i-^md
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
Dar. Rm.
^S0 IW3
LIBRARIES
'^
^,
-. >
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2009 with funding from
University of Pittsburgh Library System
http://www.archive.org/details/apologyforbibleiOOwats
s
^■^-
^^m^
\,-~
4Z
AN
APOLOGY
FOR. THE
BIBLE.
A N-
APOLOGY
FOR THE
BIBLE,
IN A
SERIES OF LETTERS,
ADDRESSED TO
THOMAS PJINE,
Author of a Book entitled. The Age of Reafon, Part the Second, being an Inveftigation^of True aad of Fabulous Theology.
By R. WATSON, D.D. F.R.S.
EORD BISHOP OF LANDAFF, AND REGIUS TROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGB.
NE}F-YORK:
Printed by T. & J. SWORDS, No. 99 Pearl- Street.
— 1796.^
AN
APOLOGY
FOR THE
BIBLE.
LETTER L
SIR,
I HAVE lately met with a book of your's, entided — The Age of Reason, part the fecond, being an inveftlgation of true and of fa- bulous theology; — and I think it not inconfiftent with my ftatlon, and the ^uty I owe to focietv, to trouble vou and the world with fome obferva- tlons on fo extraordinary a performance. Ex- traordinary I efteem it ; not from any novelty in the objedtibns which you have produced againfl revealed religion, (for I find little or no novelty in them) but from the zeal with which you ia« hour to dilTeminate vour opinions, and from the confidence with which you efieem them true. — You perceive, by this, that I give you credit for your fmcerlty, how much foever I may quefrion your wifdom, in wricing in fuch a manner on luch a fubjedl : and I have no reiu6lance in ac- A 2, knowledging^
( 6 )
knovvledging, that you pofiefs a conriderabivr fliare of energy of language, and acutenefs of invefllgation ; though I mult be allowed to la- ment, that thefe talents have not been applied in a manner more ufeful to human kind, and more creditable to yourfelf.
I begin with your preface. You therein ftate, that you had long* had an intention of publiihing your thoughts upon religion, but that you had originally referved it to a later period in life. — Ihope there is no want of charity in faying, that it would have been fortunate for the chriftian world, had your life been terininated before you bad fuliiried your intention. In accomplifliing your purpofe, you will have unfettled the faith of dioufands ; rooted from the minds of the un- happy virtuous all their comfortable affurance of a future reeompence ; have annihilated, in the minds of die flagitious, all their fears of future puniiliment; — you will have given the reins to the domination ofevery paffion, and have thereby contributed to the introdudlion of the public in- fecurity, and of the private unhappinels, ufually and almofl: nccefiarily accompanying a ilate of corrupted morals.
No one) can think worfe of eonfeffion to a pricft, and fubfequent abfolution, as pradtifed in the church of Rome, than I do: but I canaot, with you, attribute the guillotine-maffacres to that caufe. Men's minds were not prepared, as yoii f'jppofe, for the commiffion of all manner of crimes, by any docSlrines of the church of Home, corrupted as 1 efleem it, but by their not
thoroughly
( 7 ) tfioroughiy^ believing even that religion. H'liar may not fociety expe6t from thofe who (hall im- bibe the principles of your book?
A fever, which you and thofe about you ex« pe6led would prove mortal, made you remember, with renewed fatisfacStion, that you had written the former part of your Age of Reafon — and you know therefore, you fay, hy experience, the confcientious trial of your own principles. I admit this declaration to be a proof of the fmce- rity 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 Su- preme Being, and di6lating to us, on- all occa- lions, what is right or wrong ? Or Is it merely our owni judgment of the moral re6f itude or tur- pitude of our own adlions? I tdk^ the word (with IVIr. Locke) in the latter, as in the only intelligible fenfe. Now, wl o fees not tliat our judgments of virtue and vice, right and wrong, are not always formed from an enlightened anii difpaffionate ufe of our reafon, in the invelliga- tion of truth ? They are more generally formed from the nature of the religion weprofefs; from the quality of the civil government under which we live ; from the general manners of die age, or the particular manners of the perfons with whom we alTociatei from the education we have had ia 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 confonnable or repugnant to
the
r 8 )'
the law of nature— may be certain or doubtfulf and that it can be no criterion of moral re6litude, even when it is certain, becaufe the certainty of an opinion is no proof of its being a right opi- nion ? A man may be certainly perfuaded of ati error in reafoning, or of an untruth -in matters of fa6l. It is a maxim of every law, human and divine, that a man ought never to acSt in op- pofition to his confcience: but it will not from thence follow, that he will, in obeying the dic- tates of his confcience, on all occafions acSt right. An inquifitor, who burns jews and heretics; a Robefpierre, who maffacres innocent and harifn:- lefs women ; a robber, who thinks that all things ■ ought to be in common, and that a flate of pro- - percy is an unjufl infringement of natural liberty : ■ — thefe, and a thoiifand perpetrators of different ci imes, may all follow the didliates of confcience ; aiyJ may, at the real or fuppofed approach of death, remember, " Avith renewed fatisfa6lion,'* the worfl: of their tranfadlions^ and experience, without difmay, " a confcientious trial of their principles." But this dieir' confcientious com- pofure can be no proof to others of the redfiiude of their principles, and ought to be no pledge to themfelves of fneir innocence, in adhering to them, I have thought, lit to make-this remarkj with a-view of fuggefting to you a confideration of. great importance— whether you have examined calmly, and according to the beft of your ability, the arguments by which the truth of revealed re- ligion may, in the judgment of learned and im.-. partial men, be eftabiiflied ? — You will allow,
that
( 9 )
that tboufands of learned and impartial men, (I fpeak not of piiefts, who, however, are, I truOr, as learned and impartial as yourfelf, but of lay- men of the moft fplendid talents) — you will al- low, that thoufands of thefc, in all ages, have embraced revealed religion as true. Whether thefe men have all been in an error, enveloped in the darknefs of ignorance, fhackied by the chains of fuperftition, whilft you and a few orhers have enjoyed light and liberty, is a q^ueftion 1 fubmit to the decilion of your readers.
If you have made the bcft examination you can, and yet rejeil: revealed religion as an im- pofture, T" pray that God may pardon what I efccem 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 moderation : it has fa id to m.e — '* Who art thou that judged: another man's fcrvant? 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 error, I prefume not to determine. I know indeed where it is faid, " that the preach- ing of tliC crofs is to them that perifli fooliihnefs, — and that if the gofpel be hid, it is hid to them that are loft." — The confequence of your unbe- lief muft be left to the juit and merciful judg- ment of him, who alone knov.eth the mechanifin and the liberty of our underftandings, the origin of our opinions, the flrength of our prejudices, the excellencies and the defects of our reafoning facukies,
Ifliall,
I fliall, defignedly, write this and the follow^ mg letters in a popular manner; hoping, that tlieieby they may ftand a chance of being pe~- *rufed by that clafs of readers, for whom your work (eems to be particularly calculated, ' and who are the moft likely to be injured by it. The really learned are in no danger of being infedted by the poifon of infidelity : they will excufe me,- therefore,- for having entered, as little as poffible^- into deep difquifitions concerning the authenticity of the Bible. The fubjeft has been fo learnedly and fo frequently handled by other writers, that it does not want (L had almoft faid, it does not ad-- niit) "any farther proof. And it is the more ne- ceflary to adopt this m.ode of anfwering your book, becaufe you difclaim all learned appeals ta other books, and undertake to prove, from the Bible itfelf, that it is unworthy of credit. I hope, to (hew, from the Bible itfelf, the direft contrary. But in cafe any of your readers fhould think that you had not put forth all your ftrength, by not referring for proof of your opinion to ancient authors; left they fhould fufpeCl that all ancient authors are in your favour; I will venture to afErm, that had you made a learned appeal to alL the ancient books in the world, facred or profane, chriftian, jewifh, or pagan, inftead of leiTening, they would have eftablilhed, the credit and autho- rity of the Bible as the Word of God.
Quitting your preface, let us proceed to the. work itfelf; in which there is much repetition, and a defeat of proper arrangement. I will fol- low your track, however, as nearly as I can. —
( II }
'The firll: queftion you propofe for consideration iis — " Whether there is fufficient authority for Mieving 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 evidence. You hold it im- poflible that the Bible can be the Word of God, becaufe it is therein faid, that the Ifraelites de- ;flroyed the Canaanites by the exprefs command of God : and to believe the Bible to be true, we muft, you affirm, unbelieve all our belief of the moral juftice of God ; for wherein, you afk, could crying or fmiling infants offend? — I am aftonillied that fo acute a reafoner fliould attempt to difparage the Bible, by bringing forward this exploded and frequently refuted obje6lion of Morgan, Tindal, and Bolingbroke. You pro- fefs yourfelf to be a deift, and to believe that there is a God, who cheated the univeife, and eftablifh- ed the laws of nature, by which it is fuftained an exiftence. You profefs, that, from the con- templation of the works of God, you derive a "knowledge of his attributes ; and you reje6l the Bible, becaufe it afcribes to God things inconfift- ent (as you fuppofe) with the attributes which you have difcovered to belong to him ; in parti- cular, you think it repugnant to his moral juftice, that he fhould doom to deftruclion the crying or fmiling infants of the Canaanites. — Why do you not maintain it to be repugnant to his moral juf- tice, that he fhould fuffcr crying or fmiling infants to be fwallowed up by an earthquake, drowned ty aa inundation, confumed by a fire, ftarved by •• a faiTiine^
( 12 )
a famine, or deftroycd by a peftilence? The Word of God is in perfe(3: harmony with his work ; crying or fmiling infants are fubjedled ta -death in both. We believe that the earth, at the exprefs 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 Cata- nia, Lima, and Lifbon, were feverally 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 fa6l is certainly written, and from the perufal of which you infer the mo- ral juftice of God ? You will, probably, reply, that the evils which the Canaanites,fuffered from the exprefs command of God, were different from thofe which are brought on mankind by the ope- ration of the laws of nature. — Different! in what? — Not in the mag;nitude of the evil — not in the fubjects of fufferance — not in the author of it : for my philofophy, at leaft, inftrudls me to believe, that God not only primarily formed, but that he hath, through all ages, executed, the laws of nature; and that he will through all eternity adminifter them, for the general happinefs 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 ihe exiftence of the moral juftice of God, as proved either by natural or revealed re- ligion:
( 13 ) Xglon : what I contend for is fl:iortly this — that you have no right, in fairneis of reafoning, to urge any apparent deviation from moral juftice, as an argument againfl: revealed religion, becaufe you do not urge an equally apparent deviation from it, as an argument againft natural religion: you reject the former, and admit the latter, with- out confidering that, as to your objedlion, they muft ftand or fall together.
As to the Canaanites, it is needlefs to enter into any proof of the depraved ftate of tlieir mo- rals ; they were a wicked people in the time of Abraham, and they, even then, were devoted to deftrudlion by God ; but their iniquity was not then full. Tn the time of Mofes, they were ido- laters ; facriiicers of their own crying or fmiling infants ; devourers of human flelli ; addi61:ed to unnatural I uft ; immerfed in the filthinefs of all manner of vice. Now, I think, it will be impof- fible to prove, that it was a proceeding contrary to God's moral juftice, to exterminate fo wicked a people. He made the Ifraelitcs the executors of his vengeance ; and, in doing this, he gave fuch , an evident and terrible proof of his abcm.ination f)f vice, as could not fail to ftrike the furrounding nations with aftoniflim.ent and terror, and to im- prefs on the minds of tlie Ifraelites what they were to expedi:, if they followed the example of the naHons whom he commanded thein to cut ofr. *' Ye ihall not commit any of thefe abominations — that the land fpue not you out alfo, as it fpued out the nations that were before ycu." How !l^rong and defcriptive this language f the vices of B thg
( H )
the Inhabitants were fo abominable, that the very land was Tick of them, and forced to vomit them forth, as the ftomach difgorges a deadly poifon.
I have often wondered what could be the rea- fon that men, not deftitute of talents, fliould be defirous of undermining the authority of revealed religion, and ftudious in expofmg, with a malig- nant and illiberal exultation, every litde difficulty attending the fcriptures, to popular animadverfion and contempt. 1 am not willing to attribute this ftrange propenfity to what Plato attributed the atheifm of his time — to profligacy of manners — to afFedlation of fmgularity — to grofs ignorance, affuming the femblance of deep refearch and fupe- rior fagacity ; — I had rather refer it to an impro- priety of judgment, refpe6ling the manners, and menta] acquirements, of human kind, in the firft ages of the world. Mofl: unbelievers argue as if they thought that man, in remote and rude anti- quity, in the very birth and infancy of our fpe- cies, had the fame diff in6l conceptions of one, eter- nal, invifible, incorporeal, infinitely wife, power- ful, and 8:ood God, which they themfelves have now. This I look upon as a great miftake, and a pregnant fource of infidelity. Hum.an kind, by long experience ; by the inftitutions of civil fo- ciety ; by the cukivadon of arts and fciences ; by, as l' believe, divine infl:ru6tion a6lually given to fome, and traditionally communicated to all; is m a far more diftinguifhed fituation, as to the powers of the mind, than it was in the childhood of the world. The hiftory of man is the hiftory
of
( '5 )
of the providence of God ; who, willing the fu- prei-ne felicity of all his creatures, has adapted his government to the capacity of thofe who, in dif- ferent a_c;es, were the fuhjedls of it. The hiflory of any one nation throughout all ages, and that of ail nations in the fame age, are but feparate parts of one great plan, which God is carrying on for the moral melioration of mankind. But who can comprehend the whole of this Immenfe defign ? The iliortnefs of life, the weaknefs of our facul- ties, the inadequacy of our means of information, confpire to make it impoffible for us, worms of the earth ! infedls of an hour ! com.pletely to un- derfland any one of it;^ parts. No man, who well weighs the fubjedl, ought to be furprifed, that in the hifiories of ancient times many things fhould occur foreign to our manners, the propriety and necefTity of which wc cannot clearly apprehend.
It appears incredible to many, that God Al- mighty iliould have had colloquial intercourfe with our firft parents ; that he fhoud have contra6led a kind of friend llrip for the patriarchs, and entered into covenants with them; that he fliould have fuf- pended the laws of nature in Egypt ; fliould have been fo apparently partial as to become the God and governor of one particular nation ; and fliould have fo far demeaned him.felf, as to give to that people a burdenfome ritual of woriliip, fratutes and ordinances, many of which feem to be be- neath the digniiy ofhis attention, unimportant, and impolitic. I have converfed with many deills, and have always found that the llrang'enefs of thefe things was the only reafon for their dilbelief
of
( i6 )
of them :, Bothing fimilar has happened in theri' time ; they will not, therefore, admit, that thefe events have really taken place at any time. As well might a child, when arrived at a ftate of man- hood, contend that he had never either flood in need of, or experienced the follering care of a mo- ther's kindnefs, the wearifome attention of his nurfe, or the inftru6lion and difcipline of his ichoolmafter. The Supreme Being felected one family from an idolatrous world ; nurfed it up, by various a6i:s of his providence, into a great nation ; communicated to that nation a knowledge of his holinefs, juftice, mercy, power, and wifdom; dif- feminated them^, at various times, through every part of tlie earth, that they might be a '' leaven to leaven the whole lump," that they might af- fure all other nations of the exiftence of one Su- preme God, the creator and preferver of the world, the only proper objecl of adoration. With what reafon can we expe61:, that what was done to one nation, not out of any partiality to them, but for the general good, (hould be done to ail ? that the mode of inftrudion, which was fuiced to- the infancy of the world, fhould be extended to the maturity of its manhood, or to the imbecility of its old age ? I own to you, that when I confider how nearly man, in a lavage (late, approaches ta the brute creation, as to intellectual excellence ;. and when I contemplate his miferable attainments, as to the knowledge of God, in a civilized ftate, when he has had no divine inftru6lion on the fub- je6l, or when that inilru6lion has been forgotten, (for all men liave known fomething of God fron:b
tradition, 2
( 17 )
tradition,) T cannot but admire the wifdom an(J- goodnefs of the Supreme Being, in having let himlelt down to our apprehentions ; in having given to mankind, in the earliell; ages, fenfible and extraordinary proofs of his - exigence and attri- butes ; in having made the jewifli and chriflian difpenfatioiis mediums to convey to all men, through all ages, riiat knowledge concerning him- felf, which hehadvouchfafed to give immediately to the firft. I own it is firange, very ffcrange, that he ihould have made an immediate maniieftation of himfelf in the fiift ages of the w^orld; but what is there that is not ftrange ? It is ftrange that you and I are heie — that there is water, and earth, and air, and fire — that there is a fun, and moon, and ftars — that there is generation, corruption, repro- duction, lean account ultimately for none of thefe things, w^ithout recurring to him who made every thing. I alfo am his workmanilu'p, and look up to him with hope of prefervation through all eternity ; 1 adore him for his wxjrd'as well as for his work : his work I cannot comprehend, but his word hath affured me of all that I am con- cerned to know — that he hath prepared everlafting happinefs for thofe who love and obey him. This you will call preachment, — I will have done with it ; but the fubje(5!: is fo vafl:, and the pinn of providence, in my opinion, fo obvioufly wife and good, that I can never think of it without having my mind tilled with piety, admiration, and grati- tude.
In addition to the moral evidence (as you are
pleafed to daink it) againft the Bible, you threaten^
B a ' ixk.
( i8 ;
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 candour and impartiality, when he in- troduces railing for reafoning, vulgar and illiberal farcafm in the room of argument, I will not imitate the example you fet me ; hut examine what you ihall produce, with as much coolnefs and refpeft, as if you had given the priefts no provo- cation ; as ii you were a man of the molt un- blemilhed chara6ter, fubjedl to no prejudices, ac- tuated by no bad deligns, not liable to have abufe- retorted upon you. with fuccefs.
LETTER II.
BEFORE you commence your grai"wi attack upon the Bible, you wiih to eftabiifli a dif- ference between the evidence neceffary 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 fubje6t have agreed in thinking that St. Auftin reafoned well> when, in vindicating die genuinenefs of the Bible, he alked — " What proofs have we that the works of Plato, Ariflotle, Cicero, Varro, and other profane authors, were written by thofe whofe names they bear; unlefs it be that this has been an opinion generally received at all times, and by
all
i 19 )
all thofe who have lived fince thefe authors ?'* — This writer was convinced, that the evidence which eftabliihed the genuinenef^ of any profane book, would eftabliili that of a facred book; and I profefs myfelf to be of the fame opinion, not- withftanding what you have advanced to the contrary.
