressed a mean Esteem of the Scriptures, and the Christian Religion. Which is become so common a Theme among the Sceptics of this Age, that the Author of this Discourse thought it worth his time and care, to consider the force of the Objections that were made against them. Especially, being written in a grave and serious manner, and not with that Raillery and Buffoonery, which the rude Persons of this Age commonly bestow upon Religion. It might be justly expected from such who pretend to Breeding and Civility, that they would at least show more respect to a thing, which hath prevailed so much among Men of the best Understanding and Education, and who have had no Interest to carry on by it. For it is against the ordinary Rules of Conversation, to affront that which others think they have great Reason to esteem and love; and they would not endure that scorn and contempt of their meanest Servant, which they too often show towards Religion, and the things belonging to it. If they are not in earnest when they scoff and mock at sacred things, their own consciences will tell them it is a horrible impiety; if they are in earnest, let them debate these things calmly and seriously, and let the stronger Reason prevail. Men may speak sharply and wittily against the clearest things in the World, as the Sceptics of old did against all Certainty of Sense and Reason; but we should think that Man out of his senses, that would now dispute the Being of the Sun, or the Colour of the Snow. We do not say, the Matters of Religion are capable of the same evidence with that of Sense; but it is a great part of judgement and understanding, to know the proportion and fitness of evidence to the Nature of the thing to be proved. They would not have the Eye to judge of tastes, nor the Nose of Metaphysics; and yet these would be as proper as to have the senses judge of Immaterial Being's. If we do not give as good Reason for the Principles of our Religion, as the nature of Religion considered, can be given for it, let us then be blamed for our weakness in defending it; but let not Religion suffer, till they are sure nothing more can be said for it.  
There is a late Author, I hear is 
Tractat. Theol. politic.  mightily in vogue among many, who cry up any thing on the Atheistical side, though never so weak and trifling. It were no difficult task to lay open the false Reasonings, and inconsistent Hypotheses of his Book; which hath been sufficiently done already in that Language wherein it was written. But if for the Advancement of Irreligion among us, that Book be, as it is talked, Translated into our Tongue, there will not, I hope, want those who will be as ready to defend Religion and Morality, as others are to decry and despise them.   

A Letter of Resolution to a Person unsatisfied about the Truth and Authority of the Scriptures.  
SIR,  
ALthough I do not pretend to any skill in the depths of Theology, yet I am heartily concerned for the Truth and Honour of the Christian Religion; which it is the design of your papers to undermine. When I first looked them over, I could not think them so considerable as to deserve a particular Answer; especially, from one in my circumstances, who have so much other business lying upon me, and so little leisure and health to perform it; but I found at the conclusion of your Papers, so earnest and vehement a desire expressed by you, that I would return an Answer, in order to the settlement of your mind, that I could not refuse an Office of so great Charity, as you represent it to be. I confess, when I considered the nature of your Objections, and the manner of managing them, I could hardly believe that they proceeded from a doubtful Mind, that was desirous of any satisfaction; but since you tell me so, I will first show my Charity in believing it, and then in endeavouring to give you my poor assistance, and impartial advice, in order to your satisfaction. And in truth, I think impartial advice will contribute more to that end, than spending Time and Paper in running through all the difficulties, which it is possible for a cavilling Mind to raise against the plainest Truths in the World. For there is nothing so clear and evident, but a Sophistical Wit will always find something to say against it, and if you be the Person I take you for, you very well know, that there have been some, who wanted neither Wit, nor Eloquence, who have gone about to prove, That there was Nothing in the World; and that if there were any thing, it could not be understood by Men; that if it were understood by one Man, it could not be expressed to another: And besides such extravagant undertakers as these, how many have there been, who with plausible and subtle Arguments, have endeavoured to overthrow all manner of Certainty, either by Sense or Reason? Must we therefore quit all pretences to Certainty, because we cannot, it may be, Answer all the Subtleties of the Sceptics? And therefore I am by no means satisfied with your manner of proceeding, desiring all particular difficulties to be Answered, before we consider the main evidences of the Christian Faith: For the only reasonable way of proceeding in this matter, is to consider, first, whether there be sufficient Motives to persuade you to embrace the Christian Faith; and then to weigh the difficulties, and to compare them with the Reasons and Arguments for believing; and if those do not appear great enough to overthrow the force of the other, you may rest satisfied in the Christian Faith, although you cannot Answer every difficulty that may be raised against the Books wherein our Religion is contained. I pray Sir, consider with yourself; do not you think it possible for any man to have Faith enough to save him, unless he can solve all the difficulties in Chr●●ologie that are in the Bible, unless he can give an account of every particular Law and Custom among the Jews, unless he can make out all the Prophetic Schemes, and can tell what the Number of the Beast in the Apocalypse means? If a Man may believe and be saved, without these things, to what purpose are they objected for the overthrow of the Christian Faith? Do you think a Man hath not reason enough to believe there is extended Matter in the World, unless he can solve all the difficulties that arise from the extension or divisibility of Matter; or that he hath a Soul, unless he can make it clear how an immaterial and material Substance can be so united as our Soul and Body are? Or that the Sun shines, unless he can demonstrate whether the Sun or the Earth moves? Or that we have any certainty of things, unless he can assign the undoubted criterion of Truth and Falsehood in all things? These things I mention on purpose, to let you see, that the most certain things, have difficulties about them, which no one thinks it necessary for him to Answer, in order to his assurance of the Truth of the things; but as long as the evidence for them is much more considerable than the Objections against them, we may safely acquiesce in our assent to them, and leave the unfolding these difficulties to the Disputers of this World, or the Knowledge of another. Is it not far more reasonable for us to think, that in Books of so great Antiquity, as those of Moses are, written in a Language whose Idiotisms are so different from ours, there may be some difficulty in the Phrases, or computation of Times or Customs of the People, that we cannot well understand, than that all the Miracles wrought by Moses should have been Impostures; and that Law, which was preserved so constantly, maintained with that resolution by the wisest of the People of the Jews, who chose to die rather than disown it, should be all a cheat? Is it not more reasonable for us to suspect our own Understandings, as to the Speeches and Actions of some of the Prophets, than to think that Men who designed so much the advancing Virtue, and discouraging Vice, should be a pack of Hypocrites and Deceivers? Can any Man of common sense suspect the Christian Religion to be a Fourb, or an Imposture, because he cannot understand the Number of the Beast, or Interpret the Apocalyptick Visions? I could hardly have believed any Man pretending to Reason, could object these things, unless I saw them, and were called upon to Answer them.  
Therefore, Sir, my serious and impartial advice to you is, in the first place to consider and debate the main point, i. e. the proofs of the Christian Doctrine, and not to hunt up and down the Scriptures for every thing that seems a difficulty to you, and then by heaping all these together to make the Scriptures seem a confused heap of indigested stuff, which being taken in pieces and considered, with that modesty, diligence, and care, that doth become us, will appear to contain nothing unbecoming that Sacred and Venerable Name which the Scriptures do bear among us.  
If therefore, you design not cavilling but satisfaction, you will join issue with me upon the most material point, viz. Whether the Christian Religion were from God, or from Men? For if this be proved to have been from God, all the other things will easily fall off of themselves, or be removed with a little industry.  
In the Debate of this, I shall consider, first, what things are agreed upon between us, and then wherein the difference lies.  
1. You grant an absolutely perfect and independent Being, whom we call God.  
2. That the World was at first Created, and is still governed by Him.  
3. That He is so Holy, as to be the Author of no Sin, although he doth not hinder Men from sinning.  
4. That this God is to receive from us all Worship proper to Him, of Prayers, Praises, etc.  
5. That it is the Will of this God, that we should lead holy, peaceable, and innocent Lives.  
6. That God will accept men's sincere Repentance and hearty endeavours to do his Will, although they do not perfectly obey it.  
7. That there is a State of Rewards and Punishments in another World, according to the course of men's Lives here.  
8. That there are many excellent Precepts in the writings of the New Testament inducing to Humility and Selfdenyal, and to the Honour of God, and civil duty and honesty of Life; and these in a more plentiful manner than is to be found in any other Profession of Religion publicly known.  
The Questions then remaining, are, (1) Whether the matters of Fact are true, which are reported in the Writings of the New Testament? (2) Supposing them true, Whether they do sufficiently prove the Doctrine to have been from God?  
1. Whether the matters of Fact were true or no? And as to this point, I wish you had set down the Reasons of your doubting, more clearly and distinctly than you have done: What I can pick up, amounts to these things. 1. That there can be no certainty of a matter done at such a distance of time, there having been many fictitious Histories in the World. 2. That it is probable, that these things might be written, when there was no one Living to detect the falsehood of them; and thus you say, the Grecians, Romans, Egyptians, and other Nations were at first imposed upon by some Men, who pretended to deliver to them the History of their Gods and Heroes, and the Wonders wrought by them. 3. That these things might more easily be done, before Printing was used; and that there is reason to suspect the more, because of the Pious Frauds of the Primitive Christians, and the Legends of the Papists. 4. That there may have been many more Deceptions and Impostures in the way of propagating false Revelations and Miracles than we can now discover. 5. That we ought not to take the Testimony of Scripture, or the Christian Writers in this case, because they may be suspected of partiality; and that the Testimony of Josephus is suspected by divers learned Men to be fraudulently put in by Christians. 6. That there are sufficient grounds from the Story itself, and the Objections of Enemies to suspect the truth of it; because of the contradiction and inconsistency of the parts of it; the want of accomplishment of the Promises and Prophecies of it; the obscurity and unintelligibleness of other parts; the defects of the Persons mentioned therein, St. Paul 's ostentation, the jars between Peter and Paul, and Paul and Barnabas. 7. That from these things you have just cause to doubt the Apostles sincerity, and you think they might have indirect ends in divulging the Miracles recorded in Scripture; and that Men might be contented to suffer, to make themselves heads of a new Sect of Religion, and to rule over the Consciences of Men; and that they had time enough to make a considerable interest before the Persecutions began.  
This is the force of all I can find out, in the several parts of your Papers towards the invalidating the Testimony concerning the matters of fact reported in the Writings of the New Testament.  
In Answer to all these things, I shall show; 1. That matters of fact done at such a distance of time may have sufficient evidence to oblige Men to believe them. 2. That there is no reason to suspect the Truth of those Matters of fact which are contained in the History of the New Testament. 3. That the Apostles gave the greatest testimonies of their Sincerity, that could be expected from them; and that no matters of fact were ever better attested than those which are reported by them; from whence it will follow, That it is not reason but unreasonable Suspicion and Scepticism, if not wilfulness and obstinacy which makes Men to continue to doubt after so great evidence.  
