and credulity, viz. fanciful connexions between certain appearances and actions, and the destiny of nations or individuals.  Upon these conceits rested the whole train of auguries and auspices, which formed so much even of the serious part of the religions of Greece and Rome, and of the charms and incantations which were practised in those countries by the common people.  From everything of this sort the religion of the Jews, and of the Jews alone, was free.  Vide.  Priestley’s Lectures on the Truth of the Jewish and Christian Revelation; 1794. _________

Undoubtedly, also, our Saviour recognises the prophetic character of many of their ancient writers.  So far, therefore, we are bound as Christians to go.  But to make Christianity answerable, with its life, for the circumstantial truth of each separate passage of the Old Testament, the genuineness of every book, the information, fidelity, and judgment of every writer in it, is to bring, I will not say great, but unnecessary difficulties into the whole system.  These books were universally read and received by the Jews of our Saviour’s time.  He and his apostles, in common with all other Jews, referred to them, alluded to them, used them.  Yet, except where he expressly ascribes a divine authority to particular predictions, I do not know that we can strictly draw any conclusion from the books being so used and applied, beside the proof, which it unquestionably is, of their notoriety and reception at that time.  In this view, our Scriptures afford a valuable testimony to those of the Jews.  But the nature of this testimony ought to be understood.  It is surely very different from what it is sometimes represented to be, a specific ratification of each particular fact and opinion; and not only of each particular fact, but of the motives assigned for every action, together with the judgment of praise or dispraise bestowed upon them.  Saint James, in his Epistle, says, “Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord.”  Notwithstanding this text, the reality of Job’s history, and even the existence of such a person, have been always deemed a fair subject of inquiry and discussion amongst Christian divines.  Saint James’s authority is considered as good evidence of the existence of the book of Job at that time, and of its reception by the Jews; and of nothing more.  Saint Paul, in his Second Epistle to Timothy, has this similitude:  “Now, as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth.”  These names are not found in the Old Testament.  And it is uncertain whether Saint Paul took them from some apocryphal writing then extant, or from tradition.  But no one ever imagined that Saint Paul is here asserting the authority of the writing, if it was a written account which he quoted, or making himself answerable for the authenticity of the tradition; much less that he so involves himself with either of these questions as that the credit of his own history and mission should depend upon