well acquainted with the books or copies of the Old-Teftament, which were in being in his time; and that his epiftle was exactly agreeable in all things to those copies; and confequently, what that author has faid, touching Abraham's giving tithes to Melchizędec, ought to be admitted as fact: That the unbelieving Jews, very foon after the opening the Chriftian difpenfation, greatly corrupted the books of the Old-Teftament, to the great prejudice of Chriftianity; and that the difference which now appears betwixt the Old-Teftament and the New, fuch as the latter quoting from the former a prophecy that now does not appear to be contained in it, is wholly owing to fuch corruption. Upon which I observe, that if my not fubmitting blindly to the authority of the author of the epistle to the Hebrews has given great offence, it may, perhaps, not have been without ground; because my opponents may, poffibly, reafon after this manner; if such blind fubmiffion be denied to that author, and to that epistle, then it may be denied to others, and that this is an evil of fuch confequence as ought to be guarded against at all bezard; and therefore, every thing ought to be taken forgranted or prefumed, which is necef

fary

fary to answer that purpofe. But then, it ought to be remembered, that whatever purpose may be ferved by admitting, without trial, and taking for granted, all that is laid down above; yet fuch prefuming must be greatly injurious to truth; and therefore the truth of all ought rather to be enquired into. And if the books of the Old-Teftament have been greatly corrupted, as is pretended, then they muft needs be a very unJafe guide to us; feeing we cannot distinguish and Separate the parts that are corrupted from those that are not; and then the putting thofe corrupted books upon us as a facred record must be a moft grofs impofition. And if the Old-Teftament be greatly corrupted, as is fet forth above; yet,furely, fuch corruption cannot, with any, colour of justice, be charged upon the unbelieving Jews. At, and fome time. after, the opening the chriftian difpenfation, all its profeffors were Jews, or perfons who had been converted from Judaism to Chriftianity; and as thefe, in a little time, were increased to fome thousands, (A&s ii. 41.) who were zealous of the law, (Acts xxi. 20.) at which time the Jews were well acquainted with the books of theOld-Teftament, which had not been the cafe in former times,

till after the Babylonish captivity; fo, of course, those converted Jews, which then conftituted the Chriftian church, must have had many copies of the Old-Teftament in their hands, from which copies those books must of neceffity have been tranfmitted from age to age, all along, through Chriftian bands; down to this time, and not from and through the hands of unbelieving Jews, with whom the christians had no friendly correspondence; but the contrary, as thefe were at perpetual variance with each other; and therefore, if our old teftament be derived from a corrupted copy or copies, then fuch copy or copies must have been corrupted by the Chriftians themselves through whofe hands alone those books have been transmitted to us, and not by the unbelieving Jews, who could have no band in any fuch matter. But, admitting the books of the old teftament have been, through the weakness or wickedness of tranflators or transcribers, greatly corrupted; yet it is not to be fuppofed that it has sustained any injury in the cafe under confideration; for had it ever been expreffed, in the Hebrew copies, that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedec,then, moft certainly, that reading would have been continued, because there cannot poffibly

poffibly be any room for a fufpicion that either a Jewish or a Chriftian priesthood would ever have expunged it. And that the aforefaid reading was never in the Hebrew pentateuch, is farther evident from the doubtings and difputes that have fubfifted, as well among Jews as Chriftians, touching who gave tithes in the prefent cafe; whereas, had the Hebrew pentateuch been express that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedec, there could have been no place for fuch doubting or difpute. As to the author of the epiftle to the Hebrews, (not to take notice of other matters) he has given fo wild and extravagant an account,even of this Melchizedec, in this very epiftle, without any authority that appears, as renders all he has faid the less credible; and this bars his right to that deference, that blind Jubmission which is claimed for him. Thus Hebrews vii. 3, 4. the author fpeaking of Melchizedec, faith, without father, without mother, without defcent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the fon of God, abideth a priest continually. Now confider how great this man was,unto whom the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the Spoils. As this account was introduced to VOL. II. ferve

Dd

serve a turn, namely, to exalt the perfonal character of Jefus Chrift; fo it is scarce conceivable what the author intended by it. However, this account of Melchizedec muft be understood in an improper and figurative fenfe, or elfe in a proper and literal fenfe. If it is to be understood figuratively, then it is hard to conceive what was intended to be fet forth by thofe figures, except it be that Melchizedec's genealogy was a fecret; that it was not known who was his father, nor who was his mother, nor when he was born, nor when he died; but then, if this be admitted, thefe defects in point of genealogy are not tokens of greatness, and yet the author feems to confider what he applied to Melchizedec to be fuch. It may, perhaps, not be an unusual thing for the pedigree of beggars to be untraceable, but then it is not commonly, tho' it may fometimes be, the cafe of kings and great men; and therefore, the want of a genealogy cannot be a token of greatness in Melchizedec, but rather the contrary; and this feems to bew that the forementioned account is not to be taken figuratively, but literally. Now confider (fays the author) how great this man was; great, in what? Why, in that he was

without