can have none! The Bishop, as a mean to establish the insufficiency of the evidence from the prophecies, takes great pains to represent them as dark and obscure! You will no doubt think his conduct strange! and indeed he thinks so himself, and makes the following apology for his behaviour" you may think it perhaps strange," says he, "that I should be here pleading, as it were, for the obscurity of ancient prophecy, whereas you may very well conceive it would be more to the purpose of a ......ian divine to maintain their clearness. Now, as Moses in another case said, 'I would to God all the Lord's people were prophets;' so say I, in this case; I would to God all the prophecies of the Lord were manifest unto all his people. But it matters not what we wish or think."* But there are those who maintain their clearness, whether it be for the purposes of ......ian divines or not! Whoever is at all acquainted with the writings of such learned divines as have wrote in support and defence of ......ianity, must be fully convinced of the insurmountable difficulties under which they labour, in proving the Messiahship of Jesus from the prophecies, as applied, and said to be fulfilled by him: for some, proceeding on the allegorical scheme, ground the pretensions of Jesus on the turn which they are pleased to give the prophecies, and apply them as fulfilled in the sense which they impose on them. Others, unsatisfied with arguments drawn from such proofs, oppose this scheme as weak and absurd, (though thereby they oppose the Evangelists and apostles) and endeavour to establish his Messiahship, by pretending to a literal application of the prophecies. The consequence is, they prove nothing but the glorious deliverance expected by the Jews. Some, in these difficulties, fly for refuge to his miracles, and pretend to prove his Messiahship from his works. Some fly to the goodness and soundness of his doctrines, and from thence prove his Messiahship. Some invent a heavenly kingdom, aud from that oppose the prophecies; others take on themselves, and usurp the names of Israel and Judah, and then prove the prophecies accomplished in them. But, after all, they seem so dissatisfied with these inventions, that at last they are obliged to confess their insufficiency, and declare, and as firmly believe, the restoration of the Jews as the Jews do themselves; and this they prove by the same arguments, and *Intent and use of prophecy, p. 36. from those very prophecies on which the Jews ground their hopes and expectations. All which I shall make very clear to you. Such are the methods which are made use of, and such the contradictions and inconsistencies to be met with in their writings; and oftentimes in the same author. But you must not impute this to their want either of abilities or learning, for many of them are famous for both: you must impute it to the cause which in itself is inconsistent, and not to be either supported or defended on any rational principle whatever. If they are reduced to such perplexities in defending the prophecies mentioned in the Old Testament, and said to be fulfilled by Jesus in the New, and are not able to show their connexions and pertinences, 'tis no wonder that they represent them as dark and obscure, and give them up as difficult to be applied, and endeavour to extricate themselves by placing the proofs on something more to their purpose, though in their hearts they wish they had more clear prophecies. But is it reasonable to expect the conviction of the Jews but from the clearest evidence? Give me leave to ask, with the learned prelate," Is not this now a choice account of the gospel? Are we still surrounded on all sides with darkness ?"* And pray who can help it, if the plain sense and meaning of the prophecies run counter to the intents and designs of that to which they are applied? And the fault does not lay in the prophecies, for they are most clear, though very dark indeed as they are applied; the reason is plain and obvious, because they never were intended to prove that which they are applied to, and for that reason will eternally be dark and obscure, in like manner as any passage out of any other author would be dark and obscure if it should be applied contrary to the author's meaning and plain But the darkness, in such case, would not be in the author, but in the application. Nothing can be plainer, according to the gospel scheme, than, that the word of prophecy was the foundation on which Jesus claimed the Messiahship; and as a demonstration that he was the person foretold, he refers to it for conviction, and tells those he spake to-" Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me."+ "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he sense. * Intent and use of prophesy. p. 7, + John, chap. v. 39. wrote of me."* "And he said unto them, these are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law and the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me."