In this part your ideas feem to me to be con- fufed: I do not fay that you, defignedly, jumble together mathematical fcience and hillorical evi- dence ; the knowledge acquired by demonflration, and the probability derived from teftimony. — You- know but of one ancxnt book, that authoritative- ly challenges univerfal confent and belief, and that is Euclid's Elements. — If I were diipofed ta make frivolous objections, I ihould fay that even Euclid's Elements had not met with univerfal confent; that there had been men, both in an- cient and modejn times, who had queftioned the mtuitive evidence of fome of his axioms, and de- nied the juflnefs of fome of his demonflrarions t but, admitting the truth, I do not fee the perti- nency of your obfervation. You are attempting to fubvert the amhenticity of the Bible, and you tell us that Euclid's Elements are certainly true. What then ? Does it follow that tlie Bible is certainly faife? The moll illiterate fcrivener in the kingdom does not want to be informed, that the examples in his Wingate's Arithmetic are proved by a different kind of reafoning from that by which he perfuades himfelf to believe, that there was fuch a perfon as Henry Vill. or that tliere is fucli^ city as Paris,
II
( 20 )
It may be of ufe, to remove this confuiion in your argument, to ftate, dlfl;in6tly, the dliFerence between the genuinenefs and the authenticity of a book. A genuine book is that which was written by the perfon whofe name it bears as the author of it. An authentic book is that which relates matters of fa6t, as they really happened. A book may be genuine without being authentic ; and a book may be authentic without being ge- nuine. The books written by Richardfon and Fielding are genuine books, though the hiftories- of ClariiTa and Tom Jones are fables. The hif- tory of the ifland of Formofa is a genuine book ; it was written by Pfal-.nanazar ; but it is not an authentic book, (though it was long cfteemed as fuch, arid tranllaced into different languages) for the author, in the latter part of his life, took fliame to himfe.lf for having impofed on the world, and confeiTed that it was a mere romance. Anfon's Voyage may be confidered as an authentic book; It, probably, containing a true narration of the principal events recorded in it ; but it is not a ge- nuine book, having not been written by Walters,. to whom it is afcribed, but by Rubins-.
This di(\in6tion between the genuinenefs and' authenticity of a book, will aflift us in dete6ling the fallacy of an argument, which you ftate with great confivdence in the part of your work now under confidcration, and w^hich you frequently, allude to, in other parts, as concluhve evidence againfl: the truth of the Bible. Your argument ftands thus — If it be found that the books afcribed to Mofes, Jofhua, and Samuel, were not wriitea
by
f 21 )
by Mofes, Jofhua, and Samud, every part of <he authority and authenticity of thefe books is gone at once. — I prefume to think oiherwife. The genuinenefs of thefe books (in the judgment of thofe who fay that they were written by thefe au- thors) will certainly be gone ; but their authenti- city may remain ; they may ftill contain a true account of real tranfaclions, though the names of the writers of them rtiould be found to be dit- ferent from what they are generally efteemed to be.
Had, indeed, Mofes faid that he wrote the Rvs firil: books of the Bible ; .and had Jofliua and Samuel faid that diey v/rote the books which are refpe6lively attributed to them ; and had it been found, that Mofes, Jofhua, and Samuel, did not write thefe books ; then, I grant, the authority of the wh ;ie would have been gone at once ; thefe men would have been found liars, as to the ge- nuinenefs of the books, and this proof of their want of veracity, in one point, would have in- validated their teftimony in every other; thefe books would have been julily ftigmatized, as nei- ther genuine nor authentic.
An hiftory may be true, though it fhould not only be afcribed to a wrong author, but though the author of it fliould not be known : anony- mous teftimony does not deftroy the realiiy of facts, whether natural or miraculous. Had Lord Clarendon publifhed h s Hiflory of the Rebellion without prefixing his name to it; or had the hif- tory of Titus Livius come down to us under the name of Valerius Fiaccus, oi Valerius Maximus,
the
f 22 )
the hSis mentioned in thefe hiftories. would have been equally certain.
As to your aiTertion, that the miracles recorded in Tacitus, and in other profane hiftories, are quite as well authenticated as thofe v>f ihe Bible — it, being a mere affertion deftituie of prv^ol, iriay be properly anfwered by a contrary ailerrion. I take the liberty then to fay, that the evidence for the miracles recorded in the Bible is, both in kind and degree, fo greatly fuperior to that for the prodigies mentioned by Livy, or the miracles re- lated by Tacitus, as to juftify us in giving credit to the one as the work of God, and in withhold- ing it from the other as the efFedt of fuperftition and impofture. This method of derogating from the credibility of chriftianity, by oppofiug to the miracles of our Saviour the tricks of ancient im- poftors, feems to have originated widi Hierocles in the fourth century; and it has been adopted by unbelievers from that time to this ; with tliis dif- ference, indeed, that die heathens of the third and fourth century admitted that Jefus wrought mira- cles ; but left that admiftion ihould have com.pel- led them to abandon their gods and becom.e chrif- tians, they faid, that their Jpolhnius^ their Apu- leius^ their Arijleas^ did as great : whilft modeiii deifts deny the fail of Jelus having ever wrought a^miracie. And they have fome reafon for this proceeding ; they are ienfibie that the gofpel mi- racles are fo different, in all their circumftances, from thofe related in pagan ftory, that, if diey admit them to have been performed, tliey muft udiiiit chriftianity to be true ; hence they have fa~
bricated
( n )
"brirated a kind of deiftical axiom — that no hu- man teftimony can eiiabllfh the credibility of a miracle. — This, though it has been an hundred times refuted, is ftill inlifted upon, as if its truth had never been queiiioned, and could not be dif- proved.
You " proceed to examine the authenticity of the Bible; and you be^in, you fay, with what are called the five books of Alofes, Genehs, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuterono- my. Your intention, you profefs, is to fliew 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 years atcerwards ; that they are no other than an atiempted hiftory ot the lite- of Mofes, and or the times in which he is faid to have Mved, and .i}:{o of the times prior thereto, written by fome very ignorant and ftupid pre- tender to authorfhip, feveral hundred years after the death of ?vIofes.' ' — In this paflage the utmoft force of your attack on the authority of the five books of Mofes is clearly ftated. You are not the firft who has darted this difficulty ; it is a difficulty, indeed, of modern date; having not been heard of, either in the fynagogue, or out of it, till the twelfth century. About that time u4ben Ez?-a, a jew of great erudition, noticed fome paflag^s (the fame that you have brought forward) in the five firll: books of the Bible, which he thought had not been written by Mo- fes, but inferted by fome perfon after the death of Mofes. But he was far from maintaining, as
you
( 24 )
jQU do, that tbefe books were written by feme ignorant and ftupid pretender to authonliip, ma- ny hundred years after the death of Mcfes. Hobbes contends that the books of Mofes are to called, not from their having been written by Alofes, but from their containing an accoi nt of Mofes. Spinoza fupported the fame opinion; and Le CLrc, a very able theological critic of the laft and prefent century, once entertained the fame notion. You fee that this fancy has had fome patrons before you; the merit or the deme- rit, the fagacity or the temerity of having affert- ed, that Mofes is not the author of the Penta- teuch, is not exclufively your's. LeClerc^ in- <leed, you muft not boaft of. When his judg- ment was matured by age, he was afhamed of what he had written on the fubject in his younger years ; he made a public recantation of his error, by annexing to his commentary on Genefis, a Latin diifertation, concerning Mofes, the author of the Pentateuch, and his defign in compofj ng it. If, in your future life, you Ihould chance to change your opinion on the fubje'ff , it will be an honour to your character to emulate the integ- rity, and to imitate the example of Le Clerc. — The Bible is not the only book which has under- gone the fate of being reprobated as fpurious, af- ter 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 Conjlantine ; and that the Claffics are forgeries ^f the thirteenth or fourteenth century. Thefe <cxtrava2;ant reveries amufed the world at the time
of
( 25 )
of their publication, and have long fince funk into oblivion. You efteem all prophets to be fuch lying rafcals, that I dare not venture to predid the fate of your book.
Before you produce your main objections to #je genuinenefs of the books of Mofes, you aflert, ** that there is no affirmative evidence that Mofes is the author of them." — What! no affirmative evidence ! In the eleventh century Afaimonides -drew up a confeffion of faiih for the jews, which all of them at this day admit ; it conhfts of only thirteen articles ; and two of them have refpe£t to Mofes ; one affirming the authenticity, the other the genuinenefs of his books. — Thedo6frine and prophecy of Mofes is true. — The law that we have was given by Mofes. — This is the faith of the jews at prefent, and has been their faith ever iince the deftrudlion of their city and temple ; it was their faitli in the time when the authors of the New Teftament wrote; it was their faidi durino; their captivity in Babylon ; in the time of their kings and judges; and no period can be fhewn, from the age of Mofes to the prefent hour, in which it was not their faith. — Is this no affirma- tive evidence? I cannot defire a ftronger. ^o- fephusy in his book againfi: App'ion^ writes thus — <' We have only two-and twenty books which are to be believed as of divine authoricy, and which comprehend the hiftory of all ages ; five belong to Mofes, which contain che original of man, and the tradition of die fucceflion of gene- rations, down to his death, which takes in a com- j^afs of about three thoufand years." Do you C • conlider
( 26 )
conridcr this as no affirmative evidence? Why ihould I mention juvcnal ipeaking of the volume %vhich Mofes had uTitten ? Why enumerate a long hfl: of profane authors, all hearing teftimony to the fa6t of JUfofcs being the leader and the law- giver of the jewiih 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 covenant, and read in the audience of the people." ■ — 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, iinril they were iiniflied, (this furely imports the linifhing a labo- rious work,) that Mofes com.manded the Lev ices which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, 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 Deuteronom.y, which is a kind of repetition or abridgement of the four preceding books : and it is well known that the jews gave the name of the law to the firfl five books of the Old Teftament. What poffibie doubt can there be that Mofes wrote the books in queftion ? I could accumulate many other paf- iages from the fcriptures to this purpofe ; but if ■what I have advanced will not convince you that there is affirmative evidence, and of the fcrongeft kind, for Mofes's being the author of thefe books, nothing that I can advance will convince you.
What if I fhould grant all you undertake to provcj the ftupidity and ignorance of the writer
excepted?
(' 27 ) eicceptecl ? — What if I ihould admit, that Samueh or Ezra, or fome other learned je^v, compofed tliefe books, from public records, many years after the death of Mofes ? Will it follow that there was no truth in thein ? According to my logic, it will only follow, that they are not genuine books ; every fa6l recorded in them may be true, whenever, or by whomfoever they were written. It cannot be fa id that the jews had no public re- cords ; the Bible furniflies abundance of proof to the conLrary. I by no means admit, that thefe books, as to the main part of them, were not writ- ten by Mofes ; but I do contend, diat a book may contain a true hiifory, though we know not the autlior of it, or though we may be miflaken in afcribing it to a wrong author.
The tirft argument you produce againfl: Mofes being the author of thefe books is fo old, that I do not know its original author ; and it is fo mife- rable an one, that I wonder you fliould adopt it — *' Thefe books cannot be written by Mofes, be- caufe they are written in the third perfon — it is always, The Lord fald unto Mofes, or Mofes faid unto the Lord. This," you fay, '' is the ftyle and manner that hiftorians ufe, in fpeaking of the perfons whofe lives and ailions they are writing." This obfervation is true, but it does not extend far enough ; for this i.s the ftyle and manner not only of hiftorians writing of other perfons, but of emi- nent men, fuch as Xenophon and Jofcphus^ writ- ing of themfeives. \iQtw^x^\ IVaJhington fhould write the hiftory of the American war, and Hiould, from his great modefty, ipeak of himfelf in the
third
C 28 )
third perfon, would you think It reafonable that^ two or three thoiifand years hence, any perfon jQiould, on that account, contend that the hiftory was not true ? C^far writes of himfelf in the third perfon — it is always, Csfar made a fpeech,. or a fpeech was made to Csefar, Caefar crofTed the Rhine, Caefar invaded Britain ; but every fchool- boy knows that this circumiftance cannot be ad- duced as a ferious argumicnt againft: Caefar's be- ing the author of his own Commentaries.
But Mofes, you urge, cannot be the author of the book of Numbers, — becaufe he fays of him- ielf, *' that Mofes was a very meek man, above all the men that were on the face of the earth.'* If he faid this of himfelf, he was, you fay, " a vain and arrogant coxcomb, (fuch is your phrafe!) Tind^ unworthy of credit — and if he did not fay it, the books are without authority.'* This, your dilemma, is perfeftly harmlefs ; it has not an horn to hurt the weakeft logician. If Mofes did not' write this little verfe, if it was inferted by Samuel, or any of his countrymen, who knew his cha- ra6ier 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 wnite any part of the book of Numbers, will it follow that he did not write any of the other books of which he is. lifually reputed the author? And if he did write this of himfelf, he was juftified by the occafion which extorted from him this commendation. Had this expreflion been written in a modern fhyle and manner, it would probably have given you no oiteuce. For who would be fo faftidious as
( ^9 )
to fiml fault with an illuftvious man, who, being calumnlateJ by his neareft relations, as guilty of pride and fon.l of power, ihould vindicate his charailer by faving. My temper was naturally as meek and unalFuming as that of anv man upo'i earth ? There are occalions, in which a modeit man, who fpeaks truly, may fpeak proudly of himiclf, without forfeiting his general charatller; and there is no occahon, which either more re- quires, or more excufes this conducl:, than when he is repelling the foul and envious afperhons of thofe who both knew his character, and had expe- rienced his kindnefs : and in tliat predicament flood j^arou and A/iriamy tlie accufers of Mofes. You yourfelfhave, probably, felt the fting of calumny,, and have been anxious to remove i\v^ impreflion. I do not call you a vain and arrogant coxcomb for vindicating your character, v.dien in the latter part of this very work you boail:, and I hope truly, . '* that the man does not exift that can fav I have perf^cuted him,^ or any man, or any fet of men, in the American revolution, or in the Frencli re- volution ; or that I have in any cafe returned evil for evil." I know not what king? 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 tliem all the harm you could, and that without provocation.
I diink if needlefs to notice your obfervatiou upon what you call the dramatic ftyle of Deute- ronomy; it is an ill-founded hypo'thefis. You might as well alk, where the author of Csfar's Commentaries got tlie fpeeches. of C^far, as where G z the-
( 50 ;
the author of Deuteronomy got the fpeeches of Moles. But your argument — that Mofes was not the author of Deuteronomy, becaufe the rea- fon given In that book for tlie ohfervatlon of the fabbath is different from that given in Exodus, merits a reply.
You "need not be told that the very name of this book imports, in Greek, a repetition of a law ; and that the Hebrew do£lors have called it by a word of the fame meaning. In the fifth vcrfe of the firfi chapter, it is faid, in our Bibles, *' Mofes began to declare this law ;" but the He- brew words, more properly tranflated, imjport that Mofes " began, or determined, to explaiiv the law." This is no iliift of mine to get over a difficulty ; the words are fo rendered in miofl of the ancient verfions, and by Fag'ius, VatabluSy and Le Clere^ men eminently fKilled in the He- brew language. This repetition and explanation, of the law was a wife and benevolent proceed- ing in Mofes; that thofe who were either not born, or were mere infants, when it was firft (forty years before) delivered in Horeb, might have an opportunity of knowing it ; efpecially as Ivlofes their leader was foon to be taken from them, and they were about to be fettled in the midft of nations given to idolatry, and funk in vice. Now, where is the wonder that fome va- riations, and fome additions, fnould be made to a law^ when a legiflator thinks fit to re-publifli it many years after its firfl piomulgation ?
V/ith refpe6l to tlie fabbath, the learned are di- yided in cpinion concerning its origin ; fome con- tending.
( 31 ) tending, that it was fancllfied from the creation of the world; that it was obferved by the patriarchs be'bre ibe flood ; that it was ne:;lesSled by the If- raelites durin^ their bondage in Eeypt ; revived oa the falling of m:inna in the wildernefs; and en- joined, as a pofitive law, at mounr Sinai. Odiers efteeni its institution to have been no older than the age of Mofes ; and argue, that what is faid of the fanclification of the fabbath in the book of Genefis, is faid by way of anticipation. There may be trudi in bodi thefe accounts. To me it is probable that the memory of the creation was handed down from Adam to all his pollerity ; and that the feventh day was, for a long time, held facred by all nations, in co.nmemoration of diat event ; but that the peculiar rigidnefs ot its ob- fervance was enjoined by Alofes to the Ifraelites alone. As to there being two reafons given for ics being kept holy, — one, that on that day God relied from the work of creation — the other, that on that day God had given them reft from tlie fervitude of E^^vpt — I fee no contradiction in the
.^'
accounts. If a man, in writing the h!il:ory of England, fhould inform his readers, that the par- liament had ordered the fifth of November to be kept holy, becaufe on that day Gjd had delivered the nation from a bloody -intended maiTacre by gun-powder ; and if, In another part of his hiitory, he fhould aflign the deliverance of our church and nation from poperv and arbitrary power, by the arrival of King William, as a reafon for its beino- kept holy ; would any one contend, diat he was not juiliined in bodi thefe ways of expreflion, or
that
( 32 )
that we ought fi'om them to conclude, that he was not the authoi- of thet-n botli ?
You think — " that law in Deuteronomy In- hum.an and brutal, which authorizes parents, the father and the mother, to biing their own children to have them iloned to death for what it is pleaf-- ed to call ftubbornnefs." — You are aware, 1 fup- pofe, that parental power, amongft the Remans^ the Gaiils^ the Perjtans, and other nations, was of the moil: arbitrary . kind ; that it extended to the taking away the life of the child. I do not know whether the Ifraelites, in the time of Mofes, exer--- cifed this paternal power; it was not a cuflom adopted by. all nations, but it was by many ; and in the infancy,of fociety» before, iudlyiduai families had t:.Galerced into communities, it was probably. very general. Now Ivlofes, by this law, which you efceem brutal and inhuman, hindered fuch an,, extravagant power iVom being either introduced or exerciled amongll: the Ifraelites. This law is fa far from countenancing the arbitrary power of a. father over the life of his child, that it takes froin him the power of accuhng the child before a ma- gi (Irate — the father and the mother of the child niuft agree in bringing the child to judgment — > and it Is not by tlieir united will that the child was to be condenuied to death; the eklers of the city, were to judge whether the accufation was true; and \X\<^. accufation was to be not merely, as you, inhnuate, that the ciiild was Jlubborn, but that he was ^' ll;Libborn and rebellious, a glutton and a» drunkard." Conlidered in this light, you muil allovy the law to have been an humane reftridlioa
oi
( 33 ) of a power improper to be lodged wkh any pa- rent.
