and believes Haman was about to force the Queen Haman is seiz'd upon to be put to Death and the Gibbet being found ready sitted for Mordecai Haman by the king's order is hanged upon it Mordecai succeeds in the place of Haman and by Esther's means obtains another Edict whereby the Jews are permitted to take Arms and defend themselves against those that should fall upon them The day mention'd in the Edict being come the Jews kill all those that went about to destroy them They slay five hundred in Shushan And the like leave being given them the next day they kill three hundred more besides Haman's ten Sons who were hang'd by the King's order Now upon the consideration of all these Circumstances it is observ'd by some that if Vnity of Time and Place had been observ'd in this Story there would have been nothing wanting to have made it a good Tragi-Comedy For my part I determine nothing upon the Point But this I can say that in all likelihood Mr. Simon had not read of a long time this Book when he writ the 129th Page of his Answer where he says That though it should be suppos'd that the Books of Esther Judith and Tobit are not true Histories yet it does not follow therefore that they ought to be left out of the Catalogue of Canonical Books And that he has observ'd in his Critical History after St. Jerom that the Parabolical Stile has always been in esteem amongst the Eastern People and that a Book whether it contain a true History or a plain Parable or a History mix'd with Parables is not therefore the less true or less Canonical If the Histories contain'd in these Books are not true they are certainly not Parables but Romances The bare reading them is sufficient to show that those who writ them publish'd them not for Books of Morality but only as surprizing and wonderful Stories To say nothing of Iudith and Tobit it is plain by the Original which the Author of the Book of Esther gives to the Feast of Purim that he compos'd that Book with design to make it look like a true History See the IXth Chap. v. 27. to the end The Original of a Feast uses not to be founded upon a Parable and such a History as that of Esther is not wont to be mix'd with Parables Mr. Simon says well that there are Parables in the New Testament so well circumstantiated that one would take them for true Histories But we must not have read either the Book of Esther or the New Testament to be perswaded that there is any resemblance betwixt the History of that Book and the Parables of our Saviour The Parable most like to a History is that of Dives and Lazarus but there is nothing in it like the History of Esther See Ioseph Antiq. lib. 11. cap. 6. Objection 9. The Prudence and Reason of the Apostles is often spoken of as if the use they made thereof were inconsistent with the Inspiration attributed to them but these things may well agree together as Mr. Simon observes Answer If Mr. Simon understood what he would say when he speaks of reconciling Human Prudence with Inspiration he believes undoubtedly the same thing that I do concerning the Inspiration of the Apostles We agree that the Terms were not inspir'd The question is only about the Things The Inspiration of the things consists either in presenting to the Mind general Principles from whence they that are inspir'd according as they have occasion afterward draw Consequences or in furnishing it with Arguments ready fram'd If God furnish'd the Minds of the Apostles with Arguments ready fram'd they made no use of their Reason having nothing to do but to declare what the holy Spirit had inspir'd them with as the Prophets were only to express the Sense of what God had said to them And this is that which every body calls properly Inspiration But if it be suppos'd that God presented to the Minds of the Apostles only general Principles of which by their own reasoning they made necessary and fit Application upon emergent occasions they were in that case no more inspir'd than those who having carefully read the holy Scripture have the Ideas thereof so present in their Minds that they never fail to make use of it when it is necessary In this last Supposition Reason indeed is made use of but in the other it is not Now it appears that Mr. Simon is not of the Opinion that excludes the use of Reason And therefore I say it is probable that he is of the same Opinion with me though he know it not For I deny not but God might have presented to the Minds of the Apostles either by supernatural or natural ways the general Ideas of which they should stand in need to defend themselves at their Trials I only deny that God always inspir'd them with all the Arguments they made use of on those occasions Mr. Simon adds That to say that the Spirit of Courage and Holiness which the Gospel produces in our Hearts dictated to the Apostles what they should say is to destroy intirely the inward Grace which God did spread abroad in the Hearts of his Apostles and which he yet daily spreads abroad in the Hearts of the Faithful But what does he mean by this inward Grace which is common to the Apostles and the Faithful Is it not the Spirit of the Gospel At least the Faithful have nothing else in common with the Apostles Now if the Apostles by virtue of this Promise It is not you that speak it is the Spirit of your Father that speaks in you have receiv'd as Mr. Simon gives us to understand only the inward Grace which God spreads abroad daily in the Hearts of the Faithful the Inspirations of the Apostles were not different from those of the Faithful now a days Objection 10. Whereas it is said That the Apostles spoke many things at their Trials which might have been spoken without Inspiration and from thence is inferr'd that it is not necessary to believe that they were inspir'd with those things This way of arguing may be apply'd to the Prophets whom nevertheless we acknowledg to have been truly inspir'd Mr. Simon Resp. 131. Answer Mr. Simon who sees nothing in Books but what his Passion shows him might have taken notice that I said that the Prophets teach us they are inspir'd when they say Thus saith the Lord c. There are two ways to know if a thing be inspir'd The first consists in observing if those who say this or that thing maintain that they had it from God by an extraordinary Revelation whereof they give undeniable Proofs as did the Prophets The second is when the thing it self declar'd shows it to be so When the first way fails we must have recourse to the second and where they both fail we have no reason to believe there is any Inspiration Now this is that which appears in many Discourses of the
Apostles where they do not say that God has taught them by extraordinary Revelation that which they publish And where the matter it self shows that there was no need of his doing it It does not therefore follow that those who acknowledge the Inspiration of the Prophets are obliged to acknowledg the like of all other sacred Writers because there are convincing Reasons which oblige us to believe that the Prophets speak Truth when they say Thus saith the Lord c. and no reason to believe that the Apostles were extraordinarily inspir'd when they say it not and when their Discourses have in them no mark of such like Inspiration If we reflect upon this difference between Prophecies and Discourses which have nothing of Prophetic in them we shall take heed of applying to this Subject a loose Maxim and which is good for nothing viz. That is happens most frequently that those who distinguish and divide Matters with design to make use of part and reject the other do give great advantage to their Adversaries On the contrary it scarce ever happens that in handling a compounded Subject there can be made such general Rules as may be equally apply'd to all the parts of it Parts of different nature must of necessity be differently handled Objection 11. It has been said that by the holy Spirit or the Spirit of God may be understood the Spirit of Holiness and of Constancy which the Gospel inspires or such a Disposition of Mind as is an Effect of our Faith But the general Reasons there made use of which are grounded only upon equivocal words can prove nothing but Generals They must be apply'd and particular Enquiry made whether the holy Spirit has any other Signification in Scripture or no. Mr. Simon Resp. Pag. 131. Answer When a Passage is to be answer'd wherein there is an equivocal word upon which an Objection is founded it is sufficient to show that such a word may be understood in another Sense than that in which it has been taken There is no need of examining all the other Significations that it may have It suffices to show that the Signification then given it is agreeable to the ordinary use of the Language and suitable to the Subject there treated of It was Mr. Simon 's part therefore to show that where it is said of St. Stephen on occasion of whom the Observation was made That they could not resist the Wisdom and Spirit by which he spoke I say it was his part to show that by the word Sprit any thing ought to be understood but the Spirit of the Gospel that is to say a Disposition