by persons who could not possibly have combined. But, as we have already dwelt much longer on this topic than it seems to deserve, I shall dismiss it with this observation, that your arguments against the possibility of turning the Scriptures into modern languages, are precisely the same with those urged by the Papists against all the reformed churches but I neither pretend to guess from whence you drew those arguments, nor with what view you press them.

Dech. That inuendo is very weak. A good argument is nothing the worse for having been used by a Papist, or any body else, though ever so ignorant and bigotted. But, if the sense of the Scripture was so very obvious to the learned, it is a little strange, methinks, that the learned commentators should find it so difficult a matter to settle and agree about it. The commentators of a thousand different or opposite opinions, pretend to draw the clearest proofs and demonstrations for their respective persuasions, from their various interpretations of Scripture. And well they may, since there is such a clashing between the historical and typical, the literal and allegorical, and between the strict and plain sense of many passages on the one side, and the mystical, parabolical, or hyperbolical sense, on the other, as leaves an almost boundless latitude of interpretation.

Shep. Could you shew, that the different interpretations and contradictions of commentators, which is far from being so great as you seem to make it, arise from the real difficulty and obscurity of the Scriptures, you would thereby gain a great advantage to your cause. But the case is quite otherwise. Most men are strongly attached to their own religious persuasions, whether through prejudice of education, if they continue in the opinions of their parents, or through selfconceit, if they happen to have made any choice of opinions themselves. There is another vanity which is apt to carry writers of all sorts to great lengths; I mean that of supporting a new-invented hypothesis. A writer thinks he does nothing, if he does not strike out something that is new in the art or science he writes about. Now religion abounds with these hypothetical contrivers of opinions, as much as natural or moral philosophy; and the Scripture must be tortured and wrested a thousand ways, to make it speak for as many unscriptural systems, invented by brainsick and con

ceited wretches, who have much learning and little judgment. Besides, no small part of those commentaries, that feed the bigotry of contending churches, was wrote by mercenaries, set on and bribed to the impious work by salaries and views of promotion. If then bigotry, vanity, and interest, are allowed to step in between the plainest writings, and those for whose use they were intended, there is no degree nor variety of absurdity which, by the help of art and learning, they may not force those writings seemingly to countenance, so far, I mean, as to rivet those who are already inclinable to the absurdities they comment for, and often to stagger others who have no such previous inclination. The writer of manifestoes and other political papers, can fully demonstrate, in any quarrel between two princes, that by such and such treaties, formerly ratified on both sides, each prince had been the aggressor, although the treaties, appealed to by the political hirelings of each party, are couched in terms as strong and explicit as language can afford. The several laws in the code of Justinian are conceived in the most strict and precise terms; and yet the writers of civil law have found means to contradict one another in numberless instances, and to support themselves, on all sides, by voluminous tracts and commentaries on the code. I cannot say all our acts of parliament are as plain and explicit as were to be wished; yet some of them are inteHigible enough; this, however, does not hinder the lawyers from frequently arguing, from the plainest of them, for both sides in the same trial. From all this it appears, that we are not to ascribe the different or opposite interpretations of those, who pretend to explain or comment on any writings, entirely to the obscurity of those writings, since we can so easily trace their contradictions, in most cases, to partiality in themselves.

Dech. If such variety and dissonance of interpretation may arise among the commentators of the plainest performances, what may we expect from those, who labour in the explication of books so figurative, as the Scriptures ?

Shep. As to the noise which many commentators on the sacred text have raised, and which the Deists make such a jingle with, about hyperbolical, parabolical, mystical, allegorical interpretations, &c. it may serve, indeed, to give

their performances the greater shew of depth and learning, and to furnish the ludicrous Deist with a sort of polemical rattle: but the plain and rational reader of the Scriptures, who is just so much the wiser for never having heard even the sound of it, finds himself as little concerned in the types, as in the interpretation of the Apocalypse, unless where they are actually explained and applied by the sacred writers themselves; finds the allegories and the parables, not only simple and plain, but beautiful and affecting; and finds himself very far from being hindered, by their means, from gathering, out of the sacred pages, the most useful instructions, and the most powerful persuasives to a good life. As this is too notoriously true to be denied, no ridiculous cant of hard words will weigh with sober people against their own experience, of which they feel the great and happy effects. But had not those interpreters of the book of nature, I mean the ancient and modern philosophers, made far wilder work, and run into infinitely more and wider contradictions, concerning the most necessary points, both of knowledge and practice, which, you say, are clearly delivered in that universal book, you might have objected the various interpretations of holy writ with a much better grace. This whole argument of yours hath often been employed by the Papists to persuade the world, that the Scriptures are useless, nay, and pernicious, as well to the learned as to the illiterate, without the help of an infallible interpreter.