That you may abufe the priefts, you abandon vour fubjedl — "'Priefts," you fay, '• preach up Ijeuteronomy, for Deuteronomy preaches up tythes." — I do not know that priefts preach up Deuteronomy more than they preach up other books of fcriptare ; but I do know that tythes are not preached up in Deuteronomy more than in Leviticus, in Numbers, in Chronicles, in Mala- chi, in the law, the hiilory, and the propliets of thejewiili nation. — You go on — " It is from this book, chap. xxv. ver. 4. they have taken the phrafe, and applied it to tything, ' Thou {halt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn ;' and that this might not efcape obfervaiion, they have noted it in tlie table of contents at the head of the chapter, though it is only a fingle verfe of lefs than two lines. O priefls ! priefts I ye are willing to be compared to an ox for the lake of tythes !" — 1 cannot call this reafoning — and I will not pollute my page by giving it a pro- per appellation. Had the table of contents, in- ftead ot fnnply faying — the ox is not to be muz- zled— faid — tythes enjoined, or priefts to be main- tained— there would have been a little ground for your cenfure. AV'hoever noted this phrafe at the head of the chapter, had better reafon for doing it than you have attributed to them. They did it, becaufe St. Paul had quoted it, when he was proving to the Corinthians, that they who preach^ ed the gofpel had a right to live by the gofpel ; it was Paulj and not the priefts, who firif applied
this
( 34 ) this phrafe to tything. St. Paul, indeed, did iior avail himfelf of the right he contended for ; he was not, therefore, interefted in what he laid. The reafon on which he grounds the right is not merely this quotation, which you ridicule ; nor the appointment of the law of Moles, which you think f^ibulous; nor die injiin6lion of Jefus, which you defpife : no, it is a reafon founded in the nature of diings, and which no philofopher, no unbeliever, no man of common fenfe can deny to be a folid reafon; it am.ounts to tiiis — that. *' the labourer is worthy of his hire„." Nothing is fo much a man's own as his kbocr and inge- »uity ; and it is entirely confonant to the law of nature, that by the innocent ufe of thefe he fhould provide for his fubfiftence. Hufbandm.en, arti'fts, Ibldiers, phyficians, lawyers, all let out their la- bour and talents for a ftipulated reward: why may not a prieft do the fame? Some accounts of you have been, publifhed in England; but, conceiving them to have proceeded from a dehgn to injure your characler, I never resd them, I know nodiing of your parentage, your educa- tion, or condition in life. You may have been deyated^ by your birth, above the neceffity of acquiring the means of fuftaining lire by the la- bour either of hand or head: if this be the cafe, you ought not to defpife thofe who have come into the world in lefs favourable circumftances. It your oiigin has been lefs fortunare, you muft have fupported yourfelf, eith.er by manual labour, or the exercife of your genius. Why ihould you think that conduct difrepu table in priefts, which
you
( 35 ) •^-QU probably confider as laudable in yourfelf ? I know not whether you have not as great a diflike of kings as of priefts : but that you may be in- duced to think more favourably of men of my ■profefTion, I wiU jufl: mention to you that the payment of tythes is no new inftitution, but that they were paid in the moif ancient times, not to priefts only, but to kings. I could give you an hundred indances ot this : two may be fufficient. Abraham paid tythes to tlie king of Salem, four hundred years before the law of Mofes was given. The king of Salem was prieft aifo of the mofl; high God. Priefts, you fee, exifted in the world, and were held in high eftimation, for kings were priefts, long before the impoftures, as you efteem them, of the jewifh and chriftian difpenfarioi:ks were heard o£ But as this inftance is taken from a book which you call *' a book of contradidlions and lies" — the Bible, — I will give you another, from a book, to the authority of which, as it is 'written by a profane author, you probably will •not objed. Diogenes Laeriius, in his fife of Solon, cites a letter of Pifijiratus to that law- ;giver, in which he fays — " I, Piiiftratus, the rtyrant, 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 facririces, and for the ge^ ineral ^ood.'
LETTER
( 36 )
LETTER III.
HAVING done with what you call the grammatical evidence that Mofes was not tiie author of the books attributed to him, you come to your hiftorical and chronological evi- dence ; and you begin with Xjfenefis. Youi iirft argument is taken from the fingle word — Dan — being found in Genefis, when it appears from the book of Judges, that the town of Laifh was not called Dan, till above three hundred and thirty years after the death of Mofes ; therefore the wri- ter of Genefis, you conclude, muft have lived after the town of Lalfh had the name of Dan given to it. Left this objection fhould not be obvious enough to a common capacity, you illuftrate it in the following manner: " Havre-dc-Grace was called Havre-Marat in 1793; fhould then any -datelefs writing be found, in after times, with the name of Havre-Marat, it would be certain evi- dence that fuch a writing could not have been written till after the year 1 793." This is a wrong conclufion. Suppofe fome hot republican fliouid at this day publifh a new editionof any old hiflory of France, and inftead of Havre-de-Grace fhould write Havre-Marat ; and that, two or three thou- fand y'^rirs hence, a man, like yourfelf, {hould, OH ihci account, reje61; the whole hiflory as fpu- rious, would he be juftified in fo doing ? Would
it
( 37 )■
it not be reafonable to tell him — that the namq Havre-Marat had been inieited, not -by the origin nal author of the hiltory, but by a fublequent edi- tor of it ; and to refer him, for a proof of the ge- nuinenefs of the book, to the teftimony of the whole French nation? This fuppolkion fo oh- vioufly applies to your difficulty, that I cannot but recommend it to your impartial attention. But if this folution does not pleafe you, I defire It may be proved, that the Dan, mentioned in Genefis, was the fame town as the Dan, mentioned in Judges. I delire, further, to have it proved, that the Dan, mentioned in Genelis, was the name of a town, and not of a river. It is merely faid — Abram purfued them, the enemies of Lot, to Dan. Now a river was full as likely as a town to ftop a purfuit. Lot, we know, was fettled in the plain of yordan ; and Jordan, we know, was compofed of the united ilreams of two rivers^ called J or and Dan.
Your next difficulty refpedls its being faid ia Gcnefis — " Thefe are the kings that reigned in Edom before there reigned any king over the •children of Ifrael : — this pafTage could only have been written, you fay, (and 1 think you fay riglit- ly) after the firfl: king began to reign over Ifrael ; lb far from being written by Alofes, it could not have been written till the time of Saul at the leaft.'* J admit this inference, but I denv its application. A fmall addition to a book does not deftroy either the genuinenefs or the authenticity of the whole book. I am not ignorant of ihe manner in which commentators have anfvvered this objection of D Spinoza,
( 38 )
Spinoza, Vv'ithout making the conceHion which I have made ; but I have no fcruple in admitting, that the pafTage in queftion, confifting oF nine verfes, containing the genealogy of fome kings of Edom, might have been infeited in the book of Genefis, after the book of Chronicles (which was called in Greek by a name importing that it con- tained things left out in other books) was written. The learned have fhewn, that interpolations have happened to other books; but thefe infertions, by other hands, have never been confidered as inva- lidating the authority of thofe books.
" Take away from Genefis," you fay, *' the belief that Mofes was the author, on which only the ftrange belief that it is the Word of God has ilood, 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 difputlng with a deiftical philofopher, but with an atkeiftic mad- man. Is it a ftory, that our firft parents fell from a paradifiacal ftate — that this earth wasdeflroyed by a deluge — that Noah and his family were pre- ferved in the ark, and tliat the world has been re- peopled by his defcendants ? — Look into a book fo common that almoft every body has it, and fo excellent that no perfon ought to be without it — Grotius on the truth of the chriftian religion — and you will there meet with abundant tefiimony to the tiTith of all the principal facls recorded in Ge- nefis. The teftimony is net that of jews, chrif-
tians,
( 39 )
fkns, and priefls ; it is the teftlmony of the phllo- fophers, hiuorians, and poets of antiquity. The oldeft book in the vvodd is Genefis ; and it is re- iTsarkable, that thcfe books which coriie neareft to it in aae, are tht)fe which make either the moft difrindl mention, or the mofc evident alkifion to the facts related in Genehs concerning the forma- tion of the world from a chaotic mafs, the prime- val innocence and fubfequent fall of man, the longevity of mankind in the firll: ages of the world, the depravity of the antediluvians, and the deflruc- tion of the t\^orU. — Read the tenth chapter of Ge- nefis. It may appear to you to contain nothing but an uninterefting narration of the defcendants of S/iem^ Ham, and Japheth ; a mere fable, an invented abfurdity, a downright lie. No, fir, it is one of the mofl: valuable, and the mofl: vene- rable records of antiquity. It explains what all profane hiftorians Vv'ere ignorant of — the origin of nations. Had it told us, as other l)Ooks do, that one nation had fprung out of the earth they in- habited ; another from a cricket or a grafshopper; another from an oak ; another from a muihroom ; another from a dragon's tooth ; then indeed it would have merited the appellation you, widi fo much temerity, beftow upon ir. Inftead of thefe abfurdities, it gives fuch an account of the peo- pling 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 w^orld, which contain any thing on the fubjecl, confirm. The laft verfe of the chapter fays—" Thefe are the families of the fonsof Noahj after their generations, in dieir na- tions ;
( 40 )
tions : and by thefc were the nations divided' iti- the earth, after the flood." It would require great learning to trace out, precifely, either the aSuai Situation of all the countries in v/hich thefe found- ers of empires fettled, or to afcertain the extent of their dominions. This, however, has been (lone by various authors, to the fatlsfaftion of all competent judges ; fo much at leaft to my fatis- fa61:ion, that had I no other proof of the authen- ticity of Genefis, 1 fhould confider this as fuf-' ficient. But without the aid of learning, any man who can barely read his Bible, and has but heard of fuch people as the JJJyriam, the Ela- fn/ies, the Lyd'rans, the A4edes, tbe lonians, the Thracians, will readily acknowledge that they had AJfur^ and Elam^ and Lud^ and Aladal, and Javan, and Tlras^ grandfons of Noah^ for their refpe6live founders ; and knowing diis, he will not, I hope, part with his Bible, as a fyftem of fables. I am no enemy to philofophy ; but when philofophy would rob me of my Bible, I mufl lay of it, as Cicero faid of the twelve tables — This little l)ook alone exceeds the libraries of all the philofopheis in the weight of its audioriry^ and in the extent of its utility..
From the abufe of the Bible, you proceed to that of IMofes, and again bring forv\'ard the fub- jed 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 affli6ling mankind with calamities not neceflaiy, Ihocking to humanity, and repugnant to reafon. But is it repugnant to
reafoii
( 41 ) reafon that God fhould, by an exprefs 'dS: of hh^ providence, deftroy a wicked nation ? 1 am fond of confiderlng the goodncfs of Gcd as the leading principle of bis conduct towards mankind, of con- lidering his jidliice as fubfervlent to his mercy. He punillies individuals and nations with the rod of his wrath ; but 1 am perfuadcd that all his pu- nifhments oiiginate in his abhorrence of lin; are calculated to leffen its influence, and are proofs of his goodnefs ; inafmnch as it may not be poffible for Omnipotence Itfeif to communicate fupreme happinefs to the human race, whilil; they continue fervants of fm. The deftrudlion of the Canaanites exhibits to ail nations, in all ages, a fignal proof of God's difpleafure againfl iin ; it has been to others, and it is ro ourfelves, a benevolent warn- ing. Mofes would have been the wretch you. reprefent him, had he ac^ed by his own, authority- alone : but you may as reafonablv attribute cru- elty and murder to the judge of the land in con- demning criminals to death, as butchery and maf- facre to Mofes in executing the command of God. The Midianices, through the counfel of Ba- laam, and bv the vicious- inflrumentality of their women, had feduced a part of the Ifraelitfs to idolatry ; to the Im^pure woriliip of their infan-.ouS gud Baal-peor: — ior this offence, twenty-four Ihoufand llraelites had perifhed in a plague from heaven; and Alofes received a command frcm God, '* to fmite the Midianices, who had beguiled the people. An army v/as equipped, and fent againfl Midian. When the armv returned vic- toriouSj Alofes snd the princes of the congregation Da " weci
( 42 )
went to meet it ; *' and Mofes was wroth with the officers." He obferved the women captives, and he afkcd with aftonilhment, " Have you faved all the women alive ? Behold, thefe caufed the children of Ifrael, through the counfel of Ba- laam, to commit trefpafs againft the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation." He then gave an order that the boys and the women fhould be put to death, hut that the young maidens fhould be kept alive for themfeivcs. I fee nothing in this proceeding, but good policy, combined wnth mere v. The young men might have become dangerous aven- gers of, v/hat they would efteem, their country's wrongs ; the motliers might have again allured the Ifraeliees to the love of licentious pleafures and the pra6lice of idolatry, and brought another plague upon the congregation ; but the young maidens, not being polluted by the flagitious habits of their mothers, nor likely to create difturbance by re- bellion, were kept alive. You give a different turn to the matter; ycu fay — '' that thirty-two thoufand women-children were configned to de- bauchery by the order of Mofes." — Prove this, and I will allow that Mofes was the horrid mon- iler you make him — prove this, and I will allow that the Bible is what you call it — '* a book of lies, wickednefs, andblafphemy" — 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 fub- tilty, and all mifchief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteoufuefs, wilt thou not
ceafQ
( 43 ) ceafe to pervert the right ways of the Lord ?" — I did not, when I began thele letters, think that I ihould have been moved to this feverity of re- buke, by any thing you could have wTitten ; 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 purpofes of debauchery, but of flavery ; — a cuf- tom abhorrent from our manners, but every where pra6lifed in former times, and ftill pra6lifed in countries where the benignity of the chriftian re- ligion has not foftened the ferocity of human na- ture. You here admit a part of the account given in the Bible refpe6ling the expedition againft Mi- dian to be a true account: it is not unreafonable to delire that you will admit the whole, or ihew fufficient reafon why you admit one part, and re- ject the other. I will mention the part to which you have paid no attention. The Ifraeliti/li army confifted but of twelve thoufand men, a mere handful when oppofed to the people of Mldian ; yet, when the officers made a mufler of their troops after their return from the war, they found that diey had not loft a fnigle m.an ! This cir- cumftance Rmck them as fo decihve an evidence of God's interpofition, that out of the fpoiis they had taken they offered " an oblation to the Lord,' an atonement for their fouls." ' Do but believe what the captains of dioufands, and the captains of hundreds, believed at the time when thefe things happened, and we lliall never more iiear of your objections to the Bible, from its account of the wars of Mofes.
You
( 44 ) You produce two or three other objections re- fpedling the genuinenefs of the firft ftve books of the Bible. I cannot flop to notice them: every commentator anfwers them in a manner fuired to the apprehenfjon of even a mere Engliili reader. You calculate, to the thoufandth part of an inch, die length of the iron bed of Og the kmg of Bafan ; but you do not prove that the bed was too big tor the body, or diat a Patagonian would have been lofl in it. You make no allow- ance for the fize of a royal bed ; nor ever fufpe6l that kind Og might have been poffefTed with the fame kind of vanity, which occupied the mind of king Alexander, when he ordered his. fold ers to. enlarge the fize of their beds, that rhey might give to the Indians, in fucceeuing ages, a great idea of the prodigious flature of a Macedonian. In many parts of your work you Ipeak mucli in connTen- dation of fcience. I join widi you in every cum- mendation you can give it: but you fpeak of it in fuch a manner as gives room to believe, that you are a gieat proficx-nt in' it; if this ue die cafe, 1 would recommend a problem to your atten- tion, the folution of wViich you will readiiy allow to be far above the powers oi a man convei fant. only, as you reprefent prielts and bifhops lo be, i-n /^/>, /'^r, /loc. 'Ihe problen:. is this — To de- termine the height to which a liLiman, body, pre- ferving its fntiiianty of figure, may be augmcat-- ed, before it will peri/h by its own weight.— Vv'hen you have loived this pioblem, we inalV know whedicr the bed of the king of Baiciu was. too big for any giant ; vvhetiitr the exiiience or a,
maii:
( 45 )
man twelve or fifteen feet high is In the nature of things impoffible. My philofophy teaches me to doubt of many things ; but it does not teach me to reject every teflimony which is oppofite to my experience : had I been born in Shetland, I could, on proper teftimony, have believed in the exifl- ence of the Lincoln/hire ox, or of the largeft dray- horfc in London ; though the oxen and horfes in Shetland had not been bigger than mafliiFs.
LETTER IV.
HAVING £nif]red your objections to the genuinenefs of the books of Mofes, you proceed to your remarks on the book of Joiliua ; and from its internal evidence you endeavour to prove, that this book was not written by Jofhua. — What then ?■ what is your conclufion ? — " that it is anonymous, and without authority." — Stop a little; your concluficn is not conncdled with your premifes; your friend Euclid would have been ailiamed of it. '* Anonymous, and there- fore without authority]" I have noticed this folecifm before ; but as you frequently bring it forward, and, indeed, your book frands much in need of it, I will fubmit to your coniideration another obfervation on the fubje6l. — The book called Fleta is anonymous ; but it is not on that account witliout authority. — Domefday-bock Is
anonymous,
( 46 ) .^
anonymous, and was written above feven hundred years ago ; yet our courts of law do not hold it to be without authority, as to the matters of facTt related in it. Yes, you will fay, but this book has been preferved with lingular care amongft the •records of die nation. And who told you that the jews had no records, or that diey did not pre- ferve them with fingular care ? Jofephus fays the contrary : and, in the Bible itfelf, an appeal is made to many books, which have periilied ; fuch as the book of Jaflier, the book of Nathan, of Abijah,. of Iddo, of Jehu, of natural hiftory by Solomon, of the a6ls of Ts'Ianaffch, 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, fhould at this day write an hiftory of the reigns of George the firfl and fecond, and iliould publiin it without his name^ would anv man, three or four hundreds or thou- fands of years hence, queftion the authority of that book, wdien 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 which he lived ? This fuppolition is in poiut. The books of the OldTeftament were compofed from the re- cords of the jewifh nation, aud they have been received as true by that nation, from the time in which they were written to the prefent day. Dodflev's Annual Regifter is an anonymous book; we only know the name of its editor: the New Annual Regifter is an anonymous book , the Reviews are arionymous books ; but do we,
( 47 )
or will our poderlty, efteem thefe books as of n#' authority? On the contrary, they are admitted at present, and will be received in after ages, as authoritative records of the civil, military, and literary biftory of England and of Europe. So little foundation is there for our being ftartled by vour afiertion, "It is anonymous and without authority."