of Mind conformable to the Precepts of Jesus Christ. He ought to have shown that this word in this place ought necessarily to be understood in another Sense But Mr. Simon seldom gives himself the trouble to read the places of Scripture that are cited as appears in the same Page where he says that St. Paul told the High Priest with a just Indignation God shall smite thee thou whited Wall and where he compares the words of St. Paul to those of Jesus Christ when he calls Herod Fox and to the Reproaches that the Prophets make to the Kings of Israel But he should have shown us in what place Jesus Christ and the Prophets confess'd they were to blame in doing so as St. Paul confesses he was God has Power to censure Princes But it belongs not to Subjects to do it when they think sit So St. Paul had no right to abuse the High Priest on his own Head though those who had receiv'd express Order from God to make such like Reproaches to Princes cannot be blam'd for it But Mr. Simon who probably never thought of all this is not aware of this difference and argues always on without understanding what he finds fault with Obiection 12. The Promise which Jesus Christ made his Apostles that the holy Spirit should teach them what they should say when they came before the Iudges seems to have been explain'd as a general Promise for all that they should say whereas it only relates to what they should say for the defence of the Gospel Luc. Chap. 12. ver 11. Answer The promise is express'd in general terms and must relate to that which the Apostles should be oblig'd to say as well for the defence of their own Persons as for that of the Gospel For it was of the greatest importance that these first Ministers of Jesus Christ should then say nothing unworthy of the Doctrine of which they were the Heraulds But if this Promise must not be taken in so large a Sense in relation to the Discourses which the Apostles should make before Judges neither ought it to be so taken in relation to their preaching of the Gospel My Design was only to shew that since the words could not be taken in the whole extent of their Signification it could not from thence be necessarily inferr'd that the Apostles had then a Prophetic Inspiration Objection 13. The Promise Iohn 16. that when the Spirit of Truth shall come it shall lead you into all Truth ought not to be understood so as if it were intirely accomplish'd the day of Pentecost but as a thing that should be accomplish'd according to the occasions and necessities that the Apostles should be in of knowing some further Truths But it seems as if Mr. N. suppos'd that this promise is ordinarily understood as if it ought to have been accomplish'd all at once Answer The reason of my insisting upon that was to make appear that this Promise though conceiv'd in so general terms ought necessarily to receive some Qualification and consequently that it ought not to be understood like an Axiom of Geometry in the utmost Signification of its Terms Now that being once granted it cannot be made appear that this Promise relates to a Prophetic Inspiration There is a Passage very like this in the first Epistle of St. Iohn Chap. 2. ver 27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you and ye need not that any Man teach you but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things and is Truth and is no Lie and even as it hath taught you ye shall abide in him It is apparent that this cannot be understood strictly since St. Iohn speaks to all the Christians to whom he writ Objection 14. Whereas it has been affirmed that the Apostles did not agree Acts 15. till after they had disputed a great while it is not said in that Chapter That the Apostles disputed but only that When there had been much disputing Peter rose up c. Answer Two things were considered in this History The first is The Opinion that Men had of the Apostles viz. That they were not look'd upon as Persons infallible whensoever they began to speak of the Gospel since they were not believ'd just at their first speaking The second is The Conduct of the Apostles on
this occasion which is express'd in these terms The Apostles and Elders came together for to consider of this matter And when there had been much disputing Peter rose up and said c. The common Opinion is that when the Debate was about Doctrinal Matters the Truth was immediately presented to the Minds of the Apostles without any need of Meditation This is undoubtedly true as to the things that Jesus Christ had taught them clearly And they needed no extraordinary Inspiration to call them to mind But this Principle is extended by some to all the Functions of their Charge Now ask if that were so what need was there that the Apostles should not only meet but also talk a long while together The first that had spoke would have sound all the rest of the same mind and there would have been no more to do but for him to pronounce upon the Question according to their general though tacit Agreement It cannot be said there was no Conference amongst the Apostles and Elders concerning this doctrine since St. Luke after having said that the Apostles and Elders came together immediately adds that there was much disputing and that Peter rose up and said c. Neither can the Principle of Mr. Simon be here made use of who says that the Apostles might not determine any thing by their own Authority but by the common Consent of all the Church and that therefore it was that they assembl'd and expos'd in publick their Reasons for not imposing Jewish Ceremonies upon the Gentiles If the Apostles were as much inspir'd as the Jewish Prophets of the Old Testament it is ridiculous to say that they ought to determine nothing by their own Authority but by the Consent of all the Church They had no more to do but to declare what the holy Spirit had reveal'd to them as did the Prophets who met not together to confer about their prophecies before the pronouncing of them but pronounc'd them as soon as God had commanded them without staying for any body's Consent And herein they acted not by their private Authority but by the Authority that God gave them in commanding them to speak to the People No more would the Apostles have acted by their own private Authority in following the Motions of the holy Spirit But Mr. Simon has fancy'd a very particular sort of Inspiration in the Apostles He says it was necessary they should declare that they determin'd nothing which was not conformable to the holy Scriptures and to the Doctrine which they had receiv'd from their Master and that for that Reason it was necessary to deliberate thereupon in Assemblies in which their Opinions happen'd to be sometimes divided A Man must be very acute that can comprehend how Men inspir'd after a Prophetic manner could be of different Opinions But Mr. Simon clears this Difficulty wonderfully in the following words We ought not says he to be surpriz'd at this Diversity of Opinions since every one grounded his particular one upon Inspiration Now this is that which should have hinder'd them from being of different Opinions since assuredly God inspires not several Opinions about one and the same thing It is all one as if one should say that we ought not to be surpriz'd that of two Prophets one should say a thing shall happen and the other that it shall not happen because they both ground their Predictions upon Inspiration And indeed Mr. Simon corrects himself after a fashion by adding Or rather upon the Authority of the Scriptures and the Light which they had receiv'd from Religion If he understands by the Inspiration of the Apostles nothing but the Light which they had receiv'd from Religion why does he make all this ado since herein we agree with him He ought to tell us whether or no when the Apostles spoke by Inspiration they did any thing but express in their own way the Reasonings which God had put ready fram'd into their Minds If that be so how can we conceive that their Opinions should not be one and the same And if he inspir'd them not with the Reasonings they used then we cannot attribute Prophetic Inspiration to them since it is therein that Prophetic Inspiration consists It is very absurd therefore to believe that all the Reasonings the Apostles us'd in preaching the Gospel and all those we read in their Books were inspir'd For it is therein that the Inspiration of the Apostles is ordinarily conceiv'd to consist This is that uniform constant and ordinary Inspiration which Mr. Simon comprehends not because he never thought well upon it Nor indeed does he know what Opinion he is of Sometimes he speaks like the generality of Divines sometimes again he openly contradicts them as may be seen by the words I have cited He must study a little better this matter if he will have us answer him For it is very likely that for the most part he understands not himself I will give but one Example more of it It is that which he says concerning the Author of Ecclesiastes p. 138. For we need but read his words to find that the Prior of Bolleville minds not what he says The Author says he of this Work