With refpect to prophecy, you may, perhaps, have accustomed yourfelves to confider it, as originating in Afiatic enthufiafm, in Chaldean myftery, or in the fubtle ftratagem of interested priests: and have given yourselves no more trouble concerning the predictions of facred, than concerning the oracles of Pagan hiftory, Or, if ever you have caft a glance upon this fubject, the diffenfions of learned men concerning the proper interpretation of the revelation, and other difficult prophecies, may have made you rafhly conclude, that all prophecies were equally unintelligible; and more indebted for their accomplishment, to a fortunate concurrence of events, and the pliant ingenuity of the expofitor, than to the infpired forefight of the prophet. In all that the prophets of the Old Teftament have delivered, concerning the deftruction of particular cities, and the defolation of particular kingdoms, you may fee nothing but threwd conjectures, which any one acquainted with the hiftory of the rife and fall of empires, might certainly have made: and as you would not hold him for a prophet, who fhould now affirm, that London or Paris would afford to future ages, a fpectacle just as melancholy, as that which we now contemplate, with a figh, in the ruins of Agrigentum or Palmyra; fo you cannot perfuade yourselves to believe, that the denunciations of the prophets against the haughty cities of Tyre or Babylon, for inftance, proceeded from the infpiration of the Deity. There is no doubt, that by fome fuch general kind of reafoning, many are influenced to pay no attention to an argument, which, if properly confidered, carries with it the strongest conviction.

Spinoza faid, That he would have broken his atheistic fyftem to pieces, and embraced without repugnance the ordinary faith of Chriftians, if he could have perfuaded himself of the refurrection of Lazarus from the dead; and I question not, that there are many difbelievers, who would relinquish their deiftic tenets, and receive the gospel, if they could perfuade themfelves, that God had ever fo far interfered in the moral government of the world, as to illumine the mind of any one man with the knowledge of future events. A miracle strikes the fenfes of the pe fons who fee it, a prophecy addreffes itself to the understandings of thofe

who behold its completion; and it re quires, in many cafes, fome learning, in all fome attention, to judge of the correfpondence of events with the predictions concerning them. No one can be convinced, that what Jeremiah and the other prophets foretold of the fate of Babylon, that it fhould be befieged by the Medes; that it should be taken, when her mighty men were drunken, when her springs were dried up; and that it should become a pool of water, and should remain defolate for ever; no one, I fay, can be convinced, that all thefe, and other parts of the prophetic denunciation, have been minutely fulfilled, without fpending fome time in reading the accounts, which profane historians have delivered down to us concerning its being taken by Cyrus; and which modern travellers have given us of its prefent fituation.

Porphyry was fo perfuaded of the coincidence between the prophecies of Daniel and the events, that he was forced to affirm the prophecies were written after the things prophefied of had happened; an ther Porphyry has, in our days, been fo aftonished at the correfpondence between the prophecy concerning the deftruction of Jerufalem, as related by St. Matthew, and the hiftory of that event, as recorded by Jofephus; that, rather than embrace Christianity, he has ventured to affert (contrary to the faith of all ecclefiaftical history, the opinion of the learned of all ages, and all the rules of good criticism) that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel after Jerufalem had been taken and deftroyed by the Romans. You may from thefe inftances perceive the strength of the argument from prophecy; it has not been able indeed to vanquish the prejudices of either the ancient or the modern Por phyry; but it has been able to compel them both, to be guilty of obvious falfehoods, which have nothing but impudent affertions to fupport them.

Some over-zealous interpreters of fcrip. ture have found prophecies in fimple nar rations, extended real predictions beyond the times and circumflances to which they naturally were applied, and perplexed their readers with a thoufand quaint allufons and allegorical conceits; this proceeding has made unthinking men pay lefs regard to prophecy in general; there are fome predictions however, fuch as thofe

concerning

concerning the prefent ftate of the Jewish people, and the corruption of Chriftianity, which are now fulfilling in the world; and which, if you will take the trouble to examine them, you will find of fuch an extraordinary nature, that you will not perhaps hesitate to refer them to God as their author; and if you once become perfuaded of the truth of any one miracle, or of the completion of any one prophecy, you will refolve all your difficulties (concerning the manner of God's interpofition, in the moral government of our species, and the nature of the doctrines contained in revelation) into your own inability fully to comprehend the whole scheme of divine providence.