If I am right in this reafoning, (and I proteft to you, that I do not fee any error in it,] all Uie argu- ments you adduce in proof that the bookof Joiliua was not written by Jofliua, nor that of Samuel by- Samuel, are norhing to the purpofe tor which you have brought them forward: thefe books may be books of authority, though all you advance againQ: 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 fcripture, were written, as .to exclude all poiTibility of doubt and cavil. There is no neceffity, indeed, to allow this. The chronological and hiftorical difficulties which others before you have produced, have been aufwxred, and as to greatefl part of them, fo well anfwered, that I will not waile the reader's time hy entering Into a particular examination of them.
You make yourfelf merry with what you call the tale of the fun (landing ftill upon mount Gi- beon, and the moon In the valley of Ajalon; and you fay that "the ftory detedls itfelf, becaufe there is not a nation in the world that knows any thing about It." How can you expe6l that there fhould, ^hen there is not a nation in the world whofe
annals
( 48 )
■annals reach this aera by many hundred years? It happens, however, that you are probably milla- ken as to the faft : a confufed tradition concern- ing this miracle, and a fimilar one in the time of Ahaz, when the fun went back ten degrees, has been p refer ved amongft one of the moil: ancient nations,- as we are informed by one of the moft ancient hiftorians. Herodotus, in his Euterpe, fpeaking of the Egyptian priefls, fays — " They told me that the fun had four times deviated from his courfe, having twice rifen where he uniformly goes down, and tv^'ioe gone down where he uni- formly rifes. This, however, had produced no alteration in the climate of Egypt; the fruits of the eartii and the phenomena of the Nile had always been the fame." (Beloe's Tranfl.) The laft part of this obfervation confirms the conjec- ture, that this account of the Egyptian priefls had a reference to the two miracles refpe6ling the fun mentioned in fcripture ; for they were nor of that kind which could introduce any change in climates or feafons. You would have been contented to admit the account of this miracle as a £ne piece of poetical imagery ; — you may have feen fome jewifh do6lors, amJfome chrlftian commentators, who confider it as fuch ; but improperly, in my opinion. I think it idle at leaft, if not impious, to undertake to explain how die miracle was per- formed ; but one who is not able to e*xplain the mode of doing a thing, argues ill if he thence in- fers that the thing was not done. We are per- fedlly ignorant how the fun was formed, how the planets were projected at the creation, how they
are
( 49 ) are ftill retained in their orbits by the power of gravity ; but we admit, notwith (landing, that the fun was formed, that the planets Avere then pro- jelled, and that they are fiill retained in their or- bits. The machine of the univerfe is in the hand of God ; he can flop the motion of any part, or of the whole of it, with lefs trouble and lels dan- ger of injuring it, than you can Hop your watch. in tellimony of the reality of the miracle, the author of the book fays — " Is not this written in ihe book of Jaflierr" — No author in his fenfes would have appealed, in proof oi his veracity, to a book which did not exift, or in atteftation of a -fa6l which, though it did exifl, w^as not recorded in it; we may fafeiy, therefore, conclude, that, at the time the book of JoHiua was written, there was fuch a book as the book of Jafher, and that the miracle of the fun's ftanding llill was recorded in that book. But this obfcrvation, you will fav, does not prove the fa6l of the fun'.s having flood ftill ; I have not produced it as a proof of that fa 61 : but it proves that the author of the book of Jofhua believed the fadl, and that the people of Ifrael admitted the authority of the book of Jafher. An appeal to a fabulous book would have been as fenlelefs an infult upon their under- flanding, as it would have been upon our's, had Rapin appealed to the Ai abian Night's Entertain- ment, as a proof of the battle of Haflings.
I cannot attribute much weight to your argu- ment againll the genuinenefs of the book of Jofhua, from its being faid that — ^' jofhua burn- ed Ai, and made it an heap for ever," tveij a defo- E laticn
( 50 )
lation 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 ab- fiirdity is there in faying, Ai is ftill 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 iirft fkuck upon poles at Temple-Bar, might, twenty years afterwards, in atteftation of his veracity in fpeaking of the fa6l, have juftly faid — :And they are there to this very day. Who- ever wrote the gofpel of. St. Matthew, it was writ- ten not many centuries, probably (I had almojft faid certainly) not a quarter of one century after the death of Jefus ; yet the author, fpeaking of the potter's field which had been purchafed by the chief priefts with the money they had given Judas to betray his mafter, fays, that it was therefore called the field of blood unto this day; and in another place he fays, that the ftory of the body of Jefus being flolen out of the fepulchre was commonly reported among the jews until this day. Mofes, in his old age, had made ufe of a £milar expieffion, when he put the Ifraelites in mind of what the Lord had done to the Egyptians in the red fea: " The Lord hath deftroyed them unto this day." (Deut. xi. 4;) =
Li the lalii: chapter of the book of Jofliua it is related, that Jofliua aiTembled all the tribes of Ifrael to Shechem; and there, in the prefence of the elders and principal men of Ifrael, he recapitu- lated, in a fhort fpeech, 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
( 5> )
(SodliacT promifeJ to their forefathers. In finifli'- ins: i^is fpeecli, he faid to them — " Choofe you this day whom you will ferve, whether the gods which your fathers ferved, tiiat were on the other fide of che flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whofe land ye dwell : but as for flie and my houfe, we will ferve the Lord. And the people anfwered and faid, God forbid that we fliould forfake the Lord, to ferve other gods." Jofliua urged far- ther, that God would not fufFer them to wcriliip other gods infellowlhip wlch him : they anfwered, that " they would ferve the Lord." Jolhua then faid to them, " Ye are witnelTes againft your- felves that ve have chofen you the Lord to ferve him. And they faid, We are witnefTes." Here was a folemn covenant between Jofliua, on die part of the Lord, and all the men of Ifrael, on their own part. — The text then fays—" So Jofhua made a covenant with the people that day, and fet them a flatute and an ordinance in Shechem, and JoJJiua wrote thefe words in the book of the Law of God.'" Here is a proof of two things — firfl, that there was then, a few years after the death of Mofes, exifting a book called The Book of the Law of God ; the fame, without doubt, which Mofes had written, and committed to the cuftody of the Levites, that it might be kept in the ark of the covenant of die Lord, that it might be a witnefs againft them — fecondly, that Joihua wrote a part at leafl of his own tranfactions in that very book, as an addition to it. It is not a proof that he wrote all his own tranfadions in any booki but I fubmic entirely to thejudginent of
every
( 52 )
every candid man, whether this proof of his ha v^ ing recorded a very material tranfacTtion, does not make it probable that he recorded other material tranfaftions ; that he v/rote the chief part of tlie 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 Jofhua, chap. vi. ver, 26, is quoted in the finl: book of Kings, chap. xvi. ver- 44. " In his (Ahab's) days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho : he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his fiift-born, and fet up the gates thereof "in his youngeft fon Segub, according to the woid of the Lord, which he fpake by Joihua tlie fon of Nun." Here is a proo.' that the book of Joihua is older than the tirft book of Kings : but that is not all which may reafonabiy be inferred, I do not fay proved, from this quotation. — It may be inferred from the phrafe — according to die word of the Lord which he fpake by Jofhua the fon of Nun — tliat Joiliua vjrcte down the word which the Lord had fpoken. In Baruch (which, though an apochryphai book, is authority for this purpole) there is a fimilar phrafe — as thou fpakeft by thy fervant Mofes in the day when thou didft com.- raand him to. write thy law.
I think it unneceiTary to make any obfervation on what you fay relative to the book of Jugdes ; but I cannot pals unnoticed your cenfure ot the book of Rudi, w^hich you call " an idle bungling ftorv, foolifhly told, no body knows by whom, about a ilroUing country girl creeping flily tobed to her coulin Boaz; pretty ftulF, indeed," you
exclaim.
( 53 ) exclaim, " to be called the Word of God!'* — It feems to me that you do not perfe6lly compre- hend what is meant by the exprefTion — the Word of God — or the divine authority of the fcriptures : — I .will explain it to you in the words of Dr, Law, late bi (hop of Cariifle, and in thofe of St. Auftin. My firft quotation is from biihop Law's Theory of Religion, a book not undeferving your notice; — " The true fenfe, dien. of the divine au^ thor'ity of the books of the Old Teftament, and which perhaps is enough to denominate them in general .divinely infpired, feems to be this ; that as in thofe times God has all along, befide the in- fpe6lion, or fuperintendency of his general provi- dence, interfered upon particular occafions, by giving exprefs commiiiions to fome perfons (thence called prophets) to declare his will in various; manners, and degrees of evidence, as bed fiiited the occafion, time, and nature of theiabjecTl ; and in all other cafes left them wholly to themfelves: in like manner, he has interpofed his miore imme- diate affiftance, and nolitied it to them, as they did to the world, in the recording of thefe reve- lations j fo far as that was neceilary, amidft the common (but from hence tQxmc'AfacrcdJ hiftory of thofe times ; and mixed with various other oc- currences; in which the hiftorian's own natural qualifications were fufficletit to enable him to re- late 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 Ghofl revealed what ougbJ: to be received as authoritative iaj-rcligion, might write fome things as men with E 2 hiftoricd
( 54 ) hiftorical diligence, and other things as prophets by divine infpiration ; and that thefe things are fa di{lin6t, that the former may be attributed to them- felves as contributing to the increafe of know- ledge, and the htter to God fpeaking by them things appertaining to the authority of religion/* — Whether this opinion be right or wrong, I do not here inquire ; it is the opinion of many learned men and good chriftians : and, if you will adopt it as your opinion, you will fee caufe, perhaps, to become a chriftian yourielf ; you will fee caufe to confider chronological, geographical, or ge- nealogical errors — apparent miftakes, or real con- tradi61:ions as to hiftorical fafts — ncedlefs repe- titions and trifling interpolations — indeed, you will- fee caufe to Gonfider all the principal obje61:ions of your book to be abfolutely without foundation. Receive but the Bible as comnofed by upright and w^ell informed, though, in fome points, fallible men. (for I exclude allfaUibility when they profefs to deliver the Word of God,) and you muft re- ceive it as a book revealing to you, in many parts, the exprefs v^ill of God ; and in other parts, re- lating to you the ordinary hiftory of the rimes. Give but the authors of the Bible that credit which you give to other hiftorians ; believe them to de- liver the Word of God, when they tell you that they do (o ; believe, when they relate other things as of themfelves and not of the Lord, that they •wrote to the befl of their knowledge and capacity, and you will be in your belief fomething very dif- ferent from a deifl: : you may not be allowed to gfpire tQ the character of an orthodox believer^
but
( 55 )
but you will not be an unbeliever In the divine authority of the Bible; though you fliould admit human miftakes and human opinions to exift in fome parts of it. This I take to be the fir 11: ftep towards the removal of the doubts of many fcep- tical men ; and when they are advanced thus far, the grace of God, aflifting a teachable difpofition, and a pious intention, may carry them on to per- fection.
As to Ruth, you do an injury to her chara6ler. She was not a ftroUing country girl. She had been married ten vears ; and being left a widow without children, ihe accompanied her mother- in-law, returning into her native country, out of which, with her hufband and her two fons, fhehaJ been driven by a famine. The difturhances in France have driven many men with their families CO America : if, ten years hence, a woman, hav- i4ig loft her hufband and her children, fhould re- turn to France with a daughter-in-law, would you be juftihed in calling the daughter-in-law a ftrol- ling country girl? — But iiie *' crept llily to bed to her coufm Boaz." — I do not find it fo in the hiftory — as a perfon imploring prote6lion, ihe laid herfelf down at tlie foot of an aged kinfman's- bed, and ilie rofe up with as much innocence as fhe had laid herielf down. She was after v/ards. married to Boaz, and reputed by all her neighbours a virtuous woman ; and they were more likely to know her chaTa6ler tlian you are. Whoever reads the book of Rueh, bearing in mind the fim- plicity of ancient manners, will find it an intereft- mg ftory of a poor young woman, following in
a ft range
( S6 )
a ft range land the advice, and afFciSlionately at- taching herfelf to the fortunes of the mother of her deceafed hufDaud.
The two books of Samuel come next under your review. You proceed to (hew that thefe books were not written by Samuel, 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 recolle6ted, that it is generally admitted, that Samuel did not write any part of the fecond book which bears his name, and only a part of the firfto It would, inoced, have been an inquiry not tindeferving your notice, in many parts of your work, to have examined what w?s the opinion of learned men refpe6i:ing the authors of the feveral books of the Bible ; you would have found, that you were in many places figliting a phantom of your own raifmg, and proving what was generally admitted. Very little certainty, I think, can at this time be obtained on this fubjed ; but that you may have fotne knowledge of vvhat has been conjedlured by men of judgment, I will quote to you a paiTage from Dr. Hartley's oV;fer- vations on man.. The author himfelf coes not vouch i(jr liie truthof his obfervation, for he begins it with a fuppolidcn.— ". I fuppofe then, that the Pentateuch confifts of the writings oiJVjGjes, put together by Samuel^ with q. vtry few additions; that tiie books of Joihua and Judges were, in like m^anner, coiieded by hirai and tiie bookot Ruch,.
with.
( 57 ) with the iirfl: part of the firfl: book of Samuel, written by him ; that the latter part of the hrft book of Samuel, and thefecond book, were writ- ten by the prophets who fucceeded Samuel, fup- pofe Nathan and Gad; that the books of Kings and Chronicles are excradfs from the records of the fucceeding prophets, concerning iheir own times, and from the public genealogical tables, made by E%ra \ that the books of Ezra and Ne- hemiah are coHe6lions of like records, forne writ- ten by Ezra and Nehemiah^ and fome by their predeceflbrs ;-that the book of Efthep was written by fome eminent jew, in or near the times of the tranfadion there recorded, perhaps Afordecai ; the book of Job by a jew, of an uncertain time ; the Pfalms by David, ai'id other pious perfons ; the books of Proverbs and Canticles by Solomon ; the book of Ecclefiaftes by Solomon, or perhaps by a jew of later times, fi>eaking in his perfon, but not with an intention to make him pafs for the author ; the prophecies by the prophets whofe names they bear ; and the books of the New Teif ament by tlie perfons to whom they are ufually afcribed." — I "have produced diis pafTage to you not m.erely to /l:iew you that, in a great part of your work, yott ■are attacking what no perfon is inrerefted in de- fending ; bur to convince you, that a wife and good man, and a firm believer in revealed religion, for fuch was Dr. Hartley, and noprieft, did not reject the anonymous books of the OM Teftament as books without authority. I fhall not trouble either you or myfelf with any more obfervations on that head ; you may aferibe the tv/o books of Kings,
and
( 5? )
and the two books ofChronicles, to what authors- you pleafe; I am latistied with knowing that the annals of the jewifti 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 . obfervation we have abundant proof, not only from the teflimony of Jofephus, and of the writers ; of the Talmuds, but from the Old Teftament itfeif. . I will content myfelf with citing a few places— " Now the acls of David the king,, firft and laft, behold they are written in the bopk of Samuel the feer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the feer.'' i Chron. xxix. 29. *' Now the reft of the a6ts 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 thevifions of Iddo the feer?" 2 Chron. ix. 29. — " Now the a6ls of Rehoboam, hrft and laft; are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the feer, con- cerning genealogies ?" 2 Chron. xii. 15. — " Now the reft of the a6ls of Jeholliaphat, firft and laft, behold -they are written in the book of Jehu the Ton of Hanani." 2 Chron. xx. 34. Is it poffibie foriV^iriters to give a ftronger evidence of their ve- racity,, than, by referring their readers to the books from which they had extra 6ted the materials of their hiftory?
" The two books of Kings," you fay, " are little more than an hiftory of aflafTmations, treach^ ery, and war." That the kings of Ifrael and Judah were many of them very wicked perfons,
is
t 59 1
>is evident from the hiftory which is given of thena m the Bible; but it ought to be remembered, that their wickednefs is not to be attributed to their religion ; nor v^^ere the people of Ifrael chofen to he the people of God, on account of their wick- ednefs ; nor was their being chofen, a caufe of it. One may wonder, indeed, that, having experi- enced fo many fmgular marks of God's goodnefs towards their nation, they did not at once become, ^nd continue to be, (what, however, they have long been,) ftrenuous advocates for the worlhip of one only God, the maker of heaven and earth. This was the purpofe for which thev were chofen, and this purpofe has been accomplifhed. For .above three and twenty hundred years the jews have uniformly witneffed to all the nations of the eardi the unity of God, and his abomination of idolatry. But as you look upon " the appellation <of the jews being God's chofen people as a lie ^■which the priefts and leaders of the jews had in- vented re cover the bafenefs of their own charac- ters, and which chriftian priefts, fometimes as cor- rupt, and often as cruel, have profeifed to beheve," I wnll plainly ftate to you the reafons which in- duce me to believe that it is no //>, and I hope they will be fuch reafons as you will not attribute eidier to cruelty or corruption.