did not design ONLY to perswade Men to pass their Time in Pleasure To which may be added that Declamation being the proper Character of a Preacher it is no wonder to see him despise all the ordinary Business and Imployments of the World and to prefer an easy commodious Life before all the Troubles that attend a contrary Practice For which he is not to be censur'd as if he were an Epicure after the manner that Mr. N. here understands the Opinions of the Epicureans He would have done well to have told us of what sort of Epicurism the Author of the Ecclesiastes may be accus'd Objection 15. It is a great piece of Boldness to judg four Books of the Old Testament three that bear the Name of Solomon and that of Iob as unworthy to be in the Hebrew Canon That Liberty of censuring would weaken the Principles of our Religion For every one by the same Rule may say that such or such a Book is not Canonical according to his own fancy Answer Although we may reject some Books of the Old Testament it does not follow that we may do the same by all of them Neither does it follow because many Ancient and Modern Divines have thought it would have been better not to have joined with the Writings of the Apostles certain Books that are now in the Canon of the New Testament that therefore we may reject all the Books of the Apostles There are Books that are indisputably of those Authors whose Name they bear and there are others which have been questionable and are so still amongst the Learned as the Epistle to the Hebrews that of St. Iames the second of St. Peter the two last of St. Iohn and that of St. Iude. These Doubts hinder us not from
may be found in the Old Testament For Example David says of himself and of his Enemies divers things without thinking of prophesying which contain nevertheless Predictions of that which ought to happen to Christ and his Enemies He says Psal. XLI 10. He that ate of my Bread hath lift up his Heel against me He meant surely some of those who were risen against him in Asolom's Conspiracy as Achitophel or some other and he speaks plainly of a thing happened to himself It is this very thing that inspires him if one may so say these words which betoken what should befal Jesus Christ by the Treachery of one of his Disciples as appears by Iohn XIII 18. The Author of the LXIX th and CIX th Psalms whether it were David or some other did not probably think of fore-telling what should one day befal a Disciple of the Messiah when he curs'd his Enemies And yet St. Peter in the Acts applies some words of these Psalms to Iudas There needs no great sharpsightedness to see that the Author pretended not to speak of Iudas and that he was not immediately inspir'd by the good and merciful Spirit of God when he said Set thou a wicked Man over him and let Satan stand at his Right-hand When he shall be judged let him be condemned and let his Prayer become Sin Let his days be few and let another take his Office Let his Children be Fatherless and his Wife a Widow Let his Children continually be Vagabonds and beg let them seek their Bread also out of their desolate places Let the Extortioner catch all that he hath and let the Stranger spoil his Labour Let there be none to extend Mercy unto him neither let there be any to favour his Fatherless Children Let his Posterity be cut off and in the Generation following let their Name be blotted out Let the Iniquity of his Fathers be remembred with the Lord and let not the Sin of his Mother be blotted out c. It is plain that these are the words of a Man full of excessive Choler and of an extream desire to be revenged Now the Law of Moses permitted not any more than the Gospel to with ill or do it to Children in revenge of the Injury received from their Parents Yet some famous Divines have put in the Title of this Psalm That David AS A TYPE OF JESUS CHRIST being driven on by a singular Zeal prays that Vengeance may be executed on his Enemies And where do they find that Jesus Christ does curse his Enemies at that rate Have they forgotten the words that proceeded from his dying Mouth in favour of the wickedest Race that ever was Those that crucified him were they not the greatest Enemies he had and the most obstinate Adversaries of the Gospel And far from making the Imprecations against them that they deserved did not he pray to his Father to forgive them Has he not ordered us to imitate him and to pray for those that persecute us I cannot understand how it can be said that David as a Type of Iesus Christ made such horrible Imprecations against his Enemies I confess I understand not Christian Religion if it permit the pronouncing such Curses and the wishing to be revenged after so cruel a manner as does the Author of this Psalm and those of divers others in which we find such like Imprecations As that of Psal. cxxxvii O Daughter of Babylon who art to be destroyed happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little Ones against the Stones God forbid that we should desire to dash out the Brains of Infidel's Children Yet nevertheless we see that all these Psalms are indifferently sung in Protestant Churches without taking notice that they are not all equally inspir'd And I remember that asking a Divine how we could sing Psalms full of such Imprecations He answered me slightly that it was lawful to use them against the Enemies of the Church and that for his part he made that Application to them when he sung these Psalms Thus you see what the Jewish Opinion of the Inspiration of words and of the Divinity of each Verse of the Scripture produces We may conceive another sort of Prophecies which consisted not in foretelling things to come but in explaining the Scripture and in composing readily Hymns to the Honour of God There are some Examples of these Hymns in the New Testament as that of the blessed Virgin Mary and some others It seems as if there went only Piety and Zeal to the composing them At least it is very conceivable that a pious zealous Man may easily now a days praise God in that manner without any Preparation A good part of the Psalms seems to have been thus compos'd as also divers other Songs which are in the Old Testament The Psalms where the Verses or the Pauses begin with the Letters of the Hebrew Alphabet seem to have been compos'd at more leisure For this Regularity shews that there was Meditation and Pains used as is in Acrosticks See Psal. cxix and the Lamentations of Ieremy So we see too that in this sort of Works the Holy Writers do not speak in the Name of God nor begin their Discourse with Thus saith the Lord. Yet we may say that the Authors of these pious Songs were full of the Holy Spirit when they compos'd them that is to say it was a Spirit of Piety that carry'd them to take pains in those Compositions and in that sense we may say that they were inspir'd by God though not so immediately as Predictions The Spirit of God is often taken for the Spirit of Holiness that is to say for a disposition of Spirit conformable to the Commandments of God as many Learned Men have observed I will now remark briefly in what manner the Sacred Histories have been written And then in treating of Doctrines I will speak of that sort of Prophecy that consists in explaining the Holy Scripture It is certain that those who took pains in the Histories of the Old and New Testament were pious Persons who had not writ those Histories but out of a Principle of Piety It was not to satisfy our Curiosity that they undertook those Works but to show us the Care that the Providence of God hath always taken of good People and the Punishments it inflicts upon the wicked to give us Examples of Piety and Vertue and lastly to inform us of certain matters of Fact upon which our Faith is founded and of the Precepts which God had given to Jews and Christians by the Ministry of his Prophets Apostles Angels themselves and even of his own Son We ought also to believe that they have given us the Truth of the History to the best of their knowledg without adding or substracting any thing out of design to deceive us And as they were very well informed of the principal matters of Fact which they relate
