ferent languages; and therefore, if my opponent would have done juftice to his fubject and to his readers, he should have pointed out which of the five is his voucher, or whether he claims them all; tho', perhaps, the ground of this neglect may have been, that his evidence is not contained in the Hebrew pentateuch in the PolyglotBible, which is the only thing that, could render that collection of ufe to him. The Polyglot-Bible is a collection of transcripts of yesterday, if I may fo speak, four of which are transcripts of translations; now for this author to produce an evidence from a tranScript of a tranflation in a foreign language, to prove a branch of Hebrew hiftory, which branch is not to be found in the original Hebrew history itself; this, surely, must be an instance of unrighteous craft, or else of fuch weakness as feems to bespeak a female adversary. But fuppofe the Hebrew pentateuch in the Polyglot-Bible fays, that Abrabam gave tithes to Melchizedec, which is allowing to the Polyglot-Bible all the weight and ftrength of evidence it is capable of retaining, tho' I prefume it is not the cafe; I fay, fuppofe the Hebrew pentateuch in the

Po

Polyglot-Bible fays that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedec; yet, feeing the Hebrew manuscripts fay no fuch thing, the question is, what follows? the answer to which queftion, furely, can be neither more nor lefs than this, viz. it must needs have been a supplement of the Editor's. And fo

much for Melchizedec.

A P

The publisher thinks it his duty to inform the world, that the following alteration, in the reading of that part of Section VI. which is relative to the Chriftian Revelation, was found (as here printed) in the Author's desk, wrote on a loose fheet by him; but as the foregoing reading, as it ftands in the faid fection, was not difjoined from it by the Author, in his lifetime, but remained a part of the manuf cript; it was therefore judged necessary to publish that section as it was found, and to give this different reading (which is very probably the Author's laft fentiments) by way of Appendix.

A STOTHE

CHRISTIAN REVELATION, which was first promulged by Jefus Chrift, and therefore was called after his name; this of courfe comes more immediately within my notice and observation. As it's divinity is acknowledged and contended for in all this part of the world, and as that is a principle which was very early impressed upon my mind as a sacred truth, (tho', perhaps, by it I may poffibly have been prejudiced

judiced in it's favour) fo it feems to require that I fhould examine this point with fo much the more care and caution, in order to guard against any biafs that may affect my judgment with relation thereto, feeing all partiality, all refpect in judgment ought to be avoided, as well with regard to things. as perfons; nor do I think this fubject to be altogether fo clear and free from difficulties as may well be expected, confidering what is usually affumed concerning it. That there was fuch a perfon as Jefus Christ, and that he preached to the people, and thereby collected a body of difciples, and laid a foundation for a new fect among the Jews, appear to me to be probable; and this probability is grounded on the improbability of the contrary fuppofition, that is, it appears improbable that Chriftianity fhould take place and prevail in the way and to the degree that it did, or at least that it is reprefented to have done, fuppofing the hif tory of Chrift's life and miniftry to be a fiction: And from the improbability of this arifes the probability of the other fuppofition viz. that there was fuch a perfon as Jefus Christ, and that he preached to the people, and thereby gathered difciples, and laid a foundation for a new religious fect.

Again,

if

if fuch a fuperiority of power attended Jefus Christ as the hiftories fet forth, then, as that ministry, and the power which attended it, feem, at least, in general, to have terminated in the public good; fo it is more likely that God was the primary agent in the exercise of that power, than any other being; because it is more likely that God fhould be concerned for the common good of his creatures, than that one creature should be thus concerned for the good of the rest; and then it is probable Jefus Chrift, on whose will the immediate exercise of that power depended, did not use that power improperly, by impofing upon mankind to their hurt, feeing that power appears to have been generally well directed in other refpects, and seeing he was answerable to his principal for the abuse of it. From these premifes, or from this general view of the cafe, I think, this conclufion follows, viz. Christ's miffion was divine. I fay, the above conclufion is probable, and this I apprehend to be the utmoft which can be concluded from the above premises; at leaft it appears fo to me, from the light or information I have received concerning it.

1