falhnP
<!**
Gninr OF
Miss Sue Dunbar
University of California Berkeley
APOLOGY
FOR THE
I B L E
IN A
SERIES OF LETTERS,
ADDRESSED TO
THOMAS PAINE,
Author of a book entitled
The Acs of REASON, PART the SECOND,
i
BEING AN INVESTIGATION OF
TRUE AND OF FABULOUS THEOLOGY. '
O JT\ ~\T _ -
Lord Bifhop of Landaff, and Regius Prbfcffor o
P in the Univerfity of Cambridge,
PHILADELPHIA :
Second and Chelnut Streets, by
JAS5
8
LETTER L
S I R,
X HAVE lately met with a hook of your's,
entitled -THE AGE OF REASON, part the fe-
cond, being an inveftigation of true and of fabu-
lous theology ; and I think it not inconfiftent
with my ftation, and the duty I owe to fociety,
to trouble you and the world withfome obfer-
vat ions on fo extraordinary a performance.
Extraordinary I efteem it ; not from any
novelty in the objections which you have pro-
duced againft revealed religion, (for I find little
or no novelty in them,) but from the zeal with
which you labour to diffeminate vpur OT->>
nions, and from the confidence wi
you efteem them true. You pcrcci ,
that I give you credit for your fin
much foever I may^ieftign your wiiil-rii, ia
writing in furh a manner, on fuch -ft;
and I have no reluclance in acknowledging,
that you poflefs a confiderablc fhare cf energy
of language, and acutenefs of invc . n;
though I muft be allowed to lament, that Itxefe
talents have not been applied in a manner more
iifeful to human kind, and more creditable to
ycurfelf.
I BEGIN with your preface. You therein
ftate that you had long had an intention of
publishing your thoughts upon religion, but
that you had originally refer ved it to a later
period in life. 1 hope there is no want of
charity in faying, that it would have been for-
tunate for the chriftian world, had your life
been terminated before you had fulfilled your
intention. In accomplifhing your purpofe, you
will have unfettled the faith of thoufands ;
rooted from the minds of the unhappy virtu-
ous all their comfortable affurance of a future
recompenfe; Jiave annihilated in the minds of
the flagitious all their fears of future punifli-
xnent ; yon will have given the reins to the do-
mination of every pallion, and have thereby
contributed to the introduction of the public
infecurity, and of the private unhappinefs,
ufually and almoft neceflarily accompanying a
ftate of corrupted morals.
No one can think worfe of confeffion to a
prieft and fubfequent abfolution, as praftiied in
the church of Rome, than I do : but I cannot,
with you, attribute the guillotine-maflTacres
to that caufe. Men's minds were not pre-
pared, as you fuppofe, for the commiffion of
all manner of crimes, by any doftrines of the
church of Rome, corrupted as I efteem it, but
by their not thoroughly believing even that
religion. What may not fociety expect from
thofe, who (hall imbibe the principles of your
book ?
A FEVER, which you and thofe about you
cxpefted would prove mortal, made you re-
member with renewed fatisfaftion, that you
had written the former part of your Age of
Reafon and you know therefore, you fay,
by experience, the confcientious trial of your
-own principles. I admit this declaration to be
a proof of the fincerity of your perfuafion, but
I cannot admit it to be any proof of the truth
of your principles. What is confcience ? Is
it, as has been thought, an internal monitor
implanted in us by the Supreme Being, and
dictating to us, on all occafions, what is right,
or wrong? Or is it merely our own judgment
of the moral rectitude or turpitude of our own
a&ions ? I take the word (with Mr. Locke)
in the latter, as in the only intelligible ienfe.
Now who fees not that our judgments of vir-
tue and vice, right and wrong, are not always
formed from an enlightened and difpaffionate ule
of our reafon, in the inveftigation of truth ?
They are more generally formed from the na-
ture of the religion we profefs ? from the qua-
lity of the civil government under which we
live; from the general manners of the age, or
the particular manners of the perfons with
whom we affociate ; from the education we
have had in our youth : from the books we
have read at a more advanced period ; and from
other accidental caufes. "Who fees not that, on
this account, confcience may be conformable
or repugnant to the law of nature ? may be>
certain, or doubtful ?-r and that it can be n@
A 2
criterion of moral reftitude, even when it is
certain, becaufe the certainty of an opinion is
no proof of its being a right opinion ? A man
may be certainly perfuaded of an error in rea-
foning, or an untruth'in matters of faft. It is
a maxim of every law, human and divine, that
a man ought never to aft in opposition to his
confcience: but it will not from thence follow,
that he will, in obeying the dictates of his
confcience, on all occafions aft right. An in-
quifitor, who barns Jews and heretics ; a Ro-
befpierre, who maffacres innocent and harmlefs
women ; a robber, who thinks that all things
ought to be in common, and that a (late of pro-
priety is an unjuil infringement of natural li-
berty ; thefe, and a thoufand perpetrators of
different crimes, may all follow the diftates of
confcience ; and may, at the real or fuppofed
approach of death, remember " with renew-
ed fatisfaftion" the worft of their tranfaftions,
and experience, without difiiaay, " a confcien-
tious trial cf their principles." But this their
confident ions compofure, can be no proof to
others of the reftitncle of their principles, and
ought to be no pledge to tbemfelves of their
innocence, in adhering to them.
I HAVE thought fit to make this remark,
with a view of fuggefting to you a confidera-
tion of great importance whether you have
examined calmly, and according to the befl of
your ability, the arguments by which the truth
of revealed religion may, in the judgment of
learned, and impartial men, be eftablifhed?
7
You will allow, that thonfands of learned and
impartial men, (I fpeak not of priefts, who,
however, are, I truft, as learned and impartial
as yourfelf, but of laymen of the mofl fplendid
talents) you will allow, that thoufands of
thefe, in all ages, have embraced revealed re-
ligion as true. Whether thefe men have all
been in an error, enveloped in the darknefs of
ignorance, (hackled by the chains of fuperfti-
tion, whilft you and a few others have enjoy-
ed light, and liberty, is a queflion I fubmit to
the decifion of your readers.
IF you have made the beft examination you
can, and yet rejeft revealed religion, as an hn-
poflure, I pray that God 'may pardon what I
efleem your error. And whether you have
made this examination or not, does not become
me or -any man to determine. That gofpel,
which you defpife, has taught me this modera-
tion ; it has faid to me, " Who art thou
that judgeft another man's fervant ? To his
own mafter he ftandeth or falleth." I think
that you are in an error ; but whether that
error be to you a vincible or an invincible er-
ror, I prefume not to determine. I know in-
deed where it is faid " that the preaching of
the crofs is to them that perifh fooliflmefs,
and that if the gofpel be hid, it is hid to them
that are loft." The confequence of your unbe-
lief mull be left to the juft and merciful judg-
ment of him, who alone knoweth the median-
ifin and the liberty of our underftandings ; the
origin of our opinions ; -the ftrength of our
o
o
prejudices ; the excellencies and the defects of
our reafoning faculties.
I SHALL, defignedly, write this and the fol-
lowing letters in a popular manner; hoping that
thereby they may Hand a chance of being pe-
rufed by that clafs of readers, for whom your
work feems to be particularly calculated, and
who are the' molt likely to be injured by it.
The really learned are in no danger of being
infefted by the poifbn of infidelity: they will
excufe me, therefore, for having entered as lit-
tle as poifible into deep difquiiltions concerning
the authenticity of the Bible. The fubject
has been fo learnedly, and fo frequently, han-
dled by other writer's, that it does not want (I
had almoft laid, it does not admit) any farther
proof." And it is the more neceflary to adopt
this mode of anfwering your book, becaufe you
dilclaim all learned appeals to other books, and
undertake to prove, from the Bible itfelf, that
it is unworthy of credit. I hope to fhevv, from
the Bible itfelf, the clireft contrary. But in
cafe any of your readers fhould think that you
had not put forth all your ftrength, by not re-
ferring for proof of your opinion to ancient au-
thors ; left they fhould fufpeft that all ancient
authors are in your favour ; I will venture to
affirm, that had you made a learned appeal to all
the ancient books in the world, facred or pro-
fane, chriftian, jewifli, or pagan, inftead of lef-
iening, they would have eftablifhed the credit
and authority of the Bible as the word of God
9
QUITTING your preface, let us proceed to
the work itfelf ; in which there is much repe*
tition, and a defeft of proper arrangement.
I will follow your track, however, as nearly
as I can. The firft queftion you propofe for
confideration is " Whether there is fufficient
authority for believing the Bible to be the
"Word of God, or whether there is not ?"
You determine this queftion in the negative,
upon what you are pleafed to call moral evi-
dence. You hold it impoffible that the Bible
can be the word of God, becaufe it is therein
faid, that the Ifraelites deflroyed the Canaan-
ites by the exprefs command of God : and to
believe the Bible to be trtie, we mult, you af-
firm, ursbelieve all our belief of the moral juf-
tice of God; for wherein, you afk, could cry-
ing or imiling infants offend? I am aftonifhed
that fo acute a reafoner fhould attempt to clif-
parage the Bible, by bringing forward this ex-
ploded and frequently refuted objection of Mor-
gan, Tindal, and Bolingbroke. You profefs
yourfelf to be a deifl, and to believe that there
is a God, who created the univerfe, and efta-
blifhed the laws of nature, by which it is fiifV
tained in exiftence. You profefs that from the
contemplation of the works of God, you de-
rive a knowledge of his attributes; and you re-
jedt the Bible, becauie it afcribes to God things
inconfiftent (as you fuppofe) with the: at:
butes which you have difcovered to belong to
him: in particular, you think it repugnant to
his moral juftice, that he ffiould doom to de-
10
ftruftion the crying or fmiling infants of the
Canaanites. Why do you not maintain it to
be repugnant to his moral juftice, that he fhould
fuffer crying or fmiling infants to be fwallowed
up by an earthquake, drowned by an inunda-
tion, confumed by a fire, ftarved by a famine,
or deftroyed by a peftilence ? The "Word of
God is in perfect harmony with his work ; cry-
ing or fmiling infants are fubjeted to death
in both. We believe that the earth, at the ex-
prefs command of God, opened her mouth, and
fwallowed up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram,
with their wives, their fons, and their little
ones. This you efteem fo repugnant to God's
moral juftice, that you fpurn, as fpurious, the
book in which the circumftance is related.
When Catania, Lima, and Liibon, were ievc-
rally deftroyed by earthquakes, men with their
wives, their fons, and their little ones, were
fwallowed up alive : why do you not fpurn,
as fpurious, the book of nature in which this
faft is certainly written, and from the perufal
of which you infer the moral juftice of God ?
You will, probably, reply, that the evils which
the Canaanites differed from the exprefs com-
mand of God, were different from thofe which
are brought on mankind, by the operation of
the laws of nature. Different ! In what ? -
Not in the magnitude, of the evil not in the
fubjedls of fufferance not in the author of it
for my philofophy, at lead, inftrufts me to be-
lieve that God not only primarily formed, but
that he hath through all ages executed the
II
laws of nature ; and that he will, through all
eternity adminifter them, for the general hap-
pinefs of his creatures, whether we can, on
every occafion, difcern that end or not.
I AM far from being guilty of the impiety
of queftioning the exiftence of the moral juf-
tice of God, as proved cither by natural or re<-
vealed religion ; what I contend for is fhortly
this that you have no right, in fairnefs of rea-
foning, to urge any apparent deviation from
moral juflice, as an argument againft revealed
religion, becaufe you do not urge >an equally
apparent deviation from it, argument
againft natural religion : yea a^ecf the for-
mer, and admit the latter, i^ertii g
that, as to your objection, u and or
fall together.
As to the Ganaanites, it is needjefs to enter
into any proof of the depraved (late of their
morals ; they were a wicked people in the time
of Abraham, and they, even then, were de-
voted to deftru&ion by God ; but their iniquity
was not then full. In the time of Mofes, tiiey
were idolaters, facrificers of their own crying
or fmiling intants ; devoujrers of human fie/h :
addicted to unnatural luft; immerfcd in the fil-
thinefs of all manner of vice. Now, I think,
it will be impoffible to prove, that it was a
proceeding contrary to God's moral juftice, to
exterminate fo wicked a people. He made the
Ifraelites the executors of his vengeance ; and,
in doing this, he gave fuch an evident and ter-
rible proof of his abomination of vice, as could
12
not fail to ftrike the furrounding nations with
aflonifhment and terror, and to imprefs on the
minds of the Ifraelites what they were to ex-
pet, if they followed the example of the na-
tions whom he commanded them to cut off.
" Ye fliall not commit any of thefe abomina-
tions that the land fpue not you out alfo, as
it fpued out the nations that were before you."
How ftrong and defcriptive this language ! the
vices of the inhabitants were fo abominable,
that the very land was fick of them, and for-
ced to vomit them forth, as the flomach dif-
gorges a deadly poifon.
I HAVE often wondered what could be the
reafon that men, not deftitute of talents, fhould
be defirous of undermining the authority of re-
vealed religion, and ftudious in expofing, with
a milignant and illiberal exultation every little
difficulty attending the fcriptures, to popular
animadverfion and contempt. I am not will-
ing to attribute this ftrange propensity to what
Plato attributed the Atheifm of his time to
profligacy of manners to affectation off] ngu-
larity to grofs ignorance, afluming the fem-
blance of deep refearch and fuperior fagacity ;
I had rather refer it to an impropriety of
judgment refpefting the manners, and mental
acquirements, of human kind in the firft ages
of the world. Moft unbelievers 'argue as if
they thought that man, in remote .and rude
antiquity, in the very birth and infancy of
our fpecies, had the fame diftinft conceptions
of one ? eternal, invifible, incorporeal, infinite-
ly wife, powerful, and good God, which
they themfelves have now. This I lock
upon as a great miftake, and a pregnant
fource of infidelity. Human kind, by long
experience; by the inflitutions of civil foci-
ety ; by the cultivation of arts and fcienccs;
by, as I believe, divine inftrii&ipn actually
given to fome, and traditionally communica-
ted to all ; is in a far more diftmguifhed fitu-
ation, as to the powers of the mind, than
it was in the childhood of the world. The
hiftory of man, is the hiftory of the pro-
vidence of God; who, willing the fuprenie
felicity of all his creatures, has adapted his
government to the capacity of thofc, who
in different ages were the fubjefts cf it.
The hiftory of any one nation throughout
all ages, and that of all nations in th? fame
age, are but feparate parts of one great plan,
which God is carrying on for the moral
melioration of mankind. But who can com-
prehend the whole of this immenfe delign?
The fhortnefs of life, the weaknefs of our
faculties, the inadequacy of our means of
information, confpire to make it impoflible
for us, worms of the earth ! infeds of an hour !
completely to underftand anyone of it's parts.
No man, who well weighs the fubjcft, ought
to be fbrpriied, that in the hiftories of an-
cient times many things fhould occur foreign
to -our manners, the propriety and neceffity
of which we cannot clearly apprehend.
B
IT appears incredible to many, that God
Almighty fhould have had colloquial inter-
courfe with our firft parents ; that he fhould
have contraftecl a kind of friendship for the
patriarchs, and entered into covenants with
them ; that he fliould have fufpended the
laws of nature in Egypt ; fhould have been
fo apparently partial, as to become the God
and governor of one particular nation ; and
fliould' have fo far demeaned himfelf, as to
give to that people a burdenfome ritual of
worfhip, ftatutes and ordinances, many of
which feem to be beneath the dignity of his
attention, unimportant and impolitic. I
have converfed with many deifts, and have
'always found that the ftrangenefs of thefe
things was the only reafon for their dilbe-
lief of them : nothing fimilar has happened
in their time ; they will not, therefore, ad-
mit, that thefe events have really taken place
at any time. As well might a child, when
arrived at a ft ate of manhood, contend that
he had never either flood in need of, or ex-
perienced the foftering care of a mother's
kindncfs, the wearifome attention of his
nurie, or the inftruftiori and clifcipline of his
fchoolmafter. The Supreme Being felefted
one family from an idolatrous world; nurfed
it up, by various acts of his providence, in-
to a great nation ; communicated to that na-
tion a knowledge of his holinefs, juflice,
mercy, power, and wifdom ; difleminated
thern, at various times, through every }
of the earth, that they might be a t; leaven
to leaven the whole lamp," that they might
affure all other nations of the cxiitence of
one Supreme God, the creator and preferver
of the world, the only proper object of ado-
ration. With what reafon can we expect,
that what was done to one nation, not out
of any partiality to them, but for the gene-
ral good, fhould be clone to all? that the'
mode of Snflrucftion, which was fuited to the
infancy of the world, fhould be extended to
the maturity of its manhood, or to the im-
becility of it's old age; I own to you, that
when I confider how nearly man, in a favage
ftate, approaches to the brute creation, as to
intellectual excellence; and when I contem-
plate his miierable attainments, as to the
knowledge of God, in a civilised ftate, when
he has had no divine inftru&ion on the lub-
jecl, or when that inftruetion has been for-
gotten, (for all men have known fomething.
of God from tradition,) I cannot but admire
the wiiclom and goodncfs of the Supreme
Being, in having let himfelf down to our
apprehenfions; in having given to mankind,
in the earlieft ages, fenfible and extraordina-
ry proofs of his exiftence and attributes; in
having made the jewifh and chriftian difpen-
fations mediums to convey to all men, through
ail ages, that knowledge concerning himfelf,
which he had vouchfafed to give immediate-
16
ly to the firft. I own it is ftrangr, very
ftrange, that he ftiould have made an imme-
diate manifeftation of hi mil If in the firft
ages of the world, but what is there that is
not ilrange? It is (tiange that you and I are
Lore that there is water, and earth; and air,
and lire that there is a fun, an-d moon, and
ftars that there is generation, corruption,
reproduction. I can account ultimately for
none of theie things, without recurring to
him who made every thing, I alfo am his
workmanfhip, and look up to him with hope
of pidervation through all eternity; I adore
him for his word as well as for his work:
his work I cannot comprehend, but his word
hath allured me of all that I am concerned
to know that he hath prepared cverlafiing
happinefs for thofe who love and obey him.
This you will call preachment, I \vill
have done with it ; but the fubject is fo vaft,
and the plan of providence, in my opinion,
fo obvioufly wife and good, that I can never
think of it without having my mind filled
with piety, admiration, and gratitude.
IN addition to the moral evidence (as you
are pleafed to think it) againft the Bible,
you threaten, in the progrefs of your work,
to produce fuch other evidence as even a
prieft cannot deny. A philofopher in fearch
of truth, forfeits with me all claim to can-
dour and impartiality, when he introduces
railing for reafoning, vulgar and illiberal
farcafm in the room of argument. I will not
imitate the example you fet me : but examine
what you fhall produce with as much cool-
nefs and refpeft, as if you had given the prieils
no provocation ; as if you were a man of the
mod unblemifhed character, fubjeft to no pre-.
judices, actuated by no bad defigns, not liable'
to have abufe retorted upon you with fucccfk.
LETTER II.
BEFORE you commence your grand
attack upon the Bible, you wiih to eftabliih
a difference between the evidence neceflary
to prove the authenticity of the Bible, and
that of any other ancient book. I am not
furprifed at your anxiety on this head ; for
all writers on the fubjeft -have agreed in
thinking that St. Auftin reafoned well, when r
in vindicating the genuinenefs of the Bible,
lie allied, ij * what proofs have we that the
works of Plato, Ariftotle, Cicero, Varro,
and othej: profane authors, were written by
thofe whole names they bear ; unlefs it be
that this has been an opinion generally re-
ceived at all times, and by all. thofe who have
lived finee thtfe authors r" This writer
was convinced, that the evidence which ef-
tabliftied the gtrr.uinenefs of any profane book,
would -efiabliih that of aiacred bock; and !
profefs rnyfelf to be of the fame ephrlor r .
jso^ithftaridlng what you have advance:;
tig.' contrary..
IN this part your ideas feem to me to be
confufed; I do not fay, that you, defignedly f
jumble together mathematical fcience and hif-
torical evidence ; the knowledge acquired by
demonftration, and the probability derived
from teftimony. You know but of one an-
cient book, that authoritatively challenges
univerfal confent and belief, and that is Eu-
clid's elements. If I were difpofed to make
frivolous obje&ions, I fliould fay, that even
Eaclid r s Elements had not met with univer-
fal confent ; that there had been men r both
in ancient and modern times, who had quef-
tioned the intuitive evidence of (ome of his
axioms, and denied the jullnefs of fome of
his demonstrations ; but, admitting the truth,
I do not fee the pertinency of your ohfcrva-
tion. You are attempting to fubvert the
authenticity of the Bible, and you tell us-
that Euclid's Elements are certainly true. -
What then ? Does it follow that the Bible
is certainly talfe ? The rnoft illiterate fcri-
vener in the kingdom does not want to bs
informed, that the examples in his Wingate's
Arithmetic, are proved by a different kind
of reafoning from that by which he perfuades
hioifelf to believe, that there was (uch a
perfon as Henry VIII, or that there is-fucb
a city as Paris..
IT may be of ufe, to remove this ronfufion.
ia your argument, to f (late, diftindly, the
T
2O
difference between the genuinenefs, and the
authenticity, of a book. A genuine book,
is that which was written by the peirfon
whole name it bears, as the author of it.
An authentic book, is that which relates
matters of faft, as they really happened. A
book may be genuine without being authen-
tic ; and a book may be authentic without
being genuine. The books written by Ri-
chardfon, and Fielding are genuine books
though the hiftories of ClarifTa and Torn
Jones are fables. The hlflory of the iiland
of Formofa is a genuine book; it was writ-
ten by Pfalmanazar; but it is not an authen-
tic book, (though it was long eileemed as
fuch, .and tranfiated into different languages,)
for the author, in the latter part of his life,
took fhatne to himfelf for having impofed on.
the world, and confefled that it was a mere
romance. Artfon's voyage may be confider-
ed as an authentic book, it, probably, con-
taining a true narration of the principal
events recorded in it ; but it is not 'a genu-
ine book, having not been written by Wal-
ters, to whom it is afcribed, but by Robins,
THIS cliftinftion between the genuinenefs
and authenticity of a book, will affifc us in
detecting the fallacy of an argument, which
you jftate with great confidence in the part
of your work now under confederation, and
which you frequently allude to, hi ether
21
parts, as conclnfive evidence againfl the
truth of the Bible. Your argument (lands
thus if it be found that the books afcribed
to Moles, Jofhua, and Samuel, were not
written by Mofes, Jofiuia, and Samuel, eve-
ry part of the authority and authenticity of
thefe books is gone at once. I prefume to
think otherwife. The genuinenefs of thefe
books (in the judgment of thole who fay
that they were written by thefe authors)
will certainly begone; but their authentici-
ty may remain; they may ft ill contain a true
account of real tranfations, though the
names of the writers of them fhould be found
to be different from what they are generally
efteemed to be,
HAD, indeed, Mofes faid that he wrote
the firft five books of the Bible; and had Jo-
fliua and Samuel faid that they wrote the
books which are refpe&tvely attributed to
them; and had it been found, that Mofes,
Joflhua, and Samuel, did not write thefe
books; then, I grant, the authority'of the
whole would have been gone at once; thefe
men would have been found liars, as to the
genuinenefs of the books; and this proof of
their want of veracity, in one point, would
have invalidated their teftimony in every
other ; thefe books would have been juftly
fligmatized, as neither genuine nor authen-
tic,
22
AN hiftory may be true, though it ftuuild
not only be afcribed to a wrong author, but
though the author of it fhould not be known ;
anonymous teftimony does not deftroy the
reality of facts, whether natural or miracu-
lous. Had Lord Clarendon published his
Hiftory of the Rebellion, without prefixing
bis name to it ; or had the hiftory of Titus
Livius come down to us, under the name of
Valerius Flaccus,or Valerius Maximus ; the
facts mentioned in thefe hiftories would have
been equally certain.
As to your aflTertion, that the miracles re-
corded in Tacitus, and in other profane hif-
tofians, are quite as well authenticated as
thofe of the Bible it, being a mere afTertion,
destitute of proof, may be properly anfwer-
ed by a contrary affertion. I take the liber-
ty then to fay, that the evidence for the mi-
Vacles recorded in the Bible is, both in kind
and degree, fo greatly fbperior to that for
the prodigies mentioned by Livy, or the mi-
racles related by Tacitus, as to juftify us in
giving credit to the one as the work of God,
and in with holding it from the other as the
effect of fuperftition and impofture. This
method of derogating from the credibility
of Christianity, by oppoiing to the miracles
of our Saviour, the tricks of ancient impof-
tors, feems to have originated with Hiero-
cles in the fourth century ; and it has been
adopted by unbelievers from, that time to
this ; with this difference, indeed, that the
heathens of the third and fourth century ad-
mitted that Jefus wrought miracles; but left
that admiffion fhould have compelled them
to abandon their gods and become Chriftians,
they faid, that their slpol/onius, their Apu-
leius ^ their Arifteas, did as great : whilfl
modern cleifts deny the fa<t of Jefus having
ever wrought a miracle. And they have
fome reafon for this proceeding ; they a^e
fenfible that the gofpel miracles are fo differ-
ent, in all their circumflances, from thofe
related in pagan ftory, that, if they admit
them to have been performed, they muft ad-
mit chriftianity to be true ; hence they have
fabricated a kind of deiftical axiom that no
human tcftimony can eftablifli the credibility
of a miracle. -This, though it has been an
hundred times refuted, is ftill infifted upon,
as if its truth had never been queftioned, and
could not be difproved.
You " proceed to examine the authenti-
city of the Bible ; and you begin, you fay,
with what are called the five books of Mofes,
Genefis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy. Your intent ion, youprofefs, is
to (hew that thefe books are fpurious, and .
that Mofes is not the author of them ; and
ftill farther, that they were not written in
the time of Mofes, nor till feveral hundred
24
years afterwards ; that they are no other
than an attempted hiftory of the life of Mo-
fes, and of the times in which he is faid to
have lived, and alfo of the times prior there-
to, written by fome very ignorant and fhi-
pid pretender to authorftiip, leveral hundred
years after the death of Mofes." In thispaf-
fage the utmoft force of your attack on the
authority of the five books of Mofes is clear-
ly dated. You are not the fir ft who has
ftarted this difficulty ; it is a difficulty, in-
deed, of modern date ; having not been heard
of, either in the fyragogue, or cut of it,
till the twelfth century. About that time
Aben Ezra, a Jew of great erudition, noticed
fome paffages (the fame which you have
brought forward) in the five firft books of
the Bible, which he thought had not been
written by Mofes, but inferted by fome per-
fon after the death of Mofes. But he was
far from maintaining, as you do, that thefe
books were written by fome ignorant and
ftnpid pretenderto authorftiip, many hundred
years after the death of Mofes. I' f \ t-les con-
tends that the books of Mofes r-e fo called,
not from their having been written by Mo-
fes, but from their containing an actount of
Mofes. Spinoza fupportcd the fame opini-
on ; and Le Glerc, a very able theological
critic of the laft and prefent century, once
entertained the lame notion. You fee that
this fancy has had fome patrons before you ;
25
the merit or the demerit, the fagacity or the
temerity of having afferted, that Moles is
not the author of the Pentateuch, is not ex-
chT.fi vely your's. Le C/erc, indeed, you muft
not boaftof. When his judgment was matur-
ed by age, he was afhamed of what he had
written on the fubjcft in his younger* yearsi
He made a public recantation of his error,
by annexing to his commentary on Genefis,
a Latin differtation concerning Mofcs, the
author of the Pentateuch, and his defign in
.compofing it. If in your future life you
fhould chance to change your opinion on the
fubjeft, it will bean honor to your character
to emulate the integrity, and tu imitate the
example of Le Clerc. The Bible is not the
.only book which has undergone the fate of
being reprobated as fpurions, after it had
been received as genuine and authentic for
many ages. It has been maintained that the
hiftory of Herodotus was written in the time
of Conftantine ; and that the claffics are for-
geries of the thirteenth or fourteenth centu-
ry. Thefe extravagant reveries amufed the
world at the time of their publication, and
have long flnce funk into oblivion. You ef-
teem all -prophets to be fuch lying rafcals,
that I dare ftot venture to predict the fate of
your book,
BEFORE you produce your main objecti-
ons to the genuineuefs of the books of Mo-
C
26
fes, you affert that " there is no affirmative
evidence that Mofes is the author of them."
What ! no affirmative evidence ! In the
eleventh century Malmonides drew up a con-
feffion of faith for the Jews, which all of
them at this clay admit ; it confifts of only
thirteen articles ; and two of them have re-
fpedt to Moles ; one affirming the authenti-
city, the other the gcnuinenefs of his books.
The doctrine and prophecy of Mofes is
true-r-The law that we have was given by
Mofes,-^ This is the faith of the Jews at
pr^fent,, and has been their faith ever fince
: the'.deflruftion of their city and temple : it
was their faith in the time when the authors
to of the New-Teftament wrote ; it was their
faith during their captivity in Babylon: in
the time of their kings and judges ; and no
period can be fhown, from the age of Mofes
to the prefent hour, in which it was not their
faith Is this no affirmative evidence .? I can-
not defire a ftronger. Jojephus^ in his book
againft dppion, writes thus 4k We have on-
ly two and twenty books which are to be be-
lieved as of divine authority, and which com-
prehend the hiftory of all ages ; five belong
to Mofes, which contain the original of man,
and the tradition of the fucceffion of genera-
tions, down to his death, which takes in a
.compafs of about three thoufand years." Do
you confider this as no affirmative evidence ?
Why (hould I mention Juvenal fpeaking of
27
the volume which Mofes had written ? Why
enumerate a long lift of profane authors, all
bearing teftimony to the fact of Mofes being
the leader, and the law-giver of the Jewifh
nation ? and if a law giver, furely, a writer
of the laws. But what fays the Bible ? 'In
Exodus it fays " Mofes wrote all the words
of the Lord, and took the book of the cove-
nant, and read in the audience of the peo-
ple/' In Deuteronomy it fays " And it
came to pafs, when Mofes had made an end of
writing the words of this law in a book, un-
til they were finifhed, (this furely imports the
the fin idling, a laborious work,) that Mofes
commanded the^Levites which bare the ark of
the covenant" of the Loi;d, faying, Take this
book of the law, and put it in the fide of the ark
of the covenant of the Lord your God, that
it may be there for a witnefs againft thee."
This is faid in Deuteronomy, which is akind
of repetition, or abridgment of the four prc-
reding books ; and it is well known that the
evvs gave the name of the Law to the firft
five books of the Old Teftament. What
poiiible doubt can there be that Mofes wrote
he books in quellion ? I could accumulate
nany other paflages from the fcriptures to
his purpofe ; but if what I have advanced
ill not convince you that there is affirma-
ivc evidence, and of the ftrongeft kind, for
lofes being the author of thefe books, no*
ling that I can advance will convince you,
tt
WHAT if I (hould grant all you under-
take to prove (the ftupiclity and ignorance
of the writer excepted) ? What if I {hould
admit, that Samuel, 6r Ezra, or fonie other
learned Jew, com poled thefe books, from
public records, many years after the death
of Mofes? Will it follow, that there was no
truth in them ? According to my logic, it
will only follow, that they are riot genuine
books ; every fal recorded in them may be
true, whenever, or by whomsoever they
\V-ere written. It cannot be faid that the
Jews had no public records ; the Bible fur-
infhes abundance of proof to the contrary.