leasure-Time The Iewish Sanhedrim may easily have received into their Canon Books that had no Divine Authority To come now to the Doctrines which are in the Holy Scriptures and not there attributed to a partcular Revelation I will begin with examining those which are in the Writings of the Apostles after which I will pass to those of the Old Testament It is commonly believed that the Apostles as well as the Prophets were inspir'd both as to Words and Things Yet with this difference that the Prophets were not always inspir'd but only when God gave them order to speak to the People in his Name Whereas the Apostles were always inspir'd without being ravisht into Extasies as the Prophets were before their prophesying This Opinion is founded upon the Promise that Christ made his Apostles to send them the holy Spirit which he performed on the Day of Pentecost The words of Christ are Iohn XVI 13. When he the Spirit of Truth shall come he will guide you into all Truth He says also elsewhere to his Apostles When they bring you into the Synagogues and unto Magistrates and Powers take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer or what ye shall say for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say Luk. XII 11. These are two the most formal Passages that can be quoted in this Matter It is requisite that we examine them with some attention to see if they prove that which they are produc'd for viz. That the Apostles were honour'd with a continual presence of the Holy Ghost who dictated to them all that they said in matter of Religion insomuch that all their words ought to be considered as Oracles To begin with the latter I observe first That he does not promise a perpetual Inspiration but only upon certain Occasions viz. when the Apostles should be brought before the Tribunals of Judges So that if there were nothing else in it this Passage would not at all favour the common Opinion But there is more in it for it wholly destroys it If Jesus Christ had resolv'd to give his Apostles the Holy Spirit to inspire them perpetually he would not have told them singly that they should not troble themselves for what they had to say before the Judges because then the Spirit should speak in them But he would have said that they need not fear that at any time they should want words because the holy Spirit should accompany them without ceasing as well before the Powers of the World as when they should speak to the People If a Man had a Design to supply another with Mony for all his Expences Would he say to him Do not trouble your self to get Mony for the Journies you are to take for you shall then be supplied He would rather say to him doubtless that he should not fear to want Mony because he should be suppli'd constantly for all his Occasions A Man promises not for a particular Occasion that which he intends to give alike at all Times And when a Man makes a particular Promise it is a plain sign that he intends to perform it but upon certain Occasions In the second place As I acknowledg that the Apostles may have had Prophetick Inspirations on certain Occasions and that in effect they have had them so I confess that I find my self tempted to believe that by these words The Holy Ghost shall teach you in that hour what ye ought to say Or as St. Matthew has expressed it It is not ye that speak it is the Spirit of your Heavenly Father that speaks in you I am I say tempted to believe that by these words Christ meant only to say this viz. The Spirit of Courage and Holiness which the Gospel produces in your Hearts will teach ye what ye ought to say That is to say That the Apostles had no more to do but to believe in the Gospel to be assur'd that the Disposition of Spirit which that Heavenly Doctrine would give them would never let them want words not even when they were to defend themselves before the Tribunals of the greatest Powers That which inclines me to this Explication of Christ's words is that in comparing this Promise with the Event it seems not to have been performed in any other sense than that which I have now observ'd and that neither ought it to be interpreted so strictly as if on these Occasions a Word might not slip from the Apostles that were not conformable to the Spirit of the Gospel St. Luke tell us Acts XXIII that St. Paul having been brought before the Sanhedrim began to speak after this manner Men and Brethren I have liv'd in all good Conscience before God until this day Here is nothing yet that one might not say without Inspiration as neither is there any thing but what is conformable to the Gospel But what follows is a sign of Passion wherewith neither the Spirit of Prophecy nor the Patient Spirit of the Gospel inspired St. Paul At that words says St. Luke Ananias the High Priest commanded them that stood by to smite him on the Mouth The Apostle provok'd by this Unjustice answers him angrily God shall smite thee thou whited Wall For sittest thou to judg me according to the Law and commandest thou me to be smitten contrary to the Law And they that stood by says St. Luke said to Paul Revilest thou God's High Priest Then said Paul I wist not Brethren that he was the High Priest For it is written Thou shalt not speak Evil of the Ruler of thy People It is plain me-thinks that if the Spirit of Prophecy had inspir'd St. Paul with the beginning of this Discourse it did not so neither with the Answer he made the High Priest nor with the Excuse he made use of afterward when they told him he was the High Priest that he spoke to He gave Sentence against himself by his Answer supposing that he had known him who order'd him to be smitten And as for the Excuse it is plain it is not very good because the Gospel allows not to revile any Man whether he be a Magistrate or a private Man Iesus Christ says St. Peter has suffered for us leaving us an Example that we should follow his steps who when he was reviled reviled not again when he suffered threatned not but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously Neither do I believe that the Spirit of Prophecy inspir'd St. Paul with what he said afterward At least there is no Body but could have said as much without Inspiration Now St. Paul knowing says the Historian that the one part were Sadduces and the other Pharisees cried out in the Council Men and Brethren I am a Pharisee the Son of a Pharisee of the Hope and Resurrection of the Dead I am called in question This expression also of St. Luke Paul knowing makes it evident that his Speech was an Effect of his Prudence rather than
Judgment not to answer at all than to answer ill and to seek only to defame an Author whom one cannot confute I should be the more troubled to see that done by how much I understand that the Author is a very pious Man and one who assuredly believes not the evil Consequences which some Men too ready to judg of their Neighbours may draw from his Notions I fear that he you speak of would content himself in gathering together a great number of those odious Consequences and would think that he had thereby sufficiently refuted the Opinion without considering that tho a Man cannot disingage a Doctrine from the absurd Consequences that by some may be link'd to it it does not therefore follow that the Doctrine is false It should first be made appear that the Arguments brought for an Opinion are not solid and after that one may come to the Consequences Otherwise while the Arguments that prove an Opinion subsist in full force all the Consequences that may be deriv'd from it cannot overthrow it Nevertheless if you believe him capable to acquit himself of this undertaking you may perswade him to it when you think fit But put him in Mind at the same time that it is the part of an honest Man and of one that would bestow his Pains to some good purpose to do it with all the Moderation and Meekness imaginable St. Ierom commends Nepotien That he used to hear willingly answer modestly allow Truth not sharply confute Error and teach rather than conquer whom he disputed with And it were to be wished that our Divines now adays would make it their business to deserve so good an Elogy whereas it seems that they strive only to attain to the Name of great Railers and value not Peoples having an ill Opinion of their Manners provided that they pass for Men of Parts I speak not this as if I suspected that Mr. resembles one of those Divines I find fault with but because I believe a Man cannot be too much caution'd against so general a Defect But these Moralities would carry me too far if I should give my self the liberty to pursue them It is better that I keep my word with you and give you the following part of that Writing And here it is Let us now examine that Passage of St. Iohn When the Spirit of Truth shall come he will lead you into all Truth Interpreters observe that we must not understand by All Truths any others than those which the Apostles were ignorant of and which it was needful for them to know that they might be able to acquit themselves as they ought to do of their Charge They receiv'd not the holy Spirit to learn for Example that there was a God nor to be instructed in the Mathematicks They knew already this first Truth and of the other they had no need The generality of Interpreters believe that these words denote a perpetual Assistance of the holy Spirit that made the Apostles absolutely infallible To know whether they are in the right or no we must examine the Accomplishment of the Promise and if it appear that it agrees not with this Explanation of our Saviour's words we must seek another sense and try to discover wherein the Infallibility of the Apostles consists We find a Story Acts xv whereby it appears manifestly that the Apostles did not pass in their own time for persons whose every word was an Oracle as they are now reputed to have done Some Jews converted to the Christian Religion not being able to shake off their ancient Opinion concerning Ceremonies would have had the Gentiles circumcis'd St. Paul and St. Barnabas were against this but their