1. That we may have such evidence of Matters of Fact done at such a distance of time as may oblige us to believe the Truth of them. This we are first to make out, because several of your Objections seem to imply, That we can have no certainty of such things; because we cannot know what tricks may have been played in former times, when it was far more easy to deceive; and that it is confessed, there have been several Frauds of this kind, which have a long time prevailed in the World. But have not the very same Arguments been used against all Religion, by Atheists? And if the Cheats that have been in Religion, have no force against the Being of God, why should they have any against the Christian Religion? And if the common consent of Mankind signify any thing as to the acknowledgement of a Deity, why should not the Testimony of the Christian Church, so circumstantiated as it is, be of sufficient strength to receive the Matters of Fact delivered by it? which is all I at present desire. Do we question any of the Stories delivered by the common consent of Greek or Latin Historians, although we have only the bare Testimony of those Historians for them? And yet your Objections would lie against every one of them: How do we know the great prevalency of the Roman Empire? was it not delivered by those who belonged to it, and were concerned to make the best of it? What know we, but thousands of Histories have been lost, that confuted all that we now have concerning the greatness of Rome? What know we, but that Rome was destroyed by Carthage, or that Hanniba● quite overthrew the Roman Empire; or that Catiline was one o● the best Men in the World, because all our present Historie● were written by Men of the other side? How can we tell bu● that the Persians destroyed th● Macedonians, because all our Accounts of Alexander's Expedition are Originally from the Greeks And why might not we suspect greater partiality in all these Cases, when the Writers did not giv● a thousand part of that evidenc● for their fidelity, that the Firs● Christians did? And yet, wha● should we think of such a people who should call in question th● best Histories of all Nations because they are written by thos● of the same Country? By whic● it seems, you will never allow any competent Testimony at all; for if such things be written by Enemies and Strangers, we have reason to suspect both their knowledge and integrity; if written by Friends, then though they might know the Truth, yet they would write partially of their own side: So that upon this principle, no History at all, ancient or modern is to be believed; for they are all reported either by Friends or Enemies: and so not only Divine, but all Humane Faith will be destroyed. I am by no means a Friend to unreasonable credulity; but I am as little to unreasonable distrust and suspicion; if the one be Folly, the other is Madness. No prudent Man believes any thing, because it is possible to be true; nor rejects any thing merely because it is possible to be false: But it is the prudence of every Man to weigh and consider all circumstances, and according to them, to assent, or descent. We all know it is possible for Men to deceive, or to be deceived, but we know there is no necessity of either; and that there is such a thing as Truth in the World; and though Men may deceive, yet they do not always so; and that Men may know they are not deceived. For else there could be no such thing as Society among Mankind; no Friendship, or Trust, or Confidence in the Word of another person; because it is possible that the best Friend I have may deceive me, and the World is full of dissimulation, must I therefore believe no Body? This is the just consequence of this way of Arguing, That we have reason to suspect the Truth of these Matters of Fact, because there have been many Frauds in the World, and might have been many more than we can now discover; for if this Principle be pursued, it will destroy all Society among Men; which is built on the supposition of mutual trust and confidence that Men have in each other: And although it be possible for all Men to deceive, because we cannot know one another's hearts, yet there are such Characters of Honesty and Fidelity in some Persons, that others dare venture their Lives and Fortunes upon their Words. And is any Man thought a Fool for doing so? Nay, have not the most prudent and sagacious Men reposed a mighty confidence in the Integrity of others? And without this, no great affairs can be carried on in the World; for since the greatest Persons need the help of others to manage their business, they must trust other Men continually; and every Man puts his Life into the hands of others, to whom he gives any freedom of access, and especially his Servants: Must a Man therefore live in continual suspicion and jealousy, because it is possible he may be deceived? But if this be thought unreasonable, than we gain thus much, that notwithstanding the possibility of deception, Men may be trusted in some cases, and their Fidelity safely relied upon: This being granted, we are to inquire what that assurance is which makes us trust any one; and wherever we find a concurrence of the same circumstances, or equal evidence of fidelity, we may repose the same trust or confidence in them. And we may soon find that it is not any ones bare Word that makes us trust him; but either the reputation of his Integrity among discerning Men; or our long experience and observation of him: This latter is only confined to our own trial; but the former is more general, and reaches beyond our own Age, since we may have the Testimony of discerning Persons conveyed down to us in as certain a manner, as we can know the mind of a Friend at a 100 Miles distance, viz. by Writing. And in this case, we desire no more than to be satisfied that those things were written by them; and that they deserved to be believed in what they writ; thus, if any one would be satisfied about the passages of the Peloponnesian War, and hath heard that Thucydides hath accurately written it, he hath no more to do, than to inquire whether this Thucydides were capable of giving a good account of it, and for that, he hears that he was a great and inquisitive Person, that lived in that Age, and knew all the occurrences of it; and when he is satisfied of that, his next enquiry is, whether he may be trusted or no; and for this, he can expect no better satisfaction, than that his History hath been in great reputation for its integrity among the most knowing Persons; but how shall he be sure this was the History, written by Thucydides, since there have been many counterfeit Writings obtruded upon the World? Besides the consent of learned Men in all Ages since, we may compare the Testimonies cited out of it with the History we have, and the Style, with the Character given of Thucydides, and the Narrations, with other credible Histories of those Times; and if all these agree, what reason can there be not to rely upon the History of Thucydides? All learned Men do acknowledge, that there have been multitudes of fictitious writings, but do they therefore question, whether there are any genuine? Or whether we have not the true Herodotus, Strabo, or Pausanias, because there is a counterfeit Berosus, Manetho, and Philo, set forth by Annius of Viterbo? Do any suspect whether we have any of the genuine Works of Cicero, because an Italian counterfeited a Book De Consolation in his name Or whether Caesar's Commentaries were his own, because it is uncertain who Writ the Alexandrian War that is joined with them By which we see, that we may not only be certain of the Fidelity of Persons we converse with, but of all things necessary to ou● belief of what was done at a great distance of time from th● Testimony of Writers, notwithstanding the many supposititious Writings that have been in the World.  
But it may be said, That all this only relates to mere matters of History, wherein a Man is not mu●h concerned whether they be true or false; but the things we are about are matters that men's Salvation or Damnation are ●id to depend upon, and therefore ●reater evidence should be given of these, to oblige Men to believe them.  
To this I answer. 1. That ●●y design herein, was to prove, ●hat notwithstanding the possibility of deception, there may be sufficient ground for a prudent and firm assent to the Truth of things done at as great a distance of time, and conveyed after the same manner, that the Matters of Fact reported in the New Testament are; and hereby those general prejudices are showed to be unreasonable: And all that I desire from this discourse is, that you would give an assent of the same nature to the History of the Gospel, that you do to Caesar, or Livy, or Tacitus, or any other ancient Historian. 2. As to the greater obligation to assent, ● say it depends upon the evidence of Divine Revelation, which i● given by the Matters of Fac● which are delivered to us. An● here give me leave to ask you; 1. Whether it be any ways repugnant to any conception you have of God, for him to make use of fallible Men to make known his Will to the World? 2. Whether those Men, though supposed to be in themselves fallible, can either deceive, or be deceived, when God make● known his Mind to them? 3. Whether on supposition, that God hath made use of such Persons for this end, those are not obliged to believe them, who do not live in the same Age with them? If not, than God must either make no Revelation at all, or he must make a New one every Age: If they are, than the obligation lies as much on us now to believe, as if we had lived and conversed with those inspired Persons.  
2. That there is no reason to suspect the Truth of those Matters of Fact which are reported in the New Testament; For since it is universally agreed among Men, that Humane Testimony is a sufficient ground for assent, where there is no positive ground for suspicion; because deceiving and being deceived, is not the common Interest of Mankind; therefore we are to consider what the general grounds of suspicion are, and whether any of them do reach the Apostles Testimony, concerning the Matters of Fact reported by them. And the just grounds of suspicion are these 1. If the Persons be otherwise known to be Men of artifice an● cunning, full of tricks and dissimulation, and that make n● Conscience of speaking Truth so a Lie tends to their greatest advantage; which is too muc● the Papists case in their Legends and Stories of Miracles. 2. ● they temper and suit their Stor● and Doctrine to the Humour an● Genius of the People, they hop● to prevail upon, as Mahomet did in encouraging War and Lasciviousness. 3. If they lay the Scene o● their Story at a mighty distance from themselves, at such an Age, wherein it is impossible either to prove, or disprove; which is the case of the brahmin's, as to their Brahmà, and their Veda; and was of the Heathens as to their Fabulous Deities. 4. If there be any thing contained in the Story, which is repugnant to the most authentic Histories of those times; by which means the Impostures of Annius have been discovered. 5. If there be evident contradiction in the Story itself; or any thing repugnant to, or unbecoming the Majesty, Holiness, Sincerity, and Consistency of a Divine Revelation; on which account we reject Fanatic pretences to Revelations. If there were any thing of this nature in the Writings of the New Testament, we might then allow there were some ground to suspect the Truth of what is contained therein: But I shall undertake, by the Grace of God, to defend that there is not any foundation for suspicion as to any one of these.  