I by no means admit, that thefe books, as to
the main part of them, were not written
by Mofes; but I do contend, that a book
may contain a true hiflory, though we know
not the author of it ; or though we may be.
miftaken in afcribing it to a wrong author.
THE firft argument you produce againft
Mofes being the author of thefe books is fo
old, that I do not know its original author;
and it is fo miferable an one, that I wonder
you {hould adopt it " Thefe books cannot
be written by Mofes, becaufe they are wrote
in the third perfon it is always, The Lord
faid unto Mofes, or Mofes laid unto the
Lord. This, you fey, is the ftyle and man-
ner that hiftorians ufe In fpeaking of the per-
fon whofe lives and actions they are writing.' 1
This obfervation is true, but it does riot ex-
tend far enough ; for this is the ftyle and
manner not only of hiftorians writing of
other perfons, but of eminent men, fuch as
Xenophon and Jojefhus^ writing of them-
felves. If General t7ajhington fhonld write
the hiftory of the American war, and fhould,
from his great modefty, ipeak of himfelf in.
the third perion, would you think it reafon-
able that, two or three tho.ufand years hence,
any peribn (hould, on that account, contend,
that the hiftory was not true ? Gfffar writes
of himfelf in the third perfon it is always,
Csfar made a fpeech, or a fpeech was made
to Caefar, Csefar eroded the Rhine, Caefar
invaded Britain ; but every fchool-boy knows,
that this circumftance cannot be adduced as a
fcTious argument againft Caefar's being the;
author of his own commentaries.,
BUT Mofes, you urge, cannot be the au-
thor of the book of Numbers, becaufe he
fays of himfelf " that Mofes was a very
meek .man, above all the men that were on.
the face of the earth." If he had faid this
of himfelf, he was, you fay, " a vain and
arrogant coxcomb, (fuch is your phrafe!)
and unworthy of credit and if he did not
fay it, the books are without authority. "
This your dilemma is perfectly harmleis;
it has not an horn to hurt the weakeft logi-
cian, If Mofes did not write this little vcrfc
C 2
3
if it was infertcdlDy Samuel, or any of his .
countrymen, who knew his character, and
revered his memory, will it follow that he
did not write any other part of the book of
Numbers ? Or if he did not write any part
of the book of Numbers, will it follow that
he did not write any of the other books of
which he is ufually reputed the author ?
And if he did write this of himfelf, he was
jufdfied by the occafion which extorted from,
him this commendation. Had this expreffion
been written in a modern flyle and manner,
it would probably have given you no offence.
For who would be ib faftidious as to find fault
with an illuftrious man, who, being calum-
niated by his neareft relations, a:, guilty of
pride, and fond of power, fhould vindicate his
character by faying, My temper was natu-
rally as meek and unaffuming as that. of any
man upon earth? There are occafions, m
which a modeft man, who fpeaks truly, may
fpeak proudly of himfelf, without forfeiting
his general character; and there is no occa-
fion, which either more requires, or more
excufes this conduft, than when he is repel-
ling the foul and envious afperfions of thofe
who both knew his character and had expe-
rienced his kindnels : and in that* predicament
flood Aaron and Miriam, the accufers of
JMofes. You yourfelf have, probably, felt
the ft ing of calumny, and have been anxious
ta remove the iinprcljion. I do not call you
a vain and arrogant coxcomb for vindicating
your character, when in the latter part of
this very work you boaft, and I hope truly,
" that the man does not exift that can fay I
have perfecuted him, or any man, or any fet
of men, in the American revolution, or in
the French revolution; or that I have in
any cafe returned evil for evil." I know not
what kings and priefts may fay to this ; you
may not have returned to them evil for evil,
becaufe they never, I believe, did you any
harm; but you have done them all the harm
you could, and that without provocation,
I THINK it needlefs to notice your obfer-
vation upon what you call the dramatic ftyle
of Deuteronomy ; it is an ill-founded hypo-
Ihefis. You might as well a(k, where the
author of Caefar's commentaries got the
fpeeches of Cxfar, as where the author of
Deuteronomy got the fpeeches of Mofes-
But your argument that Mofes was not the
author of Deuteronomy, becaufe the reafon
given in that book for the obfervation of the
iabbath is different from that given in Exo-
dus, merits a reply.
You need not be told that the very name
of this book imports, in Greek, a repetition
of a lav/ ; and that the Hebrew doctors have
called it by a word of the fam? meaning. In
the fifth verle of the firft chapterit is faid in
our Bibles, " Moles began to declare this
law ;" but the Hebrew words, more proper-
ly tranflated, import that Mofes 4i began, or
determined, to explain the law." This is
DO fhift of mine to get ever a difficulty ; the
words are fo rendered in moft of the ancient
verfions, and by Fagius, Vetablus, and Le
C/:*T, men eminently /killed in the Hebrew
language. This repetition and explanation
of the law, was a wife and benevolent pro-
ceeding in Moies ; that thofe who were ei-
ther not born, or were mere infants, when
it was firft (forty years before) delivered in
Horeb, might have an opportunity of know-
ing it ; efp-rcially as Moies their leader was
foon to be taken from them, and they were
about to be fettled in the midfi of nations
given to idolatry and funk in vice. Now
where is the wonder, that fome variations,
and fome additions fhould be made to a law,
when a legislator thinks fit to rejjublifli it
many years after its firft promulgation ?
WITH refpeft to the fabbith, the learned
are divided in opinion concerning its origin ;
forne contending, that it was fanflified from
the creation of the world ; that it was ob-
ferved by the patriarchs before the flood ;
that it was neglefted by the Ifraelites during
their bondage in Egypt ; revived on the fal-
ling of manna in the wildernefs; and enjoin-
ed as a pofitive law, at Sinai. Others eitccm
55
its inftitution to ])ave been no older than
the age of Mofes ; and argue, that what is
faid of the fanftification of the fabbath in the
book of Genefis, is faiclby way of anticipa*
tion. There may be truth in both thefe ac-
counts. To me it is probable, that the me*
inory of the creation was handed down from
Adam to all his pofterity ; and that the fe-
venth day was, for a long time, held facred
by all nations, in commemoration of that
event; but that the peculiar rigidrfefs of its
obfervance was enjoined by Mofes to the If-
raelites alone. As to there being two rea-
fons given for its being kept holy, one, that
on that day God relied from, the work of
creation the other, on that day God had gi-
ven them reft from the fervitude of Egypt
I fee no con tradition in the accounts. If
a man, in writing the Hiftory of England,
fhould inform his readers, that the parliament
had ordered the fifth of November to be kept
holy, becaufe on that day God had delivered
the nation from a bloody-intended maflacrc
by gun-powder ; and if, in another part of
his hiflory, he (hould affigri the deliverance
of our church and nation from popery and
arbitrary power, by the arrival of King Wil-
liam, as a reafon for its being kept holy ;
would any one contend, that he was not juf-
tified in both thefe ways of expreffion, or
that we ought from thence to conclude, that
he was not the author qf them bpth ?
54
You think " that law in Deuteronomy
inhuman and brutal, which authorifes pa-
rents, the father and the mother, to bring
their own children to have them floned to
death for what it is pleaied to call flubborn-
neis." Yo'u are aware, I fuppoie, that pa-
ternal power, among'!! the Remans, the Gauls ,
the Per/2 am ^ and other nations, was of the
mod arbitrary kind; that it extended to the
taking away the life of the child. I do not
know wjiether the Israelites in the time of
Mofes excrcifecl this paternal power; it was
not a cuflom adopted by all nations, but it was
by many; and in the infancy of fociety, be-
fore individual families, had coalcfced into
cornmunkies, it was probably very^ general.
Now Moles, by this law, which you efleern
brutal and inhuman, hindered fuch an extra-
vagant power from being either introduced
or exercifed amongft the Israelites. This law
is fo far from countenancing the arbitrary
power of a father ever the life of his
child, that it takes from him the power
of accuiing the child before a magiftrate
- the father and the mother of the child mufl
agree in bringing the child to judgment
and it is not by their united will that the
child was to be condemned to death ; the el-
ders of the city were to judge whether the
accufation was true ; and the accufation was
to be not merely, as you iniinuate, that the
child was ftubborn, but that he was " fti b-
born and rebellious, a glutton and a drunk-
ard." Confidercd in this light, you mirft
allow the law to have been an humane reftric-
tion of a power improper to be lodged with
any parent.
THAT you may abufe the priefts, you aban-
don your fubj eft " Priefts, you (ay, preach
up Deuteronomy, for Deuteronomy preach-
es up tythes." I do not know that priefts
preach up Deuteronomy, more than they
preach up other books of fcripture ; but I
do know that tythes are not preached up
in Deuteronomy, more than in Leviticus, in
Nu-nbers, in Chronicles, in Malachi, in the
law, the hiftory, and the prophets of the
Jewifh nation. You go on tfc it is from this
book, chap. xxv. ver. 4., they have taken
the phrafe, and applied it to ty thing, " Thou
(halt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth
out the corn -;" and that this might not efcape
obfervation, they have.noted it in the table of
contents at the head of the chapter, though it
Is only a fingle verfe of lefs than two lines. O
priefts! priefts! ye are willing to be compared
to an ox for the fake of tythes!" 1 cannot call
this reafoning and I will not pollute my
page by giving it a proper appellation. Had
the table of contents, inftead of fimply fay-
ing the ox is not to be muzzled laid
tythes enjoined, or priefts to be maintained ,
there would have been a little ground for
your cenfure. Whoever npted this phrafe
36
at the head of the chapter, had better rea*
fan for doing it, than you have attributed to
them. They did it, becanfe St. Paul had
quoted it, when he was proving to the Co-
rinthians, that they who preached the gof-
pel had a right to live by the gofpel ; it was
Paul, and not the priefts, who firft applied
this phrafe to tything. St. Paul, indeed,
did not avail himfejf of the right he con-
tended for ; he was not, therefore, interefted
in what he faid. The reafon, on which he
grounds the right, is not merely this quota-
tion, which yon ridicule; nor the appoint-
ment of the law of Mofes, which you think
fabulous; nor the injunction of Jefus, which
you defpife ; no, it is a reafon founded in
the nature of things, and which no philofo-
pher, no unbeliever, no man of common
fenfe can deny to be a folid reafon ; ir amounts
to this that " the labourer is worthy of
his hire." Nothing is fo much a man's own,
as his labour and ingenuity ; and it is entire-
ly confonai.t to the law of nature, that by
the innocent uie of thefe he fhould provide
for his fubfiftence. Hufbandmen, artifts, fol-
diers, phyficians, lawyer?, all let out their
labour and talents for a ftipulated reward :
why may not a prieft do the fame ? Some
accounts of you have been published in En-
gland ; but, conceiving them to have pro-
ceeded from a defign to injure your charac-
ter, I never read them. I know nothing of
57
your parentage, your education, or condition
in life. You may have been elevated, by
your birth, above the neceffity of acquiring
the means of fuflaining life by the labour ei-
ther of hand or head : if this be the cafe, you
ought not to defpife thofe who have come
into the world in lefs favourable circum-
ftances. If your origin has been lefs fo;tu-
nate, you mufl have fupported yourfelf, ei-
ther by manual labour, or the exercife of
your genius. Why fnould you think that
conduit difreputable in priefts, which you.
probably confider as laudable in yourfelf? I
know not whether you have not as great a
difiike of kings as of priefts ; but that you
may be induced to think more favourably of
men of my profeffion, I will juft mention to
you that the payment of tythes is no new*
inftitution, but that they were paid in the
moil ancient times, not to priefts only, but
to kings. I could give you an hundred in-
ftances of this : two may be fufficient. Abra-
ham paid tytbes to the king of Salem, four
hundred years before the law of Mofes was gi-
ven. The king of Salem was prieft alfb of
the moft high God. Priefts, you fee, exift-
ecl in the world, and were held in high efti-
mation. for kings were priefts, long before
the irnpoftures, as you eileem them, of the
jcwifli and Chriftian difpenfations were heard
of. But as this inftunce is taken from a book
which you call " a book of contradictions
D
and lies" the Bible ; I will give you ano-
ther, from a book, to the authority of which,
as it is written by a profane author, you
probably will not objeft. Diogenes Laerti-
us, in his life of Solon, cites a letter of Pifi-
fir at us to that lawgiver, in which he fays
46 I Pififtratus, the tyrant, am contented
with the ftipends which were paid to thofe
who reigned before me ; the people of Athens
fet apart a tenth of the fruits of their land,
not for my private ufe, but to be expended
in the public facrifices, and for the general
good."
LETTER III.
A V I N G done with what you call
the grammatical evidence that Moies was not
the author of the books attributed to him,
you come to your hiftorical and chronologi-
cal evidence ; and you begin with Gcneiis,
Your firft argument is taken from the {Ingle
word Dan being found in Genelis, when
it appears from the book of Judges, that the
town of Lai fii was not called Dan till above
three hundred and thirty years after the death
of Mofes ; therefore the writer of Genefis*
you conclude, mull have lived after the town
of Laifti had the name of Dan given it. Left
this objection fhould not be obvious enough
to a common capacity, you illuftrate it in the
following manner; " Havre-de-Grace was
called Havre-Marat in 1793; fli u ld then
any datelefs writing be found, in after-times,
with the name of Havre-Marat, it would be
certain evidence that fuch a writing could
4 o
pot have been written till after the year
jygg." This is a wrong conclufion. Sup-
pofe fome hot republican ihould at this day
publifh a new edition of any old hiftory of
France, and infceacl of Havre-de-Grace fhould
write Havre-Marat; and that two or three
thoufand years hence, a man, like'yourfelf,
ihould, on that account, reject the whole
hi (lory asfpurious, would he be juftified in fo
doing? Would it not be reafonable to tell
him that the name Havre-Marat had been
inferted, not by the original author of the
hilloiy, but by a fubfequent editor of it ; and
to refer him, for a proof of the genuineness
of the book, to the teftimony of the whole
French nation? This fuppofition fo obvioufly
applies to your difficulty, that I cannot but
recommend it to your impartial attention.
But if this folution- does not pieafe you, I
dedre it may be proved, that the Dan, men-
tioned in Genefis, was the fame town as the
Dan, mentioned in Judges, I-defire, further,
to have it proved, that the Dan, mentioned
in Genefis, was the name of a town, and not
of a river. It is merely faid Abraham pur-
fued the enemies of Lot, to Dan. Now a
river was fall as likely as a town to flop a
purfuit. Lot, we know, was fettled in the
plain of 'Jordan ; and Jordan, we know, was
cornpofed of the united ftreams of two ri-
vers, called Jor and Dan*
4 i
YOUR next difficulty refpefts its being
faid in Genefis 4k Thefe are the kings that
reigned in Edom before there reigned any
king over the children of Ifrael: this paflV
age could only have Keen written, you fay,
(and I think you fay rightly), after the firft
king began to reign over Ifrael; fo far from
being written by Mofes, it could not have
been written till the time of Saul at the leaft."
I admit this inference, but I deny its applica-
tion. A fmall addition to a book does not
deftroy either the genuinenefs or the authen-
ticity of the whole book. I am not ignorant
of the manner in which commentators have
anfwered this objection of Spinoza, without
making the conceffion which I have made;
but I have no fcruple in admitting, that the
pafTage in qucftion, colififtihg of nine verfes,
containing the genealogy of fome kings of
Edom, might have been inferted in the book
of Genefis, after the hook of Chronicles
(which was called in Greek by a name im-
porting that it contained things left out in'
other books) was written. Thr learned
have (hewn, that interpolations have hap-
pened to other books , but thefe infertions by
other hands have never been considered as in--
validating the authority of tliofe book",
TAKE away frcni Genefis,'' you fay,. " ths"
the author, on wh \ciV-
re belief that it is the v
D 2
4 2
God has ftood, and there remains nothing of .
Genefis but an anonymous book of ftories,
fables, traditionary or invented abfurdities,
or of downright lies.'.' What ! is it a ftory
then, that the world had a beginning, and
that the author of it was God ? If you deem
this a ftory, I am not difputing with a deift-
ical philofopher, but with an atheiftic mad-
man. Is it a ftory, that our firft parents
fell from a paradiilacal ftate that this earth
was deftroyed by a deluge that Noah and
his family were preferred in the ark, and that
the world has been re-peopled by hisdefcen-
dants ? Look into a book fo common that
almoft every body has it, and fo excellent
that no perfon ought to be without it Gro-
tius on the truth of the Chriftian religion
and you will there meet with abundant tef-
timony to the truth of all the principal facts
recorded in Genefis. The teftimony is not
that of Jews, Chriftians, and priefts; it is the
teftimeny of the philofophers, hiftorians and
poets of antiquity. The oldeft book in the
world is Genefis , and it is remarkable that
thofe books which come neareft to it in age,
arc thofe- which make either the moft diftinft
mentkm, or the moil evident allufion to the
'facts related in Genefis concerning the for-
mation of the world from a chaotic mafs, the
.vueval innocence- and fubfequent fall of
o,. the longevity of mankind- in the flrll
*.,-_,. of the world, the dc^/avity of the an-
45
tedeluvians, and the deftruftion of the world.
Read the tenth chapter of Genelis It may
appear to you to contain nothing but an un-
interefting narration of the deicendants of
Shem, Ham, and Japheth ; a mere fable, an
invented abfurdity, a downright lie. No,
fir, it is one of the mod valuable, and the
moft venerable records of antiquity. It ex-
plains what all profane hiitorians were' igno-
rant of the origin of nations. Had it told
us, as other books do, that one nation fprung
out of the earth they inhabited ; another
from a cricket or a grafshopper ; another from
an oak;, another from a mufhroo-m; another
from a dragon's tooth ; then indeed it would
have merited the appellation you, with fo
much temerity, beftow upon it. In (lead of
theft abfurdities, it gives fuch an account of
peopling the earth after the deluge, as no other
book in the world ever did give ; and the
truth of which all other books in the worlcf y
which contain any thing on the fubjeft, con-
firm. The I aft verie of the chapter fays
" Thefe are the families of the fons of No-
ah, after their generations, in their nations:
and by thefe were the nations divided in the
earth, after the flood." It would require
great learning to trace cut, preciitly, either
the aftual fit nation of ail the countries in
which thefe founders of empires fettled, or
to ^certain the extent of their dominions/
This, however,, has been done by various
44
authors, to the fatisfa&ion of all competent,
judges ; fo much at lead to my fatisfaction,
that had I no other proof of the authenticity
of Genefis, I fliould coniider this as fufficient.
But, without the aid of learning, any man
who can barely read his Bible, and lias but
heard of fuch people as the Affyrlans^ the
Elamhes^ the Lydians, the Medes, the loni-
ans, the Thracians, will readily acknow-
ledge that they had 4ffur^ and Elam, and
Lud, and Madai, and Jovan, and Tiras,
grandfons of Noah, for their refpetive foun-
ders; and knowing this, he will not, I hope,
part with his Bible, as a fyftem of fables. I
am no enemy to philofophy ; but when phi-
lofophy would rob me of my Bible, I muft
fay of it, as Cicero faid of the twelve tables,.
This little book alone exceeds the libra-
ries of all the philofophers in the weight of
its authority, and in the extent of its utility.
FROM tire abufe of the Bible, you proceed to
that of Mofes, and again bring forward the
fabjed of his wars in the land of Canaan.
There are many men who look upon all war
(would to God that all men faw it in the
fame light) with extreme abhorrence^ as af-
fiifting mankind with calamities not necefla-
ary, fliocking to humanity, and repugnant to
reafou. But is it repugnant to reafon that
God fhould, by an exprefs- acl of his Provi-
dence, deflroy a wicked nation ?' I am fbn.cl
5
of confiderlng the goodnefs of God as the
leading principle of his conducl towards
mankind, of confidering his juflice as fubfer-
vient to his mercy. He punifhes individuals
and nations with the rod of his wrath ; but
I am perfuaded that all his punifhments ori-
ginate in his abhorrence of fin ; are calcula-
ted to leflen its influence : and are proofs of
his goodneis ; inafmucb as it may not be pof-
iible for Omnipotence itfelf to communicate
fupremehappinefs to the human race, whilfb
they continue flrvants of fin. The deftruc-
tion of the Canaanites exhibits to all nations,
in all ages,' a fignal proof of God's difpleafore
againft fin ; it has been to others, and it is to
ourfelvcs, a benevolent warning. Mofes
would have been the wretch you reprelent
him, had he aled by his own authority alone :
but you may as reafonable attribute cruelty
and murder to the judge of the land in con-
demning criminals to death, as butchery and
maffacre to Mofes in executing the command
of God.
THE Midianites, through the counfel of
Balaam, and by the vicious inftrumentality
of their women, had feduced a part of the If-
raelites to idolatry ; to the impure worfliip
of their infamous god Baalpeor : for this
offence, twenty-four thoufand Ifraelites had
perifhed in a plague from heaven, and Mofes
received a command from God " to finite
^^ 46
the Medianites who had beguiled the people/
An army was equipped, and fent againft Mi-
dian. When the army returned victorious,
Mofes and the princes of the congregation,
went to meet it ; " and Mofes was wroth
with the officers." He obferved the women
captives, and he afked with aftomfliment,
" Have ye faved all the womeR alive ? Be-
hold, tliefe caufed the children of Ifracl,
through the connfel of Balaam, to commit
trefpais againft the Lord in the matter of
Peor, and there was a plague among the con-
gregation." He then gave an order that the
boys and the women ftiould be put to death,
but that the youno; maidens fhould be kept a-
livefor themfelv'es. I fee nothing in. this pro-
ceeding, but good policy, combined with
mercy, The young men might have become
dangerous aver; what they would cf-
teem their country's wrongs ; the mothers
might have again aliurecl the llraeiM : s to the
love of licentious pleafures, and ihr practice
of idolatry, and brought another plague up-
on the congregation ; but the young maidens
not being polluted by the flagitious habits of
their mothers, nor likely to create difturb-
ancg. by rebellion, were kept alive/) You
give a different turn to the matter ; you fay
"that thirty-two thoufancl women-children
were conflgned to debauchery by the order of
Mofes." Prove this and I will allow that
Mofes was the horrid monfter you make
him prove this, and I will allow that
47
the Bible is what you call it u a book of
lies, wickednefs, and blafphemy" prove this,
or excufe my warmth if I fay to you, as Paul
laid to Elymas the forcerer, who fought to
turn away Sergius Paulus from the faith,
" O full of all fubtilty and of all mifchief,
thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all
righteoufnefs, wilt thou not ceafe to pervert
the right ways of the Lord ?" I did not
when I began thefe letters, think that I
ihould have been moved to this leverity of
rebuke, by any thing you could have writ-
ten ; but when fo grofs a mifreprefentation
is made of God's proceedings, coolnefs would
be a crime. The women-children were not
referved for the purpoies of debauchery, but
of flavery ; a cuftom abhorrent from our
manners, but every where praftifed in for-
mer times, and ftill praftifed in countries
where the benignity of the chriflian religion
has not foftened the ferocity of human na-
ture. You here admit a part of the account
given in the Bible refpefting the expedition
againft Midian to be a true account ; it is
not unreafonable to defire that you will ad-
mit the whole, or fhew fufficient reafon why
you admit one part, and rejeft the other. I
will mention the part to which you have
paid no attention. The Ifraelitifh army con-
fided but of twelve thousand men, a mere
handful when oppofed to the people of Mi-
dian ; yet, when the officers made a mufter
of their troops after their return from the
4 8
war, they found they had not loft a fingle
man ! This circumftance ftruck them as fo
decifive an evidence of God's interpofition,
that out of the ipoils they had taken, they
offered an oblation to the Lord, an atonement
for their fouls." Do but believe what the
captains of thoufands, and the captains of
hundreds, believed at the time when thefe
things happened, and we fhall never more
hear of your objections to the Bible, from its
account of the wars of JVJofes.
You produce two or three other objecti-
ons refpeting the genuinenefs of the firfi five
books of the Bibie. I cannot flop to notice
them : every commentator anfwers them in
a manner iliited to the apprehcnfion of even
a mere Englifh reader. You calculate, to
the thoiiiar.dth part of an inch, the length
of the iron bed of Qg the king of Bafhan ;
but you do not prove that the bed was too
big for the body, or that a Patagonian would
have been loft in it. You make no allowance
for the fiz.e of a royal bed ; nor ever fufpeft
that king Og might have been poffefTed with
the feme kind of vanity, which occupied the
mind of king Alexander, when hfe ordered
his foldiers to enlarge the fiz,e of their beds,
that they might give the Indians, iniucceed-
ing ages, a great idea of the prodigious ftjj-
ture of a Macedonian. In many parts of
your work you fpcak much in commendation
49
ef fcience. I join with you in every com-
mendation you can give it: but you fpcak
of it in fuch a manner as gives room to be-
lieve, that you are a great proficient in it ;
if this be the cafe, I would recommend a
problem to your attention, the folution of
which you will readily allow to be far above
the powers of a man converfant only, as
you reprefent priefts and bifhops to be, in
hic^ h&c, hoc. The problem is this To
determine the height to which a human bo-
dy, preferving its liinilarity of figure, may
be augmented, before it will perifh by its
own weight. When you have folved this
problem, we (hail know whether the bed of
the king of Bafhan was too big for any giant ;
whether the exiftence of a man twelve or
fifteen feet high is in the nature of things im-
poffible. My philofophy teaches me to doubt
of many things ; but it doe3 not teach me to
re j eft every tcftimony which is oppofite to
my experience: had I been born in Shetland,
I could, on proper teftimony, have believed
in the exiftence of the Lincolnfhire ox, or
of the largefl dray-horfe in London ; though
the oxen and hories in Shetland had not been
bigger tlian maftiffs.
LETTER IV.
CAVING iinifhed your objections to
the gcnuinencfs of the books of Mofes, you
proceed to your remarks on the book of jo-
fhua; and from its internal evidence, you en-
deavour to prove, that this book was not
written by Joihua -What then ? what is
your conclulion ? u that it is anonymous,
and without authority." Stop a little ; your
conciufion is not connected with your pre-
inifes ; your friend Euclid would have been
afhamed of it. " Anonymous, and therefore
without authority !" I have noticed thisfo^
leclim before ; bat as you frequently bring it
forward, and, indeed, your book ftands much
in need of it, I will fubmlt to your confider-
a.tion another obfervauon on the fubjeft.
The book called Fleta is anonymous ; but it
Js not on that account without authority.
Domefday book is anonymous, and was writ-
ten above fevcn hundred years ago ; yet our
Courts of law do not hold it to be without
authority, as to the facts related in it. Yes,
you will fay, but this book Iras been preferred
with fingular care amongft the records of
the nation. And who told you that the
jews had no records, or that they did not
preferve them with fingular care f* Jofephus
fays the contrary : and, in the Bible itfelf,
an appeal is made to many books, which
have perilled : fuch as the book of Jaflier,
the book of Nathan, ofAbijah, of Iddo, of
Jehu, of natural hiftory by Solomon, of the
afts of Manafieh, and others which might
be mentioned. If any one, having accefs to
the journals of the Lords and Commons, to
the books of the treafury, war-office, privy
council, and other public documents, (liould
at this clay write an hiftory of the reigns of
George the firft and fecond, and fhould pub-
lifh it without his name, would any man,
three or four hundreds or thoufands of years
lience, queftion the authority of that book,
when he knew that the whole Britifh nation
had received it as an authentic book from
the time of its firft publication to the age in
\vhich he lived ? Thisfuppofition is in point.
The books of the Old Teftament were com-
pofed from the records of the jewifli nation,
and they have been received as true by that
nation, from the time in which they were
written to the prefent day. Dodfley's An-
nual llegifter is an anonymous book, we only
52
know the name of its editor ; the New An-
nual Regifter is an anonymous book ; the Re-
views are anonymous books ; but do we, or
will our posterity, efleem thefe books of no
authority ? On the contrary, they are admit-
ted at prefent, and will be received in after
ages, as authoritative records of the civil,
military, and literary hiftory of England
and of Europe. So little foundation is there
for our being ftartied by your afftrtion, " It
Is anonymous and without authority."
IF I am right in this reafoning (and I pro-
left to you that I do not fee any error in it,)
all the arguments you adduce in proof that
the book of Jofhua was not written by Jo-
fliua, nor that of Samuel by Samuel, are no-
thing,, to the purpofe for which you have
brought them forward ; thefe books may be
books of authority, though all you advance
againft the genuinenefs of them fhould be
granted. No article of faith is injured by
allowing that there is no fuch pofitive proof,
when or by whom thefe, and fome other books
of holy (cripture, were written, as to exclude
all poffibility of doubt and cavil. There is
no neceffity, indeed, to allow this, The
chronological and hiftoricaldifficulties, which
others before you have produced, have been
anfwered, and as to the greateft part of them,
fo well anfwered, that I will not wafte the
55
reader's time by entering into a particular
examination of them. **X
You make yourfelf merry with what you
call the tale of the fun (landing dill upon
mount Gjbeon, and the moon in the jv alley
of AjafojnTpand you fay that " the ftory cle-
:s itfelf, becaufe there is not a nation in
the world that knows any thing about it."
How can youcxpcft that there fhould, when
there is not a nation in the world whofe an-
""'. ... . XXWHM****" -^.^*^<^<-
nals reach this sera by many hundred years r
J vmv&i&J ji iflWHjilimaMBii J "-;.
It happens, however, that you are probably
mi (taken as to the faft ^^2Si^- ^ r ^i2l^LLf
concerning this miracle/^ncTTTimilar one in
the time o[ -.Ahaz, when the fun went bach
i "11 " ; * ; V i ^-^ n_
ten degrees, has been prefers 7 ;d araongit one
'of the mod ancient nations, as we are inform-
ed by one of the mod ancient hiftorians.
Herodotus, in his Euterpe, fpcakino; of the_
**fc*Vrti^afc#v n r* jp**fl*w*^ *"** *^k
Egyptian pncf^, ^Lfc ^ *"".ey told njp }
"'"that the funTad four times deviated fr.
. .^^^ *w*#*
liss courie, having twice riien wnere he uni-
"v --^^9-.-? i' >WMM - 7 I
formly goes down, and t^jjyice gone dcv> a ./
J^ k he uniformly rifes.^This hov/evcr
liad produced no alteration in the climate of
Egypt ; the fruits of the earth 9 and the phe-
nomena of the Nik had always been the
fkme." "(Beloe's Tninfl.) The"lafi ]:art of
this cbiervation confirms the ccnjccUue r
that this account of the Egyptian prku-; had
a reference to tr.c two miracles
54
the fun mentioned in fcriptnre ; for they
were not of that kind, which could intro-
duce any change in climates or feafons. You
would have been contented to admit the ac-
count of this miracle as a fine piece of po-
etical imagery ; you may have feen fome
Jewifh doctors, and fomeChriftian commen-
tators, who conficier it as fuch ; but impro-
perly, in my opinion. I think it idle, at
Jeaft, if not impious, to undertake to explain
how the miracle was performed; but one
who is not able to explain the mode of doing
a thing, argues ill if he thence infers that the
thing was not done. We are perfectly igno-
rant how the fun was formed, how the pla-
nets were projected at the creation, how
they are ftill retained in their orbits by the
power of gravity ; but we admit, Botwith-
ftanding, that the fun was formed, that the
planets were then projected, and that they
are Pull retained in their orbits. The ma-
chine of the univerfe is in the hand of God;
he can ftop the motion of any part, or of the
whole of it, with lefs trouble and lefs clanger
of injuring it, than yon can ftop your watch.
