thence he infers, that all the historical and anecdotal part of the Bible is not within the compass of the word revelation; and therefore is not the word of God.' This definition, however, implies, that every accession to our knowledge may be called revelation; and why not the accession to our historical knowledge? Many things, in the sacred history could not be known, except by immediate revelation ; as those especially, which relate to the creation, the fall of man, and many circumstances attending on the deluge. A superintending revelation was also requisite, to preserve the sacred historians from errors or misrepresentations, through forgetfulness, prejudice, misinformation, or inadequate information. In this view of the subject I am induced to stand the ground of maintaining the divine inspiration of the Scripture, in every part. The sacred writers every where claim it for themselves and for each other: our Lord sanctions both the Old Testament, and the writings of his disciples and apostles, as the words of the inspiring divine Spirit: and without this, who can inform us, what we are to regard as the word of God, and what as the word of fallible man?

If the whole Scripture be admitted to be divinely inspired, sober criticism will generally discover the interpolations and variations, which have occurred in the lapse of ages; and which, after all, in no degree affect our rule of faith and practice and if a few passages remain doubtful, they only serve to prove our humility and teachableness: whereas every other plan renders the rule and standard of faith and obedience vague and uncertain.

Mr. P. says,Revelation could not make fictions true.' It might, however, preserve men from writing fictions: and how much these abound in history, through the passions and misapprehensions of historians, needs not be enumerated. He observes, that not only unchangeableness, but even the impossibility of a change taking place, by any means or accident whatever, is an idea that must be affixed to 'what we call the word of God.' Now what is this but asserting, without the least proof, that God cannot reveal himself to his intelligent creatures? Notwithstanding the

See a full discussion of this subject, in the author's Preface to the Family Bible.

imperfections of language, the want of an universal one, the errors of copyists, translators, and printers, authors make a tolerable shift to communicate their sentiments to mankind, and some of them even to remote ages and nations; and with little hazard of material mistake: yet the Almighty God cannot communicate his truth and will to mankind, because of these impediments and others of the same kind! But he says, 'Translations of Revelation cannot be depended on.'-Yet he thinks that in respect of natural science, (which is his revelation) translations may very ' well answer the purpose. There is nothing new to be 'learned from the dead languages; all the useful books are 'translated, and the time expended in teaching and learn'ing them, is wasted.' Let this oracular inconsistency be noted.

6

But without the knowledge of these languages, how shall such translations be given? Or, how can they be depended on? Who, but learned men, can give warning to the mère English reader, if a palpably erroneous translation be published; or a forgery, under the name of a translation? This is equally the case, with the Scriptures and other books. Learned men have translated the Bible; learned men alone can know that the translation is fair and right: and the various discordant attempts to translate the whole, or a part of it better, prove, that on the whole, it is faithfully translated: and the unlearned may learn from the translation, of it, all that "pertaineth to "life and godliness." Even the controversies of Christians with the Jews, and with each other, too fiercely conducted, may not warrant his confidence, that these contending parties have so watched over one another as to prevent any material alteration being made, in the book to which they all appeal; and in England, to the authorized version of the Scriptures.

To reject reason in receiving Revelation, is, as if a man should shut his eyes, that he may simply avail himself of the light of the sun.-Reason should be humbly and seriously employed, in weighing the evidences, and understanding the meaning, of Revelation. Faith itself is the only exercise of our reasoning powers, by which we can

derive information from testimony: as every court of justice, and almost every transaction of common life, evinces. To believe" the sure testimony of God," indeed, implies a state of the heart, widely different from the presumptuous reasonings of proud and worldly men, and even, if possible, still further from that of scoffers and jesters in the most sacred and awful concerns: but it is in all respects most reasonable; unless man knows more of eternal and invisible things than God himself does!

Mr. P. considers false revelations, as a proof that there is no true revelation. Do reasonable men argue thus in their secular concerns; and burn their bank notes, because some men forge false ones? False revelations would never have obtained credit, if men had not generally thought a true revelation from God possible, nay desirable, and probable, or actually vouchsafed.

CHAP. II.

Miracles.

A miracle, in the scriptural meaning of the word, is a deviation from the ordinary course of nature, or second causes, effected for wise and holy purposes, by the Omnipotence of the Creator, the First Great Cause of all.