1. As to the Persons, such wh● go about to deceive others, mus● be Men that are versed in business and know how to deal with Men; and that have some interest already that they have gained by other means, before they can carry on such a design as to abuse Mankind, by Lies and Impostures in Religion: Therefore the Atheists lay the deceiving the World by Religion, to the Charge of Politicians and Lawgivers, to Men versed in the practice of Fraud, such as Numa, or Lycurgus, or Xaca, or Mahomet, such as understood the ways of cajoling the People; or to subtle Priests, that know how to suit the hopes and fears of the superstitious multitude; whence came the multitude of Frauds in the Heathen Temples and Oracles. But would any Man in the World have pitched upon a few Fishermen, and illiterate Persons, to carry on such an intrigue as this? Men that were rude and unexperienced in the World, and uncapable of dealing in the way of Artifice with one of the common Citizens of Jerusalem. When was it ever heard that such Men made such an alteration in the Religion of the World, as the Primitive Christians did, against the most violent persecutions? And when they prevailed so much, the common charge still against them was, that they were a company of Rude, Mean, Obscure, Illiterate, Simple Men: And yet in spite of all the Cunning, and Malice, and Learning, and Strength of their Adversaries, they gained ground upon them, and prevailed over the Obstinacy of the Jews, an● Wisdom of the Greeks. If th● Christian Religion had been a mee● design of the Apostles to mak● themselves Heads of a new Sect what had this been but to hav● set the Cunning of twelve, o● thirteen Men, of no Interest or Reputation, against the Wisdom and Power of the whol● World? If they had any Wisdom they would never have unde● taken such an impossible desig● as this must appear to them ● first view: And if they ha● none, how could they ever hop● to manage it? If their aim wer● only at Reputation, they might have thought of thousands ● ways more probable, and mor● advantageous than this: If w● suppose Men should be willing to hazard their Lives for the● Reputations, we may suppose withal such Men to have so much cunning as not to do it till they cannot help it; but if they can have Reputation and ease together, they had rather have it. I will therefore put the Case concerning the only Person that had the advantage of a Learned Education among the Apostles; viz. St. Paul, and whom you seem to strike at more than the rest: Is it reasonable to believe, that when he was in favour with the Sanhedrin, and was likely to advance himself by his opposition to Christianity, and had a fair prospect of Ease and Honour together; he should quit all this, to join with such an inconsiderable and hated company, as the Christians were, only to be one of the Heads of a very small Number of Men, and to purchase it at so dear a rate as th● loss of his Friends and Interest and running on continual Troubles and Persecutions, to the hazard of his Life? It is possibl● for Men that are deceived an● mean honestly to do this; bu● it is scarce supposable of a Ma● in his Senses that should kno● and believe all this to be a cheat and yet own and embrace it, to s● great disadvantage to himself When he could not make himself so considerable by it, as he might have been without it. Me● must love cheating the World at strange rate, that will let go fai● hopes of preferment and ease and lead a life of perpetual trouble, and expose themselves to the utmost hazards, only for the sake of deluding others. If the Apostles knew all they said to be false, and made it so necessary for all Men to believe what they said to be true; they were some of the greatest deceivers which the World had ever known: But Men that take pleasure in deceiving, make use of many artifices on purpose to catch the silly multitude; they have all the arts of Insinuation and Fawning Speeches, fit to draw in the weakest, and such as love to be flattered; but what is there tending this way in all the Apostles Writings? How sharply do they speak to the Jewish Sanhedrin, upon the Murder of Christ? With what plainness and simplicity do they go about to persuade Men to be Christians? They barely tell the Matters of Fact concerning the Resurrection of Christ, and say they were eye-witnesses of it, and upon the credit of this Testimony of theirs, they Preach Faith and Repentance to Jews, and Gentiles: Was ever any thing farther from the appearance of Artifice than this was? So that if they were deceivers, they were some of the Subtlest that ever were in the World, because there seems to be so little ground for any suspicion of Fraud; and we cannot easily imagine Persons of their Education, capable of so profound dissimulation and so artificial a Cheat. Besides all this, we are to consider how far such Persons do allow the liberty of dissimulation and artificial Juggle, especially in Religion; we see the Papists could not practise these things, without being forced to defend them, by showing how convenient it is for the People to be told strange Stories of Saints, on purpose to nourish Devotion in them: To which end, they say, it signifies not much, whether they were true or no: And withal they assert the Lawfulness of Equivocations, and Mental Reservations, and doing things, not otherwise justifiable, for the Honour of their Church and Religion; And I shall freely confess to you, if I found any countenance to such things as these, from the Doctrine or Practice of the Apostles, it would give me too just a ground for suspicion as to what they delivered. For if they allowed Equivocations, or Mental Reservations, how could I possibly know what they meant by any thing they said? For that which was necessary to make the Proposition true, lay without my reach in the Mind of another; and while they so firmly attested that Christ was risen from the Dead, they might understand it of a Spiritual or Mystical Resurrection; but if they should be found to allow Lying or Cheating for the cause of Religion, their credit would be gone with me; for how could I be any longer sure of the Truth of one Word they said? I should be so far from thinking them Infallible, that I could not but suspect them to have a design to deceive me. The first thing therefore we are to look at in Persons who require our belief, is the strictest veracity; if they falter in this, they expose themselves to the suspicion of all but credulous Fools. But we no where find greater plainness and sincerity required, no where more strict and severe prohibitions of dissimulation in Religion, nor more general Precepts about speaking Truth, than in the Writings of the New Testament. But might not all this be done with the greater artifice to prevent suspicion? Suspicion is a thing, which he that set bounds to the Sea, can set no bounds to; if Men will give way to it, without reason, there can be no end of it. For the most effectual ways to prevent it, will still afford new matter and occasion for it. If Men do use the utmost means that are possible, to assure others of their sincerity, and they will not believe them, but still suspect the design to be so much deeper laid; there is no way left possible to satisfy such Men; their suspicion is a disease incurable by rational means, and such persons deserve to be given over as past all remedy. If Men act like prudent Men, they will judge according to the Reason of Things; but if they entertain a jealousy of all Mankind, and the most of those who give them the greatest assurance they have no Intention to deceive them, it is to no purpose to go about to satisfy such Persons, for that very undertaking makes them more suspicious. If the Apostles therefore gave as much ground as ever any Persons did, or could do, that they had no design to impose upon the World, but proceeding with all the fairness and openness, with the greatest evidence of their sincerity, there can be no reason to fasten upon them the imputation of cunning Men who made it their business to deceive others.  
2. This will more appear if we consider the Matters delivered by them, and the nature of their Doctrine. For if the Christian Religion were only a contrivance of the first Preachers of it, it must by the event be supposed that they were very subtle Men, who in so little time, and against so great opposition could prevail over both Jews and Gentiles; but if we reflect on the nature of their Doctrine, we can never imagine that these Men did proceed by the same Methods that Men of subtlety do make use of. If it were there own contrivance, it was in their power to have framed it as they thought fit themselves; and in all probability, they would have done it in a way most likely to be successful; but the Christian Religion was so far from it, as though they had industriously designed to advance a Religion against the genius and inclination of all Mankind. For it neither gratifies the voluptuous in their Pleasures, nor the Ambitious in their desires of External Pomp and Greatness, nor the Covetous in their thirst after Riches; but lays a severe restraint on all those common and prevailing Passions of Mankind; which Mahomet well understood, when he suited his Religion to them. Christianity was neither accommodated to the Temper and Genius either of Jews or Gentiles: The Jews were in great expectation of a Temporal Prince at that time to deliver them from the Roman Slavery; and every one that would have set up for such a Messias, might have had followers enough among them, as we find afterwards by the attempts of Barchocebas and others. But the Messias of the Christians was so directly contrary to their hopes and expectations, being a poor and suffering Prince, that this set them the more against his Followers, because they were hereby frustrated of their greatest hopes, and defeated in their most pleasing expectations: But besides, if they would have taken in the Mosaic Law, it might in probability have succeeded better; but this St. Paul would by no means hear of. But if they rejected the Jews, methinks they should have been willing to have had some assistance from the Gentiles. No, they charged them with Idolatry where ever they came, and would not join in any parts of their Worship with them; nor so much as Eat of the remainder of their Sacrifices. But supposing they had a mind to set up wholly a new Sect of their own; yet we should think they should have framed it after the most plausible manner, and left out all things that were most liable to Reproach and Infamy: But this they were so far from, that the most contemptible part of the Christian Religion, viz. A Crucified Saviour, they insist the most upon, and Preach it on all occasions, and in comparison of it, strangely despise all the Wisdom and Philosophy of the Greeks. What did these Men mean, if Christianity had been only a contrivance of theirs? If they had but left out this one circumstance, in all Human probability, the excellent moral Precepts in Christianity would have been highly magnified among all those who had been bred up under the Instructions of Philosophers. Nay, they would not make use of the most commendable Methods of Humane Wisdom; nor do as the Jesuits have done in China, make Men have a better opinion of the Religion they brought, for their skill in Mathematics and Astronomy; but as much as it was possible, to let the World see it was no contrivance of Humane Wisdom, they shunned all the ways of showing it in the manner of its propagation. Nay, when the People would have given the Apostles Divine Worship, never were vain Men more concerned to have it, than they to oppose it; And do these things look like the Actions of Men that designed only to make themselves great, by being the Heads of a new Sect of Religion?  
3. Men that made it their design to deceive the World, if they had thought it necessary to bring in any matter of Story concerning the Author of their Religion would have placed it at such a distance of time, that it was not capable of being disproved: As it is apparent in the Heathen Mythology; for the Stories were such, as no person could ever pretend to confute them otherwise than by the inconsistency of them with the common principles of Religion. But if we suppose Christianity to have been a mere device, would the Apostles have been so senseless to have laid the main proof of their Religion on a thing which was but newly acted, and which they were very capable of enquiring into all the Circumstances that related to it, viz. the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead. We may see by the whole design of the New Testament, the great stress of Christianity was laid upon the Truth of this; to this, Christ himself appealed before hand: to this all the Apostles refer as the mighty confirmation of their Religion; and this they deliver as a thing which themselves had seen, and had conversed with him for 40 Days together, with all the demonstrations imaginable of a true and real Body: And that not to one or two credulous. Persons, but so many of them who were hard to be satisfied, and one, not without the most sensible evidence, but besides these, they tell us of 500 at once who saw him, whereof many were then living when those things were written. Now I pray tell me what Religion in the World ever put itself upon so fair a trial as this? Of a plain Matter of Fact as capable of being attested as any could be. Why did not Amida, or Brahma or Xaca, or any other of the Authors of the present Religions of the East Indies? Why did not Orpheus, or Numa, or any other introducers of Religious Customa among the Greeks or Romans? Or Mahomet among the Arabians put the issue of the Truth of their Religion on such a plain and easy trial as this? If you say That Christ appeared only to his Friends, who were ready to believe such things, and not among his Enemies: I Answer, That though they were his Friends, yet they were very hard to be persuaded of the truth of it at first; and afterwards gave larger Testimonies of their fidelity than the Testimony of the greatest Enemies would have been; for we should have had only their bare Words for it, (if they would have given that, which is very questionable, considering their dealing with the other Miracles of Christ:) But the Apostles manifested their sincerity by all real proofs that could be thought sufficient to satisfy Mankind; appealing to the very Persons who were concerned the most in it, having a hand in the Death of Christ, declaring their greatest readiness to suffer any thing rather than deny the Truth of it, and laying down their Lives at last for it. If all this had been a mere Fiction, how unlikely is it, that among so many as were conscious of it, no one person by hopes or fears, by flatteries or threatenings, could ever be prevailed upon to deny the Truth of it. If there had been any such thing, what triumphing had there been among the Jews; and no doubt his name had been Recorded to Posterity among the Writers both of Jews and Gentiles that were professed Enemies of Christianity. But they are all wonderfully silent in this matter; and instead o● saying enough to overthrow the truth of Christianity, as you seem to suggest, I do assure you, I am mightily confirmed in the belief of the Truth of it, by carefully observing the slightness of the Objections that were made against it, by its most professed Enemies.  
But you seem to imply, That all this Story concerning Christ was invented long after the pretended time of his being in the World, Why may not you as well suspect, that Julius Caesar lived before Romulus; or that Augustus lived at the Siege of Troy? For you might as well reject all History upon such grounds as those you assign; and think Mahomet as right in his Chronology, as the Bible. It is time for us to burn all our Books, if we have lived in such a Cheat all this while. Methinks you might as well ask, whether Lucretia were not Pope Joan? Or Alexander the sixth, one of the Roman Emperors? Or whether Luther were not the Emperor of Turkey? For there is no greater evidence of any History in the World, than there is, that all the things reported in the New Testament were done at that time, when they are pretended to be.  
