This being so,my lord,what hypothesis shall we follow?Shall we adhere to some such distinction as I have mentioned?Shall we say,for instance,that the Scriptures were written originally by the authors to whom they are vulgarly ascribed,but that these authors wrote nothing by inspiration,except the legal,the doctrinal,and the prophetical parts,and that in every other respect their authority is purely human,and therefore fallible?Or shall we say that these histories are nothing more than compilations of old traditions,and abridgments of old records,made in later times,as they appear to every one who reads them without prepossession,and with attention?Shall we add,that which ever of these probabilities be true,we may believe,consistently with either,notwithstanding the decision of any divines,who know no more than you or I,or any other man,of the order of Providence,that all those parts and passages of the Old Testament,which contain prophecies,or matters of law or doctrine,and which were from the first of such importance in the designs of Providence to all future generations,and even to the whole race of mankind,have been from the first the peculiar care of Providence?Shall we insist that such particular parts and passages,which are plainly marked out and sufficiently confirmed by the system of the Christian revelation,and by the completion of the prophecies,have been preserved from corruption by ways impenetrable to us,amidst all the changes and chances to which the books wherein they are recorded have been exposed;and that neither original writers,nor later compilers,have been suffered to make any essential alterations,such as would have falsified the law of God and the principles of the Jewish and Christian religions,in any of these divine fundamental truths?Upon such hypotheses,we may assert without scruple,that the genealogies and histories of the Old Testament are in no respect sufficient foundations for a chronology from the beginning of time,nor for universal history.But then the same hypotheses will secure the infallibility of ure authority as far as religion is concerned.Faith and reason may be reconciled a little better than they commonly are.I may deny that the Old Testament is transmitted to us under all the conditions of an authentic history,and yet be at liberty to maintain that the passages in it which establish original sin,which seem favorable to the doctrine of the Trinity,which foretell the coming of the Messiah,and all others of similar kind,are come down to us as they were originally dictated by the Holy Ghost.
In attributing the whole credibility of the Old Testament to the authority of the New,and in limiting the authenticity of the Jewish Scriptures to those parts alone that concern law,doctrine,and prophecy,by which their chronology and the far greatest part of their history are excluded,I will venture to assure your lordship that I do not assume so much,as is assumed in every hypothesis that affixes the divine seal of inspiration to the whole canon;that rests the whole proof on Jewish veracity;and that pretends to account particularly and positively for the descent of these ancient writings in their present state.
Another reason,for which I have insisted the rather on the distinction so often mentioned,is this.I think we may find very good foundation for it even in the Bible:and though this be a point very little attended to,and much disguised,it would not be hard to show,upon great inducements of probability,that the law and the history were far from being blended together as they now stand in the Pentateuch,even from the time of Moses down to that of Esdras.But the principal and decisive reason for separating in such manner the legal,doctrinal,and prophetical parts,from the historical,is the necessity of leaving some rule to go by:and,I protest,I know of none that is yet agreed upon.I content myself,therefore,to fix my opinion concerning the authority of the Old Testament in this manner,and carry it thus far only.We must do so,or we must enter into that labyrinth of dispute and contradiction,wherein even the most orthodox Jews and Christians have wandered so many ages,and still wander.It is strange,but it is true;not only the Jews differ from the Christians,but Jews and Christians both differ among themselves,concerning almost every point that is necessary to be certainly known and agreed upon,in order to establish the authority of books which both have received already as authentic and sacred.So that whoever takes the pains to read what learned men have written on this subject,will find that they leave the matter as doubtful as they took it up.Who were the authors of these Scriptures,when they were published,how they were composed and preserved,or renewed,to use a remarkable expression of the famous Huet in his Demonstration;in fine,how they were lost during the captivity,and how they were retrieved after it,are all matters of controversy to this day.