In teftimony of the reality of the miracle*
the author of the book fays " Is not this
written in the book of Jaflier ?" No author
in his fenfes would have appealed, in proof
of his veracity,- to a book which did not ex-
ift, or in atteftation of a fact which, though
ic did exLftfcWas. not recorded in it ; we
55
fafely therefore conclude, that; at the time
the book of Jofhua was written, there was
fuch a book as the book of Jalher, and that
the miracle of the fun's ftanding ftiil was re-
corded in that book. Bat this obiervation,
you will fay, does not prove the face of the
fan's having (lood (till : I have not produced
it as a proof of that fal; bat it proves that
the author of the book of Jofhua believed
the faV, that the people of Ifrael admitted
the authority of the book of Jafher. An ap-
peal to a fabulous book would have been as
fenielefs an infult upon their underftandiug,
as it would have been to our's, had Rapin ap-
pealed to the Arabian Night's Entertainment,
as a proof of the battle of Haftings.
I CANNOT attribute much weight to your
argument again ft the genuinenefs of the book
of Jofhua, from its, being faid that ;fc Jofliua
burned Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even
a defolation unto this day" Jofhua lived
twenty-four years after the burning of Ai :
and if he wrote his hiftory in the latter part
of his life, what abfurdity is there in faying*
Ai is, (till in ruins,, or Ai is in ruins to this
very day ? A young man, who had feen the
heads of the rebels, in forty- five, when they
were firft ftuck upon poles at Temple-Bar,
might, twenty years afterwards, in attefla-
tion of his veracity in fpeaking; of the fat,
have juftJy fakl And they are there to this
56
very day. Whoever wrote the eofpel of St.
M3tlhew.it was written not mi y cc.ii .::rics,
prohoiy (I had almoft fliicl certainly) no; a
c.'irler of one century after the death of
Jeihs; yet the author, (peaking of the pot-
ter's field which had been purchafed by the
chief priefts with the money they had given
Ju.hs t:> betray his matter, fays, that it was
therefore called the field of blood unto thr;
day ; and in another place he fays, that the
ftory of the body of Jefus being ftolen out
of the fepulchre was commonly reported
among the Jews until this day. Mofcs, in
his old age, had made ufe of a fmiilar ex-
preHion, when he put the Ifraelites in mind
of what the Lord had done to the Egyptians
in the reel fea, " The Lord hath destroyed
them unto this day. (Deut. xL 4.)
IN the laft chapter of the book of jofliua
it is related that Jofhua afletnbled all the
tribes of Ifrael to Sbechem ; and there, in
the prefence of the elders and principal men
of Ifrael, he recapitulated, in a ftiort fpeech r
all that God had done for their nation, from
the calling of Abraham to that time, when
they were fettled in the land which God
had promifed to their forefathers. In finiili-
ing his fpeeeh, he faid to them " Choofe
you this day whom you will ferve, whether
the gods which your fathers ferved, that
were on the other fide of the flood, or th^
57
gods of the Amorites, in whofe land ye
dwell: but as for me and my houfe, we will
ferve the Lord. And the people anfwered
and faid, God forbid that we fhoulcl forfake
the Lord to ferve other gods." Jofhua ur-
ged farther, that God would not fuffer them
to worfhip other gods in fellowfhip with
him; they anfwered, that " they would
ferve the Lord." Jofhua then faid to them,
" Ye are witnefles again ft yourfelves that ye
have chofen you the Lord to ferve him.
And they faid, We are witnefles" Here
was a folemn covenant between Jofhua, on
the part of the Lord, and all the men of If-
rael, on their own part. The text then
fays " So Jofhua made a covenant with the
people that day, and fet them a ftatute and
'an ordinance in Shechem, and Jo/Jiua wrote
thefe words in the book of the law of God"
Here is a proof of two things firft, that
there was then, a few years after the death
of Moles, exifting, a book called The Book
of the Law of God ; the fame, without
doubt, which Mofes had written, and com-
mitted to the cuftody of the Levites, that it
might be kept in the ark of the covenant of
the Lord, that it might be a witnefs againft
them fecondly, that Jofhua wrote a part at
leaft of his own tranfaHonsin that very book,
as an addition to it. It is not a proof that he
wrote all his own tranfaftions in any book ;
but I fubmit entirely to the judgment of every
candid man, whether this proof of his having
recorded a very material tranfadlion, does not
make it probable that he recorded other ma-
terial tranfa&ions ; that he wrote the chief
part of the book of Jofliua ; and that fuch
things as happened after his death, have been
inferted in it by others, in order to render
the hiftory more complete.
THE book of Joflma, chap. vi. ver. 26, is
quoted in the fir it book of Kings, chap. xvi.
34.. " In his (Ahab's) clays did Hiel the
Bethelite build lerico: he laid the founda-
j
tion thereof in Abiram his iirft-born, and fet
up the gates thereof in his younger! fon Se*
gub, according to the word of the Lord,
which he (pake by Jofhua the fon of Nun."
Here is a proof that the book of Jofliua is
older than the firfl book of Kings; but that
is not all which may reqfonably be inferred,
I do not fay proved, from this quotation. -
It may be inferred frofn the phrafe accord*
ing to the word of the Lord which he fpake
by Jofliua the fon of Nun that Jofliua wrote
down the word which the Lord luid fpoken.
In Bariich, (which, though an apocryphal
book, is authority for this purpofe) there is
a fimilar plirate as thou fpakeft by thy fer-
vant Mofes in the day when thou didft com-
mand him to write thy law.
I THIN K it unneceflary to make any obfer-
vation on what you fay relative to the book
59
of Judges ; but I cannot pafs unnoticed your
ccnfure of the book of Ruth, which you call
" an idle bungling ftory, fooUfhly told, no-
body knows by whom, about a ftrolling coiin-^
try girl creeping flily to bed to her coufiii
Boaz; pretty {tuff, indeed, you exciaim to
be called the word of God!" It ieems to
me that you do not perfectly comprehend
what is meant by the expreffion the Word
of God ror the divine authority of thefcrip-
tures : I will explain it to you in the wo;d$
of Dr. Law, late bifhop of CarliOe, and in
thofe of St. Auftin. My firft quotation is
from bifhop Law's Theory of Religion, a
book not undeferving your notice. " The
true fenfe then of the divine authority of the
books of the Ql<;i Teftament, and which per-*
haps is enough to denominate them in gene-
ral .divinely infpircd^ feems to be this; th^{
as in thofe times God has all along, befide
the infpe&ion, or fuperintendency of his ge-
neral providence, interfered upon particular
cccafiORS, by giving expreis commiiiions to
feme perfons (thence called prop fiefs) to de-
clare his will in various manners, and degrees
of evidence, as beftfuited the occafion, time^,
and nature ol the fubjeft ; and in all other
cafes, left them wholly to thevuielves : in
like manner, he has interpofed his more im-
mediate alliftancc, (and notified it to them,
as they did to the world,) in the recording of
thefe revelations ; fo far as that was Beceflary ,
6o
amidft the common (but from hence termed
facred) hiftory of thofe times ; and mixed
with various other occurrences ; in which
the hiftorian's own natural qualifications
were fufficient to enable him to relate things,
with all the accuracy they required." The
paffage from St. Auftin is this " I am of
opinion, that thofe men to whom the Holy
Ghoft revealed what ought to be received as
authoritative in religion, might write fome
things as men with hiftorical diligence, and
other things as prophets by divine infpiration ;
and that thefe things are fo diftinft, that the
former may be attributed to themfelves as
contributing to the increafe of knowledge,
and the latter to God fpeaking by them things
appertaining to the authority of religion."
Whether this opinion be right or wrong, I
do not here enquire; it is the opinion of ma-
ny learned men and good Chriftians: and, if
you will adopt it as your opinion, you will
fee caufe, perhaps, to become a Chriftian
yourfelf ; and you will fee caufe to confider
chronological, geographical, or genealogical
errors apparent miftakes or real contradic-
tions as to hiftorical fa&s needlels repeti-
tions and trifling interpolations indeed you
will fee caufe to confider all the principal
objedlionsof your book to be abfoluteiy with-
out foundation. Receive but the Bible as
compoied by upright and well informed,
though, in Tome points, fallible men, (for I
6i
exclude all fallibility when they profcfs to
deliver the Word of God, and you muft re-
ceive it as a book revealing to you, in many
parts, the exprefs will of God ; and in other
parts, relating to you the ordinary hiitory
of the times. Give but the authors of the
Bible that credit which you give to other
hiftorians ; believe them to deliver the Word
of God, when they tell you that they do fo;
believe, when they relate other things as of
themfclves and not of the Lord, that they
wrote to the bell of their knowledge and ca-
pacity, and you will be in your belief ibrne*
thing very different from a deift : you may
not be allowed to afpire to the character of an
orthodox believer, but you will not be an
unbeliever in the divine authority of the Bi-
ble , though you fliould admit human mif-
takes and human opinions to exift in foine
parts of it. This I take to be the firft ftep
towards the removal of the doubts of many
fccptical men ; and when they are advanced
thus far, the grace of God affifting a teach-
able diipofition, and a pious intention, may
carry them on to perfection.
As to Ruth, you do an injury to her cha-
racter. She was not a {trolling country girl.
She had been married ten years; and being
left a widow without children, (he accompa-
nied her mother-in-law, returning into her
native country, out of which with her huf-
F
62
band and her two fons (he had been driven by
a famine. The difturbances in France have
driven many men with their families to Ame-
rica : if, ten years hence, a woman, having
loft her hufband and her children, fhould re-
turn to France with a daughter- in -law, would
you be juflified in calling the daughter-in-law
a {trolling country -girl? " but (lie crept flily
to bed to her couiin Boaz,." I do not find it
in the hiflory- as a perfon imploring pro-
teftion, fhe laid herfelf down at the foot of
an aged kiHfman's bed, and fhe rofe up with
as much innocence as (he had laid herfelf do wn,
She was afterwards married to Boaz,, and re-
puted by all her neighbours a virtuous wo-
man ; and they were more likely to know her
character than you are. Whoever reads the
book of Ruth, bearing in mind the Simplicity
of ancient manners, will find it an interefl-
ing ftory of a poor young woman, following
in a ftrange land the advice, and affe&ion-
ately attaching herfelf to the fortunes of the
mother of her deceafed hufband.
THE two books of Samuel come next
under your review. You proceed to (hew
that thefe books were not written by Sa-
muel, that they are anonymous, and thence
you conclude without authority. I need not
here repeat what I have faid upon the fallacy
of your conclufion; and as to your proving
that the books were not written by Samuel,
you might have fpared yourfelf fome trouble
if you had recollefted, it is generally admit-
ted, that Samuel did not write any part of
the fecond book which bears his name, and
only a part of the firft. It would, indeed,
have been an enquiry not undeferving your
notice, in many parts of your work, to have
examined what was the opinion of learned
men refpecting the authors of the feveral
books of the Bible; you would have found,
thai you were in many places fighting a phan-
tom of your own railing, and proving what
was generally admitted. Very little certain-
ty, I think, can at this time be obtained on
this fubjeft : but that you may have fome
knowledge of what has been conjeftured by
men of judgment, I will quote to you a pai-
'iage from Dr. Hartley's obiervations on man.
The author himfelf does not vouch for the
truth of his obfervation, for he begins it
with a fuppofition. " I fuppofe then, that
the Pentateuch confifts of the writings of Mo-
fcs, put together by Samuel, with a very few
additions ; that the books of jofhua and
Judges were in like manner collected by him ;
and the book of Ruth, with the firft part*
of the firft book of Samuel, written by him ;
that the latter part of the firft book of Sa-
muel, and the fecond book, were written by
the prophets whofucceeded Samuel, fuppofe
Nathan and Gad ; that the books of Kings
and Chronicles, are extracts from the records
64
of the fucceeding prophets, concerning their
own times, and from the public genealogical
tables, made by Ezra ; that the books of Ez.-
ra and Nehcmiah are collections of like re-
cords, feme written by Ezra and Nchcmla h,
and feme by their predeceiTors; that the book
of Efther was written by^fome eminent Jew,
in or near the times of the traruaction there
recorded, perhaps Mordccai\ the book of
Job by a Jew, of an uncertain time; the
Pfalms by David, and other pious perfons ;
the books of Proverbs and Canticles by Solo-
mon ; the book of Eccleiiaftes by Solomon, or
perhaps by a Jew of later times, fpeaking in
his perfon, but not with an intention to make
him pafs for the author ; the prophefies by
the prophets whofe names they bear; and the
books of the New Teftament by the perfons
to whom they are ufually afcribecl." I have
produced this paiTage to you, not merely to
fhew you that, in a great part of your work,
you are attacking what no perfon is intereft-
ed in defending ; but to convince you, that
a wile and good man, and a firm believer in
revealed religion, for fuch was Dr. Hartley,
and no prieft, did not rejcft the anonymous
books of the Old Teftament as books with-
out authority. I lhall not trouble either you
or myfelf with any more obfervations on
that head ; you may afcribe the two books
of Kings, and the two books of Chronicles,
to what authors yon pleafe ; I am fatisfied
65
with knowing that the 1 annals of the Jewifh
nation were written in the time of Samuel,
and, probably in all fucceeding times, by men
of ability, who lived in or near the times of
which they write- Of the truth of this ob-
fervation we have abundant proof, not only
from the teftimony of Jofephus, and of the
writers of the Talmuds, but from the Old
Teftament itfelf. I will content myfelf with
citing a few places " Now the afts of Da-
vid the king, firft and laft, behold they are
written in the book of Samuel the leer, and
in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in
the book of Gad the feer." i Chron. xxix.
29. 4k Now the reft of the afts of Solomon,
firft and laft, are they not written in the book
of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy
of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the vifions of
Iddo the feer ?" 2 Chron. ix. 29. u Now the
afts of Rehoboam, firft and laft, are they not
written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet,,
and of Iddo the feer, concerning genealogies?''
2 Chron. xii. 15. " Now the reft of the
ads of Jehoftiaphat, firft and laft, behold
they are written in the book of Jehu thefon
of Hanani." 2 Chron. xx. g^,. Is it poffible
for writers to give a ftronger evidence of
their veracity, than by referring their read-
ers to the books from which they had ex-
tracted the materials of their hiftory ?
" THE twobooks of Kings," youfay, " arc
little more than an hiftory of aflaffinations,
F 2
66
treachery and war." That the kings of Ifrael
and Judah were many of them very wicked
perfons, is evident from thehiftory which is
.given of them in the Bible ; but it ought to
be remembered, that their wickedneis is not
to be attributed to their religion ; nor were
the people of Ifrael chofen to be the people of
God, on account of their wickcdnefs; nor
was their being cholen, a caufe of it. One
may wonder, indeed, that, having experi-
enced fo many fingular marks of God's good-
uefs towards their nation, they did not at
once become, and continue to be, (what,
however, they have long been,) ftrenuous
advocates for the worfhip of one only God,
the maker of heaven and earth. This was
the purpofe for which they were choien, and
this purpofe has been accomplished. For
above three and twenty hundred years the
Jews have uniformly witneiTed to all the na-
tions "of the earth the unity of God, and his
abomination of idolatry. Bat as you look
upon " the appellation of the Jews being
God's chafer, people as a lie which the priefts
and leaders of the lews had invented to co-
t
ver the bafenefs of their own characters, and
which chriitian priefts, ionic times as corrupt,
and often as cruel, have profefl'ed to believe,'/
I will plainly Hare to you the rcafons which
induce uie to believe that it is no //<?, and I
hope they will be fuch reafons as you will
not attribute either to cruelty or corruption.
6?
To any one contemplating theuniverfality
of things, and the fabric of nature, . thir, globe
of earth, with the men dwelling- on . ^lur^ce,
will not appear (exelufive of the dty&if&y of
their fouls) of more importance fh? r i an hillock
of ants ; a : l of which, fome with corn, fbme
with ego;s, fome without any tiling, run hi-
ther and thither, buftling about a little heap
of dull. This is a thought of the immortal
Bacon; and it is admirably fitted to humble
the pride of philofophy, attempting to pre-
icribe forms to the proceedings, and bounds
to the attributes of God. We may as eaiily
circumfcribe infinity, as penetrate the fecret
purpofes of the Almighty. There are but
two ways by which I can acquire any know-
ledge of the nature of the Supreme Being,
by reafon, and by revelation; to you,
who rejeft revelation, there is but one. Now
my reafon informs me, that God lias made a
great difference between the kinds of animals,
with -refpeft to their capacity of enjoying
happinefs. Every kind is peri eft in its or-
der ; but if we compare different kinds to-
gether, one will appear to be greatly fuperi-
or to another. An animal, which has but
one fenfe, has but one fource of happinefs;
but if it be fupplied with what is fuited to
that fenfe, it enjoys all the happinefs of which
it is capable, and is in its nature perfect.
Other forts of animals, which have two or
three fenfes> and which have alfb abundant
68
means of gratifying ^them, enjoy twice or
thrice as much happinefs as thoie do which
have but one. In the fame fort of animals
there is a great difference amongft individu-
als, one having the fenfes more perfeft, and
the body lefs fubjeft to difeafe, than another.
Hence, if I were to form a judgment of the
divine goodnefs by this ufe of my reafon, I
could not but fay that it was partial and un-
equal. " What fhall we fay then ? is God
tinjuft? God forbid!" His goodnefs may be
unequal, without being imperfeft ; it muft be
eftimated from the whole and not from a part.
Every order of beings is fo fufficient for its
own happinefs, and fo conducive at the fame
time to the happinefs of every other, that in
one view it feenis to be made for itfelf alone,
and in another not for itfelf but for every
other. Could we comprehend the whole of
the immenfe fabric which God hath formed,
I am perfuaded that we fhould fee nothing but
perfetion,|frarmony, and beauty, in every
part of it ; but whilft we difpute about parts,
we neglect the whole, and diicern nothing but
fuppofed anomalies and defects. The maker of
a watch, or the builder of a (hip, is not to be
blamed becaufe afpelator cannot dilcover ei-
ther the beauty or the ufe of the disjointing
parts. And (hall we dare to accufe God of in-
juftice, for not having diftributed the gifts of
nature in the fame degree to all kinds of ani-
mals, when it is probable that this very ine-
6 9
quality of diftribution may be the mean of
producing the greateft fum total of happinefs
to the whole, fyftem? In exactly the lame
manner may we reafon concerning the ats
of God's efpccial providence. If we coniider
any one aft, fuch as that of appointing the
Jews to be his peculiar people, as unconneftd
wich every other, it may appear to be u par-
tial difplay of his goodnefs ; it may excite
doubts concerning the wifdorn or the benig-
nity of his divine nature. Bat if we connect
the hiftory of the Jews with that of other
nations, from the moft remote antiquity to
the prefent time, we {hall difcover that they
were not chofen fo much for their own be-
nefit, or on account of their own merit, as
for the general benefit of mankind. To the
Egyptians, Chaldeans, Grecians, Romans,
to all the people of the earth, they were for-
merly, and they are ftill to all civilized na-
tions, a beacon fet upon an hill, to warn them
from idolatry, to light them to the fanftuary
of a God, holy, juft, and good. Why fliould
we fufpedt fuch a difpenfation of being a lit?
when even from the little which we can un-
derftand of it, we fee that it is founded in
wifdom, carried on for the general good,
and analogous to all that reafon teaches us
concerning the nature of God.
SEVERAL things you obferye are men-
tioned iu the book of the Kings, fuch as the
7
drying up of Jeroboam's hand, the afcent of
Elijah into heaven, the deftruftion of the
children who mocked Elifha, and the refur-
rection of a dead man; thefe circumftances
being mentioned in the book of Kings, and
not mentioned in that of Chronicles, is a
proof to you that they are lies. I efteem it
a very erroneous mode of reafoning, which,
from the filence of one author concerning a
particular circuinfiance, infers the want of
veracity in another wfco mentions it, and this
obfervation is flill more cogent, when appli-
ed to a bock which is only a fupplement to,
or an abridgment of other books : and un-
der this defcription the book of Chronicles
has been conildered by all writers. But
though you will not believe the miracle of
the drying up of Jeroboam's hand, what can
you fay to the prophecy which was then de-
livered concerning the future deftruftion of
the idolatrous altar of Jereboam? The pro-
phecy is thus written, i Kings, xiii. 2.
" Behold a child fhall be born unto the houfe
of David, Joiiah by name, and upon thee (the
altar) fhal! he offer the priefts of the high
places." Here is a clear prophecy ; the name,
family, and office of a particular perlbn are
defcribed in year 975 (according to the Bi-
ble chronology) before Chrift. Above 350
years after the delivery of the prophecy, you
will find, by confulting the fecond book of
Kings, (chap, xxiii. 15, 16.) this prophecy
fulfilled in all its parts.
You make a calculation that Genefis was
not written till 800 years after Mofes, and
that it is of the fame age, and you may pro-
bably think of the fame authority, as^Efop's
Fables. You give, what you call the evi-
dence of this, the air of a demonftration
44 It has but two flages: firft, the account
of the kings of Edom, mentioned in Genefis,
is taken froni Chronicles*, and therefore the
book of Genefis was written after the book of
Chronicles : iecondly, the book of Chroni-
cles was not begun to be written, till after
Zedekiah, in whofe time Nebuchadnezzar
conquered Jerufalem, 588 years before Chrift,
and more than 860 after Mofes." Having
anfwered this obje&ion before^ I might be
excufecl taking any more notice of it ; but as
you build much, in this place, upon the
ftrength of your argument, I will fliew you
its weaknefs, when it is properly ftated. A
few verfes in the book of Genefis could not
be written by Mofes ; therefore no part of
Genefis could be written by Mofes : a child
would deny your therefore. Again, a few
verfes in the book of Genefis could not be
written by Mojes, bccaufe they fpeak of
kings of Ifreal, there having been no kings
of Ifrael in the time of Mofes; and therefore
they could not be written by Samuel^ or by
72
Solomon, or any other perfon who lived af-
ter there were kings in Ifrael, except by the
author of the book of Chronicles : this is
alfo an illegitimate inference from your pofi-
tion Again a few verfes in the book of Ge-
nefis are, word for word the fame as a few
verfes in the book of Chronicles ; therefore
the author of the book of Genefis muft have
taken them from Chronicles: another lame
conclufion ! Why might not the author of
the book of Chronicles have taken them
from Genefis, as he has taken many other
genealogies, fuppofing them to have been 5n-
ferted in Genefis by Samuel? But where, you
may afk, could Samuel or any other perfon,
have found the account of the kings of E-
dom ? Probably^ in the public records of the
nation, which were certainly as open for in-
fpeftion to Samuel, and the other prophets,
as they were to the author of Chronicles. I
hold it needlefs to employ more time on the
fubjeft.
LETTER V.
A
L T length you come to two books, Ezra
and Nehemiah, which you will allow to be
genuine books, giving an account of the re-
turn of the Jews from the Babylonian cap-
tivity, about 536 years before Chrift ; but
then you fay, " Thofe accounts are nothing
to us, nor to any other perfons unlefs it be
to the Jews, as a part of the hiftory of their
nation ; and there is juft as much of the
Word of God in thofe books, as there is in
any of the Hiflories of France, or in Rapin's
hiftory of England." Here let us ftop a mo-
ment, and try if from your own conceffions
it be not poffible to confute your argument.
E r &ra and Nehemiah, you grant, are genuine
.books-*-" but they are nothing to us !" The
very firft verte of Ezra lays -the prophecy
of Jeremiah was fulfilled ; is this nothing to
us, to know that Jeremiah was a true pro*
phet? Do but grant that the Supreme iieing
G
74
communicated to any of the fens of men -a
knowledge of future events, fo that their
predictions were plainly verified, and you
will find little difficulty in admitting the
truth of revealed religion. Is it nothing to
us to know that, five hundred and thirty-fix
years before Chrift, the books of Chronicles,
Kings, Judges, Jofhua, Deuteronomy, Num-
bers, Leviticus, Exodus, Genefis, every book
the authority of which you have attacked,
are all referred to by Eira and Nehemiah, as
authentic books, containing the hiftory of
the Ifraelitifh nation from Abraham to the
very time? -Is it nothing to us to know that
the hiftory of the Jews is true?-r- It is every
thing to us ; for if that hiftory be not true,
Chriftianity muft be falfe. The Jews are the
root, we are branches 4; grafted in amongft
them;" to them pertain " the adoption, and
the glory, and the covenants, and the giving
of the law, and the fervice of God, and the
promifes ; whofe are the fathers, and of
whom, as concerning the flefh, Chrift came,
.who is over all, God bleiTed for ever. Amen.' 7
THE hiftory of the Old Teftament has,
without doubt, feme difficulties in it ; but a
minute philofopher, who bufics himfelf in
fearching them out, wfailft he neglefts to
contemplate the harmony of all its parts,
the wifdom and goodnefs of God difplayed
.throughout the whole, appears to me to be
75
like a purblind man', who, In furveying a
pi&ure, objeds to the fimplicity of the de-
iign, and the beauty of the execution, from
the afperities he has difcovered in the canvas
and the colouring. The hiftory of the Old
Teftament, notwithstanding the real difficul-
ties which occur in it, notwithstanding the
feoffs and cavils of unbelievers, appears to
me to have fuch internal evidences of its
truth, to be fo corroborated by the moft an-
cient profane hiftories, fo confirmed by the
prefent circumftances of the world, that if I
were not a Chriftian, I would become a Jew.
You think this hiftory to be a colleftion of
lies, contradictions, blafphemies : I look up-
on it to be the oldeft, the trueft, the mofh
comprehenfive, and the moft important hif-
tory in the world. I confider it as giving
more fatisfatory proofs of the being and at-
tributes of God, of the origin and end of hu-
man kind, than ever was attained by the.
deepeft refearches of the moft enlightened
philofophers. The exercife of our reafon in
the inveftigation of truths refpe&ing the na-
ture of God, and the future expectations of
human kind, is highly ufeful ; but I hope I
{hall be pardoned by the metaphyficians in
faying that the chief utility of fuch difqui-
fit ions confifts in this that they bring us ac-
quainted with the weakriefs of our intellectu-
al faculties. I do not prefume to meafure
other men by my liandard ; you may have
76
clearer notions than I am able to form of the
infinity of fpace ; of the eternity of duration ;
of neceffary exiftence ; of the connexion be-
tweeri neceffary exiftence and intelligence;
between intelligence and benevolence : you
may fee nothing in the univerfe but organ-
ised matter ; or, rejecting a material, you
may fee nothing but an ideal world. With
a mind weary of conjecture, fatigued by
doubt, fick of difputation, eager for know-
ledge, anxious for certainty, and unable to
Attain it by the beft ufe of my reafon in mat-
ters of the utmoft importance, I have long
ago turned my thoughts to an impartial exa-
mination of the proofs on which revealed re-
ligion is grounded, and I am convinced of its
truth. This examination is a fubjeft within
the reach of human capacity ; you have gome
to one conclufion rcfpefting it, I have come to
another ; both of us cannot be right ; may
God forgive him that is in an error.
You ridicule, in a note, the ftory of an
angel appearing to Jofhua. Your mirth you
will perceive to be mifplaced, when you con-
fider the defign of this appearance; it was to
affure Jofhua, that the fame God who had
appeared to Mofes, ordering him to pull off
his (hoes, becaufe he flood on holy ground,
had now appeared to himfelf. Was this no en-
couragement to a man who was about to en-
gage in war with many nations ? Had it no
77
tendency to confirm his faith? Was it n<a
leffbn to him to obey, in all things, the com-
mands of God, and to give the glory of his
conquefts to the author of them, the God of
Abraham, Ifaac and Jacob ? As to your wit
about pulling off the fhoe, it originates, I
think, in your ignorance; you ought to
have known, that this rite was an indicati-
on of reverence for the divine prefence ; and
that the cuftom of "entering barefoot into
their temples fubfifts, in ibme countries, to
this day.
You allow the book of Ezra to be a genii s*-
ine book : but that the author of it may not
efcape without a blow, you fay, that in mat-
ters of record it is not to be depended on,,
and as a proof of your affertion, you tell us
that the total amount of the numbers who
returned from Babylon does not correfpond
with the particulars ; and that every child
may have an argument for its infidelity, you
difplay the particulars, and ihew your own
fkill in arithmetic, by fumming them up.
And can you fuppofe that Ezra, a man of
great learning, knew fo little of fcience, fb
little of the lowed branch of fcience, that he
could not give his readers the fum total of
fixty particular fums ? You know, undoubt-
edly, that the Hebrew letters denoted alfo
numbers ; and that there was fuch a great il-
milarity between fome of thefe letters, thafc
G 2
7 8
it was extremely eafy for a tranfcriber of a
manufcript to miftake a 3 for 3 (or 2 for
20) a a for a 3 (or 3 for 50), a -> for a *j (or
4* for 200). Now what have we to do
with numerical contradictions in the Bible,
but to attribute them, wherever they occur,
to this obvious fource of error the inatten-
tion of the tranfcriber in writing one letter
for another that was like it ?
I SHOULD extend thefe letters to a length
troublefome to the reader, to you, and to my-
felf, if I anfwered minutely every obje&ion
you have made, and rectified every error in-
to which you have fallen ; it may befuffici-
cnt briefly to notice fome of the chief.
THE, chara&er reprefented in Job under
the name of Satan is, you fay, " the firfl and
only time this name is mentioned in the Bi-
ble." Now I find this name, as denoting an
enemy, frequently occurring in the Old Tef-
tament; thus 2 Sam. xix. 22. " What have
I to do with you, ye fons of Zeruiah, that
ye fliould this day be adverfaries unto me ?"
In the original it is fatans unto me. Again,
j Kings v. 4. " The Lord my God hath
given me reft on every fide, fo that there is
neither adverfary, nor evil occurrent"
in the original neither fatan nor evil. I need
* By fome mifiake, probably of the prefs, this is a figure
tf j in the Englijh Edition, American Publisher,
not mention other places ; thefe are fuffici-
ent to fhew, that the word fatan, denoting
an adverfary, does occur in various places of
the Old teftament ; and it is extremely pro-
bable to me, that the root fatan has intro-
duced in the Hebrew and other eaftern lan-
guages, to denote an adverfary, from its hav-
ing been the proper name of the great ene-
my of mankind. I know it is an opinion of
Voltaire, that the word fatan is not older
than the Babylonian captivity : this is amif-
take^ for it is met with in the hundred and
ninth Pfalm, which all allow to be written
by David, long before the captivity. Now*
we are upon this fubjeft, permit me to re-
commend to your confideration theuniver-
fality of the doctrine concerning an evil be-
ing, who in the beginning of time had oppof-
himfelf, who ft ill continues to oppofe him-
felf, to the fupreme fource of all good.
' - ^a*****- f m ..-..- . .
Amongft all nations, in all ages, tins opinion
prevailed, that human affairs were fubjeft to
the will of the gods, and regulated by their
interpofition. Hence has been derived what-
ever we have read of the wandering ftars of
the Chaldeans, two of them beneficent, and
two malignant hence the Egyptian Typhj
and fir is-*- -the Perfian Arimanius and Oro-
""" majdcs- the Grecians ccleftial and infernal
Jove the J5nz#2# and the Zupay of the In-
dians, Peruvians, Mexicans the good and
evil principle, by whatever names they may /
N*. ' ** *****" ^Jr.-
go
be called, of all other barbarous nations and
hence the ftrudlure of the whole book of
Job, in whatever light, of hiilory or drama,
it be confidered. Now does it not appear
reafonable to fuppoie, that an opinion fo an-
cient and fo univrrfal has arh'en from tradi-
tion concerning the fall of our iirft parents ;
disfigured indeed, and obieured, as a;l tradi-
i tions mud be, by many fabulous additions ?
Jr THE Jews, you tell us, " never prayed but
when they were in trouble." I do not be-
lieve this of the Jews; but that they prayed
more fervently when they were in trouble,
than at any other times, may be true of the
Jews, and I apprehend is true of all nations
and all individuals - But " the Jews never
prayed for any thing but victory, vengeance,
and riches," Head Solomon's prayer at the
dedication of the temple, and biufh for your
affertion, illiberal and uncharitable in the
extreme !
IT appears, you obferve, " to have been
the cuftom of the heathens to perfonify both
virtue and vice, by flatties and images, as is
done now-a-daysbothbyftatuary and by paint-
ing : but it does not follow from this that
they worftiipped them any more than we
do." Not worshipped them ! What think
you of the golden image which Nebuchad-
nezzar fet up ? Was it not worfhipped by
the princes, the rulers, the- judges, the peo-
81
pie, the nations^ and the languages of the'
Babylonian empire ? Not worlhipped them !
What think you of the decree of the Roman
fenate for fetching the ftatue of the mother
of the gods from P'effrnum ? Was it only that
they might admire it as a piece of workman-
(liip ? Not worfhipped them ! " What man is
there that knoweth not how that the city of
theEphefians was a wor&ipper of the great
goddefs Diana, and of the image which fell J
down from Jupiter ?"" Not worlhipped them!
The worfhip was univerfal. , 4b Every na-
tion made gods of their own, and put them
In'the houfes of the high places, which the
Samaritans had made the men of Babylon
made Succoth-benoth, and the men of Guth
made Nergal, and the men of Ha math Jpiade
Afhima, and the Avites made Nibh'azr and
Tartak, and the Sepharvites burned their
children in fire to Adrammelech, and Anam-
fWfSrf! 5 ^
melech, the gods of Sepharvaim." (2 Kings,
chap* xvii.) The heathens are much in-
debted to you for this curious apology for
their idolatry ; for a mode of worlhip the
mod cruel, fenfelefs, impure, abominable,
that can poffible difgrace the faculties ot the
human mind. Had this your conceit, occur-
red in ancient times, it might have faved
Micah^s teraphims the golden calves of Je-
roboam, and of Aaron, and quite fuperceded
the neceflity of thefecond commandment !! !
Heathen moralitv has had its adv r ocates be-
82
fore you; the facetious gentleman Who pul-
led off his hat to the ftatue of Jupiter, that
he might have a friend when heathen idola-
try fliould again be in repute, feems to have
had fome foundation for his improper hu-
mour, fbme knowledge that certain men
efteeming themfelves great philoibphers had
entered into a confpiracy to abolifh Chrifti-
anity, fome forefight of the confequences
which will certainly attend their fuccefs.
IT is an error, you fay, td call the Pfalms
the Pfalrns of David. This error was ob-
ferved by St. Jerome,/ many hundred years
before you were born ; his words are " We
know that they are in an error who attri-
bute all the Pfalms to David/' 'You, I fup-
pofe, will not deny, that David wrote fome
of them. Songs are of various forts; we
have hunting fongs, drinking fongs, fighting
fongs, love fongs, foolifh, wanton, wicked
fongs i if you will have the " Pialms of
David to be nothing but a collection from
the different fong-writers," you muft allow
that the writers of them were infpired by no
ordinary fpirit ; that it is a collection, incapa-
ble of being degraded by the name you give
it; that it greatly excels every other col-
lection in matter and in manner. Compare
the book of Pialms wkh the odes of Horace
or Anacreon, with the hymns of Calimachus,
the golden verfes of Pythagoras, the chorufes
of the Greek tragedians, (no contemptible
compofitions ajiy of thefe,) and you will
quickly fee how greatly it furpaffes them all,
in piety of fentiment,. in fublimity of ex-
preflion, in purity of morality, and in ra-
tional theology.
As you efteem the Pfalms of David a fong
book, it is confident enough in you to efteern
the Proverbs of Solomon a jeft book; there
have not come down to us above eight hun-
dred of his jefts: if we had the whole three
thoufand, which he wrote, our mirth would
become extreme. Let us open the book, and
fee what kind of jefts it contains ; take the
very firft as a fpecimen " The fear of the
Lord is the beginning of knowledge ; but fools
defpife wifdom and inftruttion." Do you
perceive any jeft in this ? Thefear of the Lord !
What Lord does Solomon mean ? He means
thut Lord who took the pofterity of Abra-
ham to be his peculiar people who redeemed
that people from Egyptian bondage by a mira-
culous interpolation of his power who gave
the law to Mofes who commanded the If-
raelites to exterminate the nations of Canaan.
Novv r this Lord you will not fear ; the jeft
fays, you defpife wifdom and inftruclioiK
Let us try again " My fon,hear the inftruc-
tion of thy father, and forfakc not the law
of thy mother." If your heart has been evey
8 4
touched by parental feelings, you will fee no
jeft in this. Once more " My fon, if fin-
ners entice thee, content thou not." Theft
are the three fir.ft proverbs in Solomon's " jefl
book ;" if you read it through , it may not make
you merry; I hope it will make you wife; that
it will teach you, at It aft, the beginning of wif-
dom - the fear of that Lord, whom Solomon
feared. Solomon, you tell us, was witty; jeft-
ers are fometimes witty, but though all the
world, from the time of the queen of Sheba,has
heard of the wifdom of Solomon, his wit was
never heard of before. There is a great dif-
ference, Mr. Locke teaches us, between wit
and judgment, and there is a greater between
wit and wifdom. Solornon *'* was wifer than
Ethan the Ez-atute, and Heman, and Chaleol,
,and Darda, the fons of Mahol." Tfcefe mei>
you may tjiink jefters ; and fo may you call
the fevec wife nien of Greece : but you will
never convince the world that Solomon,
who was wifer than them all, was nothing
but a wkty 'je.fter, As to the fins and debau-
cheries of Solomon, we have nothing to do
with them but to .avoid them ; and to give
full credit to his experience, when, he preach-
es to us his admirable iermon on the ya^ity
: of every thing 'but piety and virtue.
ISAIAH 'has a greater fhare of your abuft
than any other writer in the Old Teitament,
the reafon of it is, obvious the prophe^
8 :>
. : of liai'cih liave received fuch a full and
circumltantial completion, that unlefs you
can . pcrili ad e yourfelf to coniidcr the whole
book (a few hiftorical (ketches excepted) i; as
one continued bombaftical rant, full of ex-
travagant metaphor, without application,
and deftitute of meaning," you muft of ne-
.ccfiity allow its divine authority. You com-
pare the burden of Babylon, the burden of
Moab, the burden of Damafcus, and the other
denunciations of the prophet againft cities
and kingdoms, to the ilory " of the knight of
the burning mountain, the ftory "ofCinderil-
la..&c." Imay have read thefe dories, but I re-
member nothing of the fubjefts of them ; I
have read alfoliaiah's burden of Baby Ion, and
I have compared it with the pail and prefent
date of Babylon, and the comparifon has
made fuch an irnpreffion on my mind, that it
will never be effaced from my memory. I
fhall never ceafe to believe that the Eternal
alone, by whom things future are more dif-
iiidly known than pad or prefent things are
to man, that the eternal God alone could
have diftated to the prophet Ifaiah the fub-
jet of the burden of Babylon.
THE latter part of the forty -fourth and
the beginning of the forty-fifth chapter of
Ifaiah, are, in your opinion, fo far from be-
ing written by Ifaiah, that they could only
have been written by fome perfon who lived
at lead an hundred and fifty years after
II
86"
Ifaiah Was dead: thefe chapters, you go on,
" are a compliment to Cyrus, who permitted
the Jews to return to Jerufalem from the
Babylonian captivity above an hundred' and
fifty years after the death of Ifaiah :" and
is it for this, Sir, that you accufe the church
of audacity and the priefts of ignorance, In
impofing, as. you call it, this book upon the
world as the writing of Ifaiah ? What (hall
be laid of you, who, either defignedly or ig-
norantly, reprefent one of the mod clear and
important prophecies in the Bible, as an hif-
torical compliment, written above an hun-
dred and fifty years after the death of the
prophet ? We contend, Sir, that this is a
prophecy and not an hiftory ; that God call-
ed Cyrus by his name ; declared that he fhould
conquer Babylon ; and defcribed the means
by which he fhould do it, above an hundred
years before Cyrus was born, and when there
was no probability of fuch an event. Por-
phyry could not refift the evidence of Dani-
el's prophecies, but by faying, that they v/ere
forged after the events predicted had taken
place ; Voltaire could not refift the evidence
of the prediction of ^c/us, concerning the
-* i n r> ~-*~--;rv' r i *#*?** i r******* ,
deitrucuon or leruialein, but by laying;, that
. dVMMMJBMM**- ** W%BP^*****^ ,/ / O. '
the account was written after Jerufalem had
been deftroyed ; and you at length, (though,
for aught I know, you may have had pre-
deceffors in this prefumption,) unable to re-
fift the ev id; nee of Ijaialis prophecies, con*
tend that they are bombaftical rant, without
application, though the application is cir-
cumftantial ; and deftittUe of meaning, though
the meaning is fo obvious, that it cannot be
miflaken; and that one of the rn oft remark-
able of them, is not a prophecy but an hifto-
rical compliment written after the event.
We will not, Sir, give up Daniel and St.
Matthew, to the impudent aflertions of Por-
phyry and Voltaire, nor will we give up
Ifaiah to your afifertion. Proof, proof is
what we require, and not affertion ; we will
not relinquish our religion, in obedience to
your abufive aflertion refpefting the pro-
phets of God. That the wonderful abfurdi-
ty of this hypothefis may be more obvious
to you, I beg you to confider that Cyrus was,
a Perfian, had been brought up in the religi-
' on of his country, and was probably addidted
to the magian iupcrftition of two indepen-
dent Beings, equal in power but different hu^*
principle, one the author of light and of all
* . A ' , ,- -.-,._ , ,- & ,-:,
good, the other the author of darknefs and
all evil. Now is it probable that a captive
Jew, meaning to compliment the greateit
prince in the world, fhould be fo ftupid as
to tell the prince his religion was a lie? 4 jQ[
am the Lord, and there is none elie, I form,
the light, aiid create dafltncjs, I make peace
and create evil ? I the 'Lord do all the.o
things." "*' ' iii"
BUT if you will pcr&vere in believing that
the prophecy concerning Cyrus was written
after the event, peruie the burden of Baby-
lon ; was that alfo written after the event ?
"Were the Modes then ftirred up againft Ba-
bylon? Was Babylon, the glory of the king-
doms, the beauty of the Chaldees. then over-
thrown, and become as Sodom -and Gomor-
rah ? Was it then uninhabited ? Was it then
neither fit for the Arabian's tent nor the
fhepherd's fold?- Did the wild beafts of the
deiert then lie there ? Did the wild beafts of
the iflands then cry in their defolate houfes,
and dragons hi their pleafant palaces? Wen*
Nebuchadnezzar and Bel/hazz/ar, the ion and
the grandfoti, then cut off? Was Babylon
then become a poffeffion of the bittern, ipd
pools of water? Was it then Iwept \viv.b
the befom of deftruftion, fo fwept that the
world knows not now whtre to find it ?
I arn unwilling to attribute bad
deliberate wickednefs, to you or to any man ;
I cannot avoid believing, that you think you
have truth on your iide, and that you are
doing fervice to mankind in endeavoring to
root out what you efteem fuperftition. What
I blame you for is this that you have at-
tempted to leffen the authority of the Bible
by ridicule, more than by reafon ; that you
have brought forward every petty objection
which your ingenuity could diicover, or
your induftry pick up, from the writings of
others ; and without taking notice cf the an-
fwers which have been repeatedly given to
thefe objections, you urge and enforce them
as if they were new. There is certainly fome
novelty, at lead ia your manner, for you go-
beyond all others in boldnefs of afiertion,
and in profanenefs of argumentation ; Boling-
broke and Voltaire muft yield the palm of
fcurrility to Thomas Paine.
PERMIT me to (late to you, what would
In my opinion, have been a better mode of
proceeding; better fuitcd to the character of
an honeft man, fin cere in his endeavours to
fearch out truth. Such a man, in reading
the Bible, would, in the firft place, examine
whether the Bible attributed to the Su-
preme Being any attributes repugnant to ho-
linefs, truth, juflice, goodnefs; whether it
reprefented him as fubjeft to human infirmi-
ties ; whether it excluded him from the go-
vernment of (he world, or affigned the ori-
gin of it to chance, and an eternal conflict of
atoms. Finding nothing of this kind in the
Bible, (for the deftruftion of the Cafiaanites-
by his cxprefs command, I have fhewn not
to be repugnant to his moral juftice,) he
Would, in the feeond place, confider 'that the'
Bible being as to many of ito parts, a very
old book, and written by various authors,,
and at different and diftant periods,
II 2
might, probably, occur fome difficulties and
apparent contradictions in the hiftorical part
of it ; he would endeavor to remove thefe
difficulties, to reconcile thefe apparent con-
traditions, by the rules of fuch found criti-
cifm as he would ufe in examining the con-
tents of any other book ; and if he found that
moft of them were of a trifling nature, arif-
ing from fhort additions inferted into the
text as explanatory and fupplemental, or
from miftakes and omiifions of transcribers^
lie would infer that all the reft were capa-
ble of being accounted for, though lie was;
not able to do it ; and he would be the more
Mailing to make this conceffion^ from ob~
ferving, that there ran through the whole
book an harmony and connection, utterly in-
eonflftent with every idea of forgery and de-
ceit. He would then, in the third place,,
bferve, that the miraculous and hiftorical
parts of this book were fo intermixed, that
they could not be Separated ; and that they
muft either both be true, or both falfe ; and
from finding that the hiftorical part was as
well or better authenticated than that of any-
other hiftory, h would admit the miracu-
lous part ; and to con firm h inifelf rn this be-
lief he would advert to the prophecies'; welt
knowing that the prediction of things to
come,, was. as certain a proof of the divine
Interposition,. a:s the perfbrnnance of a mira
cife could be. If lie ikould finiL as, lie cor-
tainly would, that many ancient prophecies
had been fulfilled in all their circumftarsces,
and that fome were fulfilling at this very day,
he would not differ a few feeming or real dif-
ficulties to overbalance the weight of thisac-
cumufated evidence for the truth of the Bi-
ble. Such, I prefume to think, would be a
proper conduit in all thofe who aredeftrous
of forming a rational and impartial judgment
on the fubject of revealed religion. To re-
turn.
As to yenir obfervation, that the book
of Ifaiah is (at leaft in tranilation) that
kind of cornpofition and falfe tafie, which
is properly called profe run mad I have
only to remark, that your tafle for Hebrew
poetry, even judging of it from tranflation r
would be more correct if you would fuf-
fer youiTcif to be informed on the fubjet
by Bifhop Lowtb, who tells you in his
Prelections %t that a poem translated lite-
rally from the Hebrew into any other
language, whilft the fame forms of the fen*
tences remain, will ftill retain, even as
far as relates to verfification, much of its
Dative dignity, and a faint appearance cf
verfification." (Gregory's Tranl.) If this
is what you mean by profe run mad, your
obfervation may be admitted..
You explain at fome length your notion cf
the miftpplicaiioa made by St. Matthew of
9*
the prophecy in Ifaiah " Behold, a virgin
fhall conceive and bear a fon." That paflage
has been handled largely and minutely by al-
moft every commentator, and it is too im-
portant to be handled fuperficially by any
one : I am not on the prefent occafion con-
cerned to explain it. It is quoted by you to
prove, and it is the only inftance you pro-
duce that Ifaiah was " a lying prophet and
an impoftor." Now I maintain, that this
very inftance proves, that he was a true pro-
phet, and no irnpoftor. The hiftory of the
prophecy, as delivered in the feventh chap-
ter, is this Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah
king of Ifracl, made war upon Ahaz, king of
Judah; not merely, or, perhaps, not at all,
for the fake of plunder or the conqueft of ter-
ritory, but with a declared purpofe of making
an entire revolution in the government of
Judah, of defiroying the royal houfe of Da-
vid, and of placing another family on the
throne. Their purpofe is thus exprefTed
" Let us go up againft Judah, and vex it,
and let us make a breach therein for us, and
fet a king in the midil of it, even the fon of
Tabeal." Now what did the Lord eom-
miffion Ifaiah to fay to Ahaz,? did he com-
imffion him to fay, the kings fhall not vex
thee? No. The kings fhail not conquer
thee ?' No. The kings (hall not fuccecd
againft thee? No: he commiffioned him to>
fay, " It (the purpofe of the two kings) (hall
95
not (land, neither fiiall it come to pafs/' I
demand Did it Hand, did it come to pafs?
Was Tabeal ever made king of Judah ? No.
The prophecy was perfectly accompliflicd.
Yon fay, " Inflead of thefe two kings failing
in their attempt againft Ahaz,, they fucceed-
ed ; Ahaz, was defeated and deftroyed?' I
deny the faft ; Ahaz. was defeated, but not
deftroyed ; and even the " two hundred
thoufand women, and ions, and daughters,"
whom you represent as carried into captivity,
were not carried into captivity ; they were
made captives, but they were not carried in-
to captivity ; for the chief men of Samaria,
being admonifhed by a prophet, would not
fuffer Pekah to bring the captives into the
land " They rofe up, and took the captives/
and with the fpoil cloathed all that were na-
ked among them, and arrayed them, and (hod
them, and gave them to eat and to drink,
and anointed them, and carried all the feeble
of them upon afles, (fome humanity, you fee,
amongil thofe Ifraelites, whom you every
whcjre rirprefent as barbarous brutes), and:
brought them to Jericho, the city of palm-
trees, to their brethren/ 7 2 Chron. xxviii.
1 5. The kings did fail in their attempt, their
attempt was to deftroy the houfe of David,
and to make a revolution ; but they made no
revolution, they did not deftroy the houfe of
David, for Ahaz, flept with his fathers; and
Hez,ek ah, his fon, of the houfe of David,
reigned in his (lead,
LET * R VI.
JFTER what I conceive to be a great
inifreprefen tat ion of the character and conduit
of Jeremiah, you bring forward an objection
which Spinoza and others before you had
much iniifted upon, though it is an objection
\vhich neither affects the genuinenefs, nor the
authenticity, of the book of Jeremiah, any
more than the blunder of a bookbinder, in
mifplacing the fheets of your performance,
would leflen its authority. The objection is,
that the book of Jeremiah has been put to-
gether in a difordered ftate. It is acknow-
ledged, that the order ef time is not every
where obferved; but the caufe of the confu-
fion is not known. Some attribute it to Ba-
ruch collecting into one volume all the feve-
ral prophecies which Jeremiah had written,
and neglecting to put them in their proper
places : others think that the feveral parts
of the work were at firft properly arranged,
95
But that through accident, or the carelejfTnefs
of tranfcribers, they were deranged ; others
contend, that there is no confufion ; that
prophecy differs from hiftory, in not being
fubjeft to an accurate obfervance of time and
order. But leaving this matter to be fettled
by critical difcuflion, let us come to a matter
of greater importance to your charge againfl
Jeremiah for his duplicity, and for his falfe
prediction. Firft, as to his duplicity :
JEREMIAH, on account of his having bold-
ly predicted the deftruftion of Jerusalem, had
been thruft into a miry dungeon by theprinces
of Judah who fought his life; there he would
have perifhed, had not one of the eunuchs ta-
ken companion on him, and petitioned king
Zedekiah in his favour, faying, " Thefe oien
(the princes) have done evil in all that they
have done to Jeremiah the prophet, (no final!
teftimony this, of the probity of the prophet's
character,) whom they have caft into thedun-
geon, and he is like to die for hunger." On
this reprefentation Jeremiah was taken out of
the dungeon by an order from the king, who
foon afterwards fent privately for him. ^nd
defired him to conceal nothing from him,
binding himfelf, by an oath, that, whatever
might be the nature of his prophecy, lie
would not put him to death, or deliver him
into the hands of the princes who fouoht his
life. Jeremiah delivered to him the purpofe
of God refpe&ing the fate of Jerufalem. The
conference being ended, the king, anxious to
perform his oath, to prelerve the life of the
prophet, difmiffed him, faying, " Let no
man know of thefe words, and thou (halt
not die. But if the princes hear that I have
talked with thee, and they come unto thee,
and fay unto thee, Declare unto us now
what thou haft faid unto the king, hide it
not from us, and we will not put thee to
death ; allb what the king faid unto thee :
then thou {halt fay unto them, I prefented my
fupplication before the king, that he would
not caufe me to return to Jonathan's houfe
to die .there. Then came all the princes unto
Jeremiah, and allied him, and he told them
according to all thefe words that the king
had commanded." Thus you remark, tk this
man of God, as he is called, could tell a lie,
or very ftrongly prevaricate, for certainly
he did not. go to Zedekiah to make liis fup-
plication, neither did he make it." It is riot
faid that he told the princes lie ivcnt to make
his fupplication,. but that he prejented it:
now it is fa id in the preceding chapter, that
he did make the fupplication, and it is pro-
bable that in this conference he renewed it ;
but be that as it may, I contend that Jere-
miah was not guilty of duplicity, or, in
more intelligible terms,' that he did ndt vio-
late any law of nature, or of civil focicty, in
what he did on this occaficn. He told the
97
truth, in part, to fave his life ; and he was
under no obligation to teli the whole to men
who were certainly his enemies, and no good
fubjects to his king. " In a matter (fays
Puifendorf,) which I am not obliged to de-
clare to another, if I cannot, with fafety,
conceal the whole, I may fairly difcover no
more than a part/' Was Jeremiah under
any obligation to declare to the princes what
had pafled in his conference with the king ?
You may as well fay, that the houfe of lords
has a right to compel privy counfellors to
reveal the king's fecrets. The king cannot
juftly require a privy counsellor to tell a lie
for him ; but he may require him not to
divulge his counfels to thofe who have no
right to know them. Now for the falfc
prediction I will give the defcription of it
in your own words.
In the 34-th chapter is a prophecy of Je-
remiah to Zedekiah, in thefe words, ver. 2.
4 Thus faith the Lord, Behold, I will give
this city into the hands of the king of Baby-
lon, and will burn it with fire ; and thou
jfhalt not efcape out of his hand, but thou
(halt furcly be taken, and delivered into his
hand ; and thine eyes {hall behold the eyes
of the king of Babylon, and he (hall fpeak
with thee mouth to mouth, and thou fhalt
go to Babylon. Yet hear the word of the
Lord, ZedekiaA 9 king ofjndah ; thus faith
I
the Lord, Thou- ftialt not die by the /word,
but thou /halt die in peace ; and with the
burnings of thy fathers , the former kings that
ivere before thee, fo /hall they burn odours for
thee, and ivill lament thee, faying, ^/2, Lord,
for I have pronounced the -word, faith the
Lord.
" Now, inftead of Zedekiah beholding
the eyes of the king of Babylon, and {peak-
ing with him mouth to mouth, and dying in
peace, and with the burnings of odours, as
at the funeral of his fathers (as Jeremiah had
declared the Lord hirnlelf had pronounced)
the reverie, according to the 5?d chapter
was the cafe ; it is there dated, verfe 10,
6 That the king of Babylon fle\v the fons
of Zedekiah before his eyes ; then he put
out the eyes of Zedekiah : and bound him in
chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put
him in prifon till the day of his death.'
'What can we fay of thefe prophets, but that
they are importers and liars?'' 1 can fay
this that the prophecy you have produced,
was fulfilled in all its parts: and what then
(hall be faidofthofe who call Jeremiah a
liar and an importer ? . Here then we are
fairly at iiTue you affirm that the prophecy
was not fulfilled, and I affirm that it was
fulfilled in all its parts. " I will give this
city into the hands of the king of Babylon,
smd he {hall burn it with fire :" fo fays the
99
prophet ; what fays the hiftory ? " They
(the forces of the king of Babylon) burnt
the houfe of God, and brake down the walls
of Jeruialem, and burnt all the palaces there-
of with fire. (2 Chron. xxxvi. 19.) " Thou
(halt not efcape out of his hand, but {halt
f u rely be taken and delivered into his hand ;"
fo fays the prophet ; what fays the hiftory ?
The men of war fled by night and the
king went the way towards the plain, and
the army of the Chaldees purfned after the
king, and overtook him in the plains of Je-
richo ; and all his army were fcattered from
him : fo they took the king, and brought him
up to the Jung of Babylon, to Riblah." (2
Kings xxv. 5.) The prophet goes "on*
" Thine eyes {hall behold the eyes of the
king of Babylon, and he fliall fpeak with thec
mouth to mouth." No pleafant circum-
ftance this to Zcdddah, r/ho had provoked
the king of Babylon by revolting from him !
The hiftory fays, " The king of Babylon
gave judgment upon Zedekiah," or, as it is
more literally rendered from the Hebrew,
4 * jpakc judgments with him at Riblah." The
prophet concludes this part with, 4t And thou
(halt go to Babylon ;" the hiftory fays, " The
king of Babylon bound him in chains, and
carried him to Babylon, and put him in pri-
fon till the day of his death," Jer. Hi. 1 1.
" Thou (halt not die by the iVord." He
did not die by the fword, he did not fall in
ICO
battle, 44 But them (halt die in peace." He
did die in peace, he neither expired on the
rack or on the fcaffold ; was neither ftrangled,
nor poifoned ; no' umiiual fate of captive
kings! he died peaceably in his bed, though
that bed was in a prifon. " And with the
burnings of thy fathers (hall they burn odours
for thee." I cannot prove from the hiftory
that this part of the prophecy was accom-
plifhed, nor can you prove that it was not.
The probability is, that it was accomplifhed ;
and I have two reafons on which I ground
this probability. Daniel, Shadrach, Me-
ftiach, and Abednego, to fay nothing of
other jews, were men of great authority in
the court of the king of Babylon, before and
after the commencement of the imprifonment
of Zedekiah ; and Daniel continued in power
till the fubvcrfion of the kingdom of Baby-
lon by Cyrus. Now it feems to me to be ve-
ry probable, that Daniel, and the other great
men of the Jews, would both have inclina-
tion to requeft, and influence enough with
the king of Babylon to obtain perrniffion to
bury their cleceafed prince Zedekiah, after the
manner of his fathers, But if there had been
no Jews at Babylon of confequence enough
to make fuch a requeft, ftill it is probable that
the king of Babylon would have ordered the
Jews to bury and lament their departed prince,
after the manner of their country. Monarchs,
like other men, are confcious of the inftability
IOI
of human condition; and when the pomp of
war has ceafed, when the infblence of con-
queft is abated, and the fury of refentment
fubfided, they felclom fail to revere royalty
even in its ruins, and grant without reluc-
tance proper obiequies to the remains of cap-
tive kings.
You profefs to have been particular in
treating of the books afcribed to Ifaiah and
Jeremiah. Particular! in what? You have
particularized two or three paflages, which
you have endeavoured to reprefent as objec-
tionable, and which I hope have been fhewn,
to the reader's fatisfa&ion, to be not juftly
liable to your cenfure; and you have pafied
over all the other parts of thefe books with-
out notice. Had you been particular in your
examination, you would have found caufe
to admire the probity and the intrepidity of
the characters of the authors of them ; you
would have met with many inftances of rub-
lime compofition ; and, what is of more
confequence, with many iuflanccs of pro-
phetical veracity : particularities of thefe
kinds you have wholly overlooked* I cannot
account for this; I have no right, no inclina-
tion, to call you a difhoneft man ; am I jufti-
fied in confidering you as a man not altoge-
ther deftitute of ingenuity, but fo entirely
under the dominion of prejudice in every
thing refpeding the Bible, that, like a cor-
I 2
IO2
riipted judge, previonfly determined to give
fentence on one fide, you are negligent in the
examination of truth ?
You proceed to the reft of the prophets,
and you take them collectively ; carefully
however felefting for your obfervations fiich
particularities as are beft calculated to ren-
der, if poflible, the prophets odious or ridi-
culous in the eyes of your readers. You
confound prophets with poets and muficians :
I would diftinguifh them thus; many pro-
phets were poets and muficians, but all poets
and muficians were not prophets. Prophecies
were often delivered in poetic language and
meafure ; but flights and metaphors of the
Jewifh poets have not, as you affirm, been
foolifhly ere ft ed into what are now called
prophecies they are now called, and have
always been called, prophecies,- becauie they
were real predictions, fo.tne of which have
received, fome are now receiving, and all.
will receive, their full accompliftunent,
THAT there were falfe prophets, witches,
necromancers, conjurors, and fortune-tellers,
ti|| Wp^* T ' *9* J +*? r ** . rl ^--^-. -"-- '
among the Je^^^no perfon will attempt to
y; no nation, barbarous or civilized, has
been without them : but when you would
degrade the prophets of the Old Teftament
to a level with tlieie conjuring, dreaming,
ftrolling gentry- when you would reprefent
105
them as {pending their lives in fortune-tel-
ling, calling nativities, predicting riches, for-
tunate or unfortunate marriages, conjuring
for loft goods, &c. I mud be allowed to fay,
that you wholly miftake their office, and
milreprefent their charafter ; their office was
to convey to the children of Ifrael the com-
mands, the promifes, the threatenings of Al-
mighty God ; and their character was that
of men fullaining, with fortitude, pcrfecuti-
on in the difcharge of their duty* f~*f1ft&f&
were falfe prophets in abundance among-ft
-"-*. ""BUJ** ****&#* Vf--,,./4, ' *-* .,...
the Jewsj and if you oppofe tnefe to theTFue
prophets, and call them both party prophets,
you have the liberty of doing fo, but you
will not thereby confound the diftinftion,
between truth and falfehoocL Falie pro-
phets are fpoken of with detellation in many
parts of fcripture. particularly by Jeremiah,
who accufes them of prophefying lies in the
name of the Lord, faying, I have dreamed,
"Ihavedreamed : Behold, lam againft the pro-
phets, faith the Lord, that ufe their tongues,
and fay, He faith ; that prophecy falfe dreams,
andcaufe my people to err by their liesandby
their lightaeis." ; Jeremiah cautions his coun-
trymen againft W^*tredit to their""pro
^ . - *****? , ^p^j. . 3 *>.*&* . T v^t^:^
phcts, to their divmers t to their dreamers, to
their enchanters, to their lorcerers, "'which
ipeak unto you, laying, Ye fliall not lerve
the king of Babylon.' 7 You cannot think
-M, -.,. ^* B ...
more contemptibly of thefe gentry, than they
were thought of by the true prophets at the
time they lived; but, as Jeremiah fays on
this fubje<ft, " what is the chaff" to the
wheat ? " what are the falfe prophets to
the true ones ? Every thing good is liable
to abufe ; but who argues againft the ufe of
a thing from the abufe of it ? againft phy-
licians, becaufe there are pretenders to phy-
fic ? Was liaiah a fortune-teller, predicting
riches, when he faid to kingHezekiah, " Be-
hold, thedays come, that all that is in thine
houfe and that which thy fathers have laid
up in (tore until this day, (hall be carried to
Babylon : nothingftiall be left faith the Lord.
And of thy fons that (hall iffuefrom thee, which
them {halt beget, (hall they take away, and
they (hall be eunuchs in the palace of thek ing
of Babylon." Fortune-tellers generallyp re-
dit good luck to their fimple cuftomers,
that they may make fomelhing by their trade;
but Ifaiah predicts to a monarch defolation of
his country, and ruin of his family. This
prophecy was fpoken in the year before
Chrift 713 ; and, above an hundred yeais af-
terwards, it wasaccoinplifhed ; when Nebu*
chadnezzar took Jerufalem, and carried out
thence all the treafures of the heufe of the
Lord, and the treafures of the king's houfe,
(2 Kings xxiv. 13.) and when lie commanded
the mafter cf his eunuchs, (Dan. i. 3.) that
he (hculd take certain of the children of Ifra-
105
el, and of the king's feed, and of the princes,
and educate them for three years, till they
were able to ftand before the king.
JEHORAM king of Ifrael, Jehofhaphat
king of Judah, and the king of Edom, going
with their armies to make war on the king
of Moab, came into a place where there was
no water either for their men or cattle. In
this diflrefs they waited upon Elifha, (an
high honour for one of your conjurors,) by
the advice of Jehofhaphat, who knew that
the word of the Lord was with him. The
prophet, on feeing Jehoram, an idolatrous
prince, who had revolted from the worfhip
of the true God, come to confult him, laid
to him 4t Get thee to the prophets of thy
father and the prophets of thy mother."
This you think fhews Eliiha to have been a
party prophet, full of venom and vulgarity
it fhews him to have been a man. of great
courage, who refpefted the dignity of his
own character, the facrednefs of his office as
a prophet of God, whole duty it was to re-
prove the wickednefs of kings, as of other
men. He ordered them to make the valley
where they were full of ditches ; this, you
fay, " every countryman could have told,
that the way to get water was to dig for it :"
but this is not a true representation of the
cafe ; the ditches were not dug that the water
might be gotten by digging for it, but that
io6
they might hold the wafer when It fliould
miracnlou'fty" come * fc without winder rain,"
from another country ; and it did come
4fc from the way of Edom,and the country was
filled -with water." As to Elifha's curfing
thejjttle children who had mocked at him,
and their definition in coniequence of his im-
precation, the whole ftory muft be taken to-
gether. The provocation he received, is by
ibme, confidered as an infult offered to him,
not as a man but a prophet, and that the per-
fons who offered it were not what we un-
derftand by little children, but grown up
youths ; the term child being applied, in the
Hebrew language, to grown up performs. Be
this as it may, the curling w&s the at of the
prophet ; had it been a fin, it would not have
beenronowed by j^Trarulous dcilruflion of
the offi:nciers ; for thij ..was the act of God,
'who bcft knows who defer ve puniflmient.
What effeft fuch a fignal judgment had on
the idolatrous inhabitants of the land, is no
where laid ; but it is probable it was not
without a good effect.
EZEKIEL and Daniel lived during the Ba-
bylonian captivity; you allow their writings
to be genuine. In this you differ from fome
of the great eft adverfaries of Chriftianity :
and in my opinion cut up, by this conceilt-
on, the very rootof your whole performance.
It is next to an impoffibilityfcr any man, who
io 7
admits the book of Daniel to be a genuine
book, and who examines that book with in-
telligence and impartiality, to refufe his af-
fent to the truth of chriftianity. As to your
faying, that the interpretations which com-
mentators and priefts have made of ihefe
books, only fhew the fraud, or the extreme
folly to which credulity and prieftcraft can
go., I confuler it as nothing but a proof of
the extreme folly or fraud to which preju-
dice and infidelity can carry a minute philo-
fopher. \Ycrn profefs a fondnefs forjcience^
I will refef^you to a fcientr^c^ian, whcTwas
neither a commentator nor a priefu -to Fer-
gufoi). In^a tract entitled The Year of
our Saviour's Crucifixion afcertainecf ; and
the darknefs, at the time of his crucifixion,
proved to be fupernatural this real philo-
ibpher interprets the remarkable prophecy
in the gth chapter of Daniel, and concludes
his difTertation in the following words
fci Thus we have an aftronomical demonftra-
tion of the truth of this ancient prophecy,
feeing that the proghetic year of the JVlefii-
ah's being cut off, was,^^^ very fame with
the aftronomical." I have fomewhere read
""Sfc. .; -t ^*'^" ;H **W5)>...
an account of a folemndifputation \vhich was
held at Venice, in the laft century, between
a Jew and a Chriftian : the Chriftian ftrong-
ly argued from Daniel's prophecy of the fe-
venty weeks, that Jefus was the Meffiah
whom the Jews had long expected, from the
predictions of their prophets t-^-the learned
Rabbi, who prefided at this difputation, was
fo forcibly ftruck by the argument, that he
put an end to the bufinefs, by faying, " Let
us ftiut up our Bibles; for if we proceed in
the examination of this prophecy, it will
make us all become Chriftians." Was it a
fimilar apprehenfion which deterred you
from fo much as opening the book of Daniel ?
You have not produced from it one excepti-
onable paffage. I hope you will read that
book with attention, with intelligence, and
with an unbiafled mind follow the advice of
our Saviour when he quoted this very pro-
phecy " Let him that readeth underftand"
and I (hail not difpair of your convention
from deiiin to chriflianity.
IN order todifcredit the authority of the
books which you allow to be genuine, you
form a flrange and prodigious hypothefis con-
cerning Exekiel and Daniel, for which there
is no manner of foundation either in hiflory
or probability. You.fuppofe thefe two men
to have had no dreams, no vifions, no revela-
tion from God Almighty ; but to have pre-
tended to thefe things; and, under that dif-
gnife, to have carried on an enigmatical cor-
refpondence relative to the recovery of their
country from the Babylonian yoke. That
any man in his fenfes ftiduld frame or adopt
fuch an hypothefis, fhould have fo little re-
gard to his own reputation as an impartial
enquirer after truth, fo littk refpeft for the
underftanding of his readers, as to obtrude it
on the world, would have appeared an in-
credible circumflance, had not you made it
a fadt
.<: - ""'%
You quote a paflage from Ezekiel; in the
29th chapter, ver. 11, fpeaking of Egypt,
it is faid " No foot of man (hall pafs through
it, nor foot of beaft (hall pafs through it, nei-
ther (hall it bs inhabited forty years : this, ...
you fay, " never came to/roafs, and conie-
quently it is falfe, as all the t>ooks I have al-
ready viewed are." Now that this did come
to pafs, we have, as Bifhop Newton obferves,
" the teftimonies of Megaflhenes and Bero-
fus, two heathen hiftorians, who lived about
300 years before Chrift : one of whom
affirms,, exprefsly, that Nebuchadnezzar con-
quered the greateft part of Africa ; and
the other affirms it, in elfedt, in faying,
that when Nebuchadnezzar heard of the
death of his father, having fettled his af-
fairs in Egypt, and committed the captives
whom he took in Egypt to the care of fome
of his friends to bring them after him, he
hafted direftly to Babylon." And if we had
been poflejfiTed of no teftimony in fupport of
the prophecy, it would have been an hafty
co'iciufion, that the prophecy never came to
pafs; the hiftory of Egypt, at fo remote a
K
110
period, being no where accurately and cir-
cumftantlally related. ' I admit that no pe-
riod can be pointed out from the age of Ez,e-
kiel to the prefent, in which there was lio
foot of man or beaft to be feen for forty years
in all Egypt ; but fome think that only a part
of Egypt is here fpoken of; and furely you
do not expert a literal accomplifhment of an
hyperbolical expreffion, denoting great defo-
lation ; importing that the trade of Egypt,
which was carried on then, as at prefent, by
caravans, by the foot of man and beaft, fliould
be annihilated. Had you taken the trouble
to have looked a little farther into the book
from which you have made your quotation,
you would have there feen a prophecy deli-
vered above two thouiand years" ago, and
which has been fulfilling from tffiat time to
this ;; Egypt fhall be the bafcft of the king-
doms, neither fliall it exalt itielf any more
above the nations there fhall be no mo A e a
-
prince of the land of Egypt/' This you
may call a dream, a viiion, a lie: I efteem it
a wonderful prophecy ; for " as is the pro-
phecy, To has been the event. : Egypt v/rs
conquered by the Babylonians; and after the
Babylonians by the PeiTians; and after the
'.'Perfians it became iubjeft to the Macedonians;
and after the Macedonians to the Romans;
#nd after the Romans to the Saracens ; and
then to the Mamalucs ; and is now a province
of the
Ill
SUFFER me to produce to you from this
author not an enigmatical letter to Daniel
refpefting the recovery of Jerufalem from
the hands of the king of Babylon, but an
enigmatical prophecy concerning Zedekiah
the king of Jerufalem, before it was taken
by the Chaldeans. " I will bring him (Ze-
dekiah) to Babylon, to the land of the Chal-
deans; yet (hall he not fee it, though he fhall
die there/' How! not fee Babylon, when he
fliould die there ! How, moreover, is this
confident, you may afk, with what Jeremi-
ah had foretold that Zedekiah fliould fee
the eyes of the king of Babylon ? This
darknefs of expreffion, and apparent contra-
diftion between the two prophets, induced
Zedekiah (as Jofephus informs us) to give
no credit to either of them ; yet he unhap-
pily experienced, and the fal is worthy your
obfervation, the truth of them both. He
faw the eyes of the king of Babylon, not at
Babylon, but at Riblah; his eyes were there
put out; and he was carried to Babylon, yet
he faw it not ; and thus were the predictions
of both the prophets verified, and the enig-
ma of Ez,ekiel explained.
As to your wonderful difcovery that the
prophecy of Jonah is a book of fome Gentile,
" and that it has been written as a fable, to
expofe the nonfenfe, and to fatirize the vici-
ous and malignant character of a Bible pro-
lit
pbet, or a predicting prieft," I fhall put it,
covered with hellebore for the ferVice of its
author, on the fame fhelf with your hypo-
,thelis concerning the confpirrcy of Daniel
and Exekiel, and fliall not fay another word
about it.
You conclude your obje&ions to the Old
Tcftament is a triumphant ftyle ; an angry
opponent would fay, in a ftyle of extreme
arrogance, and fottifh felf-fufficiency. " I
have gone," you {ay, " through the Bible
(miftaking here, as in other places, the Old
Teftament for the Bible) as a man would go
through a wood, with an axe on his fhonl-
ders, and fell trees: here they lie; and the
priefts, if they can, may replant them. They
may, perhaps, ftick them in the ground, but
they will never grow." And is it poffible
that you fhould think fo highly of your per-
formance, as to believe, that you have there-
by demoliflied the authority of a book which
Newton hhnfelf efteemed the mod authentic
of all hlftories ; which, by its celeftial light,
illumines the darkeft ages of antiquity;
which is the touchftone whereby we are
enabled to diftinguifh between true and fabu-
lous theology, between the God of Ifrael,
holy, juft, and good, and the impure rabble
of heathen Baalim; which has been thought,
by competent judges, to have afforded mat-
ter for the laws of Solon, and a foundation
for the philofophy of Plato ; which has been
illuftrated by the labour of learning, ia all
ages and countries; and been admired and
venerated for its piety, its fublimity, its ve-
racity, by all who were able to read and un-
derftandlit? No, Sir; you have gone indeed,
through the wood, with the beft intention
in the world to cut it down; but you have
merely bufied yourfelf in expofing to vulgar
contempt a few unfightly fhrubs, which
good men had w r ifely concealed from public
view ; you have entangled yourfelf in thick-
ets of thorns and briars ; you have loft your
way on the mountains of Lebanon : the
goodly cedar trees whereof, lamenting the
madnefs, and pitying the blinclnefs of your
rage againft them, have fcorned the blunt
edge and the bafe temper of your axe, and
laughed unhurt at the feeblenefs of your
ftroke.
IN plain language, you have gone through
the Old Teftament hunting after difficulties^
and you hav found fome real op^s ; thcfe
you have endeavored to magnify into iniur-
mountable objections to thr^ authority of the
whole book. When i<; \ s C onfidered that
the Old Teftament; is COSlpo fed of feveral
'flflfcs, written ' different authors, and at
more, Vpe^ lods ^ f rom Mofes to Malachi,
o abflrafted hiftory of a particu-
r above a thoufand y ears, I think
which o<^cur in it are
X 2
H4
much fewer, and of much lefs importance, .
than could reafonably have been expefted.
Apparent difficulties you have represented
as real ones, without hinting at the manner
in which they have been explained. You
have ridiculed things held moft f acred, and
calumniated characters efteemed moft vene-
rable ; you have excited the feoffs of the pro-
fane ; increased the fcepticifms of the doubt-
ful ; fhaken the faith of the unlearned; fug-
gefted cavils to the " difputers of this
v/orld ;"'and perplexed the minds of honed
men who wifli to worfhip the God of their
fathers in lincerity and truth. This and
more you have done in going through the
Old Teftament ; but you have not fo much
as glanced at the great defign of the whole,
at the harmony and mutual dependence of
the feveral parts. You havefaicl nothing of
the wifdom of God in feleiing a particular
people from the reft of mankind, not for
their v ^wn fakes, but that they might witnefs
to tte \; 7 hole world, in fucceflive ages, his
'exiflenct: am/ attributes ; that they might be
an inftrumenJ or^bverting idolatry ; ofde-
daring hV m ft^ God f Ifrad throu g h-
the
5 *God; that t^heCanaanites fwi^^re rabble
had made\ a reproach to
his judgments ; that the
their deer i xrs " That r
/
to fpeak atnifs of the God of Ifrael that all
fliould fear and tremble before him;'* and
it is through them that you and I, and all
the world, are not at this day worfhippers of
idols. You have faicl nothing of the good-
nefs of God in promifing, that through the
feed of Abraham, all the nations of the
earth were to be blclled ; that the ddire of
all nations, the blelling of Abraham to the
Gentiles, fliould come. You have palled by
all the prophecies refpecfting the coming of
the Meiiiah ; though they abfolutely fixed
the time of his coming, and of his being cut
off; defcribed his office, character, conditi-
on, {offerings, and death, in fo circumftan-
tial a manner, that we cannot but be afto-
niflied at the accuracy of their completion in
the perfon of Jefus of Nazareth. You have
neglefted noticingthe teftimony of the whole
Jew nil nation to the truth both of the natural
and miraculonsfa&s recorded in theOldTcfta-
ment. That we may better judge of the weight
of this teftimony, let us (uppofe that God
{hould now manifeft hirnfelf to us, as we con-
tend he did to the Israelites in Egypt, in the
defert, and in the land of Canaan ; and that he
jfhould continue tliefe manifeftations of him-
Telf to our pofterity for a thoufand years or
more, punuhing or rewarding them accord-
ing as they diibbeyed or obeyed his com-
mands; what would you expeft fliould be
the iffue ? You would exped that our pof-
n6'
terity would, in the remoteft period of time,
adhere to their God, and maintain againft all
opponents the truth of the books in which
the difpenlations of God to us and toourfuc-
ceffors had been recorded. They would not
yield to the objections of men, who, not
having experienced the fame divine govern-
ment, fliould, for want of fuch experience,
refufe affent to their teftimony, No ; they
would be to the then furrounding nations,
what the Jews are to us, witnefTes of theex-
iftence and of the moral government of GocL
LETTER VII.
HE New Teftament, they tell us,
is founded upon the prophecies of the Old : if
fo, it rnuft follow 'the fate of its foundation."
Thus you open your attack upon the New
Teftament; and I agree with you, that the
New Teftament muft follow the fate of the
Old ; and that fate is to remain unimpaired by
fuch efforts as you have made againft it. The
New Teftament, however, is not founded
folely on the prophecies of the Old. If an,
heathen from Athens or Rome, who had never
heard of the prophecies of the Old Teftament,
had been an eye- wit nefs of the miracles of Je-
fus, he would have made the fame concluiion
that the Jew Nicodemus did u Rabbi, we
know that thou art a teacher come from God;
for no man can do thefe miracles that thou
doeft, except God be with him." Our Savi-
our tells the Jews " Had ye believed Moles,
ye would have believed me; for he wrote of
n8
me:*' and he bids them fearch the fcrip-
tures, for they teftified of him: but, not-
withftanding this appeal to the prohecies of
the Old Teftament, Jefus faid to the Jews,
46 Though ye believe not in me, believe the
works" " believe me for the very works'
fake" " If I had not done among them the
works which none other man did, they had
not had fin." Thefe arefufficient proofs that
the truth of Chrift's million was not even to
the Jews, much lefs to the gentiles, founded
folely on the truth of the prophecies of the
Old Teftament. So that if you could prove
ibme of thele prophecies to have been mifap-
plied, and not completed in the perfon of
Jefus, the truth of the Chriftian religion
would not thereby be overturned. That
Jefus of Nazareth was the perfon, in whom
all the prophecies, direft and typical, in the
Old Teftament, reipefting the Meffiah, were
fulfilled, is a proposition founded on thofe
prophecies, and to be proved by comparing
them with the hiftory of his life. That Je-
fus was a prophet fcnt from God, is one pro-
poiition that Jefus was the prophet, the
Meffiah, is another; and though he certainly
was both a prophet and the prophet, yet the
foundations of the proof of thde propofi-
are feparate and diftint.
THE mere exiftence "of fnch a woman as
Mary, and of fuch a man as Jofeph, andje-
119
fus," is, you fay, a matter of indifference, a-
bout which there is no ground either to be-
lieve or to diibelieve. Belief is differenP
from knowledge^ with which you here feem
to confound it. We know that the whole is
greater than its part and we know that all
the angel^n the fame fegment of a circle are
equal to each other we have intuition and
demonftration as grounds of this knowledge;
but is there no ground for belief of paft or fu-
ture exiftenre? Is there no ground for believ-
ing that the fun will exift to-morrow, and
that your father exifted before yon ? You
condefcend, however, to think it probable,
that there were fnch perfons as Mary, Jo-
feph, and Jefus; and without troubling your-
fclf about their exiftence or non-exiftence,
a{Tuming,as it were, for the fake of argument,
but without pofitively granting, their exift-
ence, you proceed to inform us, " that it is
the fable of Jefus Chrift, as told in the New
Teftament, and the wild and vifionary doc-
trine raifed thereon," againft which you con-
tend. You will not repute it a fable, that
there \vas fuch a man as Jefus Chrift ; that
he lived in Juclea near eighteen hundred
years ago ; that he went about doing good,
and preaching, not only in the villages of
Galilee, but in the city of Jerufalem ; that he
had leveral followers, who conflantly atten-
ded him ; that he was put to death by Pon-
tius Pilate, that his dilciplcs were numerous
X i/'VJ*
120
a few years after his death, not only in Ju-
dea, but in Rome, the capital of the world,
Mid in every province of the Roman empire;
that a particular day has been obierved in a
religious manner by all his followers, in com-
memoration of a real or fuppofed refurre&i-
on ; and that the eonftant celebration of bap-
tifm, and of the Lord's fupper, may be tra-
ced back from the preient time to him, as the
author of thofe inflitutions. Thefe things
constitute, I fuppofe, no part of your fable ;
and if thefe things be fafts, they will, when
maturely considered, draw after them fo
many other things related in the New Tefla-
ment concerning Jeibs, that there will be left
for your fable but very fcanty materials,
which will require great fertility of inventi-
on, before you will drefs them up into any
form which will not difg-uft even a fuperfici-
al obierver.
THE miraculous conception you efteem a
fable, and in your mind it is an obicene fable.
. Impure indeed rnuft that man's imaginati-
on be, who can difcover any obfcenity in the
angel's declaration to Mary The Holy
Ghoft (hall come upon thee, and the power
of the Highcil fliall overfliadow thee, there-
fore that Holy thing which fhall be born of
thee fhall be called the Son of God. I won-
der you do not find cbfcenity in Genefis,
where it is faid, " The Spirit of God moved
121
upon the face of the waters," and brou
order out of confufion, a world out of a
os, by his foftering influence. As to
Chriftian faith being built upon the heathen
mythology, there is no ground whatever for
the affertion ; there would have been fome
for faying.that much of the heathen mytho-
logy was built upon the events recorded in
the Old Teftament.
You come now to a demonftration, 01%
which amounts to the fame thing, to a pro-
pofition which cannot, you (ay, be contro-
verted : firft, " that the agreement of all
the parts of a ftory does not prove that fto-
ry to be true, becaufe the parts may agree
and the whole may be falfe ; fecondly, That
the dif agreement of the parts of a ftory proves
that the whole cannot be true. The agree-
ment does not prove truth, but the difagree-
ment proves falfehood poiltively." Great
ufe, I perceive, is to be made of this propo-
fition. You will pardon my unfkilfulnefs in
dialectics, if I prefume to controvert the
truth of this abltra<t propofition, as applied
to any purpofe in life. The agreement of
the parts of a ftory implies that the ftory has
been told by at leaft two peribns (the life of
Doctor Johnfon, for inftance, by Sir John
Hawkins and Mr. Bofwell). Now I think
it fcarcely poffible for even two perfons, and
the difficulty is increafed if there are more
L
122
than two, to write the hiftory of the life of
any one of their acquaintance, without there
being a confiderable difference between them,
with refpeft to the number and order of the
incidents of his life. Some things will be
omitted by one, and mentioned by the other ;
ibrne things will be briefly touched by one,
and the fame things will be circumftantiaily
detailed by the other; the fame things which
are mentioned in the fame way by them both,
may not be mentioned as havinghappened ex-
aftly at the fame point of time, with other
poffible and probable differences. But thefe
real or apparent difficulties, inrainutecircum-
fiances, will not invalidate their teflimony as
to the material tranfaftions of his life, much
lefs will they render the whole of it a fable.
If feveral independent witneffes, of fair cha-
rater, iho.ii Id agree in all the parts of a fto-
ry, (in teftifying, for inftance, that a murder
or a robbery was committed at a particular
time, in a particular place, and by a certain
individual,) , every court of juftice in the
.world, -would admit the fa ft, notwithftarid-
ing the abftratt poffibility, of the whole be-
ing falfe : again, if feveral honed men
Ihould agree in faying, that they faw the king
of France beheaded, though they fliould dif-
agree as to the figure of the guillotine or the
fiz,e of his executioner, as to the king's hands
being bound or loofe, as to his being com-
pofed or agitated in afcending the fcafibld, yet ^
every court of juflice in the world would
think/ that fuch difference, refpedting the
circumftances of the fadt, did not in-
validate the evidence reflecting the fadt
itfelf. \Vhen yon fpeak of the whole of a
ftory, you cannot mean every particular
c'ircnmftance connedted with the ftory, but
not eflential to it ; you muft mean the pith
and marrow of the ftory ; for it would be
impoffible to eftablifh the truth of any fad!:,
(of admirals Byng or Keppel, for example,
having negledled or not negledted their duty,)
if a difagreement in the evidence of witnefTes
in minute points, fhould be confidered as an-
nihilating the weight of their evidence in,
points of importance. In a word, the rela-
tion of a fadl differs effentially from the de-
monftration of a theorem. If one ftep is left
out, one link in the chain of ideas conftituting
a deroonftration is emitted, the conclufion
will be deltroyed ; but a fact may be eftablifh-
ecl, notwithllanding a difagreement of the
witneffrs in certain trifling particulars of
their evidence vefpedling if.
You apply your incontrovertible propofi-
tion to the genealogies of Chrift given by
Matthew and Luke there is a difagreement
between them ; therefore, you fay, ^ If Mat-
thew fpake truth, Luke fpeaks , falfehood ;
and if Luke fpeak truth, Matthew fpeaks
falfehood ; and thence there is no authority
124
for believing cither ; and if they cannot be
b-lieved even in the very firft thing they fay
and fet out to prove, they are not entitled to
-be believed in any thing they fay after-
wards." I cannot admit either your premi-
fes or your conclufion not your conclu-
ilon ; bccaufe two authors, who differ in tra-
cing back the pedigree of an individual for
above athoufaixl years, cannot, on that ac-
count, be efteerned incompetent to bear tefti-
niony to the tranfaftions of his life, unlefs
an intentin to falfify could be proved
againft them. If two Welfh hiflorians
fhould at this time write the life of any re-
markable man of their country, who had
been dead twenty or thirty years, and flroukl
through different branches of their genealo-
gical tree, carry up the pedigree to Cadival-
lon t would they, on account of that difference
be difcredited in every thing they faid ?
Might it not be believed that they gave the
pedigree as they had found it recorded in
different inftruments, but without the lead
intention to write a falfehood ? I cannot
admit your premises ; becaufe Matthew
fpeaks truth, and Lukefpeaks truth, though
they clo not fpeak the fame truth ; Matthew
giving the genealogy of Jofeph, the reputed
father of Jefus, and Luke giving the genealo-
gy of Mary, the real mother of Jefus. If
you will not admit this, other explanations
of the difficulty might be given ; but I hold
125
it fufficient to fay, that the authors had no de-
fign to deceive the reatler, that they took
their accounts .from the public regifters,
which were carefully kept, and that had
7 been fabricators, of thefe .genealogies,
they would have beenexpofed at the time to
inftaht detection ; and the, certainty of that
cle-t^ftioii.wojuld have presented them from
making the attempt to impofc a falfe genealo-
gy on. the Jcwifh nation.
BUT that you may effectually overthrow
the credit of thefe genealogies, you make the
following calculation : " From the birth of
David to the birth of Chrift is upwards of
1080 years ; and as there were but 27 full ge-
nerations, to find the average age of each per-
fon mentioned in St. Matthew's lift at the
time his fir ft fon was born, it is only necef-
fary to divide 1080 by 27, which gives 4.0
years for each perfon. As the life-time of
man was then but of the fame extent it is now,
it is an abfurdity to fuppofe, that 27 genera-
tions fhoukl all be old bachelors, before they
married. So far from this genealogy being
a folemn truth, it is not even a reafonable lie."
This argument aflumes the appearance of
arithmetical accuracy, and the conclufion is
in a ftyle which even its truth would not ex-
cufe: yet the argument is good for nothing,
and the conclufion is not true. You have
read the Bible with fome attention ; and you
L 2
126
are extremely liberal in imputing to it lies
and abfurdities; read it over again, efpecially
the books of the Chronicles, and you will
there find, that, in the genealogical lift of
St. Matthew, three generations are omitted
between Joram and Ozias ; Joram was the
father of Azariah, Axariah of Joafli, Joafh
of Amaz,iah, and Amaziah of OzJas. I in-
quire not, in this place, whence this cmiffion
proceeded; whether it is to be attributed to
an error in the genealogical tables from
whence Matthew took his account, or to a
corruption of the text of the evangelift ; flill
it is an omiffion. Now if you will add thefe
three generations to the 27 you mention, and
divide 1080 by 30, you will find the aver-
age age when thefe Jews had each of them
their firft fon born, was 36. They married
fooner than they ought to have done, accord-
ing to Arillotle, who fixes thirty-feven as
the moit proper age, when a man fhould
marry. Nor was it neceflary that they (hould
have been old bachelors, though each of them
had net a fon to fucceed him till he was thir-
ty-fix ; they might have been married at
twenty, without having a fon till they were
forty. You affume in your argument that
the firft-born fon fucceeded the father in the
lift this is not true. Solomon fucceeded
David ; yet David had at leaft fix fons, who
were grown to manhood before Solomon was
born j and Rehobpam had at leaft three fons
127
before he had Abia (Abijah) who fucceeded
him. It is needlefs to cite more inflances to
this purpofe; but from thefe, and other cir-
cumflances which might be infifted upon, I
can fee no ground for believing, that the ge-
nealogy of Jefus Chrifl mentioned by St.
Matthew, is not a folemn truth.
You inilft much upon fome things being-
mentioned by one evangelift, which are not
mentioned by all or any of the others; and you
take this to be a reafon why we fhould con-
fider the gofpels, not as the works of Mat-
thew, Mark, Luke, and John, but as the pro-
du'fcions of fome unconnected individuals, each
of whom made his own legend. I do not ad-
mit the truth of this fuppofition; but I may
be allowed to ufe it as an argument againft
yourfelf it removes every poilible fufpicion
of fraud and impofture, and confirms the gof-
pel hiftory in the ftrongeft manner. Four
unconnected individuals have each written
memoirs of the life of Jeius; from whatever
fource they derived their materials, it is evi-
dent that they agree in a great many particu-
lars of the Lift importance ; fuch as the puri-
ty of his manners ; the fanctity of his doc-
trines ; the multitude and publicity of his
miracles ; the perfecuting fpirit of his ene-
mies ; the manner of his death ; and the cer-
tainty of his refurre&ion ; and whilft they
agree in thefe great points, their difagree-
128
ment in points ef little cbnfequence, is ratfier
a confirmation of the truth, than an indica-
tion of the faliehood, of their feveral accounts.
Had they agreed in nothing, their teftimo-
ny ought to have been rejected as a legenda-
ry tale; h?d they agreed in every thing, it
might have been impeded, that inftead of uh-
conneftcd individuals, they were a let of im-
poflors. The manner in which the evange-
lifts have recorded the particulars of the life
of Jefus, is wholly conformable to what we
experience in other biographers, and claims
our higher! affert to its truth, notwithiland-
ing the force of your incontrovertible propt>-
fltion.
As .an inftance of contradi&ion between the
evangelifts, you tell us, that Matthew fays,
the angel announcing the immaculate concep-
tion appeared unto Joieph; but Luke fays, he
appeared unto Mary. The angel, Sir, appeared
to them both j to Mary, when he informed her
that ilie fliould by the power of God, con-
ceive a fon ; to Jofeph, forne months after-
wards, when Mary's pregnancy wasviiible;
in the interim fhe had paid a vifit of three
months to her coufin Elizabeth. It might
have been expected, that, from, the accuracy
with which you have read your Bible, you
could not have confounded thefe.obvioufly-
diftinft appearances; but men, even of can-
dour, are liable to miflakcs. Who, you afk ?
would now believe a girl, who fhould fay
fhe was gotten with child by a ghoft ? Who
but yourfelf, would ever have afked a quefti-
on fo abominably indecent and profane ? I
cannot argue with you on this fubjeft.
You will never perfuade the world, that
the Holy Spirit of God has any refemblanee
to the_ftage ghofts in Hamlet or Macbeth,
from which you feem to have derived your
idea of it.
THE {lory of the maflacre of the young
children by the order of Herod, is mention-
ed only by Matthew ; and therefore you
think it is a lie. We mud give up all hif-
tory if we refufe to admit fafts recorded by
only one hiftorian. Matthew acklrefled his
gofpel to the Jews, and put them in mind of a
. circumflance of which they muft have had a
melancholy remembrance ; but gentile con-
verts were lefs interefted in that event.
The evangelifts were not writing the life of
Herod, but of Jeius ; it is no wonder that
they omitted, above half a century after the
death of Herod, an infhance of his cruelty,
which was not* effentially connected with
their fubjecl. The mafTacre, however, was
probably known even at Rome ; and it was
certainly correfpondent to the character of
Herod. John you fay, at the time of the
matfacre, < was under two years of age, and
yet he efcaped , & that the (lory circumftan-
tially belies itfelf." J^ n was ^ x months
older than Jefus ; and yon cannot prove that
he was not beyond the age to which the or-
der of Herod extended ; it probably reached
no farther that to thofe who had completed
their firfl year, without including thofe who
had entered upon their fecond : but without
in fi ft ing upon this ftill, I contend that you
cannot prove John to have been under two
years of age at the time of the ma fiacre ;
and I could give many probable reafons to
the contrary. Nor is it certain that John
was, at that time, in that part of the country
to which the eclidi' of Herod extended.
But there would be no end of anfwering, at
length, all your little objections.
No two of the evangelifts, you obferve,
agree in reciting exactly in the j a me words,
the written infcription which was put over
Chrift when he was crucified. I admit that
there is an unelTential verbal difference; and
are you certain that there was not a verbal
difference in the inicriptions themfelves ?
One was written in Hebrew, another in
Greek, another in Latin ; and, though they
had ali the fame meaning, yet it is probable,
that if two men had tranflated the Hebrew
and the Latin into Greek, there would have
been a verbal difference between their tranf-
lations. You have rendered yourfrl^raous
by writing a book called- ^ r riie Rights of
131
Man: -had you been guillotined by Robef-
pierre, with this title, written in French,
Englifh, and German, and affixed to the
guillotine Thomas Paine, of America, au-
thor of The Rights of Man and had four
perfons. forneof whom had feen the execu-
tion, and the reft had heard of it from eye-
witnelFes, written fliort accounts of your
life twenty years or more after your death,
and one had faid the infcription was This
is Thomas Paine, the author of The Rights
of Man another, The author of The Rights
of Man -a third, This is the author of The
Rights of Man and a fourth, Thomas Paine
of America, the author of the Rights of Man
< would any man of common fcnfe have
doubted, on account of this disagreement,
the veracity of the authors in writing your
life ? " The only one," you tell us/" of
the men called apoftles, who appears to have
been near the fpot where Je-fiis was crucified
v/as Peter."- This your aflertion is not true
we do not know that Peter was prefent at
the crucifixion ; but we do know that John,
the difciple whom jcfus loved, was prefent ;
for Jefus {poke to him from the crofs. You
go on, " But why fbould we believe Peter,
convicted by their own account of perjury,
in fwearing that he knew not Jefus ?" I
will tell you why- becaufe Peter fincercly
repented of the wickeclnefs into which he had
been betrayed, through fear for his life, and
fnffered martyrdom in atteflation of the truth
of the Chriftian religion.
BUT the evangelifts difagree, you fay, not
only as to the fuperfcription on the crofs,
but as to the time of the cruqifixion, " Mark
faying it was at the third hour (nine in the
morning,) and John'.at the fixth hour (twelve
as you fuppoft, at noon." Various folutions
have been given of this difficulty, none of
which fatisfied Dotor Middleton, much lei's
can it be expefted that any of them fhould
fatisfy you ; but there is afolution not noti-
ced by him, in which many judicious men
haveacquiefcec! 'That John writing hisgof-
pel in Afia, ufed the Roman method of com-
puting time ; which was the fame as our
own ; fo that by the fixth hour, when Jefus
was condemned, -we are to underftand fix
o'clock in the morning; the intermediate time
from fix to nine, when he was crucified, be-
ing employed in preparing for the crucifixi-
on. But if this difficulty fhould be -ftill ef-
teemed infuperable, it docs not follow that
-it will always remain fo ; and if it fhould,
the main point, the crucifixion of Jefus, will
not be affe&ed thereby.
I CANNOT, in this place, omit remarking
fomecirciiinftances attending the crucifixion,
which are fo natural, that we might have
wondered if they had not occnrech Of al]
the difciples of Jefus, John was beloved by
him with a peculiar degree of affe&ion ; and,
as kindnefs produces kindnefs, there can b^
little doubt that the regard was reciprocal.
Now whom fhould we expert to be the at-
tendants of Jefus in his laft fuffering ? Whom
but John, the friend of his heart ? Whom
but his mother, whofe foul was now pierced
through by the fword of forrow, which Si-
meon had foretold ? Whom but thofe, who
had been attached to him through life ; who,
having been healed by him of their infirmi-
ties were impelled by gratitude to minifter
to him of their fubftance, to be attentive
to all his wants ? Thefe were the per-
fons whom we fhould have expelled to at-
tend his execution ; and thefe were there.
To whom would an expiring ion, of thebeft
affections, recommend a poor, and, probably,
a widowed mother, but to his warmed friend?
'And this did Jefus Unmindful of the ex-
tremity of his own torture, and anxious to
alleviate the burden of her forrows, and to
protect her old age from future want and
mif ey,he faidtohisbeloveddifciple " Be-
hold thy mother ! and from that hour that
difciple took her to his own home." I own
to you, that fuch inftances as thefe, of the
conformity of events to our probable expec-
tation are to me genuine marks of the fiin-
plicity and truth of the gofpels ; and far out-
weigh a thoufand little objections, aiifing
from our ignorance of manners, times, and
M
'54
circnmflances, or from our incapacity to
comprehend the means ufecl by the Supreme
Being in the moral government of his crea-
tures.
ST. MATTHEW mentions feveral miracles
which attended our Saviour's crucifixion
thcdarknefs which overfpread the landthe
rending of the veil of the templean earth-
quake which rent the rocks- and the refur-
reft ion of many faints, and their going into
the holy city. " Such," you fay, tfc is the ac-
count which this dafhing writer of the book
of Matthew gives, bur in which he is not
fupported by the writers of the other books."
This is not accurately expreifed ; Matthew
is fupported by Mark and Luke, with refpeft
to two of the miracles the clarknefs- and
the rending of the veil : and their omiffion
of the others does not prove, that they were
either ignorant of them, ordilbelieved them.
I think it idle to pretend to fay pofitively
what influenced them to mention only two
miracles; they probably thought them fuf-
ficient to convince any perfon, as they con-
vinced the centurion, that Jefus " was a
righteous man, 4i the Son of God." And
thefe two miracles were better calculated to
produce general conviction, amongil the per-
fons for whofe benefit Mark and Luke wrote
their gofpcls, than either the earthquake or
the refurrcdtion of the faints. The earth-
qaake was, probably confined to a particular
fpot, and might, by an objetor, have been
called a natural phenomenon ; and thofe to
whom the faints appeared might, at the time
of. wiiting the gofpels of Mark and Luke,
have been dead : but the uarknefs mud have
been generally kno<wi and remembered ; and
the veil of the temple might frill be preferv-
Cvi at the time thefe authors wrote. As to
John not mentioning any of thefe miracles
it is v;ell known that his gofpel was written
as a fupplement to the other gofpels ; he has
therefore omitted many things which the
other three evangelists had related, and he
has added feveral things which they had not
mentioned ; in particular, he has added a cir-
cumftance of great importance; he tells us
that he faw one of the foldiers pierce the fide
of Jefus with afpear, and that blood and wa-
ter flowed through the wound; and left any-
one ftiould doubt of the fad, from its not be-
ing mentioned by the other evangelills, he
afferts it with peculiar earneitnefs " And
he that faw it, bare record, and his record is
true : and he knoweth that he faith true, that
ye might believe." John faw blood and wa-
ter flowing from the wound; the blood is
eafily accounted for, but whence came the
water ? The anatomifls tell us it came from
the pericardium: fo confiftent is evangeli-
cal teftiniony with the mofl curious re-
fearches into natural fcience! You amufe
yourfelf with the account of what the fcrip-
tare calls many faints, and yon call an army of
faints, and are angry with .Matthew for not
having told you a great many things about
them. It is very poffible that Matthew
might have known the faft of their refur-
renon, without knowing every thing about
them ; but if he had gratified your curiofity
in every particular, I am of opinion that you
'v/ould not have believed a word of what he-
had told you. I have no curiofity on the
fubjeft : it is enough for me to know that
44 Chrift was the firft fruits of them that
flept," and "that all that are in the graves
fhall hear his voice and (hall come forth," as
thofe holy men did, who heard the voice of
the Son of God at his refurredtion, and pall-
ed from death to life. If I durft indulge my-
felf in being wife above what. is written; I
rnuft be able to anfwer many of your inqui-
ries relative to thefe faints;* but I dare not
touch the ark of the Lord, I dare not fup-
port the authority of the fcripture by the
holdnefs of conjecture. Whatever difficulty
there may be in accounting for the filence
of the other evangelifts, and of St. Paulalfo,
on this fubjeft, yet there is a greater diffi-
culty in fhppofing that Matthew did not
give a true narration of what had happened
at the crucifixion. If there had been no fu-
pernatural darknefs, no earthquake, no rend-
ing of the veil of the temple, no graves open-
'37
cd, no refurredtion of holy men, no appear-
ance of them unto many if none of thefe
things had been true, or rather if any one of
them had been faife, what motive could Mat-
thew, writing to the Jews, have had for
trumping up fuch wonderful ftories ? He
wrote, as every man does, with an intenti-
on to be believed ; and yet every Jew he met
would have flared him in the face, and told
him that he was a liar and an. impoftor.
What author, who twenty years hence
fliould addrefs to the French nation an hifto-
ry of Louis XVI. would venture to affirm,
that when he was beheaded there was
darknefs for three hours over all France?
that there was an earthquake ? that rocks
wercfplit? graves opened? and dead men
brought to life, who appeared to many per-
fons in Paris ? It is quite impoffible to fup-
poie, that any one would dare to publifhiuch
obvious lies; and I think it equally impoffi-
ble to fuppofe, that Matthew would have
dared to publilli his account of what happen-
ed at the death of Jefus, had not the account
been generally known to be true.
M 2
LETTER VIII.
T.
H E " talc of the refurreftion," you
fay, " follows that of the crucifixion." You
have accuftomed me fo much to this kind of
language, that when T find you fpeaking of a
tale, I have no doubt of meeting with a truth.
From the apparent difagreement in the ac-
counts, which the evangelifts have given of
fome circumflances refpefting the refurre&i-
on, you remark " If the writers of thefe
books had gone into any court of juftice to
prove an alibi (for it is the nature of an alibi
that is here attempted to be proved, namely,
the abfence of a dead body by fupernatural
means,) and have given their evidence in the
fame contradictory manner, as it is here
given ; they would have been in danger of
having their ears cropt for perjury, and
would have jnftly deferved it" " hard
words, or hanging," it feems, if you had not
been their judge. Now I maintain, that it
is the brevity with which the account of the
refurreclion is given by all the evangelifts,
which has occafioned the feeming confufion ;
and that this confufion would have been
cleared up at once, if the witneffes of the re-
furreftion had been examined before any ju-
dicature. As we cannot have this vivdvoce
examination of all the witneffes, let us call
up and queftion the evangelifts as witneffes
to a fupernatural alibi. Did you find the fe-
pulchre of Jefus empty? One of us actually
faw it empty, and the reft heard from eye-
witneffes, that it was empty. Did you, or
any of the followers of Jefus, take away the
dead body from the fepulchrc? All anfwer,
No. Did the foldiers, or the Jews, take
away the body ? No. How are you certain
of that ? Becaufe we faw the body when it
was dead, and faw it afterwards when it was
alive. -How do you know that what you
iaw was the body of Jefus ? We had been
long and intimately acquainted with Jefus,
and knew his perfon perfectly . Were you
not affrighted, and miftook a fpirit for a
body ? No ; the body had flefh and bones ;
we are fure that it was the very body which
hung upon the crofs, for we faw the wound
in his fide, and the print of the nails in the
hands and feet. And all this you are ready
to fwear ? We are; and we are ready to die
alfo, fooner than we will deny any part of it.
This is the teftimony which all the evan-
gelifts would give, in whatever court of juf-
tice they were examined; and this I appre-
hend, would fufficiently eftabliih the alibi
of the dead body from the fepulchre, by fu-
pernatural means.
BUT as the refurreftiori of Jefus is a point
which you attack with all your force, I will
examine minutely the principal of your ob-
jeftions; I do not think them deferving of
this notice, but they (hall have it. The book
of Matthew, you lay, " ftates that when
Chrift was put, in the iepulchre, the Jews ap-
plied to Pilate for a watch or a guard to be
placed over the fepuJchrc, to prevent the bo-
dy being ftolen by the difciples." I admit
this account,, but it is not the whole of the
account; you have omitted the reaibn for the
requeft which the chief priefts made to Pilate
- " Sir, we remember that that deceiver
faid, while he was yet alive, after three days
I will rife again." It is material to remark
this ; for at the very time that Jefus predicted
his refiirreftion, he predicted alfo his cruci-
fixion, and all that he ihould fuffer from the
malice of thofe very men who now applied
to Pilate for a guard. " He {hewed to his
- difciples, how that he rnuft go unto Jerula-
lem, and fuiFer many things of the elders,
and chief priefts, and (bribes, and be killed,
and be railed again the third day." (Matt,
xvi. 21,) Thefe men knew full well that
the firfl part of this prediction had been accu-
rately fulfilled through their malignity ; and,
initead of repenting of what they had done,
they were fo infatuated as tofuppofe, that by a
guard of foldiers they could prevent the com-
pletion of the fecond. The other books, you
obferve, ' 4 fay nothing about this application,
nor about the fealing of the {tone, nor the
guard, nor the watch, and according to thefe
accounts there werenone/ T This, Sir, I de-
ny. The other books do not fay that there
were none of thefe things ; how often muft
I repeat, that omifiions are not contradic-
tions, nor filence concerning a fa6t, a denial,
of it?
You go on " The book of Matthew con-
tinues its account that at the end of the fab-
bath, as it began to dawn, towards the firft
day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and
the other Mary to fee the fepulchre. Mark
fays it was fun-rifing, and John fays it was
dark. Luke fays it was Mary Magdalene, and
Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and
other women, that came to the fepulchre.
And John fays that Mary Magdalene came a-
lone. So well do they all agree about their firfl
evidence! they all appear, however, to have
known mod about Mary Magdalene; (lie was
a woman of a large acquaintance, and it was
not an ill conjecture that (lie might be upon
the ftrall." This is a long paragraph ; I will
.14*
anfwer it diftinHy: firft, there is no clifa-
greement of evidence with refpect to the
time when the women went to the fepul-
chre ; all the evangelifts agree as to the day
on which they went ; and, as to the time of
the clay, it was early in the morning's what
court of juflice in the world would ill a fide
this evidence, as infufficlent to fubftantiate
the faft of the women's having gone to the
Jepalchre, Ix-eaufe the witneflTes differed as to
t of twilight which lighted them on
ir way ? Secondly, there is no difagreement
of evidence with refpecTt to the perfons, who
went to the fepulchre. John ftates that Ma-
ry Magdalene went to the fepulchre; but he
does not ftate, as you make him ft ate, that
Mary Magdalene went alone; fhe might, for
any thing f ou have proved, or can prove to
the contrary, have been accompanied by all
the women mentioned by Luke : is it an
unufual thing to diftmguifii by name a prin-
cipal perfon going on a vifit, or an einbaffy,
without mera ioning his fubordinate attend-
ants? Thirdly, in oppofuion to your infinu-
ation that Mary Magdalene was a common
woman, I wifh it to be confidered, whether
there is any icriptural authority for that im-
putation ; and whether there be or not, I niuft
contend, that a repentant and reformed wo-
man, ought not to be efteemed an improper
witnefs of a fact. The conjecture which you
adopt concerning her, is nothing lefs than an
illiberal, indecent, unfounded calumny, not
excufable in the mouth of a libertine, and in-
tolerable in your's.
THE book of Matthew, you obferve, goes
on to fay " And behold, there was an earth-
quake, for the angel of the Lord defcendecl
from heaven, and came and rolled back the
ftone from the door, and Jat upon It: but
the other books fay nothing about an earth-
quake," what then? does their filence prove
that there was none? " nor about the an*
gel rollingback the ftone and fitting upon it ;"
what then ? does their filencfe prove that
the ftone was not rolled back by an an-
gel, and that he did not fit upon it? to; and
according to their accounts there was no an-
gel fitting there/' This conclufion I muft
deny ; their accounts do not fay there was.no
angel fitting there, at the time that Matthew
fays he fat upon the ftone. They do not de-
ny the fact, they fimply omit the mention
of it; and they all take notice that the wo-
men, when they arrived at the fepulchre,
found the ftone rolled away : hence it is
evident that the ftone was rolled away be-
fore the women arrived at the fepulchre; and
the other evangelifts, giving an account of
what happened to the women when they
reached the fepulchre, have merely omitted
giving an account of a tranfaction previous
to their arrival. Where is the contradic-
tion? What fpace of time intervened be-
tween the rolling away the (tone, and the
arrival of the women at the fepulchre, is no
where mentioned; but it certainly was long
enough for the angel to have changed his
pofition , from fitting on theoutfide he might
have entered into the fepulchre ; and ano-
ther angel might have made his appearance,
or, from the firft, there might have been
two, one on the outfide rolling away the
ftone, and the other within. Luke, you
tell us, " fays there were two, and they
were both {landing; and John fays there
were two, and both fitting." It is impoffi-
ble, I grant, even for an angel to be fitting
and ftanding at the fame in {Ian t of time ; but
Luke and John do not fpeak of the fame in-
ftant, nor of the feme appearance Luke
fpeaks of the appearance to all the women ;
and John of the appearance to Mary Magda-
lene alone, who tarried weeping at the fe-
pulchre after Peter and John had left it. But
I forbear making any more minute remarks
on Hill minuter objections, all of which are
grounded on this miftake that the angels
were feeri at one particular time, in one par-
ticular place, and by the fame individuals.
As to your inference, from Matthew's
ufing the expredion unto this day., " that the
book muft have been manufactured after a
lapfe of forne generations at lead," it cannot
be admitted agarift the pofitive teftimony of
all antiquity. That the (lory about dealing
away the body was a bungling ftory, I rea-
dily admit ; but the chief priefts are anfwera-
bie for it; it is not worthy either your no-
tice or mine, except as it is a ftrong inllance
to you, to me, and to every body, how far
prejudice may miflead the underftanding.
You come to that part of the evidence in
thofe books that refpefts, you fay, - u the pre-
tended appearances of Chrift after his pre-
tended refurreftion ; the writer of the book
of Matthew relates, that the angel that was
fitting on the (lone at the mouth of the fe-
pulchre, faid to the two Marys, (chap,
xxviii. 7.) " Behold, Chrift is gone beforp
you into Galilee, there (hall you fee him."
The gofpel, Sir, was preached to poor and
illiterate men ; and it is the duty of priefts
to preach it to them in all its purity ; to
guard them againft the error of miftaken, or
the defigns of wicked men. You then, who
can read your Bible, turn to this paflage,
and you will find that the angel did not fay,
" Behold, Chrift is gone before you into Ga-
lilee," but, " Behold, he goeth before you
into Galilee." I know not what Bible you
made ufe of in this quotation, none that I
have feen render the original word by he
is gone it might be properly rendered, he
will go ; and it is literally rendered, he is
N
Agoing. This phrafe docs not imply an im-
mediate fetting out for Galilee: when a
man has fixed upon a long journey, to
London or Bath, it is common enough to
fay, he is going to London or. Bath, though
the time of his going may be at forne dif-
tance. Even your dafhing Matthew could
not be guilty of fuch a blander as to make
the angel fay he is gone ; for he teils-us ifri-
mediately afterwards, that, as the women
were departing from the fepulchre to tell his
difciples what the angels had laid to them,
Jefus himfelf met them. .-Now how Jefus
could te gone into Galilee, and yet meet the
women at Jerufalem, I leave you to explain,
for the blunder is not chargeable upon Mat-
thew. I excufe your introducing the ex-
preffion-r-" tmen the eleven difciples went
away into .Galilee/' for the quotation is
,rightly.rnade ; but .had you turned to the
Greek Teftament, you would not have found
in this place any word antwering to then ;
the pa{fage;is better translated and the ele-
ven. Chrift had laid to his difciples, (Matt.
;xxvi. 32.) fct After I am rifen a^ain, 1 will
go before you into Galilee :"---arid the angel
put the woman in mind of the very exprelli-
on and prediftiou he is rijen, as he J'aid:
and behold he go till before you Into Galilee.
Matthew, intent upon the appearance in Ga-
lilee, of which there were, probably, at the
time he wrote, many living wltnefles in
147"
Judea, omits the mention 1 of many appear-
ances taken notice of by John, and by this
o'miffion, feems to connect the clay of the re-
ftirreftion of Jefus, with that of the depar-
ture of the difciples for Galilee. You feern
to think this a great difficulty, and incapable
of folution ; for you lay 4 ' It is not poffible,
v,hlefs we admit' thele difciples "the right of
xvilful lying, that the writers of thefe books
could be any of the eleven "perfons called dii-
ciples; for if, according to Matthew, the
eleven went into Galilee to meet 'Jefus in a
mountain, by his own appointment, on the
lame day that he is faicl to have rifeir, Luke
and John muft havebeen two of that eleven ;
yet. the writer of Luke fays e>:prefsly, and
John implies as much, that the meeting was
that fame day in a houfe at Jerufalem ; and
on the other hand, if, according to Luke and
John, the eleven were affembled in a houfe at
Jerufalem, Matthew muft havebeen one of
that eleven ; yet Matthew fays, the meeting
was in aihountain inGaliJee, and consequently
the evidence given in thole books deilroy each
other;" When I was a young man in the
univerfity, I was pretty much accuftomed to
drawing of confequences; but my Alma Ma-
ter did not differ me to draw confequences af-
ter your manner; fhe taught me- that a
falftr pofition muft end in an abfurd conclufi-
on, 1 have (hewn your polition that the
eleven went into Galilee on the clay of the
refurrcction to be falfe, and hence yottr
confequence that the evidence given in
thefe two books deftroys each other is not
to be admitted. You ought, moreover, to
have considered, that the feaft of unleaven-
ed bread, which immediately followed the
day on which the paflbver Tvas eaten, lailed
feven days; and that Uriel obiervers of the
]aw did not think themfelves. at liberty to
leave jerufalein, till that feaft was ended ;
gncl this is a collateral proof that the diiciples
did not go to Galilee on the day of the re-
furreftion.
You certainly have read the New Tefta-
rcent, but not, I think, with great attention,
or yon would have known who the apoflles
were. In this place you reckon Luke as one
of the eleven, and in other places you {peak
of him as an eye-witnefs of the things he re-
lates ; you ought to have known that Luke
was no apoftle ; and he tells you himfelf, in
the preface to his gofpel, that he wrote from
the teftimony of others. If this miftake pro-
ceeds from your ignorance, you are not a fit
perfon to write comments on the Bible; if
fromdefign, (which I am unwilling to fuf-
pect,) you are ftill lefs fit ; in either cafe it
may iuggefl to your readers the propriety
of fufpeftingthe truth and accuracy of your
alTertions, however daring and intemperate.
lt Of the numerous priefts or parfons of the
prefent day, billions and all, the flim total of
whofe learning," according to you, " is a b
ab, and hie, hsec, hoc, there is not one
arnongft them," yon fay, " who can write
poetrylike Homer, or fcience like Euclid."
If I fhould admit this, (though there are ma-
ny of them, I doubt not, who underftand
thefe authors better than you do,) yet I cannot
admit that there is one amongft them, bifhops
and all, fo ignorant as to rank Luke the evan-
gelifl among the apoftles of Chrift. . I will
not prefs this point ; any man may fall into a
miftake, and the confcioufnefsof this fallibili-
ty fhould create in all men a little modefty,
a little diffidence, a little caution, before
they do prefnme to call the rnoft illuflrious
characters of antiquity liars, fools, and knaves,
You want t6 know why JeTus did not fiie\v
himfelf to all the people after his refurreftion.
This is one of Spinoza's objeftions ; and it
may found well enough in the month of a Jevr t
wifhing to excufe the infidelity of his coun-
trymen ; but it is not judicioufly adopted by
deifts of other nations. God gives us the
means of health, but he does not force us to
the ufe of them ; he gives us the powers of
the mind, but he does not compel us to the
cultivation of them : he gave the Jews op-
portunities of feeing the miracles of Jefus,
but he did not oblige them to believe them,
N *
150
They xvho perfevered in their incredulity
after the refurre&ion of Lazarus, would have
perfevercd alfo after the refurredtionof Jefus,
Lazarus had been buried four days, Jefus but
three ; the body of Lazarus had begun to un-
dergo corruption, the body of Jefus faW no
corruption; why fliould you expeft, that they
would have believed in Jefus on his own re-
furreftion, when they had not believed in
him on the refurre&ion of Lazarus ? When
the pharilees were told of the refurreHon
of Lazarus, they, together with the chief
priefts, gathered a council and faid "What
do we ? for this man docth many miracles.
If we let him thus alone, all men will believe
on him : -then from that day forth they
took council together to put him to death."
The great men at Jerufalem, you fee, admit-
ted that Jefus had raifed Lazarus from the
dead ; yet the belief of that miracle did not
generate conviftion that Jefus wastheChrift,
it only exafperated their malice, and accele-
rated their purpofe of cleftroyirg him. Had
Jefus fhewn himfelf after his fefurre&ion, the
chief p; Sells would probably have gathered
another council, have opened rt with, What
do we? and ended it with a determination to
put him to death. As to us, the evidence
of the refurreftion of Jefus, which we have
in the New Teftament, is far mere convin-
cing, than if it had been related that he fhtw-
ed himfelf to every man in Jerusalem ; for
then we fliould have had afufpicion, that the
whole ftory had been fabricated by the jews.
You think Paul an improper witnefs of the
refurre&ion ; I think him one of the fitteft
that could have been chofen ; and for this
reafon his teftimony is the teftimony of a
former enemy. He had, in his own mira-
culous converfion, fufficient ground for chan-
ging his opinion as to a matter of fa&; for be-
lieving that to have been a faft, which he had
formerly, through extreme prejudice, confi-
dered as a fable. For the truth of the refur*
retion of Jefus he appeals to above two
hundred and fifty living witneiFfS ; and be-
fore whom does he make this appeal ? Be-
fore his enemies, who were able and willing
to Waft his character, if he had advanced an
untruth. You know, undoubtedly, that Paul
had refided at Corinth near two years ; that,
during a part of that time, he had tcftifled to
the Jews, that Jefus was the Chrift; that,
finding the bulk of that nation obftinate in
their unbelief, he had turned to the Gentiles,
and had converted many to the faith in Chrift;
that he left Corinth, and went to preach the
gofpel in other parts ; that, about three years
after he had quitted Corinth, he wrote a let-
ter to the converts which he had made in
that place, and who after his departure had
been iplit into different factions, and had a-
dopted different tcachersin oppofitioii to Paul,
132
From this account we may be certain, that
Paul's letter, and every circumftance in it,
would be minutely examined. The city of
Corinth was full of Jews ; thefe men were,
in general, Paul's bitter enemies ; yet in the
face of them all, he afferts, " that Jefus Chrift
was buried ; that he role again the third clay;
that he was fcen of Cephas, then of the
twelve ; that he was afterwards feen of a-
bove five hundred brethren at once, of whom
the greater part were then alive. An ap-
peal to above 2 go living wit neffes,. is a pret-
ty ftrong proof of a fat ; but it becomes ir-
refiftible, when that appeal is fubmitted to
the judgment of 'enemies. St. Paul, you
mull allow, was a man of ability ; but he
would have been an idiot, had he put it in
the power of his enemies to prove, from his
own letter, that he was a lying rafcal. They
neither proved, nor attempted to prove, any
fuch thing ; and, therefore, we may fafely
conclude, that this teftimony of Paul to the
refurreftion of Jefus, was true : and it is a tef-
timony, in my opinion, of the greateft
weight.
Yotf come, you fay, to the lafl fcene, the
afcenfion; upon which, in your opinion, " the
reality of the future miffion of the difciples
was to reft for proof.'' I do not agree with
you in this. The reality of the future miffion
of the apoftles might have been proved,
'53 1
though Jefas Chrift had not vifibly afcendecf
into heaven. Miracles are the proper proofs
of a divine million ; and when Jefus gave ther
apoftles a commiffion to preach thegofpel^
he commanded them to flay at Jerufalem,
till they " were endued with power from on
high."' Matthew has omitted the mention
of the afcenfion ; and J<;~; . , you fay, has not
fald a fyllabie about it. I think othcrwife.-
John has not given an exprefs account of the
aicenfion, but has certainly -faid fomething
about it: for he informs us, that Jefus laid
to Mary, " Touch me not; for I am not yet
afcended to my father; but go to my bre-
thren, and fay unto them, I afcend Unto my
father and your father, and to my God and
your God." This is furely faying fome-
thing about the afcenfion ; and if the fal of
the aicenfion be not related by John or Mat-
thew, it may reafonably be fuppofed, that
the omiffion was made, on account of the no-
toriety of the faft. That the fact was ge-
nerally known, may be juftly collected from
the reference which Peter makes to it in the
hearing of all the Jews, a very few days after
it had happened. " This Jefus hath God
raifed up, whereof we all are witneffes."
Therefore being by the right hand of God ex-
alted. Paul bears teftiinony alfo to the af-
cenfion, when he fays, that Jefus was receiv-
ed up into glory. As to the difference you
contend for, between the account of the af-
fenfion, as given by Mark and Luke, it does-'
not exift; except in this, that Mark omit&
the particulars of Jefus going with his apoi-
tles to Bethany, and bleffing them there r
.which are mentioned by Luke. But omiffi--
ons, I muft often put you in mind, .are not^
contradictions.
You have now, you fay, " gone through'
the examination of the four books afcribed to
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-; and when
it is confidered that the whole fpace of time,
from the crucifixion to what is called the af-
ceniion, is but a few days, apparently rot
more than three or four, and that all the cir-
cumftances are reported to have happened
near the fame fpot, Jerufalem, it is, I believe,
impoflible to find, in any ftory upon record,
fb many, and fuch glaring abfurdities, con-
tradidlions, and faliehoods, as are in thofe
books." What am I to fay to this? Am I
to fay that, in writing this paragraph, you
have forfeited your character as an honefl
man? Or, admitting your honeily, am I to
fay that you are groisly ignorant of the fub-
jeft ? Let the reader judge. John fays, that
Jefus appeared to his difciples at Jerufalem
on the day of his refurretion, and that Tho-
mas was not then with them. The lame
John fays, that after eight days he appeared
to them again, when Thomas was with them.
Sir,, how apparently three or four
155
Hays can be confident with really eight days ,
1 leave you to make out. Bat this is not the
whole of John's teftimony, either with re-
fpect to place or time for he lays After
thefe things (afterthe two appearances to the
dlfciples at Jerusalem on the firft and on the
eighth day after the reiurrection) Jefus fhew-
ed hhnfelf again to his clifciples at the fe i a
of 'Tiberias. The fea of Tiberias, I pre-
fume you know, was in Galilee: and Galilee,
you may know, was iixty or leventy miles
ironi Jerusalem, it muft have taken the dif-
ciples Tome time, after the eighth day, to tra-
vel from Jerufalem into Galilee. What, in
your own infill ting language to the pr lefts,
what have you- to anfwer as to i[\e fame jpot
Jcrujalem, as to your apparently three or
four days?-*- But this is not all. Luke, in the
.beginning of the Als, refers to his go! pel,
and fays " Chrifl iliewed himfelf alive after
his paflion, by many infallible proofs, being
/een of the apoflles iforty days, and .{peaking
..of the things pertaining to the kingdom of
God:"- hifi.ead of four, you perceive there
were forty days between the crucifixion and
.the aicenlion. I i^ed not, I.truft, after this,
.trouble myfelf about the fiilfehoods and con-
traditions .which you .impute to the evaiige-
-.liils, your readers cannot but be upon their
guard, as to the credit; due to your aflcrtious,
-however bold and improper. You willfuf-
fer me to remark, that the evangelifls were
156
plain men; who, convinced of the truth of
their; narration, and confcious of their own
integrity, have related what they knew, with
admirable fimplicity. They fee'm to have
{aid to the Jews of their time, and to fay to
the Jews an J unbelievers of all times We
have told you the truth; and if you will not
believe us, we have nothing more to lay*-
Had they been importers, they would have
written with more caution and art, have ob-
viated every cavil, and avoided every appear-
ance of contradiction. This they have not
done ; and this I confider as a proof of their
honefty and veracity.
JOHN the baptift had given his teflimony
to the truth of our Saviour's miffion in the
molt unequivocal terms; he afterwards fent
two of his difcipies to Jefus, to afk him whe-
ther he was really the expected Mdliah or
not. Matthew relates both thefe circumftan-
ces; had the writer of the book of Matthew
been an impoftor, would he have invalidated
John's teflimony, by bringing forward his
real or apparent doubt? Irnpoflible ! -Mat-
thew, having proved the refurreftion of Je-
fus, tells us, that the eleven difciples went
away into Galilee into a mountain where
jefus had appointed them, and tfc when they
law him, they worffiippcd him : but feme
doubted." Would an impoftor, in the very
laft place where he mentions the refurrection,
and in the conclulicn of his book, have fug-
gelled fuch a cavil to unbelievers, as to fay,
-fonie doubted? Impoffible? The evangelifl
has left us to collect the reafon why fome
doubted: the difciples faw Jcfus, at a dif-
tance, on the mountain; and fome of them
fell down and worfhipped him ; whilft others
doubted whether the perfon they faw was
really Jefus ; their doubt, however, could
not have lafled long, for in the very next
verfe we are told, that Jefus came and fpake
unto them.
GREAT and laudable pains have been taken
by many learned men, to harmonize the feve-
ral accounts given us by the evangelifts of
the refurreftion. It does not feem to me to
be a matter of any great confequence to chrif-
tianity, whether the accounts can, in every
minute particular, be harmonised or not ;
fince there is no fuch difcordance in them, as
to render the faft of the refurre&ion doubt-
ful to any impartial mind. If any man, in a
court of juftice, fhould give pofitive evidence
of a faft; and three others (hould afterwards
be examined, and all of them fliould confirm
the evidence of the firft as to the fal, but
{hould apparently differ from him and from
each other, by being more or leis particular
in their accounts of the circumftances attend-
ing the faft ; ought we to doubt of the fa,
becaufe we could not harmonize the evidence
O
158
reflecting the circumftanccs relating to it ?
The bmiflion of any one circumftance (fuch
as that of Mary Magdalene having gone twice
to the fepulchre; or that of the angel having,
after he had rolled away the ftone from the
fepulchre, entered into the fepulehre) may
render an harmony impofliblc, without ha-
ving recourfe to fuppofition to fupply the de-
fed:. You deifts laugh at all fuch attempts,
and call them prieftcraft v I think it better
then, in arguing with you, to admit that
there may be (not granting, however, that
there is) an irreconcileable difference between
the evangelifts in fome of their accounts
refpe&ing the life of Jefus, or his refurrec-
tion. Be it fo, what then? Does this differ-
ence, admitting it to be real, deftroy the
credibility of the gofpel hiftory in any of its
effential points? Certainly, in my opinion,
not. As I look upon this to be a general an-
fwer to moft of your deiftical objeilions, I
profefs my fmcerity, in faying, that I con-
lider it as a true and fufficient anfwer; and I
leave it to your confideration. I have, pur-
pofcly, in the whole of this difcu (lion, been
filent as to the infpiration of the evangelifts;
well knowing that you would have rejected,
with fcorn, any thing I could have laid on
that point : but, in difputing with a deift, I
do mod folernnly contend, that the Chriftian
religion is true, and worthy of all accepta-
tion, whether the evangelifts were infpired
or not.
UNBELIEVERS, in general, wi(h to conceal
their fentiments ; they have a decent refpect
for public opinion ; are cautious of affronting
the religion of their country ; fearful of un-
dermining the foundations of civil ibciety.
Some few have been more Baring, but leis ju-
dicious; and have, without difguife, profeffed
their unbelief Bat you are the firft who
everfwore that he was an infidel, concluding
your deiliical creed with -So help me God!
I pray that God may help you ; that he may,
through the influence cf his Holy Spirit,
bring you to a right mind ; convert you to
the religion of his Son, whom, out of his
abundant love to mankind, he fent into the
world, that all who believed in him fhould
.not periili, but have everlalling life.
You fwear, that you think the chriftian
religion is not true. I give full credit to
your oath ; it is an oath in confirmation of
what? of an opinion. It proves the fin-
cerity of your declaration of y our opinion ;
but the opinion, notwithstanding the oath,
may be either true or falie. Permit me to
produce to you an oath not confirming an
opinion, but a fat ; it is the oath of St. Paul,
when he fwears to the Galatians, that in what
he told them of his miraculous converficn,
he did not tell a lie : " Now the things which
I v/rite unto you, behold, before God, I lie
not:" do but give that credit to Paul which
i6o
I give to you, do but confider the difference
between an opinion and afadt, and I lhall not
defpair of your becoming a chriflian.
DEISM, you fay, confifts in a belief of one
God, and an imitation of his moral character,
or the practice of what is called virtue; and
in this (as far as religion is concerned) you
reft all your hopes.-~-There is nothing in de-
ifm but what is in chriftianity, but there is
much in chriltianity which is not in deifm.
The chriftmn has no doubt concerning a fu-
ture ftate; every deift, from Plato to Tho-
mas Paine, is on this fubjeft overwhelmed
with doubts infuperable by human reafon.
The chriftian has no miigivings as to the
pardon of penitent finners, through the in-
terceffion of a mediator ; the deift is barafled
with apprehenfion, left the moral juftice of
God fliould demand, with inexorable rigour,
punifhment for tranfgreffion. The chriftian
has no doubt concerning the lawfulnefs and
the efficacy of prayer ; the deift is difturbed on
this point by abftraft confiderations concern-
ing the goodnefs of God, which wants not to
be intreated : concerning his forefight, which
has no need of our information ; concerning
his immutability, which cannot be changed
through our fupplication. The chriftian ad-
mits the providence of God and the liberty
of human actions ; the deift is involved in
great dffiiculties, when he undertakes the
proof of either. The chriftian has afHirance
that the Spirit of God will help his infirmi-
ties ; the deift does not deny the poflibility
that God may have accefs to the human
mind, but he has no ground to believe the faft
of his either enlightening the underflanding,
influencing the will, or purifying the heart.
O 2
LETTER IX.
HOSE/' you fay, " who are not
much acquainted with ecclefiaftical hiftory,
may fuppofe that the book called the New
Teftament has exifted ever fince the time of
Jefus Chrift, but the fad is hiftorically other-
wife ; there was no fuch book as the New
Teflament till more than three hundred
years after the time that Chrift is faid to
have lived." This paragraph is calcula-
ted to miflead common readers ; it is necef-
fary to unfold its meaning. The book, called
the New Teftarnent, confifts of twenty-le*
ven different parts; concerningfeven of thefe,
viz,, the cpiftle to the Hebrews, that of James,
the feeoad of Peter, the fccond of John, the
third of John, that of Jude, and the Revela-
tion^ there were at firii fome doubts; and the
qudHon, whether they fhould be received
into the canoe.,, might be decided, as all
^ricftloES concerning opinions: muft be.^ by
vote. With refpeft to the other twenty
parts, thofe who are moft acquainted with
ecclefiaftical hiftory will tell you, asDu Piu
does after Eufcbius, that they were owned
as canonical, at all times, and by all ChrilH-
ans. "Whether the council of Laodicea was
held before or after that of Nice, is not a fet-
tled point ; all the books of the New Tefta-
ment, except the Revelation, are enumera-
ted as canonical in the Conftitutions of that
council ; but it is a great miftake to fuppoie,
that the greateft part of the books of the
New Teftament were not in gen ral ufe
amongft Chriftians, long before the council
of Laodicea was held. This is not merely
my opinion on the fubjeft ; it is the opinion
of one much better acquainted with ecclefi-
aftical hiftory than I am, and, probably,
than 3 C N U are, Mcffleim. " The opinions,"
fays this author, " or rather theconje&ures,
of the learned, concerning the time when
the books of the New Teftament were col-
lected into one volume, as alfo about the au-
thors of that collection, are extremely dif-
ferent. This important queftion is attend-
ed with great and almoft fcfuperable difficul-
ties to us in thefe latter times.* It is how-
ever fufficient for us to know, that, before
the middle of the fecond century, the great-
eft part of the books of the New Teftament
were read in every Chriftlan fociety through-
out the world, and received as a divine rule
offaith and manners. Hence it appears, that
thefe facred writings were carefully fepara-
ted from feveral human compofitions upon
the fame fubjeft, either by fome of the apof-
tles'themfelves, who lived fo long, or by their
difciples and fucceflbrs who were fpread a-
broad through all nations. We are well af-
fured. that the four gojpels were collected
during the life of St. John, and that the three
firft received the approbation of this divine
apoftle. And why may we not fuppofe that
the other books of tlie New Teftament were
gathered together at the fame time ? -\VhaJ;. ..
renders this highly probable is, that the mod
urgent neceffity required its being done.
For, not long after Chrift's afcenfion into
heaven, feveral hiftories of his life and doc-
trines, full of pious frauds, ancffabulbus won-
ders, were compofed by pe'rfons, v/hofe in-
tentions, perhaps, were not bad, but whofe
writings difcoyered thegreateft fuperftition
and ignorance. Nor was this all : produc-
tions appeared, which were impofcd on the
woild by fraudulent men as the writings of
tlie holy apoflles. ThefF^apocrypfial and
fpurious writings muft have produced a fad
confufion, an $ rendered both thehiftory and
the dodlrine of Chrift uncertain, had not the
rules of the church ufed all poitlble care and
diligence in feparating the books that .were
truly apoftolical and divine^ from all that
1 65
fpurious trafh, and conveying them down to
pofterity in one volume."
DID you ever read the apology for the
Chriflians, which Juftin Marty rprefented to
the emperor Antoninus Pius, to the fenate,
and people of Rome ? I {hould fooner expert
a falfity in a petition, which any body of
perfecuted men, imploring juftice, fhould
prefent to the king and parliament of Great
Britain, than this apology, yet in this apology
which was preferred not fifty years after the
death of St. John, not only parts of all the four
gojpels arc quoted, but it is exprefslyfaid, that
on the day called Sunday, a portion of them
was read in the public afiemblicsof the Chrif-
tians. I forbear purfuing this matter farther ;
elfe it might eafily be fhewn, that probably
the gofpels, and certainly fome of St. Paul's
epiitles, were known to Clement, Ignatius
and Poly carp contemporaries with the apof-
tles. Thefe men could not quote or refer
to books which did not exifl : and therefore
though you could make it out that the book
called the New Teftament did not former-
ly exjft under that title, till 350 years after
Chrift ; yet I hold it to be a certain fad, that
all the books, of which it is compofed, were
written, and mpft of them received by all
Chriftians, within a few years after his death.
You raife a difficulty relative to the time
i66
which intervened between the death and
refurreftion of Jefus, who had faicl, that the
Son of man fliail be three clays and three nights
in the heart of the earth. Are yon ignorant
then that the Jewsufed the phrafe threedayS
and thiee nights to denote what we uiider-
ftand by thiee days ? It is faid in Genefis,-
chap. vii. 12. " The rain was upon the earth
forty days and forty nights ;" and this is equi-
valent to the oipreffion, (ver. 17.) " And
the flood was forty days upon the earth."
Inftcad then of laying three days and three
nights, let us limply fay three days -and
you will not objeft to Chrift's being three
days Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, in the
hear^of the earth. I do not fay that he was
in the grave the \vhole of either Friday or
Sunday; but an hundred inftances might be
produced, from writers of all nations, in
which apart of a day is fpoken of as the
whole. Thus much for the defence of the
hiftorical part of the New Teftament.
You have introduced an account of Fauf-
tus, as denying the genuineneis of the books
of the New Teftament. Will you permit
that great fcholar in facred literature, Ml-
chaeliS) to tell you fomething about this
Fauftus ? " He was ignorant, as were mod
of the African writers, of the Greek lan-
guage, and acquainted with the New Tefta-
ment merely through the channel of the La-
tin tranflation ; he was not only devoid of a
fufficient fund of learning, but illiterate in
the higheft degree. An argument which he
brings againft the genuinenefs of the gofpel
affords fufficient ground for this aflertion ;
for he contends, that the gofpel of St. Mat-
thew could not have been written by St.
Matthew himfelf, becaufe he is always men-
tioned in the third perfon." You know who
has argued like Fauftus, but I did not think
myfelf authorized on that account to call you
illiterate in the higheft degree ; but Mi-
chaelis makes a ftill more fevere conclufion
concerning Fauftus ; and he extends his
obfervation to every man who argued like
him ** A man capable of fuch an argu-
ment inuft have been ignorant not only of
the Greek writers, the knowledge of which
could not have been expeded from Fauf-
tus, but even of the Commentaries of Cos-
Tar. And were it thought improbable that
ib heavy a charge could be laid with jufticc
on thefide of his knowledge, it would fall with
double weight on the fide of his honefty, and
induce us to fuppofe,, that, preferring the arts
of fophiftry to the plainnefs of truth, he
maintained opinions which he believed to be
falfe." (MaruYs Tranfl.) Never more, I
think, {hall we hear of Mofes not being the
author of the Pentateuch, on account of its
being written in the third perfon.
NOT being able to produce any argument to
render queftionable, either the genuinenefs or
theauthenticityof St. Paul'sEpiftles, you tell
us, that " it is a matter of no great impor-
tance by whom they were written, fince
the writer, whoever he was, attempts to
prove his dotrine by argument : he does not
pretend to have been witnefs to any of the
fcenes told of the refurrecftion and afcenfi-
on, and he declares that he had not believed
them." That Paul had fo far refitted the
evidence which the apoftles had given of the
refurreftion and afcenfion of Jefus, as to be a
perfecutor of the difciples of Chrift, is cer-
tain ; but I do not remember the place where
he declares that he had not believed them.
The high prieft and thefenateof the children
of Ifrael did not deny the reality of the mira-
cles, which had been wrought by Peter and the
apoftles; theydidnotcontradi&theirteftimo-
ny concerning therefurre&ion and the afcen-
fion ; but whether they believed it or not,
they were fired with indignation, and took
council to put the apoftles to death : and this
was alfo the temper of Paul: whether he
believed or did not believe the fiery of the
relurreftion, he was exceedingly mad againft
the faints. The writer of Paul's Epiftles
does not attempt to prove his doctrine by
argument; he in many places tells us, that
his do&rine was not taught him by man, or
any invention of his own, which required
169
the ingenuity of argument to prove it : c
certify you, brethren, that the gofpel, which
was preached of me, is not after man. For
I neither received it of man, neither was I
taught it, but by the revelation f Jefus
Chrift." Paul does not pretend to have been
a witnefs of theftory of the refurreftion, but
he does much more; he aflbrts, that he was
himfelf a w itnefs of the refurrettion. After
enumerating many appearances of Jefus to
his difciples, Paul fays of himfelf, " Laft of
all, he was feen of me alfo, as of one born out
of du~ time." Whether you will admit
Paul to have been a true witnefs or not, you
cannot deny that he pretends to have been a
witneis of the refurreUon.
THE ftory of his being ftruck to the
ground, as he was journeying to Damafcus,
las nothing in it, you fay, miraculous or ex-
:raordinary : you reprelent him as ftruck by
lightning. It is fomewhat extraordinary for
a man, who is ftruck by lightning, to have,
at the very time, fall pofleffion of his un-
derftanding; to hear a voice iffuingfrom the
lightning, fpeaking to him in the Hebrew
tongue, calling him by his name, and enter-
ing into converfation with him. His com-
panions, you (ay, appear not to have fuffcr-
eel in the fame manner : -the greater the
Bonder. If it was a common ftorm of thun-
r and lightning which ftruck Paul and all
P
his companions to the ground, it is forne-
what extraordinary that he alone fhould be
hurt ; and that notwithflanding his being
ftrack blind by lightning, he fliouldinbther
refpedts be t'o little hart, as to be immediate-
ly able to walk into the city of Damafcus.
So difficult is it to oppofe truth by an hypo-
thefis ! In the character of Paul you di(co-
vera great deal of violence and fanaticism ;
and fuch men, you obferve, are never good
moral evidences of any doctrine they preach.
Read, Sir, Lord LyttU ton's oblervations on
the converfion and apoftlcftiSp of St. Paul ;
and I thinkyou will be convinced of the con-
trary. That elegant writer thus expreffes
his opinion on this liibject " Befides all the
proofs of the Chriftian religion, which may
be drawn from the prophecies of the Old j
Teftament,from the necefTary connexion it
has with the whole fyftern of the Jewifh re-
ligion, from the miracles of Chrift, and fro n I
the evidence given of his refurrt-ftion by all
the other apodies, I think the converfion
and apoftleihip of St. Paul alone, duly coiifi4j
dered, is, of itielf, a detnonftration fufficientj
to prove Chriilianity to be a divine revela-l
tion/' I hope this opinion will have fojnel
weight with you ; it is not the opimon oi ? a
lying Bible-prophet, of a ilupid eyange:iit||
or of an a b ab pried,. but of a learned Jay*
man, whofe illuflrious rank received ipJendof]
from his talents.
**',
You are difpleafed with St. Paul " for let-
ting out to prove the refurreUon of thcjame
body." You know, I prefume, that the re-
furreftion of the fame body is not, by all, ad-
mitted to be a fcriptural doftrine, " In the
New Tellament (wherein, I think, are con-
tained all the articles of the Chriftian faith)
I find our Saviour and the apo files to preach
the refurre&lon of the dead and the rejurrec-
tion from the dead, in many places ; but I do
not remember any place where the refurrec-
tion of the fame body isfo much as mention-
ed." This obfervation of Mr. Locke I fo
far adopt, as to deny that you can produce
any place in the writings of St. Paul, where-
in he lets out to prove the refurre&ion of
the fame body. I do not queftion the pof-
fibil'ty of the rcfnrreftion of the fame body \
and I am not ignorant of the manner in which
fome learned men have explained it ; (fome-
what after the way of your vegetative fpeck
in the kernel of a peach ;) but as you are dif-
crediting St. Paul's clodrine, you ought to
fhew that what you attempt to difcredit Is
thedo&rine of the apoftle. As a matter of
choice you had rather have a better body>
you will have a better body " your natural
body will be railed a fpiritual body, " your
corruptible will put on incorruption. You
arefo much out of humour with your pre-
fent body, that you inform us, every animal
in thecreation excels us in fomething. Now
172
had always thought, that the fingle cir-
.imflnnce of our having hands, and their
.aving none, gave us an infinite fuperiority
ot only over infers, fifties, fnails, and fpi-
ders, (which you reprefent as excelling us in
loco-motive powers,) but over all the ani-
mals of the creation ; and enabled vis, in the
language of Cicero, defcribing the manifold
utility of our hands, to make as it were a
new nature of things. As to what you fay
about the confcioufnefs of exiftence being the
only conceivable idea of a future life it
proves nothing, either for or againft the re-
(urreftion of a body, or of the fame body ;
it does not inform us, whether to any or to
what fubftance, material or immaterial, this
confcioufnefs is annexed. I leave it, how-
ever, to others, who do not admit personal
identity to coniift: in confcioufnefs, to difputr
with you on this point, and willingly fub~
fcribe to the opinion of Mr. Locke," that
nothing but confcioufnefs can unite reinoto
exiftences into the fame perfon."
FROM a caterpillar's paffinginto a torpid
ftate refembling death, and afterwards ap-
pearing a fplcndicl butterfly, and from the
(fuppofecl) confcionfhefs of exiftence which
the animal had in thefe different ftates, you
afk, Why mnft I believe, that the refurrec-
tion of the fame body is neceflary to con-
tinue in me the confcioufnefs of exiftence.
hereafter ?- I do not diflike analogicaPrea-
foiling, when applied to proper objefts, and
kept within due bounds : but where is it
faid in fcripture, that the refurreftion of the
fame body is necefTary to continue in you the
confcioufnefs of exiftence ? Thofc who admit
a con.fcious flate of the foul between death
and the refurretion, will contend, that the
foul is the fubftance in which confcioufnefs is
continued without inteiruption : thofe
who deny the intermediate (late of the foul
as a ftate of confcioufnefs, will contend, that
confcioufnefs is not deftroycd by death, but
fufpended by it, as it is fbfpended during a
found fleep, and that it may as eafily be ref-
tored after death, as after deep, during which
the faculties of the foul are not extindl but
dormant. Thofe who think that the foul Is
nothing diilinft from the compages of the
body, not a fubftance but a mere quality,
will maintain, that the confcionfnels apper-
taining to every individual perfon is not lofl
when the body is destroyed ; that it is known
to God ; arid may, at the general refurreftic ,
be annexed to any iyftem of matter he may
think fit, or to that particular compages to
which it belonged in this life.
IN reading your book 1 have been fre-
quently (hocked at the virulence of your xeal
at the indecorum of your abufe in applying
vulgar and offenfive epithets to men who
P 2
have teen held, and who will long, I trnft,
continue to be holden, in high eftimation.
I know? that the fear of calumny is fcldom
wholly effaced, it remains long after the
wound is healed ; and your abufe of holy men
and holy things will be remembered, when
your arguments againll them are refuted and
forgotten. Moi'es you term an arrogant
cWcomb, a chief afTaliin ; Aaron, Jofhua,
Samuel, David, monfters and irrpoftors ; the
Jewifh kings a parcel of ralcals ; Jeremiah
and the reft of the prophets, liars ; and Paul
a fool ; for having written one of the fubli-
meft compositions, and on the mo ft impor-
tant fubjeit that ever occupied the mind of
man- the leilbn in our burial fervice: this
leilbn yon call a doubtful jargon, as deflitute
of meaning as the tolling of the bell at the fu-
neral. Men of low condition ! prefled down,
as you often are, by calamities generally inci-
dent to human nature, and groaning under
the burdens of miiery peculiar to your condi-
tion, what thought you when you heard this
leffbn read at the funeral of your child, your
parent, or your friend? Was it mere jargon
to you, -as deftitute of meaning as the tolling
of a bell? No. You underllood from it,
that you would not all fleep, but that you
v/ould .all be changed in a moment at the lafi
trump ; you underftood from it, that this
corruptible muft" put on incormption ; that
this mortal muft put en immortality, and
175
that death would be fwallowed up rn victo-
ry ; you underftood from it, that if (not with -
Handing profane attempts to fubvert your
faith) ye continue ftedfaft, unmoveable, al-
ways abounding in the work of the Lord,
your labour will not be in vain.
You feem fond of difplaying your /kill in
fcience and philofophy ; you fpeak more than
once of Euclid; and, in cenfuring St. Paul*
you intimate to us, that when the apoftlefays
one ftar differethfrom another ftar in glo-
ry he ought to have laid in diftance. All
men fee that one ftar difFereth from another
ftar in glory or brightnefs; but few men
know that their difference in brightnefs arifes
from their difference in diftance ; and I beg
leave to fay, that even you, philofopher as you
are, do not know it. You make an affurnption
which you cannot prove that the ftars are
equal in magnitude, and placed at different
diftances from the earth ; but you cannot
prove that they are not different in magnitude,
and placed at equal diftances, though none of
them may be fo near to the earth, as to have
any feniible annual parallax. I beg pardon
of my readers for touching upon this iub-
jel ; but it really moves one's indigna-
tion, to ice a {mattering in philofophy ur-
ged as an argument againft the veracity of
an apoftle. ifc Little learning is a dangerous
PAUL, you fay, affefts to be a naturalift;
and to prove (you might more properly have
fair! illiiilrate) hisfyitem of refur rt& ion from
the principles of vegetation " Thou fool,"
fays he, '* that which thou fowcft is not
quickened except it die :" to which one
rnigh rep-Iv, in his own language, and fay
Aw Thou fool, Paul, that which thou fow-
eft is not quickened except it die not." It
niav be ieen, I think, from this paflage, who.
its to be a naturaiiit, to be acquainted
with the microfcopicaidifcoveries of modern
times ; which were probably neither known
to Paul, nor to the Corinthians ; and which,
had they been known to them both, would
have b-*en of little ufe in the illuftration of
the fubjeft of the refurrection. Paul laid
that which thou ibw.il: is not quickened ex-
cept it die: every hufbandman in Corinth,
though unable perhaps to define the term
death, would underftand the apoftle's phrafe
in a popular fenfe, and agree with him that a
grain of wheat muft become rotten in the
ground before it could iprout ; and that, as
God raifecl from a rotten grain of wheat,
the roots, the ftern, the leaves, the ear of a
new plant, he might alfo caufe a new body
to fpring up from the rotten car cafe in the
grave. Do&or Clarke obierves, " In like
manner as in every grain of corn there is con-
tained a minute infenflble feminal principle,
which is itielf the entire future biade and ear,
and in due feafon, when all the reft of the
grain is corrupted, evolves and unfolds itfelf
viflbly to the eye; fo our prefent moral and
corruptible body may be but the exuvi^^ as it
were, of fome hidden, and at prefent infenfi-
ble principle, (poilibly the prefent feat of the
foul,) which at the refurredion (hall difco-
ver itfelf in its proper form." I do not agree
with this great man, (for fiich I efteem him)
in this philofophical conjecture ; bat the quo-
tation may ferve to Ihew you, that the gem
does not evolve and unfold itfelf viflbly to the
eye till all the reft of the grain Is corrupted;
that is, in the language and meaning df St,
Paul, till it dies. Though the authority of
. Jefus may have as little weight with you as
that of Paul, yet it may not be improper to
quote to you our Saviour's expreffion, when
he foretcls the numerous difciples which his
death would produce fc * Except a corn of
wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth
alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much
fruit." You perceive from this, that the
Jews thought the death of the grain was ne-
ceflary to its reproduction : he* nee every one
may fee what little reafon you had to objeCt
to the qpoftle's popular illuitration of the
poffibility of a refurreCHon. Had he known
as much as any naturaliil in Europe does, of
the progrefs of an animal from one {late to
another, as from a worm to a butterfly,
(which you think applies to the cafe,) I am
of opinion be would not have ufcd that il.luf-
tration in preference to what he has uied,
which is obvious and (atisfadtory.
WHETHER the fourteen epift les afcribed to
Paul were written by him or not, is, in your
judgment, a matter of indifference. So far
from being a matter of indifference, I confiuer
the genuinentfs of St. Paul's epiftles to be a
matter of the greateft importance ; for if the
epiftles, -.(bribed to Paul, were written by
him, (and there is unquestionable proof that
they were,) it will be difficult for you, or
for any man, upon fair principles of found
reafoning, to deny that theChriftian religi-
on is true. The argument is a (hort one,
and obvious to every capacity. It (lands
thus : St. Paul wrote (everal letters to thofe
whom, in different countries, he had con-
verted to the Chriftian faith ; in thefe let-
ters he affirms two things ; firft, that he
had wrought miracles in their prefence ;~
fecondly, that many of themfelves had re-
ceived the gift of tongues, and other mira-
culous gifts of the Holy Ghoft. The per-
fons to whom thefe letters were addrefled
muft, on reading them, have certainly
known, whether Paul affirmed what was
true, or told a plain lie; they muft have
known, whether they had ieen him work
miracles, they muft have been conicious,
whether they themfelves did or did not pof-
fefs any miraculous gifts. Now can you, or
can any man, believe, for a moment, that
Paul (a man certainly of great abilities)
would have written pr.blic letters, full of lies,
and which could not fait of being difcovertd
to be lies, asfoonashisletters were read ? Paul
could not be guilty of falfehood in th/'fe two
points, or in either of them; and if either
of them be true, the Chriftian religion is
true. References to thefe two points are fre-
quent in St. Paul's epiftles: I will mention
only a few. In his Epiftle to the Galatums,
belays, (chap. iii. 2, 5.) " This only would
I learn of you, receive ye the fpirit (:>-ifts
of the fpirit) by the works of the law * He
miniftreth to you the I] irk, and worketh
miracles among you." To the Theflaloni-
ans he lays, ( i. Theff. ch. i. 5.) " Oar gof-
pel came not unto you in word only, but
alfo in p^w. 3 r, and in the Holy Ghoft." To
the Corinthians he thus expreiles himlllf:
(r Cor. ii. 4.) " M> preaching was not with
enticing w,ords of man's wifdom, but in the
dcmoultration of the fpirit and of power;"
and he adds the reafon for his working
miracles " That your faith (hould not
ftand in the wifclom of men, but in the pow-
er of God." With what alacrity would
the faction at Corinth, which oppofed the
apoftle, have laid hold of this and many
fiinilar declarations in the letter, had they
been able to have detected any falfehood in
i8o
them? There is no need to multiply words
on fo clear a point the genuinenefs of
Paul's Epiftles prove their authenticity, in-
dependently of every other proof; for it is
abfurd in the extreme to fuppofe him, under
circumftances of obvious detection, capable
of advancing what was not true; and if
Paul'sEpiftles beboth genuine andauthentic,
the Chriftian religion is true. Think of
this argument.
You clofe your oblervations in the fol-
lowing manner : " Should the Bible, (mean-
ing, as I have before remarked, the Oid Tef-
tame$t) and Teftament hereafter fall, it is
not I that have been the occafion." You
look, I think, upon your produftion with a
parent's partial eye, when you ipeak of it in
fuch a ft vie of felf-ccmplaccncy. r l be Bible,
Sir, has withftood the learning of Porphyry,
and the power of Julian ^ to lay nothing of
the manichean Fauftus'\t has refilled the
genius of Bolingbrcke^ and the wit of Pol -
iaire, to (ay nothing of a numerous herd of
inferior ailkibnts; and it will not fall by your
force. You have barbed anew the blunted
arrows of former adveriaries ; you have fea-
thered them with blafphemy and ridicule ;
clipped them in yov.r deadiieft poiion ;
aioicd them with your utinoft ikill; (hot
the iii ag.'iLil tlie fhicld of faith with your
iitxnoii vigour; but, like the feeble jave-
lin of aged Priam, they will fcarccly reach
the mark, will fall to the ground without a
flroke.
LETTER X.