4. Therefore we offer this Story of the New Testament to be compared with all the Circumstances of that Age, delivered by any other Historians, to try if any inconsistencies can be found therein: Which is the most reasonable way can be taken to disprove any History. If it could be proved, that there could be no such Taxation of the Empire as is mentioned in the time of Augustus, that Herod did not live in that Age, or that the Jews were not under the Roman Government, or that there were no High Priests at that time, nor the Sects of Pharisees and Saducees, or that there were any other remarkable characters of time set down in the History of the New Testament, which could be manifestly disproved; there were some pretence to call in Question the Truth of the Story; but there is not the least Foundation for any scruple on this account; All things agreeing so well with the truest accounts we have of that Age, both from Josephus and the Roman History. I shall not insist on the particular Testimony of Josephus concerning Christ, because we need it not; and if those who question it, would proceed with the same severity against many other particular passages in good Authors, they might as well call them in question as they do that; since it is confessed, that all the Ancient Manuscripts have it in them, and supposing that it doth not come in well, must we suppose it impossible for Josephus to Write incoherently? Yet this is the main Argument that ever I have seen urged against this Testimony of Josephus. But I say, we need it not; all other things concurring in so high a degree to prove the Truth of the History of Christ. Yet since you seem to express so much doubtfulness concerning it, as though it were framed when there was no one living capable of disproving it; give me leave to show you the great absurdity of such a Supposition. 1. Because we have the plain Testimonies of the greatest Enemies of Christianity, that there was such a Person as Christ was, who suffered according to the Scripture Story. For Tacitus not only mentions the Christians as suffering at Rome for their Religion in the time of Nero, (Annal. 15.) but saith, That the Author of this Religion was one Christ, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea, in the time of Tiberius; which is an irrefragable Testimony of the Truth of the Story concerning Christ, in an Age, when if it had been false, nothing could have been more easily detected than such a Fiction, by the number of Jews which were continually at Rome: And neither Julian, nor Celsus, nor Porphyry, nor Lucian did ever question the truth of the Story itself; but only upbraided the Christians for attributing too much to Christ. 2. If there were really such a Person as Christ was, who suffered as Tacitus saith, than the whole Story could not be a Fiction, but only some part of it; and these additional parts must either be contrived by the Apostles, or after their time: Not after their time, for than they must be added after Christianity was received in the World, for that, as appears by Tacitus, was spread in the Apostles times as far as Rome; and if these parts were not received with it; the Cheat would presently have been discovered as soon as broached, by those who had embraced Christianity before: And besides, Tertullian in his time appeals to the Authentic Writings of the Apostles themselves, which were then extant, wherein the same things were contained, that we now believe: If these things than were forged, it must be by the Apostles themselves; and I dare now appeal to you, whether ever any Story was better capable of being disproved than this was, if it had not been true, since it was published in that very time and place, where the Persons were living, who were most concerned to disprove it: As appears by the hatred of the Jews to the Christians, both then and ever since: which is a very observable circumstance for proving the truth of Christian Religion; for the Jews and Christians agreed in the Divine Revelations of old, the Christians believed moreover, that Christ was the Messias promised; this Christ lived and died among the Jews his Enemies; his Apostles Preached, and wrought Miracles among their most inveterate Enemies, which Men that go about to deceive never care to do: And to this Day the Jews do not deny the Matters of Fact, but look on them as insufficient to prove Jesus of Nazareth to have been the Messias: Nay, Mahomet himself, who in all probability would have overthrown the whole Story of the New Testament, if he could have done it with any colour, yet speaks very honourably of Christ and of the great things which were said and done by him.  
5. That there is nothing in the Christian Religion, unbecoming the Majesty, or Holiness, or Truth of a Divine Revelation. As to the precepts, you acknowledge their excellency; and the Promises chiefly refer either to Divine Grace, or future Glory; And what is there herein unbecoming God? And as to what concerns the Truth of it, we have as great Characters of that throughout, as it is possible for us to expect; there appearing so much simplicity, sincerity, candour, and agreement in all the parts of it. Some Men would have been better pleased, it may be, if it had been all written by one Person, and digested into a more exact method, and set forth with all the Lights and Ornaments of Speech. This would have better become an Invention of Men, but not a Revelation of God: Plainness and simplicity have a natural greatness above art and subtlety; and therefore God made choice of many to write, and at several times, that by comparing them we may see how far they were from contriving together, and yet how exactly they agree in all things which Men are concerned to believe. But you say, We have many infirmities of the Apostles discovered therein, their heats and animosities one against another. But I pray consider; 1. How came you to know these things; Is it not by their own Writings? And if they had been such, who minded only their applause, had it not been as easy to have concealed these things, and would they not certainly have done it, if that had been their aim? If St. Paul seems to boast, doth he not do it, with that constraint to himself, as a Man that is forced to do it for his own vindication against malicious Enemies? And who ever denied a Man of a generous mind the liberty of speaking for himself? 2. But suppose they had infirmities and heats among them; doth this prove that God could not make use of them as his Instruments to declare his Truth to the World? Then it will follow, that God must never reveal his will by Men, but by Voices from Heaven, or Angels, or the assumption of the humane Nature by the Divine. But, if God be not denied the liberty of employing mere Men, we cannot find so great evidences of Piety and Zeal, of Humility and Self-denial, of Patience and Magnanimity, of Innocency and universal Charity in any Men as were in the Apostles; And therefore did appear with the most proper Characters of Ambassadors from Heaven. And I dare venture the comparison of them with the best Philosophers, as to the greatest and most excellent virtues, for which they were the most admired; notwithstanding the mighty difference as to their Education; allowing but the same Truth as to the Story of the New Testament, which we yield to Xenophon, or Diogenes Laertius, or any other Writers concerning them.  
But what is it then which you object against the Writings of the New Testament, to make them inconsistent with the Wisdom of God? I find but two things in the Papers you sent me. 1. Want of the continuance of the Power of Miracles, which you say is Promised. Mark 16. 17. 2. The number of the Beast in the Revelations. But, Good Sir, consider, what it is to call in question a Divine Revelation for such Objections as these are? Must there be no Revelation, unless you understand every Prophecy, or the extent of every promise? Be not so injurious to your own Soul, for the sake of such Objections, to cast away the great assurance which the Christian Religion gives us, as to the Pardon of Sin upon Repentance here, and eternal Happiness in another World. Would you reject all the Writings of Plato, because you do no more understand some part of his Timaeus than the number of 666? You must have a very nice faith, that can bear with no difficulties at all, so that if there be but one or two hard things that you cannot digest, you must throw up all the best Food you have taken; at this rate you must starve your Body, as well as ruin your Soul. But of these places afterwards.  
3. I have hitherto removed the grounds of Suspicion, I now come to show the positive Testimonies of their Sincerity which the Apostles showed, which were greater than were ever given to any other Matter of Fact in the World. I will then suppose the whole Truth of the Christian Doctrine to be reduced to this one Matter of Fact, Whether Christ did rise from the dead or no? for (as I have said already) it is plain, the Apostles put the main force of all that they said upon the Truth of this; and often declared, that they were appointed to be the Witnesses of this thing. Now ●et us consider how it is possible ●or Men to give the highest assurance of their sincerity to others; and that must be either by giving the utmost Testimony that Men ●an give; or by giving some Testimony above that of Men, which cannot deceive, which is the Testimony of God.  
1. They gave the utmost Testimony that mere Men could give of their fidelity. I know no bet●er way we have for a full assurance as to any humane Testimony, than to consider what those Circumstances are which are generally allowed to accompany Truth, and if we have the concurrence of all these, we have as much as can be expected: For nothings that depends on Testimony can be proved by Mathematical Demonstration. But notwithstanding the want of this, either we may have sufficient ground to assent to Truth upon Testimony, o● there can be no difference known between Truth and Falsehood by Humane Testimony; which overthrows all Judicial proceedings among Men; the Justice whereof doth suppose not only the veracity of Humane Testimony; Bu● that it may be so discerned by others, that they may safely rely upon it. Now the main thing to be regarded as to the Truth o● Humane Testimony are these. 1. I● Men testify nothing but wha● they saw. 2. If they testify i● at no long distance of time from the thing done. 3. If they testify it plainly, and without doubtful expressions. 4. If a great number agree in the same Testimony. 5. If they part with all that is valuable to Mankind, rather than deny the Truth of what they have testified: And where all these concur, it is hardly possible to suppose greater evidence to be given of the Truth of a Thing; and now I shall show that all these do exactly agree to the Apostles Testimony concerning the Resurrection of Christ.  
1. They testified nothing but what they saw themselves. The Laws of Nations do suppose that greater credit is to be given to eye witnesses than to any others, thence the Rule in the Civil Law Testimonium de auditu regulariter non valet: Because, say the Civilians and Canonists, Witnesses are to testify the Truth, and not barely the possibility of things; that which Men see, they can testify whether they are or not: That which Men only hear, may be, or no● be; and their Testimony is no● of the Fact, but is looked on as more uncertain, and aught to have greater allowances given it; but the Apostles testified only what they saw and handled; and that after the most scrupulous enquiry into the Truth of Christ Body, and after many doubts an● suspicions among themselves abou● it; so that they did not seem hastily and rashly to believe what they afterwards declared to the World. Now a Body was a proper object of Sense, and no trial could be greater, or more accurate than theirs was; nor an● satisfaction fuller than putting their fingers into the very wound of the pierced side.  
2. They did not stay till the circumstances might have slipped out of their Memories, before they testified these things; but very soon after, while the impression of them was fresh upon them: If they had let these Matters alone for any long time, the Jews would have asked them presently, if these things were true, why did we not hear of them as soon as they were done? Therefore we see the Apostles on the very day of Pentecost, a little after Christ's ascension to Heaven, openly and boldly declare the Truth of these things, not in private corners among a few Friends, but in the most solemn meeting of their Nation from all parts; which was the worst time could have been chosen, if they had any intention to deceive.  
3. They testify it in as plain a manner as is possible, on purpose to prevent all mistakes of their meaning, This Jesus hath God 
Acts 2. 32. 36.  raised up, whereof we all are Witnesses; Therefore let all the House of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Men that had a mind to deceive would have used some more general and doubtful words, than these were.  
4. If this had been testified by one single witness, the World would have suspected the Truth of his Testimony; for according to the Rule in the Civil Law in the case of Testimony, Vox unius, vox nullius est: But this was testified by very many; not merely by the twelve Apostles, but by 500 at once; among whom some might be supposed to have so much honesty, or at least capable of being persuaded to have discovered the Imposture, if they had in the least suspected any.  
5. But that which adds the greatest weight to all this, is, that there was not one of all the Apostles, and scarce any one of the rest, but exposed themselves to the utmost hazards and dangers, rather than deny or retract the Truth of what they witnessed. If the People had been careless and indifferent about Religion, it is possible Men might have gone on in a Lie so long till they had gotten interest enough to maintain it; but no sooner did the Apostles appear, witnessing these things, but they met with an early and vigorous opposition, and that from the chiefest Men in Power, who made it their business to suppress them. Now in this case, they were put to this choice, if they would renounce or conceal the Truth of what they testified, they might presently enjoy ease, and it may be, rewards too; but if they went on, they must look for nothing but the sharpest persecution; and this they met with almost in all places; and is it conceivable, that Men should be so fond of a lie, to forsake all and follow it, and at last to take up their cross for it? If credit and interest in the hearts of People, might carry a Man on a great way in the delusion, yet he would be loath to die for it; and yet there was never a one of the Apostles, but ventured his life for the Truth of this; and all but one, they tell us, did suffer Martyrdom for it. I pray, Sir, consider, where you ever meet with any thing like this, that so many Men should so resolutely die, for what themselves at the same time knew to be a lie; and that they must certainly do, if it were all a contrivance of their own heads.  
2. But although in these things they went as high as it was possible for humane Testimony to go, yet they had something beyond all this, which was a concurrence of a Divine Testimony, in the miraculous gifts and operations of the Holy Ghost. And this we assert to be the highest Testimony can be given in the World, of a Truth of any thing; because God will not employ his Power to deceive the World. And as all other Truth hath a criterion proper to it; so this seems to be the proper criterion of a Divine Testimony, that it hath the power of Miracles going along with it. For if we do suppose God to make known his Mind to the World, it is very reasonable to believe there should be some distinguishing note of what is immediately from God, and what comes only from the inventions of Men; and what can be more proper to distinguish what comes from God, and what from Men, than to see those things done which none but God can do? But against this you object several things, which I shall easily and briefly Answer.  
1. You cannot tell what it is that Miracles do attest; not all their Doctrine, since Paul said, some was not from the Lord. Answ. Miracles do attest the veracity of the Speaker, and by consequence the truth of the Doctrine; not that you should believe that to be from the Lord, which he said was not; but that which he said, was from the Lord. But when he makes such a distinction himself, it is very unreasonable to urge that as an Argument, that he had nothing from the Lord; it is much rather an argument of his candour and ingenuity, that he would not pretend to Divine Revelation, when he had it not.  