To any one contemplating the univerfality of things, and the fabric of nature, this globe of earth, with the men dwelling on its furface, will not ap- pear (exclufive of the divinity of their fouls) of more importance than an hillock of ants ; all of ^which, lome with corn, fome with eggs, fome
without
( 6o )
without any thing, run hither and thither, buftjino- about a little heap of cluft. — -This is a thought o{ the immortal Bacon ; and it is admirably fitted to humble the pride of philofophy, attempting to pre- fcribe forms to the proceedings, and bounds to the attributes of God. We may as eafily circumfcribe infinity, as penetrate the fecrct purpofes of the Almighty. There are but two ways by which I can acquire any knowledge of the nature of the Supreme Being, — by reafon, and by revelation? to you, who reje^i: revelation, there is but one. Now, my reafon informs me, that God has made a great difference between the kinds of animals, with refpedi: to their capacity of enjoying happi- iiefs. Every kind is perfe6l in its order ; but if we compare different kinds together, one will ap- pear to be greatly fuperior to another. An ani- mal, 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 die happin«fs of which it is capable, and is in its nature perfe6t. Other forts of animals, which have two or three ienfcs, and which have alfo abundant means of gratifying them, enjoy twice or thrice as much happinefs as thofe do which have but one. In the fame fort of animals there is a great difference amongft individuals, one having the fenfes more perfeft, and the body lefs fubjeS: 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 unequal- — " What fhall we fay then? is God unjuft? God forbid!" His goodnefs may be unequal,
without
( 6i ) ■
wiTliout being imperfe6l ; it mufl be eftimatedfrom 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 feems to be made for iifelf alone, and in another not for itft?If, but for every other. Could we comprehend the whole of theimmenfe fabric which God hath formed, I am perfuaded that we iliould fee nothing but per- fection, harmony, and beauty, in every part of it; but whilft we difpute about parts, we negledl the whole, and difcern nothing but fuppoled ano- malies and defects. The maker of a v/atch, or the builder of a fhip, is not to be blamed becaufe a fpeCtator cannot dlfcover either the^^eauty or the ufe of disjointed parts. And fhall we dare to accufe God of injuftice, for not having diltributed the gifts of nature in the fame degree to all kinds of animals, when it is probable that this very in- eqiTaiity of diilribution may be the mean of pro- ducing the greateft fum total of happinefs to the whole fyilem ? In exactly the fame manner may we reafon concerning the acts of God's efpecial providence. If we coniiderany one a6t, fuch as that of appointing the jews to be nis peculiar peo- ple, as uRConnecSled.with every otheV, it may ap- pear to be a partial diiplay of hi's goodnefs; it may excite doubts concerning the wifdom or the be- nigiT'-.y of his divine nature. But if we connect the hiftory of the jews wi:h that of other nations, from the moft remote antiquity to the prefent time, we fhall difcover that they were not cliofen fo much for their own benefit, or on account of their ^ owu
( 62 )
mvaimei-it, as for the general benefit of mankind. To the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Grecians, Ro- . mans, to all the people of the earth, they were formerly, and they are ftill to all civilized nations, a beacon fet upon an hill, to warn them from ido- latry, to light them to riie fan^ruary of a God, lioly, juft, and good. Why fhould we fufpe^: fuch a difpenfation of being a lie P when even from the litde which we can underfland 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 obferve, are mentioned in the book of the Kings, fuch as the drying up of Jeroboam's hand, the afcent of Elijah into heaven, the defl:ru6lion of the children who mocked Elifha, and therefurrec^ionof adead man : — thefecircum* ■ ftances 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 errone- ous mode of reafoning, which, from the filence oi one author concerning a particular circumftance, infers the want of veracity in another who men- tions it And this obfervation is Rill more cogent, when applied to a book which is only a fupple- ment to, or an abridgment of, other books : and under this defcription the book of Chronicles has been confidered 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 pro- phecy which was then delivered concerning the future deftruftion of the idolatrous alter of Jero- boam? The prophecy is thus written, i Kings
xiii.
( 63 )
SrHr. 2. — " Behold, a child (hall be bom unto the houfe of David, Joliah by name, and upon thee (die altar) fliall he offer the priefts of the high places." — Here is a clear prophecy; the name, family, and office of a particular perfon are de- fcribed in the year 975 (according to the Bible chronology) before Chrilh Above 350 years after die delivery of the prophecy, you will find, by confulting the fecond book of Kings, (chap; xkiii. 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 vou may probably think of the fame audiority, as ^fop's Fables. You give, what you call the evidence of this, the air of a- demonftration — " It has but two ftages : — firfl, the account, of the kings of Edom, mentioned in Genefis, is taken from Chronicles, and therefore the book of Genefis was written after the book of Chronicles : — fecondiy, the book of Chroni- cles was not begun to be written till after Zede- kiah, in whofe time Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerufalem, 588 years before Chriff, and more than 860 after Mofes." — Having anfwered this Qbje6i:ion before, I might be excufed taking any more notice of it ; but as you build much, in this place, upon the ilrength of your argument, I will Ihew you its weaknefs, when it is properly ftated. — A feiv verfes in the book of Genefis could not be written by ^vlofes ; therefore no -part of Genefis could be written by Mofes: — a child would deny your therefore. — Again, a few verfes
inu
( 64 )
in the book of Genefis could not be written by by Mofes, becaule they fpeak of kings of ifracl, there having been no kings of Ifrael in the time of Mofes ; and therefore they could not be written by Samuely or by Solomon, or by any other per- fon who lived after there were kings in IfraeJ, except by the author of the book of Chronicles: — this is alfo an illegitimate inference from your polition. — Again, a few verfes in d\e book of Genefis are, word for word, the fame as a few verfes in the book of Chronicles ; therefore die author of the book of Geneiis muft have taken them from Chronicles: — another lame conclu- lion ! Why might not tl\e author of the book of Chronicles have taken them from Genefis, a* he has taken many odicr genealogies, fuppofmg them to have been inferted in Gene-fis by Samuel ? But where, you may afk, could Samuel, or any other perfon, hav^ found the account of the kings of Edom ? Probably, in the public records of tha- nation, which were certainly as open for infpec- 'tion to Saniuel, and the other prophets, as they were to the author of Chronicles. I hold it need- kfs to employ more time on the fubjec^.
LETTER
( 65 )
LETTER V.
AT length you come to two books, Ezra^^ and Nehemiah, which you allow to be ge- nuine books, giving an account of the return of the jews from the Babylonian captivity, about 536 years before Chrift; but then you fay, '*■ Thole accounts are nothing to us,- nor to any other per- fons, unlefs it be to the jews, as a part of the hiflory of their nation; and tliere is jufl: as much of the Word of God in thofe books, as there is in any of the hiftories of France, or in Rapin's Hifcory of England." Here let us ftop a moment to try it, from your own conceffions, it be not poffible to confute your argument, . Ezra and Nehemiah, you grant, are genuine books — " but they are nothing to us !" The very fi r ft verfe of Ezra fays the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled; — is it nothing to us to know that Jeremiah was a true prophet ? Do but grant that the Supreme Being communicated to any of the fons of men a know- ledge of future events, fo that their predidlions were plainly verified, and you will find little dif- ficulty in admitting the truth of revealed religion. Is it nothing to us to know that, live hunired and thirty-lix years before Chrifl;, the books of Chro- nicles, Kings, Judges, Jofhua, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Leviticus, Exodus, Genefis, every book the authority of which you have attacked, F 2_ are.
( 66 ). /
are all referred to by Ezra and N"ehemlah, as au^ thcntic books, containing thehiftory of the Ifrael- itifh nation from Abraham to that very time ?^ — Is it nothing to us to know that the hiftory of the jews is true ?— It is every thing to us ; for if that hi^ftory be not true, chriftiaiiity mufl: be falfe. The jews are the root, we are branches " graffed 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 pro- iTiifes ; whofe are the fathers, and of whom, as^ concerning the flefli, Chrifh came, who is over all, God blefled for ever. Amen."
The hiftory of the Old Teftament has, without (Joubr, fome difficulties in it; but a minute phiLo-» fopher, whobufies himfelf infearching them out, whirfl; be negledls to contemplate the harmony of ^11 its parts, the wifdom and goodnefs of God dif- played throughout the whole, appears to me to be like a purblind man, who, in furveying a pi6ture, objecSts to the fun pi-icity of the defign, and the beau- ty of the execution, from the afperities he has difr covered in the canvafs and the colourkig. The feiftory of the Old Teftament, notwi^hftanding the real difficulties which occur in it, notwith. (tanding the feoffs and cavils of unbelievers, ap^^ pears to me to have fuch internal evidences of its truth, to be fo corroborated by the moft ancient profane hiftories, fo confirmed by the prefent cir- cumstances of the world, that if I were not a chrif- tiaii, I would become a jew. You think this hif- tory to be a colle6lion of lies, contradi6i:ions, blafpheraies ; I look upon it to be the oldeft, thq
trueftj
( 67 )
trudl, the moil: comprehenfive, and the moft Fin- portant hiilory in the world. I confider it as giving more fatisfaftory proofs of the being and attributes of God, of the origin and end of human kind, than ever were attained by the deepcft re- fearches- of the moft enlightened philofophers. The exercife of our reafon, in theinveftigation of truths refpecfing the nature of God, and the future cxpe6tations of human kind, is highly ufetul ; but I hope I fhall be pardoned by the metaphyficiaes, in faying, that the chief utility of fuch difquifitions eonfifts in this — that they bring us acquainted with the weaknefs of our intelleclual faculties. I do not prefume to meafurc other m.en by my flandard ; you may have clearer notions than I am able to form of the infinity of fpace ; of the eter- nity of duration; of necefTary exiftence; of the Gonne6lion between necefiary exilfence and intel- ligence, between intelligence and benevolence; you may fee nothing in the univerfe but organized matter; or, reje6ling a material, vou may fee no- thing but an ideal world. With a mind weary of conje6lure, fatigued by doubt, fick of difputa- tion, eager for knowledge, anxious for certain- ty, and unable to attain it by the beft ufe of my i:eafon in matters of the utmx-A importance, I have long ago turned my thoughts to an impartial ex- amination of the proofs on which revealed religion is grounded, and I am convinced of its truth. This examination is a fubje6t within the reach of human capacity ; you have come to one conclu- iion refpeiting it, I have come to another; both of us cannot be right j may God forgive him that is in an error!
You
( 68 )
You ridicule,, in a note, the ftory of an angci appearino^ to Jortiua. Your mirth you will per- ceive to be mlfpiaced, when you confider the de- fign of this appearance ; it was to affure Jofhua, that the fame God who had appeared to Mofes, ordering him to pull off his flioes, becaufe he ftood on holy ground, had now appeared to hinifelf. Was. this no encouragement to a man who was about to engage in war with many nations ? Had it no tendency to confirm his faith? Was it no ieffbn to him to obey, in all things, the commands 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 ; ilioe, it originates, I think, in your ignorance ; yoii ought to have known,, that this rite was an indi^ cation oi reverence for the divine prefence ; and that the cuftorn of entering barefoot into theit temples fubfifts, m fome countries, to this. day.
You allow the book of Ezra to be. a genuine book-:.; but that the author of it may not efcape without, a blow, you fay, that in matters 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 withjhe particulars; and that every, child may have an argument for its infidelity, you difplay the particulars, and fhew your own fkill in arithmetic, by fumming tliem up. .. And can you fuppofe that Ezra, a man of great learning, knew fo little of fcience, fo little of the loweft t>ranch of fcience, that he could not give his readers t^e fuii) total of iixty particular fums? You
kao.Wj.
{ 69 >
know, undoubtedly, that tlie Hebrew letters de- noted alfo numbers^ and that there was fuch a great limilarlty between fome of th jTe letters, that it was extremely eafy for a tranfcriber of a manu- fciipt to miilake a n for a d (or 2 for 20), a 3 for a : (or 3 for 50), a 1 for a n (or 4 for 20c). Now what have we to do with numerical con- tradiiftions In the Bible, but to attribute them^ wherever they occur, to this obvious fource of ^error — the inatiention of the tranfcriber in writing one letter for another that was like it?
I fliould extend thefe letters to a length trou- blefome to the reader, to you, and to my felt, if J anfvvered minutely every obje6fion you have ir»ade, and re6tified every error into which you have fallen ; it may be fufficienr briefly to notice fome of the cliief. The charadler reprefented in Job under the name of Satan is, you fay, " th^ tirfl; and die only time this name is miCDtioned in the Bible." Now I find this name, as denodng an enemy, frequently occurring in the Old Tef- tament; thus 2 Sam. xix. 22. *' What have 1, to do widi you, ye fons of Zcruiah, that ye lliould*' tliis day be adverfaries unto me?" In the origi- nal k is fataps unto m.e. Again, i Kings v. 4, " The Lord mv God hath given me reft on every fide, io that there is neither adverfary, nor evil oc- current" — in the original, neither fa tan nor evil. I need not mention other places ; thefe are fuf- iicient to iliew, that the word fatan, denoting an adverfary, does occur in various places of the Old 3'eftament ; and ic is extremely probable to me, that the root fatan was introduced into ihe He- brew
( 70 ;
brew and other eaftcni languages, to denote an adverfary, from its having been the proper name of the great eicmy of mankind. I know it is an opinion of Voltaire, that the word fatan isnotokler than the Babylonian captivity : this is a miftakey for it is met within the hundred and ninth pfalm, which all allow to have been written by David, long before the captivity. Now we are upon this fobjedt, permit me to recommend to yourconfi— deration the univerfality of the do6trine concern- ing an evil being, who, in the beginning of time, had oppofed himfelf, who If ill continues to oppofe himfelf, to the fupreme fource of all good. Araongft all nations, in ail ages, this opinion pre- vailed, that human affairs were fubjeft- to the will: of the gods, and regulated by their interpofition; Hence has been derived whatever we have read of the wandering fl:ars of the Chaldeans, two of them beneficient, and two malignant — hence the. Egptian Typho and OJiris — the Perfian Ar'ima-- n'lus and Oromafdes — the Grecian cclefiial and infernal yove — the Brama and the Zupay of the Indians, Peruvians, Mexicans — the good and evil principle, by whatever names they may be called, of all other barbarous nations — and hence the ftrudlure of the whole book of Job,, in. whatever lighr, of hiftory or drama^ it be confl- dered. Now. does it not appear reafonable to fup- pofe, tliat an opinion fo ancient and fo univerfal has arifen from tradition concerning the lall of our firft parents ; disfigured indeed, and obicured, as all traditions muft be, by many fabulous addi- tions ?
The
( 71 )
The jews, you tell us, *' never prayed but when tliey were in trouble." I do not believe this of the Jews; but that they prayed more fervently when they were in trouble than at other times, inay be true of the jews, and 1 apprehend is true of all nations and all individuals. — But " the jews Jiever prayed for any tiling but viclory, vengeance, and riches." — Read Solomon's prayer at the dedi- cation of the temple, and blulh for your aflertion, — 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 ftatues and images, as is done now-a-days both by ftatuary and by painting; but it does not follow from this, that they worihipped them any more than we do." Not worihipped them I What think you of the golden image which Ne- buchadnezzar fet up ? VVas it not worihipped by the princes, the rulers, the judges, the people, the nations, and the languages of the Babylonian empire? Not woriliipped them! What think you of the decree of the Roman fcnate for fetch- ing the ftatue of the mother of the gods from Pef- finum? Was it only that they might admire it as a piece of workmanlhip ? Not worihipped them ! *-' What man is there that knoweth not how that me city of the tpheiians was a w^orfhipper of the great goddefs Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter?" Not worihipped them 1 — The worfhip was univerfal. " Every nation made gods of their own, and put them in the houfes of the high plices, which the Samaritans had made — the men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth,
and
( 7* ..)
<md the men of CuthmadeNergal, and the men of Hamath made Afhima, and the Avites made Nib- haz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burned their children in hre to Adrammt^lech, and Anamme- lech, the gods of Sepharvaim." (2 King^, chap, xvii.) The heathens are much indebted to you for this your curious apology for their idolatry ; for a mode of worfhip the moft cruel, fenfelefs, impure, abominable, that can poffiblydifgrace the faculties of the hum.an mind. Had this your con- ceit occured in ancient times, it mighr have faved AdicaJfs teraphims, the golden calves of yero- boam^ and of Jar on. and quite fuperiedcd the iieceffity of the fecond comma ndnivent! ! ! Hea- then morality has had its advocates before you; the facetious gentleman who pulled ofF his hat to the fbatue of Jupiter, that he might have a friend when heathen idolatry fliould again be in repute, feems to nave had fome foundation for his impro- per humour, fome knowledge that cereain men, eftecniing themfelves great phil< -fophers, had en- tered into a confpiracy to aboliih chrifcianity, fome fo relight of the confequences which will certainly attend their fuccefs.
It is an error, you fay, to call the Pfalms — the PfahTiS of David. — This error was obferved by St. Jeronie, many hundred years before vou were born: his words are — '* We know that they are iii an error who attribute all rhePfdms to David." You, 1 iuppofe, will not deny, that David wrote fome of them. Songs are of 'various forts; we have huntingfongs, drinking fcngs, fighting fongs, love fongs, foolilh, wanton, wicked fongs: — if
you
( 73 )
vou will have the '' Pfalms of David to be nothing but a colle6llon from different fong-writers," vou niuft allow that the writers of them were infpired by no ordinary fpirit; that It is a colledlion, in- capable of being degraded by the name you give it ; that It greatly excels every other colledlion in matter and in manner. Compare the book of Pfalms with the odes of Horace or Anacreon, with the hymns of Callimachus, the golden verfes of Pythagoras, the chorulTes of the Greek tragedi- ans, (no contemptible compofitions any of thefe,) and you will quickly fee how greatly it furpafTes them all, in piety of fentiment, in fublimity of exprefHon, in purity of morality, and in rational theology.
As you efteem the Pfalms of David a fong book, it is confiftent enough in you to efteem the Proverbs of Solomon a jeft book ; there have not come down to us above eight hundred of his jefts ; if we had the whole three thoufand, which he wrote, our mirth would be extreme. Let us open the book, and fee what kind of jefts it contains ; take the very ftrft as a fpecimen — " The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge ; but fools defpife wifdom and inftru6fion." — Do you per- ceive any jeft in this? The fear of the Lord! What Lord does Solomon mean ? He means that Lord who took the pofterity of Abraham to be his peculiar people — who redeemed that people from Egyptian bondage by a miraculous interpo-
iition of his power — VN'hogavethehwtoMofes
who commanded the Ifraelites to exterminate .the
aiations of Canaan. — Now this Lord you will
G ' not
( 74 ) not fear; tlie jeH: fays, you defpife wlfdoin an3 iiiflrud^ion. — Let us try again — '' My fon, hear the inftrucftion of thy father, and forfake not the law of thy mother." — If your heart has been ever touched by parentalfelings, you will fee nojeft in this. — Once more — ^^ My fon, if finners en- tice thee, confent thou not." — Thefe are the three firft proverbs in Solomon's " jefl: book ;" if you read it through, it may not make you merry ; I hope it will uiake you wife; that it will teach you, at leaft, the beginning of wifdom — the fear of that Lord whom Solomon feared. Solomon, vou tell us, was witty ; jeflers are fometimes wit- ty; 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 difference, Mr. Locke teaches us, between wit and judgment, and there is a greater between wit and wifdom. Solomon *' was wifer than Ethan the Ezahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the fons of Mahol." — Thefe men you may think were jefters ; and fo may you call the feven wife men ol Greece : but ^ou will never convince the world that Solomon, who was wifer than them all, was nothing but a witty jdier.- As to the fms and debaucheries of 5oloin^7 ^ve have nothing to do with them but to avofd them ; and to give full credit to his ex- perience, when he preaches to us his admirable fermon on the vanity of every thing but piety and -virtue.
