ENQUIRY

Concerning the

Books of the New Teftament, Whether they were written by divine infpiration, &c.

Reverend Sir,

A

and

SI entirely agree with you, it is a matter of great importance, that the writings of the New Teftament fhould be fet upon a right foot, as I gave you my opinion concerning thofe books, that they were not written by divine inspiration according to the vulgar ufe of that expreffion; that is, the minds of the writers were not under fuch a divine direction in the writing thofe hiftories and epiftolary difcourfes *, as that God immediately revealed to, and impreffed upon them the subject matter therein contained; but only that they were under a firm belief and expectation of a future judgment and retribution, and fo were disposed at their utmost peril to give (as accordingly

cafe.

Note, I here except the revelation of St. John out of the

they

they did) to the best of their ability an honest and faithful account of matters of fact, which in the main were frictly true, according to what they themselves had heard and feen, or upon the best information they could receive from others, who were eye witnesses, and minifters or attendants on the Meffiah, allowing a poffibility of mistakes in leffer circumstances, which perhaps all hiftories (except written by divine infpiration, as aforefaid) are liable to. That the doctrines they delivered, and the duties they required, were fuch as they themfelves had verbally received from the mouth of Chrift, or from thofe who had thus received them from him; or by a special revelation from God (by vifion or otherwife); or by inferences drawn from the writings of the Old Teftament; or from the reafon of things, and the like (God not fuffering them always to continue in error in any material point, which concerned the happiness and falvation of mankind); I fay, as I gave you my opinion in this point, when I had the pleasure of your company and converfation fome few days paft: So I have now taken the freedom to lay before you the grounds and reasons, upon which that opinion is founded. And,

First, With refpect to the hiftorical parts of the New Testament, that they were not written by divine infpiration in the fense above mentioned, but only by honeft men, who gave a fair and faithful account of matters of fact, which in the main were strictly true accord

ing to what they themfelves had seen and beard, or upon the best information they could obtain from others, my reafons are as follow.

First, It is very frange and unreasonable to fuppofe or expect, that God fhould thus interpofe, by infpiring men to write an hiftory of matters of fact, when there were many living witneffes, which could from their own knowledge give this hiftory without any infpiration. And it is yet more ftrange, that fome of thofe men, by whom this history was given, had the perfonal knowledge of those very facts, as being eye and ear witnesses of the fame, antecedent to fuch infpiration. I fay, it seems very unlikely, that God fhould thus interpofe in an extraordinary way for the delivery of an hiftory, which could be done in an ordinary way, without fuch an extraordinary interpofition, feeing it is what he doth not ufually do in other cafes.

Secondly, The variety of penmen employed in writing the gospel hiftory makes it very improbable, that it was written by divine in-fpiration in the fenfe abovementioned. If God had thought fit thus to interpofe in this affair, then when he had given an history by the pen of one man, there would have been no need of a fecond to come after to confirm, or to fupply the defects of the former. For as it may be fairly prefumed he would have written at firft, all that was proper to be known by pofterity; fo his authority, being ftampt upon it, was fufficient to gain cre

dit upon the world, and there was no need of a fecond, or third, or fourth history to serve these purposes.

Thirdly, The difagreement of thofe hiftories with refpect to fome facts, or the circumftances which attended them, plainly prove, that they were not written by divine infpiration. Thus Matt. xxvii. 5. And be, viz. Judas, caft down the pieces of filver in the temple, and departed and went and hanged himfelf. Acts i. 17, 18. For he, viz. Judas, was numbred with us, and had obtained part of this miniftry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, and falling headlong, burft afunder in the midft, and all his bowels gufhed out. Here we fee, tho' both these hiftorians agree, that the traytor Judas came to an untimely end; yet they very much differ in their accounts about the way and manner, by which he came to that end; the one affirming that he hanged himself, and the other faith that he fell down headlong, and bursting afunder in the midft, his bowels gushed out. Now fuppofing there may be fome poffible way found out for the reconciling these historians; yet that would be but mere fuppofition or guess work, which might, or might not be the truth of the cafe. And can it reaJonably be fuppofed, that fuch a wife and good being as God is, if he condefcended to become an hiftorian, or to dictate to perfons the fubject matter of an hiftory (which comes to the fame), that he would give two diffe