2. You would have it signified, what Doctrine it is which is attested by Miracles, since the Doctrines of Scripture lie in heaps and confusion. Answ. To what purpose should any Doctrines be singled out to have the Seal of Miracles set to them, since it is their Divine Commission to Teach and declare the Will of God, which is sealed by it? And what they did so Teach and declare, is easily known by their Writings.  
3. But why do not Miracles still continue? Answ. Because there are no Persons employed to Teach any new Doctrines; and no Promise of Scripture doth imply any more: For the signs which were to follow them that believe, were such as tended to the first confirmation of the Christian Faith; which being effected, their use ceased; and so to ask why God doth not continue a Gift of Miracles to convince Men that the former were true, is to the same purpose as to ask why God doth not make a New Sun, to satisfy Atheists that he made the Old?  
4. But doth not the Scripture say, that wonders are not always to be taken as confirmations of the Truth of Doctrine, since false Prophets may work Wonders, Deuteron. 13. 1. Answ. That signifies no more, than that Wonders are not to be believed against the Principles of Natural Religion; or Revealed Religion already confirmed by greater Miracles: And that those who would value such a particular sign above all the series of Miracles their Religion was first established by, may be justly left to their own delusions. You might as well object the lying Wonders of the Man of Sin, against all the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles. If God hath once done enough to convince Men, he may afterwards justly leave them to the trial of their Ingenuity; as a Father that hath used great care to make his Son understand true Coin, may afterwards suffer false to be laid before him, to try whether he will mind his being cheated or no?  
5. But you may yet farther demand, what the Testimony of Miracles doth signify to the Writings of the New Testament? Answ. 1. The Miracles do sufficiently prove the Authority of that Doctrine, which was delivered by those who wrought Miracles; as Christ and his Apostles. 2. If there had been the least ground to question the Truth and Authority of these Writings, they had never been so universally received in those Ages, when so many were concerned to inquire into the Truth of these things; for we see several of the Books were a long time examined, and at last, when no sufficient reason could be brought against them, they were received by those Churches, which at first scrupled the receiving them: And I am so far from thinking the doubts of the first Ages any Argument against the Authority of a Book, that by the objections of some against some of them, I am thereby assured, that they did not presently receive any Book, because it went under the name of an Apostolical Writing: As I am the more confirmed in the belief of the Resurrection of Christ, because some of the Disciples were at first very doubtful about it.  
6. You may yet ask, What doth all this signify to the Writings of the Old Testament, which were written at a longer distance of Time from us, and in a more Ignorant Age of of the World? Answ. There cannot be a more evident proof of the Old Testament, than by the New: For if the New be true, the Old must be so, which was confirmed so plainly and evidently by it; our Saviour and his Apostles appealing to Moses and the Prophets on all occasions. So that the same Miracles which prove their Testimony true, do at the same time prove the Divine Authority of the Old Testament, since it is so expressly said in the New, That Holy Men of God did speak as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.  
But after all this, You urge, that you have discovered such things in these Writings as could not come from God, as  
1. Contradictions in them. 2. Somethings inconsistent with the Wisdom of God. 3. Promises made that were never fulfilled. 4. Things so obscure as no one can tell the meaning of them. Under these four Heads I shall examine the particular allegations you bring against the Scriptures.  
1. Under the head of Contradictions, you insist on the Prophecy Gen. 15. 13, 14, 15, 16. made to Abraham concerning his Posterity; compared with the Accomplishment mentioned, Exod. 12. 40. 41. And the force of your Argument lies in this, That the Prophecy in Genesis doth imply that the Servitude of the Children of Israel in Egypt was to be 40 Years; or 430 saith Exod. but both these are repugnant to other places of Scripture, which make their abode in Egypt not to exceed 215 Years; or at the highest, by the number of Generations could not exceed 350 Years, stretching them to the utmost advantage. To this which you lay so much weight upon, I Answer distinctly,  
1. By your own confession, supposing the 430 Years to begin from the Covenant made with Abraham, the accomplishment mentioned, Exod. 12. 40. doth fall out exactly in the time of the Children of Israel's going out of Egypt, for you have proved from Scripture, that from the Covenant with Abraham to jacob's being in Egypt, were 215 Years; to which you add, that Coath being supposed 5 Years Old at the going into Egypt; and that at 70 Years he Begat Amram, and that Amram at at 70 Begat Moses, to which Moses his 80 Years being added, makes up the other 215 Years, whereby we have the full 430 Years, by your own computation. Now, Sir, I pray consider what reason you have to charge the Scripture with contradiction in a Matter yourself acknowledges, so exactly accomplished in this way of computation?  
2. But you say, the Words will not bear this; because they speak of the 400 Years to expire in their Servitude in Egypt. Answ. For this we must consider the importance of the Words both in Genesis and Exodus. There is not a Word of Egypt mentioned in Genesis; but only in general it is said, Thy Seed shall be a Stranger in the Land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them 400 Years; and it will conduce very much to the right understanding this Prophecy to consider the main scope and design of it, which was not to tell Abraham how long they should be in servitude to the Egyptians, but how long it would be before his Seed should come to the possession of the promised Land; And it seems Abraham by the Question, Gen. 15. 7. 8. did expect to have the Inheritance of this Land in his own time: To this therefore God Answers, by telling him, he meant no such thing, but it was intended for his Seed, and that not suddenly neither, for they were to tarry till the iniquity of the Amorites should be full, which would not be till the fourth Generation; and then his Seed should after 400 Years, come to the Possession of the Promised Land; but in the mean time they were to Sojourn in a Land that was not theirs, and to meet with many hardships and difficulties. This is plainly the scope of this prophecy, and by attending to it, the great Objections presently appear without force; for the Land of Canaan notwithstanding the Promise, was by the Patriarches themselves looked on as a Land wherein they were Strangers. So Abraham saith Gen. 23. 4. I am a Stranger and a Sojourner with you; and which is more remarkable in the blessing of Jacob by Isaac, to whom the Promise was made, it is said; And give thee the Blessing of Abraham to thee, and to thy Seed, that thou mayest inherit the Land wherein thou art a Stranger, which God gave unto Abraham, Gen. 28. 4. Where the very same Word is used concerning Jacob, that is expressed in the Prophecy, Gen. 15. 13. So that the Patriarches looked on themselves as Strangers in the Land of Canaan, so long after the promise made, and after the increase of the Seed of Abraham▪ And therefore the land of Canaan was called Terra Peregrinationum, the Land wherein they were strangers; Gen. 36. 7.— 37. 1. And when God was calling the People of Israel together out of Egypt, yet then the Land of Canaan was called by the very same title, the Land of their Pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers: Exod. 6. 4. And Ps. 105. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. where we have a full account of the Promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, concerning the inheritance of that Land it is said, that they were few, and strangers in it, when they went from one Nation to another, from one Kingdom to another People. Which doth fully explain the meaning of the Prophecy in Genesis, and that it is not to be restrained to the servitude of the People of Israel in Egypt, but to be understood of their state of Pilgrimage for 400 Years, wherein they were to suffer great hardships, before they should come to the Inheritance of Canaan. This is no forced or unnatural exposition of the Words, as you seem to suggest; but to my apprehension, very plain and easy, if we attend to the main scope and design of them which was to acquaint Abraham how long it would be before the prophecy were accomplished, and what the condition of his Seed should be the mean time, viz. That they should have no Land which they should call their own by Inheritance all that time, but they should be exposed to great hardships, yea even to Servitude; but that Nation whom they should serve, should at last suffer for their ill usage of them, and they should come out of that Captivity with great substance; and all this to be done in the fourth Generation of the Amorites when their Iniquities should be arrived at the full height. All which particulars, were so remarkably accomplished at such a distance of time, and under such improbable circumstances, that that this very prophecy were enough to convince an unprejudiced mind, that it came from Divine Inspiration. For where do we meet with any thing like this in the Histories of other Nations? viz. A Prophecy to be accomplished 400 Years after, and the very manner foretold, which no humane conjecture could reach to, since the manner of deliverance of the People of Israel out of their Captivity in Egypt, was to all humane appearance so impossible a thing, especially at such a time when the Spirits of the People were sunk and broken by so long a slavery: And not only the manner foretold, but the accomplishment happened to a day, according to Exodus 12. 41. And it came to pass at the end of the 430 Years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the Hosts of the Lord went out from the Land of Egypt. But against this you object, That the sojourning is spoken of the Children of Israel in Egypt for 430 Years; which cannot hold good any ways; since, to make it up, the times of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, must be taken in who could not be called the Children of Israel. Answ. For the 430 Years, I grant, that according to St. Paul, they did commence from the Covenant made to Abraham Gal. 3. 17. and that the 400 Years began from Isaac's being owned for the Promised Seed; between which time the 30 Years were passed; and all appearance of difficulty is avoided, if we admit the reading of the best Copies of the LXX. which is in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Now the sojourning of the Children of Israel who dwelled in Egypt and Canaan, they and their Fathers was 430 Years. This is the reading of our Alexandrian Copy, and the Complutensian, and that of Aldus, and of Eusebius in his Chronicon, and of St. Hierome in his Translation of it; and of the Church in St. Augustins' time, and afterwards; and lest any should reject this as a late Interpolation, or gloss received into the Text, besides these Testimonies of the Antiquity of it, we find the very same in the Samaritan Copy, which the Enemies of it do allow to be as ancient as our Saviour's time. And that which very much confirms the Truth of this reading is, that the Jews themselves follow the sense of it, who are the most eager contenders for the Authority of the Hebrew Copy; who all agree, that the beginning of the Computation of the 430 Years is to be taken before the Children of Israel's going into Egypt: and Menasseh Ben Israel contends with many others, that the 430 Years did begin from the Promise made to Abraham, and the 400 from the time of Isaac, to which their most ancient Books of Chronology do agree, and to the same purpose speak both Philo Judaeus, and Josephus; who although in one place he seems to make the Israelites affliction in Egypt to have been 400 Years, yet when he speaks more particularly of it, he makes the time of their abode in Egypt to have been only 215, and the 430 to begin from Abraham's entrance into Canaan: The Targum of Jonathan begins the 430 from the Vision of Abraham, and the 400 from the Birth of Isaac; all which I mention, to let you see that the Jews themselves do in sense concur with the Samaritan and Greek Copy; and therefore we have more reason to suspect something left out in the present Hebrew, than any thing added in those Copies. But doth not this take off from the Authority of the Scripture? Not at all: For the only Question is about the True Reading: And having the consent of the Samaritan, Alexandrian, and other Copies of the LXX. and of the Ancient Church; and of the Jews themselves as to the sense of it, we have reason to look on this as the truer Reading: Which is making no addition to the scripture either as to Persons or Places, but only producing the more Authentic Copy; much less is this Adding or Changing as we please, for if we did this without so much Authority as we have for it, you might as easily reject it as we produce it.  
