is a particular mention made of the Spirit, the light, and the firmament, with a phyfical description of their formation; how the Spirit began to move; how this motion produced light; the light, a firmament or expanfion, which by its action divided the waters from the waters, and formed the earth into a stage and storehouse for men; with a diftinct relation of the formation of the fun and moon, ftars, &c.; the formation of plants, vegetables, animals, and man, until all was completed.

THERE is alfo mention of the world be ing destroyed by a deluge; of the windows of heaven being opened, and the fountains of the great deep being broken up; of the Spirit or wind paffing over the earth, and reforming it. Thefe accounts, fo circumftantial, seem defigned rather to rectify, than to conform to the mistaken notions of mankind. Befides, the miracles in Egypt were all fo many controulings of the powers of nature; which powers the Egyptians must have understood, or elfe they would not, to them, have been miracles.

Pharaoh's

Pharaoh's heart was hardened by his magi cians being permitted to do something like them in fimilitude, but not in truth; by which means he was perfuaded, that what Aaron did, was no more than what ftudiers of nature could, by their acquaintance with her operation, perform; fo nothing but what was natural: but when they could not make duft lice, they were forced to cry out, This is the finger of God; to own it was a deed above the power of natural means to perform. Thefe objected to the miracles, what our prefent wifemen do to the scripture-account of them, That they only appeared miracles to those ignorant of nature and philofophy; but were phenomena to be accounted for by a knowledge of both.

THIS may be fufficient to prove, that the mention of philofophy in the fcriptures is not barely incidental, nor accommodated ad captum vulgi. But we have, befides, an account of the motion of the earth, and of the agents which move it, Eccl. i. 4. From whence I think it plainly appears, that mankind must have been acquainted with

the

the powers of nature; otherwise how should they distinguish her ordinary operations from the immediate power or finger of God? And confidering the frequent manifestations to the patriarchs, the Ifraelites must be supposed to have had proper and just notions of the Deity, his nature, and manner of existing: for had God in these intercourses vouchsafed no revelation of himself, but left them to their bare imaginations to frame ideas of his effence and powers; how could they know the God of Abraham, the God of Ifaac, and the God of Jacob, I am that I am, from the god of the Egyptians, the god of the Canaanites, and the gods of the nations?

WHY should it be thought a thing incredible, that the scriptures fhould give a true description of nature and its great Author? Could not the Creator of all things frame this world fo as to give fome idea or fimulacrum of himself? Would he order his servants to use names not significant, or improper, for his being and attributes? Or can we suppose a language formed by his direction, while Adam was perfect, vague and

uncertain? and to want words properly expreffive of what he thought fit to reveal of himself and his works? Would he give a revelation defective in two fuch main points, at a time when he was feparating the Jews from the rest of the nations, who had apostatised from the true God, the maker of heaven and earth, to the worship of his material agents? The conteft was then the fame as in Elijah's time, Whether Jehovah was God, or Baal was God? Whether the fun, moon, ftars, and all the host of heaven, were uncreated, eternal, fo God; or, whether the Lord Jehovah, the God of the Jews, created and made the heavens, the earth, and all the hoft of heaven? Was a fhort dark account, in words inexpreffive of God's effence or powers, and a falfe unintelligible one of nature, a likely method to determine this conteft? Why should God give any account of nature, if not a true one? why direct his fervants to write ad captum vulgi? And if men were then fo ignorant as to fwallow a falfe account, could not infinite wisdom foresee, that the present learned race would arife, and be framing schemes to detect the

falfity

1

falfity of it? Was not the knowledge of God and nature as neceffary to men then, as to men now? And if God was pleased to record his revelation of these things, was he not bound by his veracity to do it truly and intelligibly? When our tranflation was made, the learned and unlearned both agreed in their notion of philofophy; fo the translation was agreeable to the received opinion. Modern discoveries have fince fet them at variance; and may we not be allowed to query, whether our tranflators had a thorough knowledge of the Hebrew, and of nature? or, whether they might not bend their tranflation to the prevailing notions of the times? and whether we, fince the reformation, have been careful in fearching the Hebrew fcriptures? or whether we have not blindly and implicitly followed the first translators, and traditions of men?

THESE, and many fuch reflections, which naturally arise in the mind employed on this fubject, lead me to conclude, from the neceffity of the thing, and the wisdom and goodness of the Deity, that a full and perfect

C 2