THE INTRODUCTION: CONTAINING A VIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS DIVINITY AND PRE EXISTENCE OF SECTION I. Of the Argument against the Doctrines of the Divinity and Pre-existence of Chrift, from the general Tenor of the Scriptures. WH HEN we inquire into the doctrine of any book, or fet of books, concerning any subject, and particular paffages are alledged in favour of different opinions, we should chiefly confider what is the general tenor of the whole work with respect to it, or what impreffion the first careful perufal of it would probably make upon an impartial reader. This is not difficult to VOL. I. diftinguish. B diftinguish. For, in works of any confiderable extent, the leading doctrines, and particularly those which it was the particular defign of the writers to inculcate, will occur frequently, and they will often be illuftrated, and enforced by a variety of arguments; fo that thofe things only will be dubious, the mention of which occurs but feldom, or which are not expressly afferted, but only inferred from particular expreffions. But by attending only to fome particular expreffions, and neglecting, or wholly overlooking others, the strangest and moft unaccountable opinions may be afcribed to writers. Nay, without confidering the relation that particular expreffions bear to others, and to the tenor of the whole work, fentiments the very reverse of thofe which the writers meant to inculcate may be ascribed to them. If, from previous instruction, and early habits, we find it difficult to ascertain the real meaning and defign of a writer in this way, we shall find much affistance by confidering in what fenfe he was actually understood by those perfons for whose use he wrote, wrote, and who must have been the beft acquainted with his language. For if a writer expreffes himself with tolerable clearness, and really means to be understood (being well acquainted with the perfons into whofe hands his work will come) he cannot fail to be fo, with refpect to every thing of confequence. If we wish to know whether Homer, for inftance, entertained the opinion of there being more Gods than one, we need only read his poems, and no doubt will remain concerning it; the mention of Jupiter, Juno, Mars, &c. and the part they took in the fiege of Troy, occurring perpetually. If any difficulty fhould ftill remain, we must then confider what were the opinions, and what was the practice of the Greeks, who read and approved his poems. In this way we shall foon fatisfy ourselves, that Homer held the doctrine of a multiplicity of Gods, and that he, and the Greeks in general, were what we call idolaters. In like manner, an impartial perfon may eafily fatisfy himself, that the writers of the books of scripture held the doctrine of B 2 one |