3. After all this, I do not see the mighty force of your Reason to charge the Scripture with Contradiction, supposing the 400 Years were to be spent in the servitude of the Children of Israel in Egypt. I confess, when I found the Scripture so boldly, so frequently charged with no less than Contradiction, I expected something like Demonstration in the Case, especially in this place which you chose to put in the Front of all; but I do not find any thing like such a proof of a Contradiction, supposing we should allow the 400 Years to be spent in Egypt. Yes, say you, Coath was 5 Years Old when he came down into Egypt, and When he had lived there 65 Years he begat Amram, and Amram being 70 Years Old begat Moses, to which Moses his 80 Years being added, we have only 215 Years. But since the Scripture doth not assign, the particular Age of any of these, when they begat their Children, I see no impossibility or repugnancy in the supposition, that 400 Years should pass from Levi's going into Egypt, to the Eightieth of Moses, any more than from Salmon's entrance into Canaan to the time of David, for no more are reckoned in scripture than Boaz the Son of Salmon, by Raab, and Obed, and Jesse; So that by the same way, this latter may be explained, the former may be so too. If it be said, That either they begat their Children at a great Age, or that the scripture in Genealogies doth not set down all the intermediate Parents, but only the most eminent, (as Caleb is called the Son of Esron. 1 Chron. 2. 9, 18. although there was at least one between them,) the very same Answer will serve to clear this part of the Chronology of Scripture from any appearance of Contradiction. These things you might have found more largely deduced and fully handled by those Learned Persons, who have undertaken to clear the Chronology of Scripture: Who were men of more Judgement, than from any difficulty of this nature, to call in question the Truth and Authority of the sacred Scriptures; and although the Opinions of Chronologers, are like the City Clocks, which seldom agree, yet some come nearer the time of the day than others do; and therefore you ought to examine and compare them before you pronounce so peremptorily about Contradictions in scripture, which you have no reason to do till you find that no one hypothesis among them will serve to free the scripture from Contradiction: For otherwise, you do but blame the Sun, because you cannot make the Clocks agree.  
This is all I can find in your Papers under the head of Contradictions; and I leave you now soberly to consider, whether this place did afford you sufficient ground for so heavy a Charge; but if you say, you have a great many more by you, but you sent me this only for a Trial of my skill; before you send any more; I beseech you, Sir, to consider,  
1. How easily things do appear to be Contradictions to weak, or unstudied, or prejudiced minds, which after due consideration appear to be no such things. A deep prejudice finds a Contradiction in every thing; whereas in Truth, nothing but ill will, and impatience of considering, made any thing, it may be, which they Quarrel at, appear to be so. If I had been of such a quarrelsome humour, I would have undertaken to have found out more Contradictions in your Papers, than you imagine, and yet you might have been confident, you had been guilty of none at all. When I consider the great pains, and Learning, and Judgement, which hath been shown by the Christian Writers in the Explication of the Scriptures; and the raw, indigested Objections which some love to make against them, if I were to judge of things barely by the fitness of persons to judge of them, the disproportion between these, would appear out of all comparison. A modest Man would in any thing of this nature say with himself, methinks, if there were such Contradictions in the Bible, as now seem to me; so many persons of incomparable Abilities in the First, and latter Ages of the Christian Church, who have made it their business to inquire into these things, would have discerned them before me: And yet they retained a mighty veneration for the scriptures, as coming from God himself; and therefore it may be only weakness of Judgement, want of Learning, or some secret prejudice may make me suspect these things; or else I must suspect the honesty of all those persons who have pretended such a Devotion to the Scriptures, and yet have believed them full of Contradictions.  
2. Wherein the Contradiction appears. Is it in the main and weighty parts of the Religion revealed herein; or is it only in some smaller Circumstances as to time and place? The great thing you are to look after, are the Matters those Scriptures tell you your Salvation depends upon; and if there be a full consent, and agreement therein; you find enough for you to believe and practise. And if some Contradictions should still appear to you in smaller Matters, what follows from thence, but only that the same care was not taken about little, as about great things? And you ought to set that appearance of Contradiction in small Matters, together with the real consent in the things of the highest importance; and from thence rather to infer, that this was no combination or design to deceive others; for such persons take the greatest care to prevent suspicion, by their exactness in every minute Circumstance; and sometimes the overmuch care to prevent suspicion doth raise it the more.  
3. What ways have been used by Men of judgement and learning, to clear those places from the charge of Contradiction. For, not one of the Objections you can start now, but hath been considered over and over; and all the difficulties that belong to it examined; If you will not take the pains to do this; it is plain you do not desire satisfaction, but only seek for a pretence to cavil; especially, if you only search the weakest or most injudicious Writers on the Scriptures, and endeavour to expose their opinions, without taking notice of what others have said with more clear and evident Reason. This shows either want of Judgement in choosing such Expositors, or want of Candour and fair dealing and a desire of taking any advantage against the Scriptures.  
4. How hard a Matter it is for us at this distance to understand exactly the grounds of Chronology, or the manner of computation of Times used so long ago: and therefore in all difficulties of this nature, we ought to make the fairest allowances that may be, considering withal, that escapes and errors are no where more easily committed by Transcribers, than in numbers: and that it is a very unreasonable thing, that a Book otherwise deserving to be thought the best Book in the World, should be scorned and rejected, because there appears some difference in the computation of times. We do not so exactly know the manner of the Hebrew Chronology, nor, the nature of their Year, or Intercalations, nor the customs of their Genealogies; nor the allowance to be made for interregnums, so as to be able to define peremptorily in these things; but it is sufficient to show, that there is no improbability in the accounts that are given; and no sufficient reason can be drawn from thence to reject the Authority of the Scriptures.  
2. I come to consider the places you object, as containing things inconsistent with the Wisdom, or Goodness of God, according to a rational persuasion; and those are either, 1. From the Laws of Moses. 2. From the express story of the Bible, or actions of the Prophets.  
1. From the Laws of Moses: Your first Objection is from Exod. 21. 7. Where a Man is supposed to sell his Daughter; which you say, it is incredible to believe that God should permit; because it implies unnatural affection and covetousness in the Father. But, Sir, 1. You do not consider, that this is barely a provisional Law, and is not the permission of the thing, so much as the regulation of it, supposing it to be done, i. e. in case a Man should part with his interest in his Daughter to another Person, upon an extraordinary case of necessity, as the Jews understand it; yet then, she was not to be in the condition of a Servant, but to be either Betrothed to the Person who received her, or to his Son; which was intended for the restraint of promiscuous Buying and Selling Daughters, merely for the satisfaction of Lust. The Jews who certainly best understood their own Judicial Laws, do say, that this was never to be done, but where there was a presumption of such a betrothing; for no Man could Sell his Daughter to those to whom it was unlawful for her to Marry by their Law; so that this was looked on as a kind of Espousals of a young Girl, taken into Wardship by another; but so, that if she were not Betrothed, she was to remain her 6 Years during her Minority, as the Jews understand it; unless she were redeemed, or set Free, or the Jubilee came, or the Master died, or the time of her Minority expired.  
2. The case of necessity being supposed, it hath been thought lawful for Parents to make advantage by their Children, not only by the Jews, but by other Nations, who have been in the greatest esteem for Wisdom. For by the Law of the 12 Tables, among the Romans, the Father had the liberty of Selling his Son three times, for his own advantage, as Dionys. Halicarnasseus relates; and before that time, it was not only in use among the Romans, but in such esteem among them, that upon the review of their Laws the Decemviri durst not leave it out; but by one of the Laws of Numa Pompilius, it was restrained to the times before Marriage, for in case the Son had the Father's consent to Marry, he could not Sell him afterwards, as the same Author tells us. This Law continued in force among them, till Christianity prevailed in the Roman Empire, for although there were a prohibition of Diocletian against it, yet that signified nothing, till Constantine took care, That such indigent Parents should be relieved out of the public charge, Cod. Theodos. l. 11. tit. 27. 2. And yet after this, the Custom did continue, when the Parents were in great want, as appears by a Law of Theodosius, Cod. 3. tit. 3. Omnes quos Parentum miseranda fortuna in servitium dum victum requirunt addixit, ingenuitati pristinae reformentur. And it further appears, that even in Constantin's time, notwithstanding the Law made by him, Parents would still, when they thought themselves overcharged with Children, part with their Interest in them to others for advantage, but it was chiefly while they were sanguinolenti, as the Law expresses it, i. e. new Born. Cod. Theod. l. 5. tit. 8. By the Laws of Athens, before Solon's time, Parents might sell their Children, as appears by Plutarch, in his Life; and the same Philostratus reports of the Phrygians, l. 3. vit. Apollon. Tyan. and the like custom doth obtain among the Chinese to this day, if persons do think themselves unable to bring up their Children themselves. And there are two things to be said for it. 1. The natural obligation lying on Children to provide for their Parents in necessity, by any way they are able. 2. The probability of better Education under more able Persons; and therefore the Thebans had a Law, That Parents in case of poverty, were to bring their Children to the Magistrate, as soon as they were Born, who put them out to such as were judged 
AElian. v. hist. l. 2. c. 7.  fit to bring them up, and to have their service for their reward.  
But however, you say, This place implys a toleration of having many Wives, because it is said, if he take him another Wife, v. 10. I do not deny, that the Mosaical Law did suppose the practice of Polygamy; but as it doth no where expressly allow it, neither doth it expressly condemn it. And although we say, the Christian Law is far more excellent, which reduceth Marriage to its first institution; yet you will find it a hard Matter to prove such a permission of Polygamy as this was, to be so repugnant to the Law and Principles of Nature, as from thence to infer, that this Law of Moses could not be from God: You might have said the same about the Matter of Divorce, which was permitted them; Christ saith, for the hardness of their hearts: Which shows, that God doth not always require that from Men which is best pleasing to himself; and that as to his Political Government, he may not always punish that, which is not so pleasing to him.  
The next Law you quarrel at is that, Deut. 22. 13, etc. About the trial of Virginity: Which you object against, as immodest, and uncertain, and therefore unbecoming the Wisdom of God. So, many customs of those elder times of the World, and of the Eastern parts to this day seem very strange to us, that are not so well acquainted with the Reasons of them. Methinks, it better becomes our Modesty in such cases, to question our understanding those customs, than presently to cast so much disparagement on the Author of them. If you had been offended at the literal sense of those Words, many of the Jews themselves say, they are to be understood figuratively of the evidence that was to be brought and laid open before the Judges, on behalf of the defamed Person. And both Josephus and Philo omit the laying open the Cloth. But supposing it to be taken in the plainest literal sense, I have Two Things to say in vindication of this Law. 1. That however uncertain some Physicians have thought that way of Trial to have been in these parts of the World; yet it is generally agreed to have held for the Eastern parts, by the most skilful Physicians among the Arabians: And a custom of the same nature is said by good Authors to have been observed among the Egyptians, and other Africans, as well as the Arabians; so that this could not be thought so strange or immodest among the Inhabitants of those parts: And it is very probable that some particulars, as to the Practice of these Laws are not set down, which might very much tend to the certainty of them, as the Age of the Married Persons, which was most likely then, as it is to this day in the Eastern parts, very early, the Jews say, at 12 years old, which would make the Trial more certain. 2. As to the Modesty of it, you are to consider, that the Law was intended to keep persons from unjust defamations, and such a way of Trial was therefore pitched upon to deter persons from such defamations; which Men might otherwise have been more ready to, because of the liberty of divorce, and the advantage they had in saving the dower, if they could prove the party vitiated before Marriage; therefore all the proof of that Nature was to be passed soon after the consummation of Marriage, which being agreed then by all the Friends, there was to be no liberty left for defamation afterwards; but in case any Man should be guilty of it, the producing those Evidences, which before they were agreed upon, should be sufficient to clear the Innocency of the party accused. And therefore I look on this Law, as the Jews do on that of the rebellious son, of which they say, that there is no instance of the practice of it; the Penalty threatened being so effectual to prevent the occasion of it.  