Dech. FROM your unfair way of endeavouring to refute my arguments, by rendering them suspected of a popish tendency, I foresee you will trace that which I am going to offer to the very Vatican.

Shep. This I know, that if the arguments you have been urging this pretty while, were admitted, and followed to their utmost consequences, they would lead us all to the pope's toe.

Dech. Be that as it will, I shall not stick to insist, that the common people and the illiterate, even in Protestant countries, have no more of Christianity, than what depends on implicit faith in their priests. As priests of all religions, according to the excellent saying of the poet, are the same,

so the vulgar, in all Christian countries, are, in respect to faith and religion, exactly on the same footing. They may believe what is told them, but they can examine nothing; and all you have been saying concerning the purity of the Scripture, and the fidelity of its translators, may be either true or false, for ought they can know. The Scriptures, when translated into their own languages, may be perfectly intelligible to them; and you may work them up, in your own imagination, into as able commentators as you please, which, I think, is but moderately consistent with your dog. matizing to them, every Sunday, on some portion of Scripture or other; yet, I cannot for my life see how they, who make the majority of mankind, and for whose use therefore God must have chiefly intended any religion he ever gave to the world, can rationally satisfy themselves, that the Scriptures have been preserved uncorrupted, or faithfully translated. Miracles may have been wrought, records of these may have been made, enthusiasts of former ages may have been put to death for insisting on the truth of these records, and the animosities of contending Christians may have all along secured the purity of those records, and learning may at length have helped to procure a tolerable translation of them into the vulgar languages; but how little of this knowledge in antiquity and history can be supposed to reach a tradesman or farmer? If we should ask one of them, why he believes the Bible to be the word of God, the utmost he could say, would be, that he believes it, because the parson tells him so, and that parson would not tell him a lie.

Shep. Perhaps it might be so; and if you were to examine him as a witness in a trial, concerning facts he had seen with his own eyes, he might chance to give you a very lame account of those facts, nay, and without the least intention to render a false evidence, actually contradict himself. Those sort of people, it is true, frequently know but little; and what they do know, they cannot express. But what they do know, is one thing; and what they might know, is another. What they might know concerning the Bible, as it is put into their hands, if I take you right, is our present question.

Dech. It is.

Shep. Does not an illiterate man find, that all people,

whom he hath any dealings or conversation with, are agreed, that the Bible is the word of God?

Dech. Perhaps he does. What then?

Shep. Is he not sensible, that the Papists, and all other denominations of Christians, are of the same sentiments? Dech. I cannot tell but he may; but pray, sir, what is that to the purpose?

Shep. It is a great step to his conviction, that so many people of all ranks and conditions, great numbers of whom are very learned, and differ widely in many matters, agree so exactly in this.

Dech. It is, I own; but that step hath no foundation in

reason.

Shep. It hath some. What many people, especially if they are not all illiterate and ignorant, agree in, is more likely to be true, than if nobody, or very few, and those very ignorant, were of that opinion. But if he should have reason to think, that all the great lords, and estated gentlemen in the kingdom, believe the Bible to be the word of God, would not this be a good reason to confirm him in the same opinion?

Dech. No, because they might be mistaken; and besides, it is impossible for him to know whether they be really of that opinion or not.

Shep. He knows that such people are generally well educated, and that there are great numbers among them, who are men of much discernment and knowledge; who would never go to church and sacrament, and suffer their estates to be tythed by the clergy, if they did not believe the Bible to be the word of God. The most ignorant of the vulgar know, that, in matters of interest and money, all sorts of people look very sharp, and hardly part with a farthing, without very good reasons for so doing. They see the knowing and learned part of their own lay body suffer the bishops, and inferior clergy, when they might hinder them, if they pleased, to enjoy a great income annually in lands and tythes, merely on the score of the Bible. No man can be so ignorant as not to know, that men so fond of wealth, and often so needy, would never permit the clergy to enjoy so much, which they might take to themselves, did they not think there was some truth in the Christian religion;