and NEHEMIAH, contain the transactions of the kings before the captivity, and of the governors afterwards, all delivered in the same circumstantial manner. And here the particular account of the regulations, sacred and civil, established by David, and of the building of the temple by Solomon, the genealogies given in the beginning of the first book of Chronicles, and the lists of the persons who returned, sealed, &c. after the captivity, in the books of Ezra, and Nehemiah, deserve particular notice, in the light in which we are now considering things.

The book of ESTHER contains a like account of a very remarkable event, with the institution of a festival in memory of it.

The book of PSALMS mentions many historical events both common and miraculous, in an incidental way, or sometimes by way of celebration; (i) and this, as well as the books of JOB, PROVERBS, ECCLESIASTES, and CANTICLES, allude to the manners and customs of ancient times, in various particulars.

In the PROPHECIES there are blended some historical relations; and in other parts the indirect mention of facts, times, places, and persons, is interwoven with the predictions in the most copious and circumstantial

manner.

If we turn to the NEW TESTAMENT, the same observations present themselves at first view. Here also there are often comprehensive syllabuses of the leading

(i) See especially Psalms 78, 105, 106, 114, 135, 136. And for a defence of the Canticles, see Theodoret's Commentary thereon; or Dupin's Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. iv. p. 62.

facts of the Old Testament-history comprised in a single chapter, of which those mentioned at the foot of the page are striking instances. (k) It is also observable, that our Lord, in his various conversations with the Jews, assumes the genuineness and authenticity of the Jewish Scriptures, that is, of the Old Testament books, and argues upon them. Thus we find him speaking of Moses as a lawgiver, referring to the decalogue, and various laws and observances mentioned in different parts of the Pentateuch; to Abram, to Jacob, to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, to the Queen of Sheba (mentioned in 1 Kings x.), and Solomon; to David as a prophet, and as inspired; to "Moses and the Prophets" generally; to Jonah, as a type of himself; and to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, and Malachi, as prophets. In the several parts of the New Testament, too, we have the names of friends and enemies, the conduct of both, the faults of friends told without gloss, those of enemies without exaggeration or virulence; the names of Jews, Greeks, and Romans, obscure and illustrious; the times, places, and circumstances, of facts specified directly, and alluded to indirectly, with various references to the customs and manners of those times and places. And here again we may notice, by the by, that many of the historical books, both of the Old and New Testament, contain prophecies which have been fulfilled; and from which both their truth and their divine authority may be inferred; as I shall show in my next letter.

(k) Acts, vii.; 1 Cor. x.; Heb. xi.; 2 Pet. ii.

Now, from the preceding enumeration it may be observed, First, that in fact we never find forged or false accounts of things to superabound thus in particularities. There is always some truth where considerable particularities are related, and they always seem to bear some proportion to one another. Thus there is a great want of the particulars of time, place, and persons, in Manetho's account of the Egyptian dynasties, Ctesias's account of the Assyrian kings, and those which the technical chronologers have given of the ancient kingdoms of Greece; and agreeably to this obvious principle, these accounts have much fiction and falsehood, with some truth. Whereas Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War, and Cæsar's of the War in Gaul, in both which the particulars of time, place, and persons, are mentioned, are universally esteemed authentic to a great degree of exactness.

Secondly. A forger, or a relater of known falsehoods, would be careful not to mention so great a number of particulars, since this would be to put into his reader's hands criteria by which he may be detected. Hence appears one reason of the fact mentioned in the last paragraph, and which, in confirming that fact, confirms the proposition here to be established.

Thirdly. A forger or relater of falsehoods, could scarcely furnish such lists of particulars. It is easy to conceive how faithful records, kept from time to time, by persons concerned in the transactions, should contain such lists; nay, it is natural to expect them in this case, from that local memory which takes strong possession of the fancy in those who have been present

at transactions: but it would be a work of the highest invention, and greatest stretch of genius, to raise from nothing such numberless particularities as are almost every where to be met with in the Scriptures.

There is, besides, a circumstance relating to the Gospels, which deserves particular notice in this place. St. Matthew and St. John were apostles; and therefore, since they accompanied Christ, must have this local memory of his journeyings and miracles. St. Mark was a Jew of Judea, and a friend of St. Peter ; and therefore may either have had this local memory. himself, or have written chiefly from St. Peter, who had. But St. Luke, being a proselyte of Antioch, not converted, perhaps, till several years after Christ's resurrection, and receiving his accounts from different eye-witnesses, as he says himself, could have no regard to that order of time which a local memory would suggest. Let us try now how the gospels answer to these positions. Matthew's, then, appears to be in exact order of time, and to be a regulator to Mark's and Luke's, showing Mark's to be nearly so, but Luke's to have little or no regard to the order of time in his account of Christ's ministry. John's gospel is like Matthew's, in order of time; but as he wrote after all the other evangelists, and with a view only of recording some remarkable particulars, such as Christ's actions before he left Judea to go to preach in Galilee, his disputes with the Jews of Jerusalem, and his discourses to the apostles at his last supper, there was less opportunity for this evangelist's local memory to show itself. Yet his recording what passed before Christ's

going into Galilee might be in part from this cause; as Matthew's omission of it was probably from his want of this local memory. For it appears that Matthew resided in Galilee, and that he was not converted till some time after Christ's going thither to preach. Now this suitableness of the four gospels to their reputed authors, in a circumstance of so subtle and recluse a nature, is quite inconsistent with the supposition of fiction or forgery. This remark is originally due to Sir Isaac Newton. (1)

Fourthly. If we could suppose the persons who forged the books of the Old and New Testaments to have furnished their readers with a great variety of particulars mentioned above, notwithstanding the two reasons here alleged against it, we cannot, however, conceive, but that the persons of those times, when the books were published, must, by the help of these criteria, have detected and exposed the forgeries or falsehoods. For these criteria are so attested by allowed facts, as at this time, and in these remote parts of the world, to establish the authenticity and genuineness of the Scriptures; and, by parity of reason, they would suffice even now to detect the fraud, were there any: whence we may conclude, à fortiori, that they must have enabled the who were upon the spot when the books were first circulated to do this; and the importance of many of the particulars recorded, many of the renunciations required, would furnish them with abundant motives for this purpose. So that

persons

(1) See his chapter on the birth and passion of Christ, in his Comment on Daniel.