And such in a great Measure, I suppose the other Law mentioned by you to have been, viz. of the Water of Jealousy, which you make so strange a matter of; and think it savours too much of a design to gratify the jealous humour of the Jewish Nation: But you might have put a fairer construction upon it, viz. That it was intended to prevent any occasion of suspicion being given to the Husband, by too much familiarity with other persons; since the Law allowed so severe a Trial, in Case the Wife after admonition did not forbear such suspected familiarity, but if you had looked on the Law, as it is, Num. 5. 12, 13. etc. you would have found, that the design of it was to keep Women from committing secret Adultery, by so severe a Penalty; yet withal allowing so much to a reasonable suspicion, (for so the Jews understand it, with many Cautions and Limitations) that rather then Married persons should live under perpetual jealousies, he appointed this extraordinary way of Trial, whereby Adultery was most severely punished, and the honour of Innocency publicly vindicated; which certainly are not ends at all unbecoming due Conceptions of God.  
The last of the Jewish Laws, which you quarrel with is the prohibition of Usury, in several places of Moses his Law and the Psalms: And from hence you fall into a long Discourse to prove the lawfulness of Usury: But to what purpose I beseech you? For you were to prove, that God could never forbid it; you might have spared your pity for Men, as you think, Blinded with superstition, and cheated with New and Aery Notions: For by all that I can see by these Papers, some pretended Enemies to superstition have no better Eyes than their Neighbours, and are as easily cheated with groundless Fancies and Aery imaginations. The only thing to the business in that long Discourse is this, That you cannot imagine that God should make a Law so much to Man's inconvenience, and forbid him so nice and indifferent a thing, as Moderate increase of profit by letting out of Money, when it is allowed upon Lands, Houses, and Trade, etc. To this I Answer, that the prohibition of Usury, to the Jewish Nation, was upon political Grounds peculiar to the constitution of that People; as appears by the words of the Law, Deut. 23. 19, 20. Thou shalt not lend to Usury unto thy Brother— Unto a Stranger thou mayst lend upon Usury; but none of the Laws which are founded upon common and Moral Reasons have such Limitations as this; for God would never have said, Thou shalt not commit Adultery with thy Brother's Wife; but with the Wife of a Stranger thou mayst. But there was this particular Reason, for the prohibition of Usury to the Jewish Nation: It pleased God to fix their Habitation, not upon the Seaside, as Tyre and Sidon stood; but within Land where they had no conveniencies of Trading, but the Riches of the Nation lay in Agriculture and Pasturage: In which the Returns of Money are neither so quick nor so advantageous to make sufficient compensation for the Interest of the Money in the time they have it: For the main thing valuable in Money is the advantage the borrower makes of it; and where that is great, it seems reasonable that the person whose the Money is, should have a proportionable share of the advantage made by it; but where persons borrow only for present occasions to supply their necessities, there it is only an Act of kindness to lend, and it would be unreasonable to press upon, or take advantage by another's necessities. And this seems to have been the case among the Jews; they were only the Poor that wanted Money for present necessities; the Rich had no way to employ it in Trading, unless that they lent to the Tyrian Merchants, which it was lawful by their Law to do; now if they took Usury of their own people, it must be of those whose urgent necessity, and not hopes of a mighty increase by it made them borrow, and therefore it was a very just and reasonable Law to forbid Usury among them: which I believe he would never have done, if he had placed the Jews upon the Coasts of Phoenicia, where Trading was so much in request.  
These are all the Laws which you have picked out of the whole Body of the Jewish Law, to represent it unbecoming the Wisdom of God: And now I pray Sir, look back again upon them, see how few, how small, how weak your Objections are; and compare them with the weight, and justice, and prudence, and piety, expressed in all the rest, and I hope you will find cause to be ashamed of speaking so harshly of those Laws, so well accommodated to those Ages of the World, and the Condition of that People for whom they were appointed.  
2. I now consider what you object against the story of the Bible.  
1. That passage of Moses; Exod. 32. 32. Blot me out of thy Book which thou hast written: Where your design is to show that Moses prayed to be Damned, and that this was a very irrational thing: And savouring more of passion than of the Spirit of God. But what if Moses meant no such thing as Damnation? As there is not any word in the Context relating that ways, but all the design of that Chapter is about a Temporal punishment, which was a present Destruction of the People for their sins. And the Book out of which he prayed God to blot him, seems to me to be no other, than the Roll of God's chosen people, who were to possess the Land of Canaan: For so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies a Roll or Register. Psalm 69. 28. We meet with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Roll of the living, or the Book of the living we render it, because all ancient Books were in the fashion of Rolls. In that Chapter, Moses intercedes with God on behalf of the People, that he would make good his promise to them, of bringing them into the Land of Canaan. v. 13. and v. 30. He goes up to make an Atonement for the People, i. e. as to the cutting them off in the Wilderness, and therefore he desires rather than the People should be destroyed, that God would strike him out of the Roll, that he might Die in the Wilderness rather than the People: And God gives that Answer to this purpose, v. 33. Whoever hath sinned against me, will I blot out of my Book, the sense of which is the same with those words of the Psalmist, he swore in his wrath that they should not enter into his Rest. Psal. 95, 11. And according to this interpretation, which is most natural and easy, all your long Discourse against praying to be Damned comes to just nothing; there being no pretence for it, either in the Text or Context.  
2. The story of Ruth doth not please you, as savouring in your opinion of a great deal of Immodesty; but you would have a better opinion of it, if you consider that the reason of her carriage towards Boaz, in such a manner, was upon Naomies' telling her that he was one to whom the right of redemption did belong, and by consequence, by their Law, was to Marry her. Ruth 2. 20. And this Ruth pleaded to Boaz, Ruth 3. 9 By which it appears, that she verily believed that he was legally her Husband; and Boaz we see speaks of her as one that was a virtuous Woman, and known to be such in the whole City. v. 11. And he confesses he was her near kinsman, only he saith, there was one nearer. v. 12. By which it seems, if there had not, Boaz had made no Scruple of the matter: And the Jews say, in such Marriages very little Ceremony was required, if the next of kin did not renounce his right, because the Law had determined the Marriage before hand. If you had but considered this one thing, you would have spared the many Observations you make on this story.  
3. You Object against 2 Sam. 12. 8. as too much countenancing either Incest or Adultery, because it is said, that God gave to David his Master's Wives into his Bosom. But 1. It is very strange to bring this place as a countenance to Adultery, which was purposely designed to upbraid David with the sin of Adultery; and you will find it no easy matter, by the constitution of the Mosaical Law, to prove Polygamy to be Adultery. 2. The Jews give a fair Interpretation of this place, for they say, that the Wife of a King could never Marry after her Husband's decease, as the Gemara on the Title Sanhedrim expressly saith, although some among them follow the opinion of R. Jehuda, that she might Marry the succeeding King; but that is built chiefly on this place; of which the rest give a better account, viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not 
Selden. uxor Ebra. l. 1. c. 10. Schick. De jure Reg. c. 16. Theor. 19  imply Saul's Wives, but the Maids of Honour, or Attendants, on the Court of Saul, which all fell into David's power, and out of whom he might choose Wives, without danger of Incest; and even some of those who assert it lawful for one King to Marry his predecessors Wife, yet say in this case of David, that the Word only implies, that they were of Saul's Family, as Merab and Michal were, but not Saul's Wives. So that all the difficulty here arises only from the Interpretation of an unusual word, in which we have much more reason to trust the Jews than other Writers.  
4. You are much offended at Hosea's Marrying an Adulteress: But all the formidable difficulties of that place will presently vanish, if you allow the Prophetical Schemes, wherein those things are said to be done, which are intended only to represent in a more lively manner the things signified by them. And so you may see the Chaldee Paraphrase, fully explains this place of Hosea and Maimonides purposely discourseth on the Prophetic parables, and 
Maim. Moro Nevoch. l. 2. c. 46.  brings this as one of the instances of them; and with him the rest of the Jewish Interpreters agree. But you Object against such a way of Teaching, as tending to the encouragement of Vice, which it is very far from, being designed to represent the odiousness of it: For the whole Scope of the Prophet is to let the People understand, that their Idolatry was as hateful to God as the sin of Adultery, and that the consequence of it would be their Misery and Ruin. And yet that God expressed as much tenderness to them, as a Man that was very fond of a Woman would do, in being unwilling to put her away, although he knew she were false to his Bed: the former is intended in the first Chapter, and the latter in the third. And what is there tending to Immorality in all this? May not God make use of one Vice, whose evil is more notorious to represent another by, whose evil they are more hardly convinced of? May not he set forth a Degenerate People by the Sons of an Adulteress? And by the Names given to them express his detestation of their wickedness? Especially when the Parabolical Terms are so clearly explained, as they are in the second Chapter.  
But you will say, these things are related as plain matters of Fact: with the several circumstances belonging to them. It is true, they are so, but so Parables use to be; so was Nathan's to David; so is that of the Rich Man and Lazarus in the New Testament; so is Jeremies going to Euphrates to hide 
Jer. 13. 4. 5.  his Girdle; (for it is not very likely the Prophet should be sent 18 or 20 days Journey into an Enemy's Country for no other end:) So is ezekiel's lying on one side for 390 
Ezek. 4. 5. 6.  days, and having his Head and Beard contrary to the Law, as Maimonides observes: And his 
Ezek. 5. 1.  digging in the Walls of the Temple at Jerusalem, while he was in 
Ezek. 8. 8.  Babylon: And many other things of a like nature, which are set forth with as punctual a Narration of circumstances as this of Hosea, and yet they were only figurative expressions. We that are accustomed to another way of Learning, think these things strange; but this was a very common way in the elder times, and it is to this day much used in the Eastern Countries, to represent Duties to some, under the Parables of things as really done by others: As may be seen in Locman and Perzoes', besides what Clemens Alexandrinus and others have said, concerning the Antiquity and common use of this Parabolical way of Teaching.  
I now come to your Objections against the New Testament: but I find them so few, and those so slight and inconsiderable, as to the end for which you produce them, that I may easily pass them over. To that about the continuance of Miracles, I have already Answered: And I find not one word in the places mentioned by you, which implies the necessity of the continuance of them in all Ages of the Christian Church. That place, Mark 10. 29, 30. speaks of no more but such a recompense in this life as is consistent with persecution; and therefore must chiefly lie in inward contentment; which all wise Men have valued above external accommodations; although withal, by the account St. Paul gives of himself, and his Brethren, God did abundantly provide for them one way or other. As having nothing, and yet enjoying 
2 Cor. 6. 10.  all things: Which amounts to a Hundred-fold in this life.  
But certainly you are the first Man, Who have Objected the obscurity of the Book of Revelations, againgst the Authority of the Scriptures: Which is just as if one should Object the quadrature of the Circle against Mathematical certainty. If we grant that there are some things in that Mystical Book, we do not yet well understand; what then! Must neither that Book, nor any other of the Bible be of Divine Revelation? I will not pursue the unreasonableness of this way of arguing so far as I might; but I leave yourself to consider of it; and of all that I have Written, in order to your satisfaction. If you think fit to return an Answer, I pray do it clearly and shortly, and with that freedom from Passion, which becomes so weighty a Matter: And I beseech God to give you a right understanding in all things.  