We are told, however, that the ftrangenefs of the narration, and the difficulty of the doctrines contained in the New Teftament, are not the only circumftances which induce you to reject it; you have difcovered, you think, fo many contradictions, in the accounts which the Evangelifts have given of the life of Chrift, that you are compelled to confider the whole as an illdigefted and improbable story. You would not reafon thus upon any other occafion; you would not reject as fabulous the accounts given by Livy and Polybius of Hanbal and the Carthaginians, though you fcould difcover a difference betwixt them in feveral points of little importance. You cannot compare the hiftory of the fame events as delivered by any two hiftorians, but you will meet with many circumftances, which, though mentioned by one, are either wholly omitted or differently related by the other; and this obfervation is peculiarly applicable to biographical writings: But no one ever thought of difbelieving the leading circumftances of the lives of Vitellius or Vefpafian, because Tacitus and Suetonius did not in every thing correfpond in their accounts of these emperors; and if the memoirs of the life and doctrines of M. de Voltaire himfelf, were Some twenty or thirty years after his death, to be delivered to the world by four of his most intimate acquaintance; I do not apprehend that we should difcredit the whole account of fuch an extraordinary man, by reafon of fome flight inconfiftencies and contradictions, which the avowed enemies of his name might chance to difcover in the feveral narrations. Though we should grant you then, that the Evangelifts had fallen into fome trivial con

You obferve, that neither Luke, nor Mark, nor John, have mentioned the cruelty of Herod in murdering the infants of Bethlehem; and that no account is to be found of this matter in Jofephus, who wrote the life of Herod; and therefore the fact recorded by Matthew is not true. -The concurrent teftimony of many independent writers concerning a matter of fact, unquestionably adds to its probability; but if nothing is to be received as true, upon the teftimony of a fingle author, we must give up fome of the best writers, and difbelieve fone of the most interesting facts of ancient hiftory.

According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, there was only an interval of three months, you fay, between the baptifm and crucifixion of Jefus; from which time, taking away the forty days of temptation, there will only remain about fix weeks for the whole period of his public miniftry; which lafted however, according to St. John, at the least above three years. -Your objection fairly stated stands thus; Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in writing the history of Jefus Chrift, mention the feveral events of his life, as following one another in continued fucceffion, without taking notice of the times in which they happened; but is it a jutt conclufion from their filence, to infer that there really were no intervals of time between the tranf actions which they feem to have connected? Many inftances might be produced from the most admired biographers of antiquity, in which the events are related, as im mediately confequent to each other, which did not happen but at very diftant periods:. we have an obvious example of this manner of writing in St. Matthew; who connects the preaching of John the Baptift with the return of Jofeph from Egypt, though we are certain, that the latter event preceded the former by a great many

John has faid nothing of the inftitution of the Lord's fapper; the other Evange lifts have faid nothing of the washing of the difciples' feet:-What then? are you not afhamed to produce these facts, as inftances of contradiction? if omiffions are contradictions, look into the hiftory of the age of Louis the Fourteenth, or into the general history of M. de Voltaire, and you will meet with a great abundance of contradictions.

John, in mentioning the difcourfe which Jefus had with his mother and his beloved difciple, at the time of his crucifixion, fays, that he, with Mary Magdalene, flood near the cross; Matthew, on the other hand, fays, that Mary Magdalene and the other women were there, beholding afar off: this you think a manifeft contradiction; and fcoffingly inquire, whether the women and the beloved difciple, which were near the cross, could be the fame with thofe, who stood far from the crois-It is difficult not to tranfgrefs the bounds of moderation and good manners, in answering fuch fophiftry: what! have you to learn, that though the Evangelifts fpeak of the crucifixion, as of one event, it was not accomplished in one inftant, but lafted feveral hours? And why the women, who were at a diftance from the crofs, might not, during its continuance, draw near the cross; or from being near the cross might not move from the crofs, is more than you can explain to either us, or yourselves. And we take from you your only refuge, by denying exprefsly, that the different Evangelifts, in their mention of the women, speak of the fame point of time.

The Evangelifts, you affirm, are fallen into grofs contradictions, in their accounts of the appearances, by which Jefus manifefted himself to his difciples, after his refurrection from the dead; for Matthew fpeaks of two, Mark of three, Luke of two, and John of four. That contradictory propofitions cannot be true, is readily granted and if you will produce the place, in which Matthew fays, that Jefus Chrift appeared twice, and no oftener, it will be further granted, that he is contradicted by John, in a very material part of his narration; but till you do that, you must excufe me, if I cannot grant, that the Evangelifts have contradicted each other in this point; for to common underftandings it is pretty evident, that if Chrift

appeared four times, according to John's account, he must have appeared twice, according to that of Matthew and Luke, and thrice, according to that of Mark.

The different Evangelifts are not only accufed of contradicting each other, but Luke is faid to have contradicted himfelf; for in his gofpel he tells us, that Jefus afcended into heaven from Bethany; and in the Acts of the Apostles, of which he is the reputed author, he informs us, that Jefus afcended from Mount Olivet.-Your objection proceeds either from your igno rance of geography, or your ill will to Chriftianity; and upon either fuppofition, deferves our contempt: be pleafed, however, to remember for the future, that Bethany was not only the name of a town, but of a district of Mount Olivet adjoining to the town.

From this fpecimen of the contradictions, afcribed to the hiftorians of the life of Chrift, you may judge for your felves, what little reafon there is to reject Chriftianity upon their account; and how fadly you will be impofed upon (in a matter of more confequence to you than any other) if you take every thing for a contradiction, which the uncandid ad verfaries of Chriftianity think to proper call one.