Authority was not sufficient to put to silence the Judaizing Christians Altho St. Paul was as much an Apostle as those whom our Lord had chosen while he was on Earth yet they would not believe him The Church at Ierusalem must be consulted Further also the Apostles and Elders of the Church being assembl'd to examine and determine this Affair dispute a great while before they agree upon it and it was not till after they had heard St. Peter St. Paul St. Barnahas and St. Iames that the Assembly came to a Resolution If they had been fill'd with the Spirit of Infallibility such as is conceiv'd now adays they would have been all at first of one Mind and there would have needed no more to be done but to charge one of them to give out the Oracle in the Name of the whole Assembly There happen'd likewise before that another thing related by St. Luke Acts x. which makes it also very evident that the Holy Ghost which the Apostles receiv'd the day of Pentecost had not taught them all they ought to know so far was it from rendring them at first dash infallible and that they were not then consider'd as Persons out of danger of falling into Error as they have been since accounted St. Peter needed a Vision as appears by the Story of Cornelius the Centurion to learn that he ought not to scruple preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles although Christ had order'd his Apostles before his ascending into Heaven to preach the Gospel unto all Creatures whereby he clearly enough denoted the Gentiles as well as the Iews St. Peter after having obey'd the express Order which he receiv'd from God to preach the Gospel to Cornelius was no sooner returned to Ierusalem but the faithful Ones of the Circumcision not dreaming that his Apostleship render'd him infallible dispute with him and tell him after a manner that shows that the Infallibility which we now attribute to him was to them unknown Thou wentest unto Men uncircumcis'd and didst eat with them Many Years as it seems after that Peter being at Antioch had not the Courage to maintain openly that the Jews might eat with the Gentiles without scruple For before that certain Persons came from James he did eat with the Gentiles but when they were come he withdrew and separated himself fearing them which were of the Circumcision And the other Iews dissembled likewise with him insomuch that St. Paul observing that they walked not uprightly was obliged to tell Peter before them all If thou being a Iew livest after the manner of Gentiles and not as do the Iews why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Iews It is said that St. Peter was guilty of a fault only in his Conduct and not in his Doctrine that he believ'd and maintain'd the same with St. Paul but that on this occasion he dissembled his Opinion and that he did not otherways constrain the Gentiles to live as the Iews but in abstaining to eat with them The Gentiles say they seeing that St. Peter did not eat with them because they were uncircumcis'd did by reason of this his Conduct believe themselves oblig'd to be circumcis'd and consequently to observe the other Ceremonies of the Law They believ'd that it was a Sin to
continue uncircumcis'd because St. Peter forbore to live familiarly with them on that account and on the contrary that it was a Duty to observe the Circumcision So that it was by his Conduct only that St. Peter forc'd them to live as Iews And indeed it is true that by efficaciously engaging one to do a thing after what manner soever it be we are said to force one to do it See Gen. xix 3. Luke xxiv 19. I believe really that this is the best Explanation But it proves clearly that the Metaphysical Infallibility which is attributed to the Apostles is not of Apostolick Tradition For in truth to dissemble a true Doctrine when they ought to preach it and to ingage People in an Error by their Conduct is visibly a human Weakness and which becomes not those who are look'd upon as the simple Instruments of the holy Spirit speaking by their Mouths St. Peter's Conduct gave the Gentiles to understand as well as if he had told it them that they must observe the Circumcision and to give them to understand it by forbearing to eat with them was almost the same thing as to tell it them by word of Mouth Nay more it is not unlikely that St. Peter believed that this Dissimulation was lawful as well as St. Barnabas and the other Iews who had followed his Example otherwise it is not credible that so pious Men who were the first Ministers of the Gospel would have done it And so we must confess that they were guilty of some weakness even in Doctrine although they recanted it soon nor was it of great importance There is also a great difference observable in the manner of Christ's speaking He that had received the Spirit without measure and that in which the Apostles express themselves whereas according to the common Opinion it ought to be the same If the same Spirit had render'd them infallible they had right to declare to the World the Doctrine of Salvation with the same Power and to speak as authoritatively as Jesus Christ. But we see the contrary in their Writings Christ spoke as one having Authority You have heard it was said of old c. But I say unto you c. The Apostles on the contrary declare that they say nothing of themselves and refer all to the Prophets and to Jesus Christ Acts xxvi 22. 1 Cor. xi 23. And that which is yet more considerable is that they distinguish manifestly that which they say themselves from that which Christ had said And unto the Married I command yet not I but the Lord c. But to the rest speak I not the Lord c. So St. Paul speaks 1 Cor. vii 10 12. which he would not have done had he been aware that his Auditors had believ'd his words as infallible as the words of Christ. Methinks these are convincing Proofs that the Apostles had not a perpetual Inspiration which might give their words an indisputable Authority I do not deny but they had many immediate Inspirations and divers Heavenly Visions as appears by the Acts by the Revelations and by divers other places of Scripture Nay I am so fully perswaded they had that I think him no good Christian who doubts of it But the Question here is concerning an uniform constant and ordinary Inspiration as it is commonly explained in the Divinity-Schools It may be you will say there are divers Arguments for this sort of Inspiration as strong as those I have brought to shew the contrary The Apostles began their Letter Acts xv after this manner It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us By which it appears say some that they were fill'd with the Spirit of Infallibility which dictated to them what they ought to say I desire first that those who say so reconcile this Supposition with the Dispute that was among the Apostles before they came to this Conclusion In the second place It is not likely that if the Holy Ghost had possess'd them in such a manner that they had been only simple Instruments by which He express'd his Will they should not have plac'd themselves in equal Rank with the Him but should have said simply It has appear'd good to the Holy Ghost who speaks by us What Prophet ever said it seem'd good to God and to me In the third place Suppose there be here as the Critics say a Figure by which is express'd one and the same thing by two words and that this manner of speaking amounts to no more but this It has seemed good to us who are full of the Holy Ghost The perpetual Inspiration about which I am now arguing cannot be hence concluded The Apostles and all the Church of Ierusalem were animated by the Spirit of the Gospel without being continually full of the Spirit of Prophecy If it were otherwise we should be forced to say that the whole Church of Ierusalem not only the Apostles but also the Elders of the Church and all those who were assembled were perpetually accompanied with a Spirit of Infallibility which no body ever yet said nor is it at all likely In the fourth place The Conclusion of the Letter they write seems extreamly weak for the Conclusion of a positive Law FROM WHICH YOU SHALL DO WELL TO KEEP YOUR SELVES A Prophet under the Old Testament would have said From which keep your selves for so saith the Lord whose Commandments you cannot slight without your own Destruction c. Some may also here object the Spirit of Miracles and Tongues which the Apostles received the day of Pentecost But the Effusion of that miraculous Spirit did not necessarily render all those that receiv'd it infallible in Doctrine Otherwise all the Christians of that time had been infallible The Church of Corinth had receiv'd the Holy Ghost as appears by the Epistles St. Paul directs to it and so should not have needed that Apostle's Instructions because it had a great number of infallible Persons within it self But it appears on the contrary that it needed his Instructions not only to correct its Vices but also to resolve its Doubts and even to rectify its Errors Thus then the Spirit of Miracles not being accompanied with Infallibility it connot be concluded because the Apostles receiv'd that Spirit the day of Pentecost that they became as Gods and that they were out of all danger of ever falling into the least Error But what signify then these words When the Spirit of Truth shall come he will lead you into all Truth This Spirit of Truth is it not the miraculous Spirit which the Apostles receiv'd I have already observ'd that these words cannot be understood rigorously as if the Apostles had known all Sciences I must add further that there is something extreamly figurative in them as appears by the following words For he shall not speak of himself but what soever he shall hear that he shall speak and he shall shew ye things to come He shall glorify me for he shall receive