Ifaiah has a greater (hare of your abufe than any other wriier in the Old Teftament, and the
reafoH
( 75 )' i'calon of It is obvious — the prophecies of IfaialV have received fuch a full and circumftaiitial com- pletion, that, unlefs you can perfuade yourfelf to confider die whole book (a few hiftorical flietches excepted) " as one continued bombaftical rant, full of extravagant mecaphor, without applica- tion, and deitirute of meaning," you muft of ne- ceiTity allow its divine authority. You compare the burden of Babylon, th© burden of Moab, the burden of Damafcus, and the other denunciations of the prophet againft cities and kingdoms, to *' the ftory of the knight of the burning moun- tain, the ftory of Cinderella, &;c." 1 may have read thefe ftories, but I remember nothing of the fubjedls of them ; I have read alfo Ifaiah's burden of Babylon, and I have compared it widi the pafl: and prefent ftate of Babylon, and the comparirou has made fuch an imprefiion on my mind, that it will never be effaced from my memory. I (hall never ceafe to believe that the Eternal alone, bv whom things future are more diftin6tly known than paft or prefent things are by man, that the eter- nal God alone could have didlared to the prophet Ifaiah the fubje6l of the burden of Babylon.
The latter part of the forty-fourth, and the be- ginning of the forty-fifth chapter of Ifaiah, are, in your opinion, fo far from being written by ifaiah, that they could only have been written by fome perfon who lived atleaft an hundred andfifry years after itaiah was dead :— thefe chapters, you go on, '' are a compliment to Cyrus, who per- mitted the jews to return to Jerufalem from the Babylonian captivity above one hundred and fifty
years
f 76 )
}wjrs after the death of Ifaiah:" — and Is it for this, fir, that you accufe the church of audacity and the priefts of ignorance, in impcfmg, as you call it, this book upon the world as the writing of Ifaiali? What iliall be faid of you, who, either defignedly or ignorantly, reprefent one of the nioft clear and important prophecies in the Bible, as an hiftorical compliment, written above an hundred and fifty years after the death of the prophet? — We contend, lir, that this is a prophecy, and not an hiftory ; that God called Cyrus by his name ; declared that he iliould conquer Babylon; and defcribed the means by which he fhould do it, a- bove an hundred years before Cyrus was born, and when there was no probability of fuch an event. Porphyry could not refifl the evidence o^ DaniePs prophecies, but by faying, that they were forged after the events predicted had taken place ; Fol^ ta'ire could not reirO: the evidence of the predi6lion of Jefus, concerning the deftrudlion of Jerufa- lem, but bv faying, tliat. the account was written after Jeruialem had been dcftroyed ; and you, at length J (though, for aught I know, you may have had piedtcciTors in diis prefumiption,) unable to rcfiR the evidence of //aii2>^'s propliecies, contend that they are bom.baftical rant, without applica- tion, though the application is circumftantiai ; and deftitute of meaniiig, though the meaning is {o obvious that it cannot be miftaken ; and that one of the mod remarkable of them is not a prophecy, but an hidorical compliment written after the event. We will not, fir, give up Daniel and Su Matthew to the impudent ailertions of Porphyry
and.
( 77 ) and Voltaire, nor will we give up Ifaiah to your affertion. Proof, proof is what we require, and not aflertion : we will not relinquiih our religion, in obedience to your abufive affertion relpeCiing the prophets of God. That tlie wondertul ab- furdity 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 religion of his country, and was probably addicled to tliQ magian fuperllition of two independent Beings, equal in power but different in principle, one the author of light and of all good, the other the au- thor of darknefs and all evil. Now, is it probable that a captive jew, meaning to comph'ment the greateft prince in the world, {Irould be fo ftupid as to tell the prince that his religion was a lie? *' I am the Loid, and there is none elfe,-I form the lig/it and create darknefs, I make peace and"; create evil, I the Lord do all thefe things."
Buc if you will perfevere in believing that the- prophecy concerning Cyrus was written after the. event, perufe the burden of Babvlon ; was that: alfo written after the event? Were the Tvledes l/ien ftirred up againft Babylon ? Was Babvlon, the glory of the kingdoms^,- the beauty of the Chal- dees, then overthrown, and become as Sodom and Gomorrah ? Was it t/ien uninhabited ? Was it t/ien neither fit for the Arabian's tent nor the ihepherd's fold ? Did the wild beafts of the defert t/ien lie there ? Did the wild beafts of the iflands t/ien cry in their defolate houfes, and dragons in their pleafant palaces ? Were Nebuchadnezzar and Belihazzar, the fon and the grandfoii, t^ien G Z cut:
( 78 )
cut off? Was Babylon then become a pofleflion of the bittern, and pools of water ? Was it then fwept with the befom of deftrudlion, fo fwept tliat the world knows not now where to find it?
I am unwilling to attribute bad defigns, delibe- rate wickednefs, to you, or to any man ; I cannot avoid believing, that you think you have truth on vour fide, and that you are doing fervice to man- kind in endeavouring to root out what you efteem fuperflition. What I blame you for is this — that you have atrempted to leiTen the authority of the Bible by ridicule, more than by realon ; that you have brought forward every petty objection which your ingenuity could difcover, or your in- duftry pick up, from the writings of others ; and without taking any notice of the anfwers which have been repeatedly given to thefe obje<3:icns, you urge and enforce them as if they were new. There is certainly fome novelty, at lead, in youc manner, for you go beyond all others in boidnefs of afifertion, and in profanenefs of argumentation ;. Bolingbroke and Voltaire mufl yield the palm o£ fcurrility to Thomas Paine.
Permit me to ftate to you, what would, in my. opinion, have been a better m.ode of proceeding; better fuited to the chara£ter of an honeft man> fmcere in his endeavours to fearch out truth. Such a man, in reading the Bible, would, in the £rft place, examine whether the Bible attributed to the Supreme Being any attributes repugnant tQ holinefs, truth, juftice, goodnefs ; whether it re- prefented him as fubject to human infirmities ; whether it excluded him from the government of
the
( 79 )
the world, or affigned the origin of it to chance, and an eternal con3i6t of atoms. Fin 31 no; no- thing of this kind in the Bible, (for the delf ru6lion of the Canaanites by his exprefs command, I have ihewn not to be repugnant to his moral juftice,) he would, in the fecond place, confider that the Bible being, as to many of its parts, a very old book, and written by various authors, and at dif- ferent and diftant periods, there mi^ht, piohihly, occur fome difBculties and apparent contradiflions in the hiftorical part of it ; he would en leavour to remove thefe difficulties, to reconcile thefe ap* parent contradictions, by the rules of fuch found criticifm, as he would ufe in examining the contents of any other book ; and if he found that moil of tliem were of a trifling nature, arifing fiom fliort additions inferted into the text as explanatory and fupplemental, or from miftakes and omifTions of tranfcribers, he would infer that all the reft were capable of being accounted for, though lie was not able to do it ; and he would be the more willing .to mike this conceffion, from obferving, that there ran through the whole book an harmony and connection, utterly inconfiilent with every idea of forgery and deceit. He would then, in the third place, obferve, that the miraculous and hif- torical parts of this book were fo intermixed, that they could not be fepa rated; thit they mull: either both be true, or botli falfe ; and from find- ing the hiftorical part was as well or better au- thenticated than that of any other hi ftory, he would admit the miraculous part ; and to coiiBrm himfelf ill this belief, he would adyert to the pro- phecies;
( 8o )'
phecies ; well knowing that the pTe<^i£^ion of things to come, was as certain a proof of the di- vine interpofitidn, as the performance of a miracle tould be. If b^ fliould find, as he certainly would, diat many ancient prophecies had been fulfilled in all dieir circumftances, and diat fome were fulfilling at this very day, he would not fufFer a few feeming or real difficulties to over- balance the weight of this accumulated evidence for the truth of the Bible. Such, I pi'efume to think, would be a proper condu6l in all thofe who are defirous of forming a rational and impartial judgment on the fubjeSt of revealed religion. — To return. —
As to vour obferv^ation, that the book of Ifaiah; is (atleaft in tranfiation) that kind ofcompofition^ and talfe tafie, which is properly called profe run , mad — I have only to remark, that your tafte for Hebrew poetry, even iudging of it from tranilation^ would be more corrcvS^ if you would fulFer y ourfelf to be informed on the fubjedl by Bifhop Lowth^. who tells you in his Freleilhns — " that a poeni tranflated literally from the Hebrew imo any other language, wbilfi: the fame forms of the fentences l^emain, will {1111 retain, even as far as relates to verfification, much of its native dignity, and a faint appearance of verfificatioa." (Gregory's Tranfl.) If this is what you mean by profe run . mad, your obfervation may be adm.itted.
You explain, at fome length, your notion of \ht, mifappiication made by St. Matthew of the pro- l^hecy in Ifaiah — " Behold a virgin fhall conceive aia4 .bear a fun/' That pafTage has been handled
largely.
( 8i )
largely and minutely by almofl: every cornmenut- tor, and ic is too important to be handled fuper- licially by any one: lam not, on the prefent oc- calion, coiKerned 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 rhis very in- ftance proves, that he was a true prophet, and no impoftor. The hiflory of the prophecy, as de- livered in the feventh chapter, is this — Rezin, king of Syria, and Pckah, kina^ of Ifrael, made war upon Ahaz, king of Judah ; not merely, or, per- haps, not at all, for the fake of plunder or the conqueit of territory, but with a declared pur- pofe of making an entire revolution in the govern- ment of Judah, of deilroying the royal houfe of David, and of placing another family on the throne. Their purpofe is thus expreffed — " Letus go up agalnft Judah, and vex it, and leu us make a breacli therein for us, and fet a king in the midfl of i:, even the {on of Tabeal." — Now, what did the Lord commiilion Ifaiah to fay to Ahaz ? Did he commiflion him to fay, the kings Ihall not vex thee ? No. — The kings Ihall not conquer thee ? No. — The kings (hall not fucceed againft thee } No : — he commillioned him to fay, " h (the pur- pofe of the two kings) iliall not fiand, neidier iliall it come to pafs." I demand — Did it ftand, did it come to pafs ? Was any revolution ef- feded ? Was the royal houfe of David dethroned and deftroyed ? Was Tabeal ever made king of Judah ? No. The prophecy was perfe6lly ac- complifhed. You fay, '' Inlfead of thefe two
kings
( S2 );
kings failing in their attempt againfl: Ahaz, they fucceeded; Ahaz was defeated and deftroyed." — ■ 1 deny the facl ; Ahaz was defeated, but not de- flroyed; and even the " two hundred thoufand women, and fons, and daughters," whom you reprefent as carried into captivity, were not carried into captivity; they were made captives,, hut they were not carried into captivity ; for the chief men of Samaria, being admoniilied by a pro- phet, would not lufFer Pekah to bring the captives into the land — " They rofe up, and took the cap- tives, and with the fpoil clodied all that were naked among them, and arrayed them, and fhod them, and gave them to eat and to drink, and anointed them, and carried all the feeble of them upon affes, (fome humanity, you fee, am.ong thofe Ifraelites, whom you every where repreient as barbarous brutes) and brought them to Jericho, the city of palm-trees, to their brethren," a Chron. xxviii. 15. — The kings did fail in their attempt; their attempt was to deflroy the houfe of David, and to make a revolution ; but they made no revolu- tion, they did not deftroy the houfe of David, for Ahaz flept with his fathers; and Hezekiah, liis^ foil, of die houfe of David, reigned in his ftead.
LETTER
•( 83 )
LETTER VI.
AFTER what I conceive to be a great mif- reprel'entacion of the chara6ler and condiidl ot Jeremiah, you bring forward an objection which Splnozi, and others before you, had much infifled upon, though it is an objection which nei- ther aifects the CTenuinenefs, nor the authenticity of the book of Jeremiah, any more than the blun- der of a bookbinder, in mifplacing the fheets of your performance, would ieffen its authoritv. The obje6lion is, that the book of Jeremiah has been put together in a difordered ftate. It is acknowledged, that the order of time is not every where obferved; but the caufe of the confufion is not known. Some attribute it to Baruch col- ledling into one volume all the feveral propliecies 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 pro- perly arranged, but that, through accident, or the 'CarelelTnefs of tranfcribers, they were deranged : — others conrend, that there is no confuiion ; that prophecy dliFers from hlftorv, in not being fubjedt to an accurate obfervance or' time and order. But leaving this matter to be fettled by critical difcuf- fion, let us come to a matter of greater import- ance— to your charge againft Jeremiah for his duplicity, and for his falfe prediction. Firff, as to his duplicity :
Jeremiah^
( 84 )
Jeremiah, on account of his having boldly pre- 'fllfted the deflru6tion of Jerufalem, had been thruft into a miry dungeon by the princes of Ju- dah, who fought his hfe : there he would have pe- rifhed, had not one of the eunuchs taken com- paffion on him, and petitioned king Zedekiah in his favour, faying, " Thefe men (the princes) have done evil in all that they have done to Jere- miah the prophet, (no fmall teftimony this, of the probity of the prophet's chara6ler) whom they have caft into the dungeon, and he is like to die for hunger." — On this reprefentation Jeremiah %vas taken out of the dungeon by an order from the king, who foon afterwards fent privately for him, and denred him to conceal nothing trom lum, binding himfelf, by an oath, that, whatever might be the nature of his prophecy, he would not put him to death, or deliver him into the hands of the princes who fought his life. Jeremiah deli- vered to him the purpofe of God refpeding the fate of Jerufalem. 1 "he conference being ended, the king, anxious to perform his oath, toprcferve the life of the prophet, difmiffed him, laying, *' Let no man know of thefe words, and thou flialt 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 ; alfo what the king faid unto thee: then thou fhalt fay unto them, I prefented mv fupplication before the king, that he would not caufe me to return to Jonathan's houfe to die there. Then came ail the princes unto Je- remiah,
{ 8s )
retnlah, and allied him, and he told diem accord- ing to all thefe words that the king had command- ed."— Thus, you remark, " this mzn of God, as he is called, could tell a lie, or very ftrongly pre- varicate ; for certainly he did not go to Zedekiah to make his fupplication, neither did he make it." — It is not faid that he told the princes he ivent to make his fupplication, but that he prefented it: now it faid in the preceding chapter, that he did make the fupplication, and it is probable that in this conference he renewed it ; but be that as it may, I contend that Jeremiah was not guilty of duplicity, or in more intelligible terms, that he did not violate any law of nature, or of civil focic.y, m what he did on this occafion. . He t( Id the truth, in part, to fave his life ; and he was under no obligation to tell the whole to men who were certainly his enemies, and no good fubjefts to his king. " In a matter (fays Puffendorf) which I am not obliged to (Jeclare to another, if I cannot, with fa'ety, conceal the whole, I may fairly dif- eoyer no more than a part." Was Jeremiah Bnder any obligation to declare to the princes v/hat had pafTed in his conference \\\i\\ the king ? You may as well fay, that the houfe of lords has a right to comipel privy counfellors to reveal the king's fecrets. The king cannot juitly require a ^rivy counfelior to tell a lie for him ; but he may require him not to divulge his counfeh to thiofe who have no right to know them. — Now for the falfe prediction — I will give the defcriptiou of it in your own w^ords. ^* l\\ the 34th chapter is a prophecy of Jeremiah H t©
( 86 )
to Zedekiah, in thefe weids, ver. 2. — * Thus faltli the Lord, Behold, I will give this city into the hands of the king of Babylon, and will hum it with lire ; and thou flialt not efcape out of his hand, but thou llialt furely be taken, and delivered into his hand ; and thine eyes fliall behold the eyes of the king of Babylon, and he fhall fpeak with thee mouth to mouth, and thou flialt go to Babylon. Yet hear the word of the Lord, O Zedekiah^ king of yudah\ thus faith the Lord, ThoufJialt not die by the [word, but thoufialt die in peaces and with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings that %uere before thee, fo Jliall they burn odours for thee, and will lament thee, faying^ Ah. lord! for I have pronounced the word,Jaitk the Lord.'
" Now, inftead of Zedekiah beholdingthe eyes of the king of Babylon, and fpcaking 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 him- felf had pronounced,) the reverfe, according to the 5 2d chapter, was the cafe ; it is there flated, verfe lo. ' That the king of Babylon flew 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 tili the day of his death.' What can we fay of thefe prophets, but that they are impoflors and liars?" I can fay this — that the prophecy you have pro- duced, was fulfilled in all its parts : and what then, fliall be faid of thofe who call Jeremiah a liar and an impoftor? Here then we are fairly at
iiruc
f 8f )
■lit
Itie — you affirm that the prophecy was not fuL filled, and 1 affirm that it was fultilled in all its parts, " I will give this ci:y into the hands of the king of Babylon, and he fhall burn it with lire :" fo fays the prophet ; what fays the hiftory ? *^ They (the forces of the king of Babylon) burnt the houfe of God, and brake down the walls of Jerufalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with tire." (2 Chron. xxxvi. 19.) — " Thou ihalt not efcape out of his hand, but flialt furely be taken, and del'rjered into his hand:" fo fays the prophet; what fays die hiftory ? " The men of war fled by night, and the king went the way to- wards the plain, and the army of the Chaldees purfued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho : and all his army were fcattered trom him; fo they took the king, and brought h'lm up to the king of Babylony to Riblah." (2 Kings XXV. 5.) — The prophet goes on, " Thine eyes iliall behold the eyes of the king of Babylon, and he fhall fpeak with thee mouth to mouth.'* No pleafant clrcumftance this to Zedekiah, who had provoked the king of Babylon by revolting from him ! The hiftory fays, " The king of Ba- bylon gave judgment upon Zedekiah," or, as k is more literally rendered from the Hebrew, ^' fpake judgments with him at Riblah." — The prophet concludes this part with, " And thou flialt go to Babylon :" The hiftory fays, " The king of Ba- bylon bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prifon till the day of his death." (Jer. Hi. 11.)—" Thou (halt not die by the fword," He did not die bv the fwdrd, he
did
( 88 )
did not fall in battle. — " But thou flialt die in peace." He did die in peace, he neicher expiral on the rack, or on the fcaffold ; was neither ftrangled nor poifoned; no unufual fate of captive kings ! he died peaceably in his bed, though that bed was in a prifon. — "And widi the burnings of thy father fhall they burn odours for thee." I cannot prove from the hiftory that this part of the prophecy was aecompliflied, nor can you prove that it was not. The probability is, that it was accompli fh- cd ; and I have two reafons on which I ground this probability. — Daniel, Shadrach, Melchach, and Abednego, to fay nothing of other jews, were jnen of great authority in the court ot the king of Babylon, before and after the commencement of the imprifonment of Zcdekiah ; and Daniel con- tinued in power till the fubverfion of the kingdom of Babylon by Cyrus. — Now it feems to me to be very probable, that Daniel, and the other great men of the jews, would both have inclination to requeft, and influence enough with the king of Babylon to obtain, permiiTiOH to bury tlieir de- ceafed prince Zedekiah, after the manner of his fathers. — But if there had been no jews at Baby- lon of confequence enough to make fuch a re- quefi:, ftill it i« 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 con- fcious of the inftability of human condition ; and when the pomp of war has ceafed, when the in- folence of conqueft is abated, and the fury of re- fentmeut fubfided^ they fqldoiij fail to revere roy-,
alty
C 89 )
alty even in Its ruins, and grant without ielu£lanc& proper obfequies to the remains of captive kings.
You profefs to have been particular in treating of the hooks afcribed to Ifaiah and Jeremiah.— Particular! in what? You have particularized two or three paflages, which you have endea- voured to reprefent as obje6tionable, and wh4ch I hope have been fhewn, to the reader's fatisfac- tron, to be not juftlv liable to your cenfure ; and you have paffed over all the other parts of thefe books without notice. Had you been particular in your examination, you would have found caufe to admire the probity and the intrepidity of the chara6lers of the authors of them ; you would have met with many inftances of fublime compo- fition ; and, what is of more confequence, with many inftances of prophetical veracity : — parti- cularities of thefe kinds you have wholly over- looked. I cannot account for this ; 1 have no right, no inclination, to call you a dilhoneft man : am I juftilied in confidering you as a man not altogether deftitute of ingenuity, but fo entirely under the dominion of prejudice in every thing re- fpecting the Bible, that, like a corrupted judge previoufly 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 feledting for your obfervations fuch particularities as are be ft calculated to render, if pofTible, the prophets odious or ridiculous in the eyes of your readers. You confound prophets with poets and nsiiiicians : I would diftinguiih them thus ; many H a prophets
C 90 )
prophets were poets and muficlans, but all poets and muficians were not prophets. Prophecies 'vve re often delivered in poetic language and mea- fure; but flights and metaphors of the jewifh poets have not, as you affirm, been fooliflily ere61:-ed into what are now called prophecies — they are now called, and have always been called prophecies, — becaufe they were real prediilions, fome of which have received, fome are now re- ceiving, and all- will receive, their full accom- plilhment.
That there were falfe prophets, witches, ne- cromancers, conjurers, fortune-tellers, among die- jews, no perfon will attempt to deny ; no nation-, barbarous or civilized, has been without them : but when you would degrade the prophets of the Old Teilament to a level with thefe conjuring,, dreaming, ftrolling gentry- — when you would re- prefent them as fpending their lives in fortune- telling, cafting nativities, predi6ling riches, fortu- Hate or unfortunate marriages, conjuring for loft goods, Szc. Imuft be allowed to fay, that you wholly miftake their office, and mifreprefent their character : their office was to convey to the chil- dren of Ifrael the commands, the promifes, the threatenings of Almighty God ; and their charac- ter-was that of men fuftaining, with fortitude, perfecution in the difcharge of their duly. There were falfe prophets in abundance amongft tlie jev^s; and if you oppofe thefe to the true pro- phets, and call them both party propliets, you have the hberty of doing fo, but you will not thereby confound the dillindion- between truth
( 9' )
and falfehood. Falfe prophets are fpoken of wltlr deteltation in many parts of fcrlpture, particu- larly by Jeremiah, who accufes them of prophe- cy ing lies in the name of the Lord, faying, " I have dreamed, I have dreamed : — Behold, I am againft the prophets, faith the Lord, that ufe their tongues, and fay, He faith ; that prophecy falfe dreams, and caufe my people to err by their lies and by their lightnefs." Jeremiah cautions his countrymen againft giving credit to their prophets, to their diviners, to their dreamers, to their en- chanters, to their forcerers, " which fpeak unto you, faying. Ye fhall not ferve the king of Ba- bylon." You cannot think more contemptibly of thefe gentry, than they were thought of by the true prophets at the time they lived; but, as Jere- miah fays on this fubjefl, " what is the chafF to the wheat? what are the falfe prophets to the true ones? Every good thing is liable to abufe; but who argues againft the ufe of a thing from the abufe of it ? againft phyficians, becaufe there are pretenders to phyfic? Was Ifaiah a fortune-teller, pi-edi'fting riches, when he faid to king Hezekiah, " Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine houfe, and that which thy fathers have laid up in ftore until this day, lliall be carried to Babylon: nothing fhall be left, faith the Lord. And of thy fons that ihall iffue from thee which thou flialt beget, fhall they take away, and they ihall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon." Fortune-tellers generally predifl good luck to their (imple cuftomers, thai they may make fomediing by their trade; bur
Ifaiah*
,( 92 )
Ifaiah predi^ls 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 years afterwards, it was ac- compliilied ; when Nebuchadnezzar took Jerufa- lem, and carried out thence all the treafures of the houfe of the Lord, and the treafures oftheking*s houfe, {2 Kings xxiv. 13.) and when he com- manded the mailer of his eunuchs, (Dan. i. 3.) that he ihould take certain of the childrea of If- rael, and of the king's feed, and of the princes, and educate them for three years, till they were able to ft and before the king.
Jehoram, kins; 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 m.en or rattle. . In this diftrefs they waited upon Eli iha, (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 worrtiip of the true God, come to confult him, faid to him — *' Get thee to the prophets of thy father and the prophets- of thy mother" — This you think fliews ElKha to have been a party prophet, full of venom and vulgarity — it ihews him to have been a man ot great courage, who refpected the dignity of his own chara Aer, the facrednefs of his office as a prophet of God, whofe duty it was to repro\^ the wickednefs of king'^, as of other men. He ordered them to make the valley where they were
full
( 93 )
full of ditches: — this, you fay, " every country- man could have told, that the way to get water was to dig for it:" — but this is not a true repre- fentation of the cafe ; the ditches were not dug that water might be gotten by digging for it, but that they might hold the water when it fhould miraculouily come, " without wind or rain/' from anodier country ; and it did come " from the way of Edom, and the country was filled with water." — As to Elidia's curfmg the liLtJe children who had mocked him, and their deftruc- tion in confequence of his imprecation, the whole ftory muft be taken together. The provocation he received is, by fome, confidered as an infult offered to him, not as a man but as a prophet, and that the perfons who offered it were not what we underftand by little children, but grown-up youths ; the term child being applied, in the He- brew language, to grown-up perfons. Be this as it may, the curfing was the a6t of the prophet ; had it been a fin, it would not have been followed by a niiraculous dellruclion of the offenders ; for this was the a£t of God, who bell: knows who deferve punifhment. What effedf 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 effe6l.
Ezekiel and Daniel lived during the Babylo- nian captivity ; you allow their writings to be genuine. In this you differ from fome of ihe greateft adverfaries' of chriftianity ; and in my opinion cut up, by this conceffion, the very root of your whole performance. It is next to an im-
poiTibility
( 94 ) poflibillty for any man, x\'lio admits the book of Daniel to be a genuine book, and who examines that book with intelligence and impartiality, to refufe his aiTent to the truth of chriftianity. As to your faying, that the interpretations which commentators and priefts have made of thefc books, only fhcw the fraud, or the extreme folly,. to which credulity and prieflcraft can go, I con- fider it as nothing but a proof of the extreme folly , or fraud to which prejudice and infidelity can. carry a minute philofopher. You profefs a fond- nefs for fcience; I will refer you to a fcientitie man, who was neiiher a commentator nor a priefb, — to Fergufon. — In a tra6l, entitled- — The Year of our Saviour's Crucifixion afcertained ; and the darknefs, at the time of his crucifixion, proved to be fupernaturai^ — this real philofopher inter- prets the remarkable prophecy in the Qdi chapter of Daniel, and concludes his dilTertation in. the following words — " Tiius we have an aftrono- mical demonftration of the truth of this ancient prophecy, feeing that the prophetic year of the Mefliah's being cut off, was the very fame with the- aftronomical." I have fomewhere read an account of a folemn difputation. which was held at. Venice, in the laH: century, between a jew and a chriilian:- — the chriftian ifrongly argued, from- Daniel's prophecy of the feventy weeks, that Jefus was the Mefliah whom the jews had long expelled, from the predictions of their prophets: — the learned Rabbi, who prefided at this difpu- tation, was fo forcibly ftruck by the argument, th*it he put an end to the bulinefs, by faying —
" Let.
I 95 )
'*^ Let us (liut up our Bibles; for if we proceed in the examination of this prophecy, it will make ^las all become chriflians." — Was it a fimilar ap- prehenfion which deterred you from fo much as opening the book of Daniel ! You have not pro- duced from it one exceptionable palTage. I hope you will read that book with attention, with in- telligence, and with an unbiaiTed mind follow the advice of our Saviour when he quoted this very prophecy — " Let him that readeth underftand" — and I ihall not defpair of your converhon from deifm to chriftianity.
In order to difcredit the authority of the books which you allow to be genuine, you form a ftrange and prodigious hypothefis concerning Ezekiel and Daniel, for which there is no man- ner of foundation either in hifhory or probability. You fuppofe thefe two men to have had no dreams, nc vifions, no revelation from God Al- mighty; but to have pretended to thefe things; and, under that difguife, to have carried on an enigmatical correfpondence relative to the reco- very of their country from the Babylonian yoke. That any man in his fenfes ihould frame or adopt fuch an hypothefis, fhould have fo little regard -:to his own reputation as an impartial inquirer .after truth, fo little refpecTt for the underftanding of his readers, as to obtrude it on the world, would have appeared an incredible circumftance, had not you made it a fa 61.
You quote a paiTage from Ezekiel ; in the 29th chapter, ver. 11, fpeaking of Egypt, it is feid— -' No foot of man Ihali pafs through it, nor foot
of
f 96 )
of beaft fhall pafs through it, neither fliall it he inhabited forty years:" — this, you fay, *' never •came to pafs, and confequently it is falfe, as all the books I have aheady reviewed are." Now, that this did come to pafs, we have, as Bifhop Newton obferves, " the teftimonies of Megaf- thenes and Berofus, two heathen hiftorians, who lived about 300 years before Chrift ; one of whom affirms, expreflly, that Nebuchadnezzar conquered the greater part of Africa ; and the other affirms it, in effe£t, in faying, that when Nebuchadnezzar heard of the death of his father, having fettled his affairs 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 di- r^ftly to Babylon." And if we had been pof- fefled of no tellimony in fupport of the prophecy, it would have been an haffcy conclufion, that the prophecy never came to pafs; the hiflory of Egypt, at fo remote a period, being no where ac- curately and circumffantially related. I admit that no period can be pointed out, from the age of Ezekiel to the prefent, in which there was no foot <of man or beall: to be feen for forty years in all Egypt ; but fome think that only a part of Egypt is hearfpoken of; and furely you do notexpecSla literal accomplilliment of an hyperbolical expref- fion, denoting great defolation ; importing that the trade of Egypt, which was carried on then, as at prefent, by caravans, by the foot of man and beaft, (hould be annihilated. Had you taken the trouble to have looked a little farther into the book from which you have made your quotation,
you
( 97 ) you would have there fecn a prophecy, delivered above two thoufand years ago, and which has been fulfilling from that time to this — " Egypt iTiall be the bafeft of the kingdoms, neither {hall it exalt itfelf any more above the nations — there fhall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt.'* — This you may call a dream, a vil^n, a lie : I efteem it a wonderful prophecy ; for " as is the prophe- cy, fo has been the event. Egypt was conquered by the Babylonians ; and after the Babylonians, by the Perhans ; and after the Perfians it became fubjeil to the Macedonians ; and after the Mace- donians, to the Romans ; and after the Romans, to the Saracens ; and then to the Mamalucs ; and is now a province of the Turkilli empire."
Suffer me to produce to you, from this author, not an enigmatical letter to Daniel refpeclieg the recovery of Jerufalem from the hands of the king of Babvlon, but an enigmatical prophecy concern- ing Zedekiah the king of Jerufalem, before it was taken by the Chaldeans. — '' I will bring him (Zedekiah) to Babylon, to the land of tile Chal- deans; yet (hall he wot fee it, though he fhall die there." — How I not fee Babylon, when he fhould die there! How, moreover, is this confiftent, you may afk, with v/hat Jeremiah had foretold— that Zedekiah fhould fee the eyes of the king of Babylon? — This darknefs of exprefTion, and ap- parent contradi6lion betv^^een the tv/o prophets, induced Zedekiah (as Jofephus informs us) to give no credit to either of them ; yet he unhappily experienced, and the fa61 is wordiy your obfer- Tation, the truth of them both. He faw the eves I of
( 98 ) of the kiiig of Babylon, net at Babylon, hut a£ RIblah ; his eyes were then put out, and he vas -carried to Babylon, yet he law it not ; and thus were the predidions of both the prophets veriiied, and the enigma of Ezekiel explained.
As to your wonderf'.il difcovery that the pro- phecy of Jonah is a book of fo me gentile, " and that it has been written as a fable, to expofe the nonfenfe, and to fatirize the vicious and malig- nant character of a Bible prophet, or a predicfling prieft," I ihall put it, covered with hellebore, for the fer\nce of its author, on the fame fhelf with your hypothefis concerning the confpiracv of l)aniel and Ezekiel, and Iball not fay another ■word about it.
You conclude your obje6lions to the Old Tef- tament in a triumphant ftyle ; an angry opponent would fay, in a ftyle of extreme arrogance, and fottifh felf-fufEciency. — " I have gone," you fay^ *' 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 ihoulders, and fell trees 4 here they lie; and the priefis, if they can^ may replant them. They may, perhaps, (lick them in the ground, but they wall never grow." — And is it poflible that you iliould think fo highly of your performance, as to believe, that you have thereby demolifl:ed the authority of a book, which Newton himfelf efr- teemed the moft authentic of all hiflorics ; which, by its celeftial light, illumines the darkcft ages of antiquity ; which is the touchftone whereby %ve are enabled to diftinguifli between true aqd
fabulous
( 99 )■■ fabillous theology, between the God of Ifraef,-
holy, juft, and good, and tlie Impure rabble of hea- then Baalim ; which har- been thought, by com- 'petent judges, to have a^fforded matter for the laws of Solon, and a fourjiation for the philofophy of Fiato ; which lias been illuflrated by the labour of learning, in ajl ages and couritries ; ar.d been admh-ed and veiTerated for its piety, its fublimity, its veracity, by all who are able to read and un- derftand it? No, fir; you have gone indeed through the wood, with the beft intention in tlie world to cut it down ; but you have merely buhed yourfelf in expofing to vulgar contempt a few unlightjy flirubs, which good men have wifely concealed from public view; you have entangled youifelf in thickets of thorns and briars ; you havse loft your way on the mountains of Lebanon; the goodly cedar trees whereof, lamenting the madnefs, and pitying the blindnefs of your rage againll: 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 I'eftament hunting after difficulties: and yoR have found fome real ones ; thefe you have en- deavoured to magnify into infurmountable objec- tions to the authority of the whole book. When it is coniidered that the Old 1 eftament is com- pofed of feveral books, written by different au- thors, and at different periods, from Mofes to Malachi, comprifmg an abftradted hiftory of a particular nation for above a thoufand years, I think the real difficulties which occur m it are.
much
( loo )
much fewer, and of much lefs importaflce, than could reafonably have been expe6ted. Apparent difficulties you have reprefented as real ones, with- out hinting at the manner in which they have been explained. You have ridiculed things held moft facred, and calumniated chara6ters efreemed moft venerable; you have excited the feoffs of the profane ; increafed the fcepticifm of the doubt- ful ; {haken the faith of the unlearned ; fuggefled cavils to the " difputers of this world;" and per- plexed the minds of honeft men who wifh to worfliip the God of their fathers in fmcerity 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 tht fevcral parts. You have faid nothing of the wifdom of God in fele6ting a particular peop\^ from the reft of mankind, not for their own fakes, but that diey might witnefs to the whole world, in fucceffive ages, his exiftence and attributes ; that they might be an inftrum-cnt of fubverting idolatry, of declaring the name of the God of Ifrael throughout the whole earth. It was through this nation that the Egyptians faw the wonders of God ; diat the Canaanites (whom wickednefs had made a reproach to human nature) felt his judgments ; that the Babylonians iffued their de- crees— " That none fliould dare to fpeak amifs of the God of Ifraei — that all (liould fear and tremble before him:"' — and it is through them that you and 1, and all the world, are not at this day worfliippers of idols. You have faid nothing of
ths
( 101 , )
the goodnefs of God in promifing, that, through, the feed of Abraham, ull tlie nations of the earth, were to he blefled ; that the defire of all nations, the bleffing of Abraham to the gentiles, fliouid come. You have paiFed by all the prophecies refpe6llng the coming of the MefSah; though they abfolutely fixed the time of his coming, and of his being cut off; defcribed his office, charac- ter, condition, fufferings, and death, in fo cij- cumflantial a manner, that we cannot but be af- ro ni died at the accuracy of their completion in the perfon of Jefus of Nazareth. You have n'egle6led noticing the teftimony of the whole jewifli nation, to the truth both of the natural and miraculous fa^fls recorded in the Old Teftament. That we may better judge of the weight of this tellimony, let us fuppofe that God fhould now minifeil: himfelf to us, as we contend he did to the Ifraelites in Egypt-, in the defert, and in tlie land of Canaan; and that he Oiould continue fhefe manifeftations of himfelf to our poiierity for a thoufand years or more, punifhing or re- warding them according- as thev difobeyed or obeyed his commands ; what would you expedl iliould be the iffue ? You would expe<Sl diat our poilerity would, in the remote ft period of time, adhere to their God, and maintain, againft all opponents, the truth of the books in which the difpenfations of God to us and to our fuccefiors had been recorded. They would not yield to the^ objedlions of men, who, not having experienced' tiae fame divine government, fliould, for want of ftreh experience^ refufe affent to dieir teftimoriyo 1-^-. -No.;.