Before I put an end to this address, I cannot help taking notice of an argument, by which fome philofophers have of late endeavoured to overturn the whole fyftem of revelation: and it is the more neceflary to give an answer to their objection, as it is become a common fubject of philofo phical converfation, efpecially among thofe who have vifited the continent. The objection tends to invalidate, as is fuppofed, the authority of Mofes; by fhewing that the earth is much older, than it can be proved to be from his account of the crea tion, and the fcripture chronology. We contend, that fix thousand years have not yet elapfed, fince the creation; and thele philofophers contend, that they have indu bitable proof of the earth's being at the leaft fourteen thousand years old; and they complain, that Mofes hangs as a dead weight upon them, and blunts all their zeal for inquiry.

The Canonico Recupero, who, it feems, is engaged in writing the history of mount Etna, has difcovered a ftratum of lava, which flowed from that mountain, a

cording

cording to his opinion, in the time of the fecond Punic war, or about two thoufand years ago; this ftratum is not yet covered with foil, fufficient for the production of either corn or vines; it requires then, fays the Canon, two thousand years, at leaft, to convert a ftratum of lava into a fertile field. In finking a pit near Jaci, in the neighbourhood of Etna, they have difcovered evident marks of feven diftinct lavas, one under the other; the furfaces of which are parallel, and most of them covered with a thick bed of rich earth; now, the eruption, which formed the lowest of thefe lavas (if we may be allowed to reafon, fays the Canon, from analogy,) flowed from the mountain at least fourteen thoufand years ago. It might be briefly anfwered to this objection, by denying, that there is any thing in the hiftory of Mofes repugnant to this opinion concerning the great antiquity of the earth; for though the rife and progrefs of arts and fciences, and the fmall multiplication of the human fpecies, render it almoft to a demonftration probable, that man has not exifted longer upon the furface of this earth, than according to the Mofaic account; yet, that the earth was then created out of nothing, when man was placed upon it, is not, according to the fentiments of fome philofophers, to be proved from the original text of facred fcripture; we might, I fay, reply, with these philofophers, to this formidable objection of the Canon, by granting it in its fullest extent; we are under no neceffity, however, of adopting their opinion, in order to fhew the weakness of the Canon's reafoning. For in the first place, the Canon has not fatisfactorily established his main fact, that the lava in queftion, is the identical lava, which Diodorus Siculus mentions to have flowed from Etna, in the fecond Carthaginian war; and in the fecond place, it may be obferved, that the time neceflary for converting the lavas into fertile fields, must be very different, according to the different confiftencies of the lavas, and their different fituations, with respect to elevation or depreffion; to their being expofed to winds, rains, and to other circumftances; just as the time, in which the heaps of iron flag (which resembles lava) are covered with verdure, is different at different furnaces, according to the nature of the flag, and fituation of the furnace; and fomething of this kind is deducible from

the account of the Canon himfelf; fince the crevices of this famous flratum are really full of rich, good foil, and have pretty large trees growing in them.

But if all this fhould be thought not fufficient to remove the objection, I will produce the Canon an analogy, in oppofition to his analogy, and which is grounded on more certain facts. Etna and Veluvius refemble each other, in the caufes which produce their eruptions, and in the nature of their lavas, and in the time neceflary to mellow them into foil fit for vegetation; or if there be any flight difference in this refpect, it is probably not greater than what fubfifts between different lavas of the fame mountain. This being admitted, which no philofopher will deny, the Canon's analogy will prove just nothing at all, if we can produce an inftance of feven different lavas (with interjacent ftrata of vegetable earth) which have flowed from mount Vefuvius, within the space, not of fourteen thousand, but of fomewhat lefs than feventeen hundred years; for then, according to our analogy, a ftratum of lava may be covered with vegetable foil, in about two hundred and fifty years, instead of requiring two thoufand for the purpose. The eruption of Vefuvius, which deftroyed Herculaneum and Pompeii, is rendered fill more famous. by the death of Pliny, recorded by his nephew, in his letter to Tacitus; this event happened in the year 79; it is not yet then quite feventeen hundred years, fince Herculaneum was fwallowed up: but we are informed by unquestionable authority, that the matter which covers the ancient town of Herculaneum, is not the produce of one eruption only; for there are evident marks, that the matter of fix eruptions has taken its courfe over that which lies immediately above the town, and was the caufe of its deftruction. These ftrata are either of lava or burnt matter, with veins of good foil betwixt them.'-I will not add another word upon this fubject; except that the bishop of the diocese, was not much out in his advice to Canonico Recupero to take care, not to make his mountain older than Mofes; though it would have been full as well, to have that his mouth with a reafon, as to have stopped it with the dread of an ecclefiaftical cenfure.

You perceive, with what ease a little at tention will remove a great difficulty; but

U

had