+ "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Now let me ask, did Jesus apply the prophecies to himself in their clear sense, and plain meaning? or did he impose another sense and meaning on them? Were they plain and clear prophecies by which he undertook to prove himself the Messiah, such as carried their own convictions with them? or were they dark and obscure, such as it is absurd to expect conviction from? If he did it according to the clear sense and plain meaning of the prophecies, theu, on the same foundation, he may still be proved from the prophecies; and it will be absurd, if this be the case, to endeavour either to darken or throw obscurity on them. But if he proved himself the Messiah from dark and obscure prophecies, or, which is the same thing, if he applied the prophecies in a dark and obscure sense, then must such proof be insufficient to produce conviction; for a "figurative and dark description of a future event," says a learned prelate, says a learned prelate," will be figurative and dark when the event happens, and consequently will have all the obscurity of a dark and figurative description as well after, as before the event, so that it can be no proof at all." And let ......ians say what they please, it is certain that the prophets spoke clearly and intelligibly concerning the Messiah and his office; and it is from them that we are to judge, who is the true Messiah; consequently, if Jesus is the Messiah, and they can prove him to be the true one, how absurd must it be to represent the ro hecies as dark and obscure! or to pretend that no convictions to be expected from them, when "all the prophets from Samuel, and those that followed after, as many as have spoken, did foretell these days."|| From the prophecies it was that the Bereans found out that Jesus was the Messiah ; "for they searched the scriptures daily to see if those things were so."S Now if this foundation on which the ......ian religion is built, the *John, chap. v. 46. † Luke, chap. xxiv. 44. Intent and use of prophecy, Dis. 2. p. 33. Acts. chap. iii. 24. foundation on which Jesus and his apostles established it, can afford no distinct evidence, nor ever was intended to give a clear and distinct light on the case, what must the consequence be of Jesus and his followers appealing to its evidence, and building on a foundation so precarious? for no superstructure can possibly be stronger than the foundation; for if Jesus be clearly revealed in the prophecies, then must the application of them to him be evident. If this be the case, then cannot the prophecies be dark and obscure; but if, on the contrary, they be not clearly and evidently applicable to him as the Messiah, then is all their trouble and pretension vain and ineffectual; for clear proofs never can be had from dark and obscure passages; neither can the conclusion be stronger than the premises. The events concerning the Messiah, his kingdom, and great glory, as well as that of the Jews, is foretold with such particularity and plainness by all the prophets, as cannot be surpassed by any one description that ever was made. To suppose that the Almighty God should, in an affair of the utmost importance, (an affair that concerned both learned and ignorant,) deliver himself in such terms or words as must convey to our minds ideas the most opposite and contrary to what his goodness intended to reveal and describe, is to suppose him capable of deceiving those whom he condescended to instruct and enlighten; and, "it is irrational and impious to suppose that the almighty, good, and merciful God, would give to his creatures instructions, commands, and advice, which were puzzling, obscure, and uncertain, when their eternal salvation was depending upon their conceiving or applying them aright."* Can any thing more unjust be imputed to God than to pretend he reveals one thing and means another? yet this is the deplorable case. How many are the endeavours to make out this very thing! Learning, art, cunning, industry, power, and every human invention is made use of for this purpose. The words which, as coming from God, are infallible, they reject, set at naught, and do away, with their own senseless jargon, and set up themselves and their explanations as such; as if they were neither fallible, interested, nor liable to error, deception, and imposition. (To be continued.) * Independent Whig, No. 74. ABRAHAM'S LETTERS (Continued from page 219.) I am now arrived at the consideration of that important question; perhaps the most essential to the ....ian faith; namely, Whether the books which contain an exposition of the doctrines which your followers profess, were written by the persons whose names they bear; and, if so, whether these persons were inspired by the Divinity to promulgate his will to mankind? On the solution of this two-fold question, it appears to me the whole system of the prevailing religion depends; for if its votaries are unable to demonstrate the authenticity of their sacred books, and to show that they were dictated by the Supreme Being, it necessarily follows that the doctrines which they are at so much pains to promulgate, may be founded in imposition or error. Now, on the most careful perusal of the books called the "New Testament," (which, for the sake of argument, are here rcferred to,) there is not a single sentence to be found from which it can be inferred that Jesus of Nazareth either committed his tenets to writing, or instructed his followers to do so. There is, indeed, reason for believing that neither of them were capable of this. Jesus himself is admitted to have been bred a carpenter, and his disciples fishermen, and of other professions, which did not require even an ordinary education. With them the "wisdom of the world was foolishness;" science was held in contempt; and every man of sense was despised, merely because he would not give up his reason and adopt, without examination, the most absurd and revolting dogmas which they announced. The words put in the mouth of Jesus, that " he came not to destroy the law but to fulfil it ;*" his admitted observance of that law even to the hour of his death; and his uniform recognition of its precepts, are facts and circumstances, of themselves, sufficient to convince every unprejudiced mind, that he never intended our sacred books *Matthew v. v. 17-19. Luxe xvi. v. 18. |