I am Sir, Your Faithful Servant. June 11. 1675.  
FINIS.   

Books sold by Moses Pitt, at the Angel in St. Paul's Churchyard.  

Folio.  
THeses Theologicae variis Temporibus in Academia Sedanensi editae, & ad disputandum propositae. Authore Ludovico le Blanc verbi Divini Ministro & Theologiae professor. In qua exponitur sententia Doctorum Ecelesiae Romanae, & Protestantium. Price 20 s.  
Dr. Henry Hammond's Sermons. 1675.  
A Table of Ten thousand Square Numbers, by John Pell, D. D. stitched, 1 s. 6 d.  
Tuba Stentoro-Phonica, or the Speaking-Trumpet; being an Instrument of excellent use both at Sea and Land; by Sir Samuel Morland. Price of the Book 1 s. of the Instrument 2 l. 5 s.  
Articles and Rules for the Government of His Majesty's Forces by Land, during this present War, 1673. 1 s. 6 d.  
Bailii opus Hist. Chronol. vet. & Nou. Test. 1663.  
Becmanni Exercitationes Theol. Contra Socinianos'.  
An History of the Church, by Alex. Petrey. 1662.  
Catalogus Librorum in Regionibus Transmarinis nuper Editorum.   

Quarto.  
Dr. Pell's Introduction to Algebra. 7 s.  
Nich. Mercatoris Logarithmo-Technia, sive methodus construendi Logarithmos, 1668. & Jac. Gregorii Exercitationes Geometricae, 1668. 2 s.  
Love only for Love sake, a Dramatic Romance, by Sir Richard Fanshaw. 3 s. 6 d.  
Mori Enchiridion Metaphysicum, 1671. 10 s.  
Snellii Typhis Batavus, Ludg. Bat. 1624. 5 s.  
Petrus Paaw de Ossibus, Amst. 1633. 5 s. Dr. Thomas Jacomb, on the Eighth Chapter of the Romans. 8 s.  
A Letter from a Gentleman of the Lord Howard's Retinue, to his Friend in London, dated at Fez, Nou. 1. 1670. 6 d.  
Dr. Wallis Opera Mechanica, 22 s.  
Hieronymi Mercurialis de Arte Gymnastica Libri sex cum figuris, 1672.  
Pignorii Mensa Isaica, 1669.  
Pharmacopeia Hagiensis, 1659.  Augustana, 1672.  
J. Crellii Ethica Aristotelica & Christiana, 16 s.  
Joan. Binchii Mellificium Theologicum, 16 s.  
Theod. Kerkringii D. M. Spicilegium Anatomicum, Continens Observationum Anatomicarum rariorum centuriam unam nec non Osteogeniam foetuum in qua quid cuique ossiculo ●ingulis accedat Mensibus, quidve decedat & ●n eo per varia immutetur tempora, accuratissimè oculis subjiciuntur, 1670.  
There is newly published two Recantation-Sermons (Preached at the French-Church in the Savoy) by two Converted Romanists, Mr. Dela Motte, late Preacher of the Order of the Carmelites; and Mr. De Luzanzy, Licentiate in Divinity; wherein the Corrupt Doctrines of the Church of Rome are laid open and confuted. Both Printed in French and English.  
Also two other Sermons, one Preached before the King at White-Hall, Jan. 30. 1676. by Henry Bagshaw, D. D. the other before the Lord Mayor, Dec. 19 1675. by JohnCook.  
A Modest Survey of the most material things in a discourse, called the Naked Truth, 6 d.   

Octavo.  
A discourse of Local Motion, undertaking to demonstrate the Laws of Motion, and withal to prove, that of the seven Rules delivered by Mr. Des Cartes on this Subject, he hath mistaken Six: Englished out of French, 1671. 1 s.  
The History of the late Revolution of the Empire of the Great mogul, with a description of the Country, in two Volumes. 7 s.  
The History of the Conquest of the Empire of China by the Tartars. 1671. 4 s.  
Mystery of Iniquity unvailed in a discourse, wherein is held forth the opposition of the Doctrine, Worship, and Practices of the Roman Church, to the Nature, Designs, and Characters of the Christian Faith, by Gilbert Burnet. 1 s.  
A Collection of Popish Miracles wrought by Popish Saints, both during their lives, and after their death, collected out of their own Authors, 1 s.  
Theod. Turqueti, De Mayerne, De Arthritide, Accesserunt ejusdem Consilia aliquot Medicinalia, 1 s.  
A new way of curing the Gout, and Observations and Practices relating to Women in Travel, 3 s.  
A Relation of a Conference held about Religion at London, Apr. 3. 1676. by Edward Stilling fleet, D. D. and Gilbert Burnet, with some Gentlemen of the Church of Rome. 2 s. 6 d.  
Elenchi Motuum Nuperorum in Anglia pars tertia, sive Motus Compositi. Ubi G. Monchii e Scotia progressus, nec non Aug. Caroli Secundi in Angliam Reditus; ejusdemque Regiae Majest. per Decennium gesta fideliter enarra●tur, 1676.  
Gualteri Needham Disputatio Anatomica de Formato Foetu. 1667. 3 s. 6 d.  
Buxtorfius' Epitome of his Hebrew Grammar Englished, by John Davis, 1658. 1 s. 6 d.  
The Fortunate Fool, or the Life of Dr. Ce●nudo, a Spanish Romance, 1670. 2 s.  
The Adventures of Mr. T. S. an English Merchant, taken Prisoner by the Turks of Algiers, with a description of that Kingdom, and the Towns and Places thereabouts, 1670. 1 s. 6 d.  
Contemplations on Mortality, 1670. 1 s.  
A Discourse written to a Learned Friar, by Mr. Des Fourneillis, showing that the Systeme of Mr. Des Cartes, and particularly his Opinion concerning Brutes, does contain nothing dangerous; and that all he hath written of both, seems to have been taken out of the First Chapter of Genesis: To which is annexed the Systeme General of the Cartesian Philosophy, 1 s.  
The Relation of a Voyage into Mauritania in afric, by Roland Frejus of Marseilles, by the French Kings order, 1666, to Muley Arxid King of Taffaletta, etc. with a Letter in Answer to divers Questions concerning their Religion, Manners, etc. 1671. 1 s. 6 d.  
A Genuine Explication of the Visions in the Book of Revelation, by A. B. Peganius. 1671. 2 s.  
Prodronius to a Dissertation concerning Solids naturally contained within Solids, laying a foundation for the rendering a rational account, both of the Frame and the several Changes of the Mass of the Earth, as also the various Productions of the same. By Nich. Steno, 1671. 1 s. 3 d.  
Basilius Valentinus, of Natural and Supernatural things, also of the first Tincture, Root, and Spirits of Metals and Minerals, how the same are Conceived, Generated, Brought forth, Changed and Augmented: Whereunto is added Friar Bacon of the Medicine or Tincture of Antimony, Mr. John Isaac Holland his works of Saturn, and Alexander Van Suchten, of the Secrets of Antimony out of Dutch, 1671. 2 s.  
The Poetical Histories, being a complete Collection of all the Stories necessary for a perfect understanding of the Greek and Latin Poets, and other Ancient Authors, written Originally in French, by the Learned Jesuit P. Galtruchius. Now Englished and Enriched with Observations concerning the Gods worshipped by our Ancestors in this Island, by the Phoenecians and Syrians in Asia; with many useful Notes and occasional Proverbs, gathered out of the best Authors: Unto which are added two Treatises; One of the Curiosities of Old Rome, and of the difficult Names relating to the Affairs of that City; The other containing the most remarkable hieroglyphics of Egypt. The Third Edition, with Additions. By Marius D' Assigny, B. D. 3 s. 6 d.  
An Essay about the Origine and Virtues of Gems, by the Honourable Robert boil. 1 s. 6 d. Idem Lat. twelves, 1 s.  
Sir Samuel Morland's Arithmetic, with several useful Tables, and a Perpetual Almanac, 1673. 3 s.  
A Complete Treatise of Chirurgery, containing Barbetts Chirurgery. Mindererus of Diseases Incident to Camps and Fleets: With a Surgeons Chest of Medicines and Instruments. etc. 6 s.  
Dr. Lower de cord. Amster. 1671. 3 s.  
Dr. Grews Anatomy of Vegetables, 1672. 2 s.  
Crowei Elenchi Script. in Scripturam. 3 s. 6 d.  

Eugelenus de Scorbuto.  
Fred. Deckeri Exercitationes Medicae.  
Grotii via ad Pacem.  
Alb. Gentilis de Armis Romanis. 

De Imperio.  
De Legationibus.  
De Nuptiis.    
Hammond de Confirmatione.  
Hugenii momenta Desultoria.  
Paraei Chronologia Sacra.  
Thruston de Respiratione.    

Twelve.  
A Paradise of Delights, or an Elixir of Comforts offered to Believers, in two discourses, the first on Heb. 6. 17, 18. the second on Rom. 8. 32. By Robert Wine. 1 s.  

Grotii Sophompaneas.  
Gronovius in Livium.  
Primrose Ars Pharmaceutica.  
Schook de Pace.  
Suetonius.  
Swalve Alcali.  
Severini Synopsis Chyrurgiae.  
Terentii Flores.  
Trelcatii loci Communes.   
Balduinus de Calceo & Nigronius de Caliga Veterum. Accesserunt ex Q. Sept. Fl. Tertulliani, Cl. Salmasii & Alb. Rubenii Scriptis plurima ejusdem Argumenti, 1667.  
Pauli Barbetti opera Chirurgica Anatomica, 1672.  
Praxis Barbettiana Cum notis Fred. Deckeri,  
Ottonis Tachenii Hypocrates Chymicus,  
Q. Horatij Poemata cum Commentariis Jo. Menellii, 1676.  
Hugo Grotius de veritate Religionis Christianae, 1674?  
Theodori Kerckringii D. M. Commentarius in Currum Triumphalem Antimonii Basilii Valentini a se latinitate donatum, 1671.  
Jo. Pincieri M. D. AEnigmatum Libri Tres cum solutionibus, 1655.  
Francisci Redi Experimenta circa res diversas naturales, speciatim illas quae ex Indiis adferuntur, 1675.  

Aulus Gellius.  
Besterfeldus Redivivus.  
Herls Wisdoms Tripos.  
Wilkins Beauty of Providence.    

Quarto.  
A New Dictionary, French and English, by Guy Miege. 1677.  
Marshal Turenne's Funeral Sermon. 1677.  
Jer. Horroccii. Angl. Opusc. Astron. 1673.  
An Historical Vindication of the Church of England in Point of Schism, by Sir Ro. Twisden.  
The last Siege of Mastricht. Sept. 5. 1676.  
Dr. Tillotson's Sermon before the King, Apr. 18. 1675.  
Dr. Wilkins' two Sermons before the King, March 7. 1669. and Feb. 7. 1670.  
Dr. Jo. Tillotson's Rule of Faith. 1676.  
Rhetores selecti: Demetrius Phalerius, Tiberius' Rhetor, Anonymus Sophista, Severus Alexandrinus Grecè et Lat. per Tho. Gale. Soc. Coll. M. 1676.  
A Scriptural Catechism, according to the Method observed by the Author of the Whole Duty of Man, 1676.  
How, of delighting in God; of the blessedness of the Righteous. Two Vol.  
Art of Speaking, by M. du Port-Royal, 1676: