pofe that St. Jude tranfcribed St. Peter's Epiftle; it is much more probable, that both he and St. Peter wrote from the common plan communicated to the churches, and drew their defcription of the false teachers from the fame apocryphal book. But be this as it will, yet upon all views the second Epiftle of St. Peter stands clear of the old objection drawn from the difference of ftyle between his first and second Epiftles.

DISSERTATION II.

The Senfe of the Ancients before Chrift upon, the Circumftances and Confequences of the · Fall.

My intention is not to fearch after paffages in

heathen authors, which may seem to bear fome refemblance to the Mofaic hiftory of the fall, but to trace the sense of the Jewish church, as far as it can be collected.

As there are no records left, but the books of the Old Testament, to give light to this inquiry; and no book of the Old Teftament, after Mofes, treats directly of this subject; it cannot be expected that I fhould produce a full and regular expofition of the circumftances and confequences of the fall, from fo few remains, and in this refpect fo very imperfect. All that can be done is, to gather up the little which fell from these old writers, rather accidentally than purposely; and to try whether, from their references and allufions to this hiftory, we can, with any tolerable degree of probability, collect their fenfe, or the sense of the times in which they lived, upon this fubject. The hiftorical writers of the Old Testament were never led within view of this ancient story by.

the occurrences in which they are concerned; from them confequently no light is to be expected. Mo, ral writers had fometimes occafion to reflect upon the state of the world, and to confider how things came into the state and condition in which they found them; prophets likewife, who were teachers of religion, were in the fame case: from these we may expect fome affiftance.

You fee within how narrow a compass we are reduced; but yet no help is to be refused which can be had in fo material a concern.

The moral and theological difficulties relating to this point will not be ftated or difcuffed upon the foot of this inquiry. It was the wisdom of antiquity to bury all fuch difficulties in the abyfs of infinite wisdom and power, and there to leave them till God should think proper to bring them to light; and had we fomething of the fame fpirit, it would be the better for us. But the most curious and inquifitive have no reafon to expect a folution of all the difficulties of this fort from the teachers of the Gospel. For what has the Gospel to do with them? The moral and natural evils in the world were not introduced by the Gofpel; why then must the Gospel be called upon to account for them, rather than any other religion, or fect of philofophy? If there had never been an Old Teftament, never a New one, mankind would have been at leaft as corrupt and miferable as they are at prefent. What harm then have the Old and New Teftament done to you, that you perpetually challenge them to account to you for the evil you fuffer? You miflike perhaps the ftory of Adam and Eve, and can by no means digeft

the account of the ferpent's tempting and prevailing againft our firft parents: very well; let this account then be laid afide, and what are you now the better? Is there not the fame evil remaining in the world, whether you believe, or believe not, the ftory of the fall? And if fo, what account do you pretend to give of it? For if you pretend to any religion, you are as liable to be called to this account as any profeffor or teacher of the Gofpel. Nobody is exempt in this cafe but the Atheift: and his privilege comes from hence, that he has no account to give of any thing; for all difficulties are alike upon his scheme. Leaving then these difficulties, which are common to all religions, and not peculiar to our present inquiry, let us proceed to trace the history of the fall in the ancient writers.

The oldest book we have remaining is the book of Job; there is all the appearance that can arife from internal characters, that it was written before any of the books of Mofes. The teftimony therefore of this book is diftinct from the authority of Mofes, fince it was not derived from the books of Mofes, but was itself an original account of the ftate of nature and religion in the old world, before Mofes had committed any thing to writing. I know that fome have endeavoured to bring down this ancient writer to the times of the Babylonish captivity, and suppose the book to have been written for the confolation of the captives in their diftrefs. But, if you fuppofe it written for the fake of the Jews, is it not strange that there fhould not be, in a discourse of such a kind, one fingle word of the law of Mofes; nor fo much as one diftant allufion to any rite or ceremony of the