T
H E remaining part of your work
can hardly be made the fubjeft of animad-
verfion. It principally confifts of unfup-
ported afTertions, abufive appellations, illi-
beral farcafms,y?r//e.f of words, profane bab-
blings, and oppositions of fcience faljely Jo
called. I am hurt at being, in mere juftice
to thefubjeft, under the neceffity of ufing
fuch harfli language ; and am fincerely forry
that, from what caufe I know not, your mind
has received a wrong bias in every point ref-
pe&ing revealed religion. You are capable
of better things; for there is aphilofophical
fublimity in fome of your ideas, when you
fpeak of the Supreme Being, as the Creator
O
182
of the univerfe. That you may not accufc
me of difrdpeft, in pafiing over any part of
your work without bcftowing proper atten-
tion upon it, I will wait upon you through
what you call your conclulion.
You refer your reader to the former part
of the Age of P^eafon ; in which you have
fpoken of what you efteem three frauds
myftery, miracle, and prophecy. I have
not at hand the book to Which you refer, and
know not what you have faid on thefe fub-
jects ; they are fubje&s of great importance,
and we, probably fhould differ, eflentially
in our opinion concerning them ; but, I con-
fefs, I am not lorry to be excufed from exa-
mining what you have faid on thefe points.
The ipecimen of your reafoning, w r hich is
now before me, has taken from me every in-
clination to trouble cither my reader, or
myfelf, with any oblervations on your for-
mer book.
You admit the pofllbility of God's reveal-
ing his will to man ; yet " the things fo re-
vealed/'' " is revelation to the perfon only
to whom it is made; his account of it to
another is not revelation.^ -This is true; his
account is fimpleteftimony. Your^d, there is
no fci poilible criterion to judge of the truth jof
what heihys." This I poiiviveiy deny ' and con-
lend { that a real miracle, performed in st tciiat i-
on of a revealed truth, is a certain criterionby
which we may judge of the truth of that at-
teitation. I am perfectly aware of the ob-
jeftions which may be made to thispolition;
I have examined them with care ; I acknow-
ledge them to be of weight ; but I do not
fpeak tinadvifedly , or as wifliing to dictate to
other men, when I fay, that I am perfuaded
the pofition is true. So thought Mofes,
when, in the matter of Korah, he faid to the
Ifraelites i; If thefe men die the common,
death of all men, then the Lord hath not
fent me." So thought Elijah, when he faid
4i Lord God of Abraham, Ifaac, and of If-
rael, let it be known this day, that thou art
God in Ifrael, and that I am thy fervant ;" -
and the people before whorn he fpuke, were
of the fame opinion ; for, when the fire of the
Lord fell, and coniurmd the burnt -facrifice,
they faid" The Lord he is the God." So
thought our Saviour, when he faid fcfc The
works that I do in my Father's name, they
bear witnefs of me;" incl, i; if i do not the
works of my Father believe me not.
WHAT reafon have we to believe Jefus,
fpeaking in the gofpel, and to^cJifb'elieVe Ma-
hoinet fpeaking in the Koran ? Both of them
lay claim toa divine commiiliou : and yet we
receive the words of the one as a revelation
from God, and we rejeft the words of the
other as an impofture of man. The reafon
h evident ; Jefus eftablifhed his pretenfions,
not by alJedging any fecret coinmanication
with the Deity, but by working numerous
and indubitable miracles in the prefence of
thoufands, and which the mod bitter and
watchful of his enemies rould not difallow ;
but Mahomet wrought n miracles at all. -
Nor is a miracle the only criterion by which
we may judge of the truth of a revelation.
Ifaferies of prophets fhould, through a courfe
of many centuries, predict the appearance
of a certain perfon, whom God would, at a
particular time, fend into the world for a
particular end ; and at length a pcrfon fhould
appear, in whom rJl the predictions were mi-
nutely accompli/lied; fuch a completion of
prophecy would be a criterion of the truth
of that revelation, which that perfon fhould
deliver to mankind. Or if a perfon fhould
now fay, (as many falfe prophets have laid,
and are daily fay ing,) that he had a commif-
fion to declare the will of God ; and, as a
proof of his veracity, fhould predicl that,
after his death, he would rife from the dead
on the third day ; the completion of fuch
a prophecy would, I prefume, be a fufficient
criterion of the truth of what this man
might have fa id concerning the will of God.
Now I tell you, (fays Jefus to his dilciples,
concerning Judas, who was to betray him,)
before it come that when it is come to pais
ye may believe that I am he. In various
1 85
parts of the gofpels our Saviour, with the
utmoft propriety, claims to be received as the
meflenger of God, not only from the miracles
which he wrought, but from the prophecies
which were fulfilled in his perfon, and from,
the predictions which he himfelf delivered.
Hence, inftead of there being no criterion by
which we may judge of the truth of thechrif-
tian revelation, there are clearly three. It
is an eafy matter to ufe an indecorous flip-
pancy of language in {peaking of the chrif-
tian religion, and with a fupercilious negli-
gence to clafs Chrift and his apoftles among
the impoflors who have figured in the world ;
but it is not, I think, an eafy matter for any
man, of good fenfe and found erudition, to
make an impartial examination into any one
of the three grounds of Chriftianity which I
have here mentioned, and to reject it.
WHAT is it, you a(k, the Bible teaches ?
The prophet Micah (hall anfwer you : it
teaches us tfc to do juftly, to love mercy,,
and to walk humbly with our God ; " juf-
tice, mercy, and piety, inftead of what you
contend for rapine, cruelty, and murder.
What is it, you demand, the Teftament
teaches us? You anfwer your quefti-on to
believe that the Almighty committed de-
bauchery with a woman. Abfurd and impi-
ous aflertion ! No, Sir, no; this profane
dodtrine r this miferable miff, this bh'f
1 86
perverfion of fcripture, is your dc&rine, not
that of the New Teftament. I will tell you
the leflon which it teaches to infidels as well
as to believers ; it is a leffon which philofa-
phy nevertanght, which wit cannot ridicule,
J30i fophiftry difprove ; the leffon is this
"The dead fhall hear the voice of the Son of
God, and they that hear ftiall live: all that
are in their graves (hall come forth ; they
that have done good, unto the refuriefiion
of life ; and they that have done evil, unto
the refurre&ion of damnation.
THE moral precepts of the gofpel are fa
well fitted to promote the happinefs of man-
kind in this world, and to prepare human na-
ture for the future enjoyment of that blefled-
ncfs, of which, in our prefent ftate, we can
form no conception, that I had no expefta-
tion they would have met with your difap-
probation. You fay, however. " As to the
Icraps of morality that are irregularly and
thinly fcattered in thofe books, they make no
part of the pretended thing, revealed religi-
on."--" Whati'beverye would that n:,en (hoi t Id
do to you, do ye even fo to them." Is this
a fcrap of morality ? Is it not rather the con-
centred dfence of all ethics, the vigorous
root from which every branch of moral duty
towards each other may be derived ? Duties,
you know, Ere diftinguiflicd by nioralifts into
duties of perfect and iuipcrfe^obligation: docs.
the Bible teach you nothing, when it inrtrufts
you, that thisdiftinftion is done away? when
it bids you " put on bowels cf mercies, kind-
nefs, humble neis of mind, nieeknefs, long-
fufferiijg, forbearing one another, and forgi-
ving one another, if any man have a quarrel
againft any." Thefe, and precepts fuch as
theie, you will in vain look for in the cod^s
of Frederick or Juflinlan ; you cannot find
them in our ftatute books ; they were not
taught, nor are they taught, in the fchools of
heathen philofophy ; or, if fbme one or two of
them fhould chance to be glanced at by Pia-
to, a Seneca, or a Cicero, they are not bound
upon the confciences of mankind by any fanc-
tion. It is in the gofpel, and in the gotpel
alone, that we learn their importance ; afts
cf benevolence and brotherly love may be to
an^ unbeliever voluntary afts, to a chriftian
they are indifpenfible duties. Is a new com-
mandment no part of revealed religion? " A
new commandment I give unto you, That
ye love one another :" the law of chriftian
benevolence is enjoined us by Chrifh himfelf
in the mod folemn manner, as the dittin-- ,
guifhing badge of our being his, diiciples.
Two precepts, you particulariz,e as incon-
fiftent with the dignity and the nature of
man that of not relenting injuries, and that
of loving enemies. Who but yourfelf ever
interpreted literally the proverbial phraie
If a man finite thee on the right cheek, turn
to him the other alfo ?" Did Jefus himfelf
turn the other cheek when the officer of the
high prieft fmote him? It is evident, that a
patient acquiefcence under flight perfonal in-
juries is here enjoined ; and that a pronenefs
to revenge, which inftigates men to iavage
acls of brutality, for every trifling offence, is
forbidden. As to loving enemies, it is explain-
ed, in another place to mean, the doing them
all the good in our power; %fc if thine enemy
hunger, feed him; if he thirft, give him
drink;" and what think you is more likely to
prefer ve peace, and to promote kind affeUons
amongft men, than the returninggood for evil ?
Chriftianity does not order us to love in pro-
portion to the injury tb it does not offer a
premium for a crime," it orders us to let
our benevolence extend alike to all, that we
may emulate the benignity of God himfelf,
who maketh ' 4 his fun to rife on the evil and
on the good.'*
IN the Jaw of Mofes, retaliation for deli-
berate injuries had been ordained an eye for
an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Anflotle, in his
treatife of morals, fays, that fome thought
retaliation of perfonal wrongs an equitable
proceeding; Rhadamanthus is faid to have
given it his fanction; the decemviral laws al-
low it ; the common law of England did not
forbid it; and it is faid to be ftill the law of
forue countries, even in chriftendom : but the
mild fpirit of chriflianity abfolutely prohi-
bits, not only the retaliation of injuries, but
the indulgence of every refentful propenfity.
IT has been," you affirm, " the fcheme of
the Chriftian church to hold man in igno-
rance of the Creator, as it is of govern-
ment to hold him in ignorance of his rights."
I appeal to the plain fenfe of any honeft
man to judge whether this reprefcntaticn be
true in either particular. When he attends
the fervice of the church, does he difcover
any defign in the minifter to keep him in ig-
norance of his Creator ? Arc not the public
prayers in which he joins, the JeHbns which
are read to him, the icrmons are
preached to him, all calculate:! to imprcfs up-
on his mind a ftroug conviction of the mer-
cy, juflice, holineis, power, ird wifdotn of
the one adorable God, blefTcd for ever ! By
thefe means which the Chriftian church hath
provided for oar inftru&Son, I v> ill venture
to fay, that the rnoft unlearned congregati-
on of Chriftians in Great Britain have more
juft and iuhliuie conceptions of the Creator,
a more perfeft knowledge of their duty to-
wards him, and a ftrong-.-r inducement to the
practice of virtue, hoHueis, and temperance,
than all the philosophers of all the heathen
countries In the world ever ha.!, or now
have. If, indeed, your fchcinc {hould tak
place, and men fhould no longer believe their
Bible, then would they foon become as igno-
rant of the Creator, as all the world was when
God called Abraham from his kindred ; and
as all the w r orld, which has had no communi-
cation with eitherjews orChriftians, now is.
Then would they loon bow down to (locks
and (tones, kifs their hand (as they did in the
time of Job, and as the poor African does
now,) to the moon walking in brightnejs, and
deny the God that is above; then would they
worfhip Jupiter, Bacchus, and Venus, and
emulate, in the tranfcendent flagitioufnefs of
their lives, the impure morals of their gods.
What defign has government to keep
men in ignorance of their rights ? None v s hat-
ever. All wife ftatefmen are perfuaded, that
the more men know of their rights, the bet-
ter fubjefts they will become. Subjects, mot
from neceflity but choice, are the firmed
friends of every government. The people
of Great Britain are well acquainted with
their natural and (bcial lights ; they under-
ftand them better than the people of any
other country do ; they know that they have
a right to be free, not only from the capri-
cious tyranny of any one man's will, but
from the more afflicting defpot'fm o? repub-
lican factions ; and it is this very knowledge
-which attaches them to the coiUtitution of
their country. I have no fear that the pco-
pie fliould know too much of their rights ;
my fear is that they fhould not know them
in all their relations, and to their full extent.
The government does not defire that men
fliouid remain in ignorance of their rights ;
but it both defires, and requires, that they
fhould not difturb the public peace, under
vain pretences ; that they fhould make them-
fclves acquainted, not merely with the rights
but with the duties alfo of men in civil foci-
ety. I am far from ridiculing (as fome have
done) the rights of man ; I have long ago
underflood, that the poor as well as the rich
and that the rich as well as the poor, have,
by nature fome rights, which no human go-
vernment can juflly take from them, with-
out their tacit or exprefs content ; and fome
alfo, which they themfelves have no power
to furrender to any government. One of
the principal rights of man, in a flate either
of nature or of fociety, is a right of property
in the fruits of his induflry, ingenuity t or
good fortunes.- Does government hold any
man in ignorance of this right? So much the
contrary, that the chief care of government
is to declare, afcertain, modify, and defend
this right ; nay, it gives right where nature
gives none ; it protects the goods c;f ar? intef-
tate ; and it allows a man, at his death, to
clifpofe of that property, which the law of
nature would caufe to revert into the com-
mon flock. Sincerely as I am attached to
I 9 2
the liberties of mankind, I cannot but profefs
myfelf an utter enemy to that fpurious phi-
lofophy, that democratic infanity, which
would equalise al! property, and level all dif-
tinftions in civilf6ciety. Perfonaldiftinftions,
arifing from fuperior probity, learning, elo-
quence, (kill, courage, and from every other
excellency of talents, are the very blood
and nerves of the body politic ; they ani-
mate the whole, and invigorate every part;
without them, its bones would become reeds,
and its marrow water ; it would prefently
fink into a fetid fenielefs mafs of corrup-
tion. Power may be ufed for private ends,
and in oppofition to the public good ; rank,
may be improperly conferred, and infolently
fuftained ; riches may be wickedly acquired,
and vicioufly applied ; but as this is neither
neceflarily, nor generally the cafe, I cannot
agree with thofe who in aflerting the natu-
ral equality of men, fpurn the inllituted dif-
tinftions attending; power, rank, and riches.
But I mean not to enter into any difcuffi-
on on this fubjeft, farther than to fay^ that
your crimination of government appears to
me to be wholly unfolded ; and to exprefs my
hope that no one individual will be fo far
milled by difquifitions on the rights of man,
as to think that he has any right to do wrong,
as to forget that other men have rights as
well as he.
You are animated with proper fentmients
of piety, when you {peak of the ftrufture of
the univerfe. No one, indeed, who conli-
cl^rs it with attention can fail of having his
mind filled with the fuprerneft veneration
for its Author. Who can contemplate,
without aflonifhment, the motion of a comet
running far beyond the orb of Saturn, en-
deavouring to efcapeinto the pathlefs regions
of unbounded (pace, yet feeling, at its utmoft
diftance, the attractive influence of the fun,
hearing, as it were, the voice of God arref-
' ting its progrefs, and compelling it, after a
lapfe of ages, to reiterate its ancient courie ?
Who can comprehend the diftance of the
ftars from the earth, nnd from each other ?
' It is fo great, that it mocks our conception;
our very imaginatiqn is terrified, confounded
and loft, when we are told, that a ray of light
which moves at the rate of above ten millions
of miles in a minute, will not, though emit-
ted at this inftant from the brighteft ftar
reach the earth in lefs than fix years. We
think this earth a great globe ; and we fee the
fad wickednefs, which individuals are often
guilty of, in (craping together a little of its
dirt : we view, with flill greater aftonifh-
ment and horror, the mighty ruin which has
in ail ages, been brought upon human kind,
by the low ambition of contending powers,
to acquire a temporary poflTeffion of a little
portion of its furfece. But how does the
Pv
whole of this globe fink, as" it were
thing, when we coniider that a million of
earths will fcarcely equal the bulk of the fan ;
that all the Mars are funs ; and that millions
of funs conflitute, probably, but a minute
portion of that material world, which God
hath distributed through the immenfity of
{pace f> Syftems, however, of infenlible
matter, though arranged in exquiute order,
prove only the wifdom and the power of the
great Architect of nature. As percipient be-
ings, we look for fomething more for his
goodneis -and we cannot open our eyes
without feeing it.
EVERY portion of the earth, fea, and air,
Is full of fenfitive beings, capable, in their
refpcftive orders, of enjpying the good things
which God has prepared for their comfort.
.All the orders of beings are enabled to propa-
gate their kind ; and thus proviiion is made
for a fucceilive continuation of happinefs.
Individuals yield to the law of diffolution in-
feparable from the material ftrnfttire of their
bodies : but no gap is thereby left in exigence;
their place is occupied by other individuals
capable of participating in the goodneis of the
Almighty. Contemplations inch as thefe,
fill the miacl with humility, benevolence,
andpietv. But why mould we ftop here?
\vhy not contemplate the goodnefs of God
*n the redemption, as well as in the creation
of the' world ? By the death of his only -be-
gotten Son Jefus Chrift, he hath redeemed
the whole human race from the eternal death,
which the tranfgreffion of Adam had entail-
ed on all his pofterity. You believe nothing
about the tranfgreffion of Adam. The hii-
tory of Eve and the ferpent excites your con-
tempt ; you will not admit that it is either a
real hiftory, or an allegorical reprefentation
of death entering into the world through
fin, through difobedience to the command of
God. Be it fo . You find, however, that
death doth reign over all mankind, by what-
ever means it was introduced : this is not a
matter of belief, but of lamentable knowledge.
The New Teftament tells us, that, through
tl/e merciful difpenfation of God, Chrift hath
overcome death, and reftored man to that
immortality which Adam had loft : this
alfo you refufe to believe. Why ? Becaufe
you cannot account for the propriety of this
redemption. Miferable reaibn ! ftupid ob-
je&ion ! What is there that you can account
for? Not for the germination of a blade of
grafs, not for the fall of a leaf of the foreft
and will you refufe to eat of the fruits of the
earth, becauie God has not given you wiiclotn
equal to his own ? Will you refufe to lay
hold on immortality, becauie he has not gi-
ven you, becauie he, probably, could not give
to fuch a being as man, a full manifeftation of
the end for which he defigns him, nor of the
means requifite for the attainment of that
end ? What father of a family can make level
to the apprehenfion of his infant children, all
the. views of happinefs which his paternal
goodnefs is preparing for them ? How can he
explain to them the utility of reproof, cor-
retion, inftru&ion, example, of all the vari-
ous means by which he forms their minds to
piety, temperance, and probity ? We are
children in the hand of God ; we are in the
very infancy of our exiftence ; juft feparated
from the womb of eternal duration; it may
not be poffiblefor the Father of the univerfe
to explain to us (infants in apprehenfion !)
the goodnefs and the wifdom of his dealings
with the fons of men. What qualities of
mind will be neceffary for our well-doing
through all eternity, we know not; what
discipline in this infancy of exiftence may be
neceffary for generating thefe qualities, we
know not; whether God could or could not,
conflftently with the general good, have for-
given the tranfgreffion of Adam, without any
atonement, we know not; whether the ma-
lignity of fin be not fo great, fo oppofite to
the general good, that it cannot be forgiven
w hi 1ft it exifts, that is, whilft the mind re-
tains a propenfity to it, we know not : fo
that if there fliould be much greater difficul-
ty in comprehending the mode of God's mo-
ral government of mankind than there real-
ly is, there would be no reafon for doubting
197
of its re&itnde. If the whole human race
be confidereci as but one fmall member of a
large community of free and intelligent be-
ings of different orders, and if this whole*com-
munity be fubjeft todifcipline and laws pro-
dncflive of the grcateft poffible good to the
whole fyftcm, then may we ftill more reafon-
ably fufpeft our capacity to comprehend the
wifdorn and goodnefs of God's proceedings in
the moral government of the univerfe.
You are lavifli in your praife of deifm ; it
is fo much better than atheifm, that I mean
nor to fay any thing to its clifcreclit ; it is
not, however, without its difficulties. What
think you of an uncaufed caufe of every
thing ? of a Being who has no relation to time,
not being older to-day than he was yeflerday,
nor younger to-day than he will be to-mor-
row ? who has no relation to fpace, not being
a part here and a part there, or a whole any
where ? What think you of an omnifcient
Being, who cannot know the future aftions
of a man ? Or, if his omnifcience enables him
to know them, what think you of the contin-
gency of human aftions ? And if human
actions are not contingent, what think you
of the morality of actions, of the diflin&ion
between vice and virtue, crime and innocence,
fin and duty ? What think you of the infinite
goodnefs of a Being, who exifted through
eternity, without any emanation of his good-
R 2
nefs manifefced in the creation of fenfitive be-
ings ? Or, if you contend that there has been
an eternal creation, what think you of an ef-
feft co?val with its caufe, of matter not pof-
terior to its Maker? What think you of the
cxiftence of evil, moral 'and natural, in the
work of an infinite Being, powerful, wife,
and good ? What think you of the gift of
freedom of will, when the abufe of freedom
becomes the caufe of general mifery ? I could
propofe to your confideration a great many
other queftions of a fimilar tendency, the
contemplation of which has driven not a few
fromdeifm to atheilm, juft as the difficulties
in revealed religion have driven yourfelf, and
ibr:e others, from chriilianity to cleifm.
FOR my own part, 1 can fee no reafon why
either revealed or natural religion fhould be
abandoned, on account of the difficulties
which attend either of them. I look up to
the incornprehenfible Maker of heaven and
earth with r.nfpeakable admiration and felf-
annihilation, and am adeifl. I contemplate
with the utmoft gratitude and humility of
mind, his unfearchable wifdom andgoodnefs
in the redemption of the world from eternal
death, through the intervention of his Son
Jefus Chrift, and am aChriftian. As a deift
I have little expectation ; as a Chriftian, I
have no doubt of a future ftate. I fpeak for
ipyfelf, and may ba in an error, as to the
1 99
ground of thefirft part of this opinion. You,
and other men, may conclude differently.
From the inert nature of matter from the
faculties of the human mind from the ap-
parent imperfection of God's moral govern-
ment of the world from many modes of
analogical reafoning, and from other fources,
fome of the philofophers of antiquity did col-
left, and modern philofophers may, perhaps,
collect a ftrong probability of a future exilt-
ence ; and not only of a future cxiftence, but
(which is quite a ciiftinft queftion) of a fu-
ture ftate of retribution, proportioned to our
moral condudt in this world. Far be it from
me to loofen any of the obligations to vir-
tue ; but I mufl confefs, that I cannot, from
the fame fources of argumentation, derive
any pofitive affurance on the fubject. Think
then with what thankfulnefs of heart I re-
ceive the word of God, which tells me, that
though * in Adam (by the condition of our
nature) all die ;" yet " in Chrift (by the co-
venant of grace) (hall all be made alive." I
lay hold on u eternal life as the gift of God
through Jefus Chrift;" Iconfider it not as any
appendage to the nature I derive from Adam,
but as the free gift of the Almighty, through
his Son, whom he hath conftituted Lord of
all, the Saviour, the Advocate, andthejudge
of human kind.
" DEISM," you affirm, " teaches us, with-
out the poffibility of being miftaken, all that
aoo
is neceflary or proper to be known." There
are three things, which all reafonable men
admit are neceflary and proper to be known
the being of Gcd the providence of God
a future ftatc of retribution. Whether
thefe three truths are fo taught us by deifm,
that there is no poffibility of being miftaken
concerning any of them, let the hiflory of
philofbphy, and of idolatry, and fupcrftition,
in all ages and countries, determine. A volume
might be filled withanacconnt of the miftakes
into which the greateft reafoners have fallen,
and of the uncertainty in which they lived,
withrefpect toeveryoneof thefe points. I will
advert, briefly, only to the laft of them. Not-
withftanding the illuftrious labours of Gaf-
jendi, Cudworth, Clarke, Baxter, and of above
two hundred other modern writers on the
fubject, the natural mortality or immortality
of the human foul is as little underftood by
us, as it was by the philofophers of Greece
or Rome. The oppofite opinions of Plato
and of Epicurus on this fubjecl, have their
leveralfupporters arnongft the learned of the
prefent age, in Great Britain, Germany,
France, Italy, in every enlightened part of
the world ; and they who have been mofh fe-
ripufly occupied in the ftudy of the queftion,
concerning a future (late, as deducible from
the nature of the human foul, are lead dif-
pofed to give from reafon a pofitive decifion
of it either way. The importance of reve-
lation is by nothing rendered rmre apparent
than by the difcordant fentiments of learned
and good men (for I fpeak not of the ignorant
and immoral) on this point. They fhew the
infiifficiency of human reafon, in a courfe of
above two thoufand years, to unfold the myf-
teries of human nature, and to furnifh, froiti
the contemplation of it, any affurancs of the
quality of our future condition. If you fh on Id
ever become perfuaded of this infufficiency,
(and you can fcarce fail of becoming fo, if
you examine the matter deeply), you will,
if you aft rationally, be difpofed to invefti-
gate, with ferioufnefs and impartiality, the
truth of Chriftianity. You will fay of the
gofpel, as the Northumbrian heathens faid of
Paulinus, by whom they were converted to
the Chriftian religion " The more we re-
fled: on the nature of our foul, the lefs we
know of it. While it animatesou^body, we
may know fome of its properties; but when
once feparated, we know not whither it goes,
or from whence it came. Since, then, the
gofpel pretends to give us clearer notions of
thefe matters, we ought to hear it, and laying
afide all paffion and prejudice, follow that
which fhall appear moft conformable to right
reafon."
What a bleding is it to beings, with fuch
limited capacities as ours confefledly are, to
have God himfelf for our inflruftor in every
thing which it much concerns us to know I
We are principally concerned in
not the origin of arts,* -or 'the recondite
depths of fcience - not the hiftories of migh-
ty empires; defdlating the globe by their con-
ten tions--not thefubtilties of logic, the myf-
teries of rrietaphyfics, the fublimities of po-
etry, or the niceties of criticifm. Thele t
and fnbjefts fuch as thefe, properly occupy
the learned leifure of a few'; but the bulk of
human kind have ever been, and^muft ever
remain, ignorant of them all; they muft,
of neceffity, remain in the fame ftate with
that which a German emperor voluntarily
put himfeif into, when he made a refolution,
bordering on barbarifm, that he would n-
ver read a printed book. We are all, of eve-
ry rank and condition, equally concerned in
knowing what will become of us after
death ; $nd, if we are to live again, we
are intereftedin knowing. whether it be pof-
fible for us to do any thing whilfl we live
here, which may render that future life an
happy one. Now, " that thing called chrif-
tiaaity," as you fcoffingly fpeak that lad
beft gift of Almighty God, as I eftecm it, the
gofpel of Jefus Chrift, has given us the moft
clear and fatisfaftory information on both
thefe points. It tells us, what deiiin never
could have told us, that we fhall certainly be
railed from the dead that, whatever be the
nature of the foul, we fhall certainly live
for ever~r-and that, \vhilft we live here, it is
205
poiiible for us to do much towards the ren-
dering that everlafting life an happy one.
Thefe are tremendous truths to bad men ; they
-cannot be receivedand rcfk^tcclon with indif-
ference by the beft; and they iiigge.fi: to all inch
a cogent motive to virtuous actions, as de-
ifra could not furinih even to Brunts himfelf.
SOME men have been warped to infidelity
by viciouf iiefs of life ; and feme have hypo-
critically profeiibd.chriftiamty from profpecls
of temporal advantage : but, being a flranger
to your character, I neither impute the for-
mer to you, nor can admit the latter as ope-
rating on rnylcif. The generality of unbe-
lievers are fuch, from want of . information
lie fubject of religion ; having been en-
:! from their youth in ftruggling for
lly difuncnon, or perplexed with the
inceli Vat intricacies of bufincls, or bewildered
In t'r: rrarfuits of pleafure, they have neither
ability, inclination, nor leifnre, to enter into
critical difquifitipns concerning the truth of
.chrillianity. Men of this defcription are
foo.n forded by objetios vrhich they are not
ccmpete.nt to anfvver ; and the loofe morality
of the,age,.(io oppo/ite to chriman perfec-
,tion!) co-operating witl ; thrir want of fcrip-
tural knowledge, they prefently get rid of
their nurfery faith, and arc ieklom (eduious
in the acquilition of another, founded, not on
authority, but fober iaveftigation. Prcfuta-
204
ing, however, that many cleifls are as fin cere
in their belief as I am in mine, and knowing
that feme are more able, and all as much in-
tereilcd as myfelf, to make a rational inqui-
ry into the truth of revealed religion, I feel
no propenfity to judge uncharitably of any
of them. They do not think as I do, on a
{object lurpaffing all others in importance;
but they are not, on that account, to be fpo-
ken of by me with aiperit) 7 " of language, to
be thought of by me as parlous alienated from
the mercies of Gocl. The gofpel has been
offered to their acceptance; and, from what-
ever caufe they reject it, I cannot but efteem
their fitnation to be dangerous. Under the
. influence of that perfuaficn I have been indu-
ced to write this book. I do not expecTt to
derive from it either fame or profit , thefe are
not improper incentives to honorable adtivi-
ty ; but there is a time of life when they
ceafe to direct the judgment of thinking men.
What I have written, will not, I fear, make
any impreffion on you; but I indulge an hope,
that it may not be without its effedt on forne
of your readers. Infidelity is a rank weed,
it threatens to overfpread the land ; its root
is principally fixed amongft the great and
opulent ; but you are endeavouring to extend
the malignity of its poifon through all the
clafles of the coin in unity. There is a dais
of men, for whom 1 have the greateft refpeft,
and whom I am anxious to prefcrve from the
i
205
contamination of your irreligion r the mer-
chants, manufacturers, and tradesmen of the
kingdom. 1 confider the influence of the ex-
ample of this clafs as efTential to the welfare
of the community. I know that they are
in general given to reading, and defircus oi
information on all Tubjefts. If this little book
fhould chance to fall into their hands after
they have read yours, and they fliould think
that any of your obje<Tcions to the authority
of the Bible have not been fully anfvvered, I
intreat them to attribute the omiilion to the
brevity which I have ftudied ; to my defire
of avoiding learned difquifitions ; to my inad-
vertency; to my inability; to any thing ra-
ther than an impoffibility of completely ob-
viating every difficulty you have brought
forward. I addrefs the fame requefl to fucli
of the youth of both fexes, as may unhappily
have imbibed, from your .writings, the poi-
fon of infidelity ; befeeching them to believe,
that all their religious doubts may be remo-
ved, though it may not have been in my
power to anfwer, to their fatisfa&ion, all your
objections. ' I pray God that the rifing gene-
ration of this land may be preferred from
that " evil heart of unbelief," which has
brought ruin on a neighbouring nation ; that
neither a neglefted education, nor domeftic
irreligion, nor evil communication, nor the
fafhion of a licentious world, may ever induce
S
2.0 fc.,
them to forget that religion alone ought to
be their rule of life.
IK the conclufion of my Apology for Chrij-
tianity, I informed Mr. Gibbon of my extreme
: averiion to public controvcrfy. I am now
twenty years older than I was then, and I
perceive that this my averfion has increafed
with my age. I have, through life, abandon*
ed my little literary produtions to their fate :
fuch of them as have been attacked, have ne-
ver received any defence from me ; nor will
this receive any, if it fliould meet with your
public notice., or with that of any other man.
SINCERELY wifning that you may become
a partaker of that faith in revealed religion,
which is the foundation of my happinefs in
this world, and of all my hopes in another,
I bid you farewell.
Pv. LANDAFF.
CALGARTH PARK,
Jan. 20, 1796.