of mine and shall shew it unto you All things that the Father hath are mine therefore said I that he shall take of mine and shew it unto you What Opinion soever a Man may be of concerning the Holy Spirit it is plain that these words cannot be taken properly as if the Holy Spirit had heard from God or Jesus Christ that with which he ought to inspire the Apostles The most simple sense and most conformable to the accomplishment of this Promise which can be given to these words is to my thinking this I should explain many things to you more clearly than I have done but you are not yet in condition to receive them as you should When you shall have received the Spirit of Miracles he will teach you the rest that you ought to know either by Visions or by making you call to mind that which I have told you so that he will make you apprehend the sense and will teach you what you ought to do afterwards To speak properly he will tell you nothing new he will but recal into your memory to make you better understand it the Doctrine of my Father which is the same that I have taught you and which I may also call my Doctrine because my Father has charg'd me to preach it as the only Doctor of his Church The Holy Spirit led the Apostles into all Truths and took that which was Christ's without ever speaking of himself in making them call to mind that which they had forgotten and in making them understand on divers occasions or even by extraordinary Revelations that which Christ had said to them but which they then understood not This is plainly that which Christ teaches us in these words These things have I spoken unto you being yet present with you But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you ALL THINGS AND BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE WHATSOEVER I HAVE SAID UNTO YOU Iohn XIV 25 These last words apparently explain the foregoing He shall teach you all Things In effect there is nothing in the Doctrine of the Apostles which Christ had not told them and in leaving them he gave them no other order for the preaching of the Gospel but to teach all People to observe all those things which he had commanded them And the Apostles observe in several places that it was not till after they had received the Holy Spirit that they remember'd and understood divers things which Christ had told them when he was here below These things understood not the Disciples at the first says St. Ioh. XII 16. but when Iesus was enter'd into his Glory then remember'd they that these things were written of him See the same Evangelist II. 22. and Acts XI 16. This is in my Opinion the sense of Christ's words at least I find nothing among the Interpreters that answers so well to the Event which thorowly convinces me that Christ must have meant some such thing For when all 's done whatsoever may be said the Promise ought to be understood by its correspondency with the Accomplishment and there is no better Interpreter of Prophecies than their execution This being so the Infallibility of the Apostles according to my judgment consisted in this They knew clearly the general Principles of the Jewish Religion which had been taught them from their Cradle they had heard Christ often tell what the Gospel added to Judaism or if you will Christ had explain'd to them more clearly the Will of God and had shown them the Errors of the Pharisees He had instructed them concerning the Messiah and had made appear to them by many Proofs that himself was HE God had rais'd him from the Dead and they had convers'd with him after his Resurrection and in the last place they had seen him ascend into Heaven from whence he assur'd them he would come one Day to judg the Quick and the Dead They preach'd faithfully that which they had heard that which they had seen with their Eyes that which they had observ'd with attention and that which they had touch'd with their Hands They could declare without any mistake what they had seen they could preach what they had heard For the Doctrine of Jesus Christ was compris'd in a few Articles plain enough to be understood and consequently easy to be remembered Thus they related infallibly what they had seen and heard and therein it is that their Infallibility consisted Perhaps also the Spirit of Miracles which Christ sent them strengthned their Memories and open'd their Minds after a manner we comprehend not But it is certain as I have made it appear that this Spirit directed them not in so miraculous a manner as to make it necessary for us to regard all they said or writ with the same respect as the words of Jesus Christ the only Master and the only infallible Doctor that ever was amongst Men. He was the only Mystical Ark in which the Godhead dwelt bodily from whence proceeded nothing but Oracles Some may ask perhaps Whether it might not so happen that the Apostles might abandon the Truth of the Gospel and preach a false Doctrine and if it might be so how we can be assur'd that they were not Deceivers I confess that though it was very unlikely that after having receiv'd so many Illuminations and Graces they should fall into Apostacy yet it was not absolutely impossible But in that case God would not have approv'd by Miracles the Doctrine they taught and thereby it is that we may know they were no Seducers There crept in during their Time many false Prophets among the Christians but they were presently discover'd because they could not maintain by Miracles a Doctrine contrary to that of the Apostles which was confirm'd by an infinity of Wonders God made appear by those Prodigies that the Apostles declar'd nothing but what was conformable to his Will nor any thing that could be hurtful to Piety for it is impossible that God would favour a Doctrine which should turn Men from Holiness But we must not believe neither as I have already observ'd that because God wrought Miracles in favour of any Person it therefore follows that all things pronounced by that Person were immediately inspir'd and ought to be receiv'd as the infallible Decisions of him that never errs Provided that Person maintained the Substance of the Gospel and said nothing but what conduced to Piety God would not cease to bear Witness to his Doctrine although all his Reasonings were not Demonstrations God would not that this Mark of his Approbation should be interpreted as if he had thereby declared that he would have all the Words of those that had miraculous Gifts receiv'd as Oracles To be fully convinc'd hereof we need but read the first Epistle to the Corinthians I must nevertheless ingenuously confess that there is mention made in this Epistle of some miraculous Gifts which seem to have
they have taken much pains to correct in themselves the Faults which others commit they have apply'd themselves to reading or they have travell'd in France These Jews born in the Countries where nothing but Greek was spoken understood not the ancient Hebrew nor the Hebrew then spoken in Iudaea They made use in their Synagogues of the Version of the Septuagint and because they spoke nothing but Greek they were call'd the Hellenist Iews Salmasius in his Book of the Hellenist Tongue against Heinsius shows that these Jews spoke very good Greek and that it is very absurd in some Learned Men to imagine there was an Hellenish Tongue as if the Hebrews that knew not their own Language had a particular one different from that of the places where they dwelt and that this Language was that of the Septuagint and of the New Testament If a Name were to be given to this corrupted Greek it should rather be call'd Hebraistic because it is full of Hebraisms or Chaldaisms But as the Language of the Walloons or of some of the Provinces of France cannot pass for a particular Language being nothing but a corrupted French so neither ought the barbarous Greek of Iudaea to pass for a Language by it self different from the Greek Language It is no wonder then if the Apostles who had liv'd a good part of their Lives in Iudaea or who were born there and had not apply'd themselves to learn perfectly the Greek Tongue nor to speak it in purity use it so improperly in their Writings St. Paul himself born in a Town that spoke nothing but Greek had so corrupted his Speech by his long dwelling in Iudaea that he confesses he was ignorant in the Language 2 Cor. XI 6. as sufficiently appears by all his Epistles the Greek whereof is very different