Mr. P. endeavours to confound miracles with monsters, absurdities, impossibilites, or natural uncommon events. No one thing,' says he, 'is a greater miracle than another; an elephant not a greater miracle than a mite.' Whoever before this writer supposed either of these creatures to be miracles?

The ascension of a balloon, electricity, magnetism, and the recovery of a drowned person, he says, have every thing in them which constitutes the idea of a miracle.' Will any really scientific man admit of this; when he can satisfactorily account for all these phenomena, by natural knowledge? But could he have thus accounted for the miracles of Moses? What natural efficacy could fill Egypt

with frogs, flies, lice, or locusts, exactly at the time, when Moses foretold, and when he gave the signal? Or have removed them at his word? Or turn the waters into blood? Or cause thick darkness for three days, throughout Egypt, while in Goshen there was light? Or at once slay all the first born in Egypt? We may firmly believe all that is reported concerning balloons, and the other things here mentioned, and reasonably deny that there is any miracle in them: but can we do this, as to the events recorded by Moses? If actually done, it must have been by the finger of God.'

By what natural principles, can our Lord's miracles of giving sight to the blind, yea to one born blind; curing inveterate leprosies, in a moment, and at a word; rebuking and removing fevers; raising the dead, and calming the raging winds and waves on a sudden, by his rebuke and command, be accounted for? If these and numerous other facts recorded of him, actually took place, omnipotence must have effected them; and it is absurd to admit the fact, and deny the conclusion.

If the Jews had not been convinced, that "notable "miracles" had been done by Jesus and his apostles, (John iii, 2; xi, 47: Acts iv, 16.) would they not have attempted to disprove them? Or to account for them, from natural causes? Would they and their posterity, even to this day, have ascribed them to magick or enchantment; if they could have denied them, or otherwise accounted for them? Did not these miracles challenge investigation from the most informed, and inimical, and powerful persons? Were not time, and place, and circumstances particularly mentioned; and the appeal made to very great multitudes? Let any person who has seen or aided in the recovery of a drowned person, now go forth to one who has been "four days dead," and in the presence of assembled multitudes, say, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise!" "Lazarus, "" come forth!" and see what will be the result.

Mr. P. speaks of the lameness of the doctrine, which ' needs a miracle to prove it.' Every doctrine, then, is lame, which we could not have known without Revelation, or which does not accord to our preconceived notions, or dispositions. If so, Revelation is needless, or useless; mi

racles are needful only in support of Revelation, these miracles are imposture, and cannot authenticate any doctrine.' Thus our reasoner argues completely in a circle. True miracles answer far other purposes, than to make people stare and wonder;' they give a divine attestation to the revealed truth and will of God. They do not stand on the veracity of a single reporter, as if Mr. P.should 'tell us, that he wrought a miracle in his study,' but on the combined testimony, or constrained silence, of thousands, or ten thousands of eye witnesses. Had Lunardi told the Europeans, that he had mounted into the air, in the deserts of Arabia, it might have been said, 'It is more probable that a man should lie than that people should 'mount into the air: but when he ascended in a balloon, repeatedly, in the presence of ten thousands of spectators, this retort is fully excluded. Thus the dilemma concerning miracles is not, whether it be more probable that nature should go out of her course, or a man tell a lie: but whether it be more probable that the Omnipotent Creator should, for wise and holy reasons, suspend or alter the course of nature; or that tens of thousands of eye-witnesses should be deceived by their senses, as to the most evident facts or combine and succeed, in attempting to deceive mankind, with the grossest falsehoods. It was necessary to Mr. P.'s plan to assert that miracles are impossible: and if a miracle be an impossibility attested by a single witness ; his reasoning would be conclusive: but it is wholly absurd, as the case really stands.

He seems to adopt Mr. Hume's famous sophism; that 'miracles are contrary to universal experience,' and therefore naturally incredible.' That is, they are contrary to the experience of all who never saw them; however well attested by eye-witnesses. The African prince, when without hesitation he called the Europeans liars, who told him, that they had seen rivers congealed by frost, and rendered passible for the heaviest carriages, was of the same reasonable disposition. This was contrary to the universal experience of those who inhabited the torrid zone; and therefore naturally incredible: for it was more probable 'that men should lie, than that nature should go out of 'her course.' But miracles must go contrary to the ordi