from that of Iosephus And therefore the Greek Fathers have complain'd of the obscurity of his Stile of the barbarous Phrases that are therein and of apparent Confusion in the order of his Discourses and those who very readily understood Plato and Demosthenes were oblig'd as Erasums judiciously observes to take great pains to understand St. Paul We need but compare his Stile with that of some Greek Author to find that this Apostle apply'd himself not much to the Greek Eloquence It is plain then that the holy Spirit inspir'd not the Apostles with the Expressions they were to use If it had been so St. Paul could not have said he was ignorant in the Language He should have said that the holy Spirit inspir'd him with a Language such as was that of the People And all the Greek Fathers would have blasphemed against the holy Spirit when they observ'd the little Eloquence of St. Paul for according to this Supposition that would not have proceeded from St. Paul but from the holy Spirit If any one doubt of this he need but read Erasmus in the places I have cited It is true that a famous Protestant Divine has undertaken to confute him in his Annotations upon the 10 th Chapter of the Acts but he does nothing but declame as he is us'd to do against an Author more learned and more judicious than himself without bringing any solid Reason We must now speak a word of some Books of the Old Testament that contain neither History nor Prophecy such are the Books of Proverbs Ecclesiastes the Song of Solomon and Iob which last is apparently a Dramatic Piece whereof nothing but the Subject is true as are the Tragedies of the Greek Poets There is no Proof that what is contained in the Proverbs was inspir'd to Solomon by God after a Prophetic manner They are Moral Sentences which a good Man might well pronounce without Inspiration as are those contain'd in Ecclesiastious There are very many of them that are but vulgar Proverbs which carry indeed a good Sense but have nothing in them of Divine There are a great many Directions about Oeconomy which Women and Country-People every-where know without Revelation See Chap. XXIV 27. and XXVII 23. and the Description of a vertuous Woman at the latter end of the Book The Name of Prophet is very liberally bestow'd on Agur the Son of Iakeh for some Moralities that are found under his Name Prov. XXX Whereas I dare be bold to say better things might have been said without the Spirit of Prophecy Three things says he for Example are too marvellouss for me and even four which I know not The way of an Eagle in the Air The way of a Serpent on a Rock The way of a Ship in the midst of the Sea and the way of a Man with a Maid One must have a mean Opinion of the Spirit of Prophecy to believe that it dictated such things as these And indeed neither does the Author pretend to that Eminency but says modestly concerning himself That he is more brutish than any Man and has not the Vnderstanding of a Man But there is particularly one Precept of good Husbandry that is often repeated which our Merchants now adays know as well as the Israelites that liv'd in Solomon's time It is that which expresly forbids them to be Surety for any body Chap. VI. 1. XVII 18. XX. 16. XXII 26. XXVII 13. It is true by the Rules of good Husbandry a Man should never be Surety but there happens oftentimes Cases wherein Charity ought to be preferr'd before good Husbandry as appears by the Parable of the Samaritan who became Surety for the Expence of the Jew that was found hurt on the Road. There is methinks no great need that God should send Prophets to teach Men good Husbandry on the contrary it was very necessary that Christ should preach Liberality Some Learned Men have believ'd that Ecclesiastes is a Dialogue where a pious Man disputes with an impious one who is of the Opinion of the Sadduces And in effect there are things directly oppos'd one to another which it cannot be suppos'd the same Person speaks The Epicurean Conclusion To eat drink and be merry because a Man has nothing else which is up and down in many places of this Book is altogether contrary to that Conclusion at the end of the Work Fear God and keep his Commandments c. But it is extreamly difficult to distinguish the Persons or to find out exactly in the Name of what Person the Author speaks in every Passage However it be there appears in it nothing of Prophetic and there is little likelihood that the Spirit of God would set out with so great strength the Arguments of Sadduces or perhaps of worse Men to answer them but in two or three words Read the beginning of the ninth Chapter and make Reflection on these words The living know that they shall die but the dead know not any thing neither have they any more a Reward for the Memory of them is forgotten Also their Love and their Hatred and their Envy is now perish'd neither have they any more a Portion for ever
Spirit is also ambiguous for either it signifies as I have taken it a certain divine Inspiration which both the ordinary Prophets had and sometimes David and Daniel or it signifies a pious Motion or Faculty stirring a Man up to utter useful Precepts relating to Human Life or Political or Civil Matters Thus Maimonides interprets the word Holy Spirit where he treats of those Historical and Moral Writings If Luke had written by the dictating of the Holy Spirit he would have fetch'd his Authority from thence as the Prophets do rather than from Witnesses whose Credit he follows c. Rivet was mightily scandalized or at least seem'd to be so at an answer so contradictory to the common Opinions But Grotius explain'd himself yet more clearly and strongly in his Refutation of Rivet 's Apology Grotius says he himself willingly acknowledges that the Prophets who were commanded by God to write or speak did write and spoke by Inspiration from him His Opinion is also the same as to the Apocalyse and the Predictions made by the Apostles He esteems it the highest Impiety to make any doubt that all that was said by Iesus Christ was said by God himself Concerning the Historical Writings and the Moral Sentences of the Hebrews he is of another Opinion He thinks it sufficient to believe that they were written out of a pious Intention and with great Ingenuity and concerning matters of highest importance c. Neither Esdras nor Luke were Prophets but grave and prudent Men who neither were minded to deceive nor would suffer themselves to be deceived Did Luke say The Word of the Lord came to Luke and the Lord said to him write as the Prophets us'd to say Nothing like it What then For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a Declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us He says not that by Command but by the Example of others he was induced to write Even as they delivered them to us who from the beginning were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word viz. Mary the Mother of our Lord other of his Kinsmen the Apostles the seventy Disciples and the Saints that had been rais'd again by Iesus many Witnesses of his Resurrection It seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first c. Vnderstanding how acquir'd From Eye-witnesses not by Revelation To write not things dictated but in order The Prophets then had another sort of Impulse than Luke whose good Design nevertheless may be ascrib'd to the Holy Spirit After the Death of Grotius there came out a third Answer of Rivert's wherein he strives to defend the common Opinion against his famous Antagonist It appears plainly by the manner of his answering that he believ'd that the Holy Spirit had dictated the Scripture word for word and this Opinion is known to be the common Opinion of Protestants who on all occasions call the sacred Writers Amanuenses of the holy Spirit Nay even Catholick Authors Gregory de Valence Bellarmin Tolet and Estius cited by Rivet seem to have been of the same Opinion Cornelius à Lapide whom Mr. Simon cites holds the same concerning the Law and the Prophets though he confesses it was not necessary that God should dictate the words when it was only matter of History or of Moral Precepts which might be known otherways So that it may be reasonably suppos'd that the greatest part of Christian Divines now adays are of the Opinion of verbal Inspiration if we may so call it since there are very few that say the contrary and those who do say it only of some Books as Cornelius à Lapide Every body knows that not only in Sermons but also in Divinity-Lectures upon any part of Scripture some Men strangely wire-draw the Words of the Scripture and seek after Reasons why the holy Spirit as they speak makes use of one Expression rather than another The same thing they do also in Commentaries Which would be altogether absurd if my Supposition were admitted that the Stile of the Scriptures is for the most part human and even careless enough But this is because they commonly take the Opinion of the Jews for granted who have a Proverb or general Maxim concerning the Books of the Law in which they believe all to be inspir'd even to a single Letter that there is not a Letter in the Law whereon there depends not great Mountains I am very glad however that Mr. Simon declares himself openly of the same Opinion with me concerning the Stile of the sacred Writers I wish all Protestants would do the same We should then soon be free from many Disputes that are grounded upon nothing but Grammatical Subtilties We should then perceive that we ought not rigorously to insist upon a great many Expressions in the utmost extent of their Signification as if the sacred Pen-Men had spoken with the same Exactness as do Geometricians We should then understand that no Doctrines which we esteem important ought to be grounded barely upon certain manners of speaking which we cannot be sure were exact because the sacred Writers not affecting exactness of Stile may have used that manner of Expression without any design Such is the Doctrine of the antecedent Imputation of the Sin of Adam which is founded upon the Comparison St. Paul makes Chap. V. of the Epistle to the Romans between the Grace that came by Jesus Christ and the Sin that entred into the World by Adam Men stretch this Comparison with too much Rigor not considering that St. Paul's Stile is the Stile of one that observes little Exactness in his Expressions although in the main his Arguments are admirable and that the laying too great stress upon the turn of his Phrases may expose us to the hazard of falling into gross Error The general Design that he proposes to himself ought only to be stuck to without insisting particularly upon every term and every distinct Period which taken separately and strictly may oft-times prove contrary to what he drives at Those who are a little conversant in the Disputes amongst Protestants will easily see the importance of this Remark The ingenuous Acknowledgment of what there is of Human in the sacred Writings would render the Truth of our Religion more conspicuous to the Eyes of the incredulous whereas it is hid from them by clothing it in certain Notions which common Sense makes them reject and from among which they are not able to pick out the Heavenly Truths Men fancy that for the Establishment of Religion it is requisite to maintain every thing or any thing that if true would be an invincible Proof of it they cast therefore about in their own Minds for such Foundations as they conceive would make it most stable With this their Brain becomes so heated that in the end they rashly assert that these are the real Foundations of Religion and that if these be taken
he believ'd not that the Apostles were mov'd by a perpetual Inspiration to write what they did We may joyn with St. Ierom Origen from whom he had this Opinion concerning the Dispensation that he attributes to these two Apostles and divers Greek Fathers who also followed Origen as St. Ierom writing to St. Austin observes in the Apology he makes for this part of his Commentary Thus you see that the most able Interpreters of Scripture that Christian Antiquity has had have been of the same Opinion with me I may also say that the most Learned Criticks of these last Ages have believ'd the same thing since Erasmus and Grotius have publickly maintain'd it those two great Men who are beyond dispute in the first Rank amongst the Moderns that have concern'd themselves in writing on the Bible Quorum se pectore tota Vetustas Condidit major collestis viribus exit Erasmus upon the second Chapter of St. Matthew says thus St. Jerom abhors the Imputation of Falshood to the Apostles not that of slips of Memory Nor is the Authority of the Scripture forthwith questionable because they differ in Words or Sense as long as the main of the Matter treated of and that whereon our Salvation depends is clear For as that Divine Spirit that govern'd the Mind of the Apostles suffered them to be ignorant of some things to make Mistakes and to err either in Iudgment or Affection without any damage to the Gospel nay it improves that failing to the help of our Faith so it is not unlikely that it so influenced the Faculty of their Memory that though something after the manner of Men might scape them yet that should not only not derogate from the Credit of the Holy Scripture but might even gain Credit to it with those who otherwise might be apt to slander it as written by Confederacy Of this sort is that of putting one Name for another which Jerom confesses to be somewhere done or of relating things out of order c. Christ only is stiled the Truth He alone was free from all Error He says also upon Acts X. Neither do I think it necessary to attribute every thing that was in the Apostles to a Miracle They were Men some things they were ignorant of in some they were mistaken He maintains likewise the same Opinion at large in his Epistles lib. 2. Ep. 6. against Eckius who had blam'd him in a Letter he had written to him and he thus concludes all that matter Christ suffer'd his own to err even after they had receiv'd the Comforter but without danger of Apostatizing from the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith even as at this day we confess the Church may err witthout that danger And to conclude how do you know whether Christ would not that this compleat Praise should be kept only for himself who stiles himself alone the Truth As he alone was without Spot or Blemish of Sin according to the Opinion of the Antients so perhaps he only was beyond all exception true Nothing could be said more formally upon this Subject But Grotius who speaks not so plainly is not wanting for all that to explain himself sufficiently giving us to understand that all that the Apostles said was not in his Opinion immediately inspir'd Paul says he in his Appendix to his Commentary concerning Anti-Christ in two places 1 Thess. IV. 14. and 2 Cor. XV. 22. speaking of the Resurection divides those that are to rise again into two kinds Those who are already dead and those who shall be alive at that time But of this last number he makes himself one using this Pronoun We And in that to the Corinthians We that shall be alive as much as to say he made account that the Resurrection would happen within the time of his Life speaking herein not dogmatically but conjecturally as he does also concerning his Iourney into Spain Rom. XV. 28. and frequently in other places As not the Prophets so neither had the Apostles constant Revelations in all things And the things in which they had not receiv'd Revelation of those they speak conjecturally as other Men. We have Examples thereof 1 Sam. XVI 6. 2 Sam. VII 3. The ablest Divine among the Arminians was also of this Opinion as you may see by consulting the place in the Margent but to ease you of seeking it if you are not at leisure or want convenience I will transcribe some of the words It is not absurd to grant says he that the holy Spirit may have left the Writers of the sacred Books to the common Condition of Mankind and to their own Frailty in relating those things that belonged to the Circumstance of a Fact for which a due knowledg and Memory was sufficient even altho that was subject to failing He says also a little lower It is better and would perhaps cause less Scandal to acknowledg freely and willingly a light failing of Memory that so we may not seem to favour things wrested and absurd rather than to make use of absurd Interpretations in excuse of lighter failings Otherwise the suspicion of a failing is not only not avoided but it is increased and because the Fault is not acknowledged it seems as if Truth were not in good earnest sought by us but that Obstinacy were for some reason or other made use of which ought to be look'd upon as the greatest Reproach imaginable to Professors of the Christian Religion He shows afterwards That it follows not because the Apostles might be deceived in things of small importance that therefore they could fall into any considerable Error for want of Memory And the principal Reason he gives is For that the Fundamental Doctrines depend not on a Circumstance which they could forget nor have they any thing in them obscure or hard to be retain'd Which is so true says he that I make no difficulty to affirm That if any one says there is a Sense in the Scripture necessary to Salvation which appears at first contrary to Reason we ought thereby to judg he attributes to the Scripture a Sense it has not And this is what I believe and am convinc'd of by reading the sacred Books I confess that the most part of Divines now a days are of a contrary Opinion But as I pretend not to oblige any body to approve my Judgment by the Authority of those I have quoted so neither do I hold my self obliged to submit to the Authority of a crowd of Learned Men who do but say the same thing one after another without ever examining or bringing Reasons for it We must however observe here two things of very great importance which are not ordinarily reflected on The first is That in one Controversy which we have with the Roman Church our Divines do all agree that we ought not to have so much regard to Words as Things for upon supposition that in the Apocryphal Books there is nothing contrary to