( 102 }
No; they would be to the then furrounding na- tions, what the jews are to us, wltnefTes of the cxiftence and of the moral government of God.
LETTER Vir.
" ^T^HE New Teftment, they tell us, is found- j^ ed upon the prophecies of the Old ; if fo, it mult foil jw the fate of its foundation." — Thus you open your attack upon theNew Teftament; and 1 agree with you, that the New Teftament muPc follow the fate of the Old ; and that fate is to remain unimpaired by fuch efforts as you have made againfl: it. The New Teftament, how- ever, 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-witnefs of the mira- cles of Jefus, he would have made the fame con- clufion diat the jew Nicodemus did — *' 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 Saviour tells the jews — " Had ye believed Mofes, ye would have believed m.e; for he wrote of me:" — and he bids them fearch the fcriptures, for they teftified of him: — but, notwithdanding this appeal to the prophecies of the Old Teftament, Jefus faid to the jews, " Though ye believe not me, believe the works" — '' believe me for the very works'
fake'^
( 103 )
fake" — *' if I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had fin." — Thefe are fufficient proofs that the truth of Chri Ill's million was not even to the jews, much lefs to the gentiles, founded folely on the truth oFthe prophecies of the Old Teftameni. So that if you could prove fome of thefe prophecies to have been mifapplied, and not completed in the perfon of Jefus, the truth of the chriftian religion would not thereby be overturned. — That Jefus of Nazereth was the perfon, in whom all the prophecies, direct and typical, in the Old Tefta- ment, refpectlng tlie MefTiah, were fulfilled, is a propofition founded on thofe prophecies, and to he proved hv comparing them with the hiftory of his life. That Jefus was a prophet fent from God. is one propofition — that Jefus was t/ie pro- phet, the iMemah, is another : and tliough he cer- tainly was both a prophet and t/ie prophet, yefc the foundations of ths proof of thefe propofitlons- are feparate and dnlindl.
■ The mere exiftence " of fuch a woman as Mary, an.l of fuch a man as Jofeph, and Jefus," is, you fay, a matrer of indiiterence, about which: there is no ground either to believe or to difbe- lieve. — Belief is different from knowledge, with, which you here feem to confound it. VVe know that the whole is greater than its part — and we know that all the angles in the fame fegment of a circle are equal to each other — we have intuition and demonftracion as grounds of this knowledge; but is tiiere no ground for belief of pail: or future exiflence? Is there no ground foi- believing that;-
tlie
( 104 )
the fun will exifl: to-morrow, and that your father exiiled before you ? You condefcend, however, to think it probable, that there were fuch perfons as Mary, Jofeph, and Jefus ; and, without troubling yourfelf about their exigence or non-ex iftence, affuming, as it were, for the fake of argument, but without pofitively granting, their exigence, you proceed to inform us, " that it is the fable of Jefus Ciirift, as told in the New TeiHment, and fhe wild and vifionary do6trine raifed thereon," againO: which you contend. You will not repute it a fable, that there was fuch a man as Jefus Chrift ; that he lived in Judea near eighteen hun- dred years ago ; that he went about doing goocf, and preachings- not only in the villages of Galilee^ Ijut in the city C^^ Jerufalem ; that he had feverai followers who conftantiy attended him; tha^t hd was put to death by Pontius Pilate ; that the dif- ciples were numerous a few years" after his deatiij . not only in Judea, but in Rome, the capital of the world, and in every province ot the Roman em- pare; that a particular day has been obferved in a religious manner, by all his followers, in comme- moration of a real or.fuppofed refurrcution; and that the conftant celebration oF baptifm, and of the Lord's fupper^ may be traced back from the prefent time to him, as the authci^ of thofe inftitu- tions. Thefe things conil:itute, I fuppofe, no part of your fable; and if thefe things be fads, they will, when maturely confidered, draw after them> fo-many other things related in the New Tefta- ilient concerning Jefus, that there will be left for ynDur fable but very fcaniy materials^ which will
requite
( I05 )
require great fertility of invention before you will drefs them up into any form which will not dif- guft even a fnperficial obferver.
The miraculous conception you efteem a fable, and in your mind it is anobfcene fable. — Impure indeed muft that man's imagination be, who can difcover any obfcenity in the angel's declaration to Mary-^The Holy Ghoft fliall come upon thee, and the power of the Higheft (hall over- fhadowthec: therefore tliat Koly thing which /hall be born of thee, fnali be called the Son of God, — I wonder you do not find obfcenity in Genefis, where it is fald, " The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters," and brought order out of confuhon, a world out of a chaos, by his foftering influence. As to the chriftian faith being built upon the heathen mythology, there is no ground whatever for the aiTertlon; there would have been fome for faying, that much of tiie heathen mythology was built upon the events recorded in the Old Teftament.
You come now to a demonftration, or, which amounts to the fame thing, to a proportion which cannot, you fay, be controverted : — firfl, " That the agreement of all the parts ot a ftory does not prove that ftory to be true, becaufe the parts may agree and the whole may be falfe; — fecondlv, That the difagreement of the parts of a ftory proves that the whole cannot be true. The agree- ment does not prove truth, but the difagreement proves falfehood pofitlvely." Great ufe, I per- ceive, is to be made of this propofition. You will pardon my unfkilfulnefs in diale6tics, if I
prefums
( io6 )
prefumc to controvert the truth of this abftra(9: propofitioii, 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 perfons (the life of Do6lcr Johnfon, for in fiance, by Sir John Hawkins and Mr. Bofwell.) Now, I thinic it fcarcely pofiible for even two perfons, and the: difficulty is increafed if there are more than two, to write the hiftory of the; life of any one of their acquaintance, without there being a ccnfiderable difference between them, with refpedt to the num- her and order of the incidents of his li-fe. Some things will be omitted by one, and mentioned by the other; forae things wU-1 be briefly touched by- one, and the fame things will be circumftantially detailed by the other ; the fame things, which are ■ mentioned in the fame wa)^ by them both, may not be mentioned as having happened exadlly at the fame point of time, w-ith other poiiible and probable differences. But thefe real or apparent difficulties, in minute circumfiances, will not in- validate their teftimony as to the material tranfac- ticxns of his life, much lefs will they render the whole of it a fable. If feveral independent wit- iieffes, of fair charadler, fliould agree in all the parts of a ftory, (in teftifying, for inftance, that a murder or a robbery was committed at a parti- cular time, in a particular place, and by a certain individual,) every court of juftice in the world would admit the fadt, notwithiianding the ab- •frraci poffibility of the whole being falfe : — again, if feveral honelf men {liould agree in faying, that thpy faw the king of France beheaded, though
they
( 107 )
tlaey fhould difagree about the figure of the guil- lotine, or the fize of his executioner, as to the king's hands being bound or ioofe, as to his being compofed or agitated in afcending the fcaffold, yet every court of juftice in the world would think, that iuch difference, refpedling the clrcumftances of the fact, did not invalidate the evidence refpe6l- ing the fact itfelf. When you fpeak of the whole of a ftory, you cannot mean every particular cir- cumftance connected with the ftory, but not ef- fential to it ; you rauft mean che pith and marrow Ojf the ftory ; for it would be impoffible to efta- blifh the truth of any fact, (of admirals Byng or Keppel, for example, having neglected or not negle6led their duty) if a difagreement in the evi- dence of witneffes, in minute points, fhould be confidcred.as annihilating the weight of their evi- dence in points of im.portance. In a word, the relation of a fa<9: differs elTentially from the de-l monftration of a theorem. If one Ifep is left out,, one link in the chain of ideas conffituting a de- monftration is omitted, the conclufion will be. deftroyed ; but a fact may be eftablifhed, not- Avithftanding a difagreement of the witneifes in certain trifling particulars of their evidence re- fpefting it.
You apply your Incontrovertible propoiiti :;n to the genealogies of Chriil: given by Matthew and Lruke — there is a difagreement between them; therefore, you fay, " If Matthew fpeak. trutli, Luke fpeaks falfehood ; and if Luke fpeak truth, Matthew fpeaks falfehood ; and thence there is no, authority for believing either ; and if thev cannot ba
believed
( io8 )
t?elleved even in the very firft thing they fay and fetout to prove, they are not entitled to be believed in any thing they fay afterwards." I cannot ad- mit either your premifes ch your conclufion — not your conclufion. becaufe tv/o authors, who differ in tracing back die pedigree of an individual for above a thoufaud years, cannot, on that account, be efteemed incompetent to bear teftimony to the tranfa6lions of his life, unlefs an intention to falfily could be proved againfl thein. If two Weifh hiftorians fhould, at this time, write the life of any remarkable man of their country, who had been dead t\venty or thirty years, and fhould, through different branches of their genealogical tree, carry up the pedigree to Cadwallon, 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 difP.^ient inflrum.ents, but without the leaft intention to write a falfehood ? — I cannot ad- mit your premifes ; becaufe Matthew fpeaks truth, and Luk€ fpeaks truth, though they do not fpeak the fam.e truth ; Matthew giving the genealogy of Jofeph the reputed father or Jefus, and Luke giv- ing the genealogy of Mary the mother of Jefus. If you will not admit this, other explanations of the difficulty might be given ; but I hold it fufE- cient to fay, that die authors had no defign to deceive the reader; that they took their accounts from the public regifters, which were carefully kept ; and that had they been fabricators of thefe genealogies, they would have been expofed at the time to inftant dete6lion, and the certainty of that
detedtion
( ro9 )
^tec^lon would have prevented them from mak- ing the attempt to impofe a falfe genealogy on the jewirti 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 generations, to find the aver- age age of each pei-fon mentioned in St. Matthew's lilt at the time his firfl: fon was born, it is only neceffary to divide 1080 by 27, which gives 40 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 generations fhouid 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 afTumes the appearance of arithmetical accuracy, and the conclufion is in a ftyle which even its truth would not excufe : — yet the argument is good for no- thing, and the conclufion is not true. You have read the Bible with fome attention ; and you are extremely liberal in imputing to it lies and abfur- dities ; read it over again, efpecially the books of the Chronicles^ and you will there find, that, in the genealogical lift of St. Matthew, tliree gene- rations are omitted between Joram and Ozias-; Joram was the father of Azariah, Azariah of Joafh, Joaih of Amaziah, and Amaziah of Ozias. I inquire not, in this place, whence this omifTion 4)roceedcd ; whether it is to be attributed to an error in the genealogical tables from whence Mat- thew took his account, or to a corruption o( the K text
( no )
text of the evangelift ; ftill it is an omiflion. Noi^ if you will add thefe three generations to the 27 ij^ou mention, and divide 1080 hy 30, you will iand the average age when thefe jews had each of them their firft fon born was 36. They married fooner than they ought to have done, according to Ariftotle, who £xes thirty-feven as the moll proper age when a man fhoul^ marry. Nor was it neceflary that they fhould have been old bache- lors, though each of them had not a fon to fuc- ceed him till he was thirty-fix ; they might have been married at twenty, without having a fon till they were forty. You affume, in your argument, that the lirll: born fon fucceeded the father in the lift — this is not true. Solomon fucceeded David^ vet David had at leaft fix fons, who were grown to manhood before Solomon was born ; and Re- hoboam had at leaft three fons hefore he had Abia (Abijah) who fucceeded him. — It is needlefs to cite more inftances to this purpofe ; hut from thefe, and other circumftances which might be infifted upon, I €an fee no ground for believing, that the genealogy of Jefus Chrift, mentioned by St. Mat- Slew, is not a folemn truth.
You infift much upon fome things being men^ tioned by one evangelift, which are not mention^ ed by all or by any of the others ; and you take this to be a reafon why we ftiould confider the gofpels, not as the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but as the produ61ions of fome unconneaed individuals, each of whom made his own legend. I do not admit the truth of this fup- pofition \ but I may be allowed to ufe it as an ar- gument
( "I )'
^ument agaliiil: yourfelf — it removes every pof- hble iiupicioii ot" friud and impoilure, and con- firiTis me gofpel hill:ory in die ftrongell manner. Four unconncded individuals have each written memoirs of the life of Jefus ; from whatever fourcc they derived tlieir materials, it is evident that they at>Tee in a orreat many particulars of tlie laft im- porcduce ; luch as tiie punty or ms manners : the fanct'ty of his doctrines; the multitude and pub- licity Of his miracles ; the perfecuting fpirit of his ene;nies; the manner of his death; and the cer- tainty of his refurreCtion ; and whilft they agree in ihefe great points, their difagreement in points of little confequence, is rather a confirmation of the truth, than an Indication of the fallhood, of their feveral accounts. — Had thev agreed in no- thing, their te'itimonv ought to have been rejected as a legendary tale; had they agreed in every thing, it might have been fufpected that, inilead of unconnected individuals, they were a {el of impoitors. The manner in which the evangehRs have recorded the particulars of the life of Jefus» is wholly conformable to what yve experience in other biographers, and claims our highetl afien? to i:s truth ; notwitliflanding the force of your incontrovertible propofition.
As an in fiance of contradi^Sfion between the evangelifts, you tell us, that Matthew fays, the angel, announcing the immaculate conception, appeared unto Jofeph ; but Luke fays, he appeared unto Mary. — The angel. Sir, appeared to the:n both ; to Mary, when he infor-med her that Hie ilioyld, by the power of God, conceive a fon;
to
( J12 )
to Jofeph, fome months afterwards, when Mary's pregnancy was vlfible ; in the interim (he had paid a vilit of three months to her confin Elizabeth. It might have been expe6led, that, from the ac- curacy with which you have read your Bible, you could not have confounded thefeobvioufly-diftin6i appearances ; but men, even of candour, are liable to miftakes. Who, you a{k, would now believe a girl, who fhould fay fhe was gotten with child by a ghoft? — Who, but yourfclf, would ever have aiked a queilion fo abominably indecent and profane ? I cannot argue with you on this fub- jcdl. — You will never perfuade the world, that the Holy Spirit of God has any refemblance to the ftage ghofts in Hamlet or Macbeth, from which you feem to have derived your idea of it.
The ftory of the maflacre of the young chil- dren by the order of Herod, is mentioned only by Matthew ;- and therefore you think it is a lie. We muH: give up all hiftcry if we refufc to admit fa6ls recorded by only one hiftorian. Matthew ad- drelTedhis gofpel to the jews, and put them in mind of a circuinilance, of which they mud have had a meknGholy remembrance ; but gentile converts were lefs interefted in. that event. The evangelifts were not writing the life of Herod, but of Jefus ; it is no wonder that they omitted, above half a cen- tury after the death of Herod, an inflance of his cruelty, which was not effentially conne6led with their ful)je61:. The maflacre, however, was pro- bably known even at Rome ; and it was certainly correfpondent to the chara6ler of Herod. John, you fay, at the time of the mafTacre, " v/as unde/
tWO:
( 113 )
two years of age, and yet he efcaped; (o that the ftory circumftantially belies itfelf." — John was fix monchs older than Jefus ; and you cannot prove that he was not beyond the age to which the order of Herod extended ; it probably reached no farther than to thofe who had completed their firft year, without including thofe who had enter- ed upon their fecond: bui without 'Infilling upon this, ftill I contend that you cannot prove John to have been under two years of age at the time of the mafTacre; and I could give many probable reafons to the contrary. Nor is it certain diat John was, at that time, in that part of the coun- try to which the edict of Herod extended. Buf: there would be no end of anfwering, at lengdi, all your litde objections.
No two of the evangelifts. you obferve, ajree in recidng, exaftly in the fame %vcrds, die WTUten infcription which was put over Chrilt when he was crucitied. — I admit that diere is an uneiTen- tial verbal ditterence; and are you certain that there was not a verbal difference in the infcrip- tions themfelves - — One was written in Hebrew, anoiher in Greek, another in Latin ; and, thougii . they had all the fame meaning, vet it is probable, that if two men had tranllated the Hebrew and . the Latin into Greek, there woulfl have been :i verbal diiterence between their tranfiations. Ycu have rendered yourfelf famous by writing a book called — The Rights of Man :^iad you been guillotined by Robefpierrc, with this tide, written in French, Engliih, and German, and affixed to t^e guillotine — Thomas Paine, of America, au- K.2L. thor.
( iH ) thor of The Rights of Man — and had four per- fons, lome of whom had feen the execution, and the reft had heard of it from eye- witneffes,- written fhori accounts of your life twenty years or more after your death, and one had faid the infcription v/as — 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 fenfe havs doubted, on account of this difagreement, the ve- racity of the- authors in writhvg your life ? — " The only one," you tell us, " of the men called apof- ties, who appears to have been near the fpot where Jefus was crucified, was Peter." — This, your affertion, is not true — we do not know that Peter was prefent at the crucifixion ; but we do know that Jolin, the difciple whom Jefus loved, was prefent; for Jefus fpoke to him from the crofs. — You go on, " But why fliould we believe Peter, conviifted, by tlieir own account, of perjury, in fwearirig that he knew not Jefus ?" I will tell you why — beeaufe Peter lincerely repented of the wickednefs into which he had been betrayed, througli fear for his life, and fuitered martyrdom in alteration of the truth of the chrif^ian religion. But the evangeiifts difagree, you fay, not only as to the fuperfcription on the crofs, but as to the time of the crucifixion, " Mark faying it was at the third hour (nine in the morning,) and John at the iixth hour (twelve, as you fuppofe at noon.)" Various folutions have been given of this diffi-
euliyj..
( "5 ) culty, none of which fatisfied Doctor Middleton; much lefs can it be expe6ted that any of them fhould fatisfy you ; but there is a folution not no- ticed by him, in which many judicious men have acquiefced — That John, writing his gofpel in Aha, ufed the Roman method of computing time ,• which was the fame as our own ; fo that by the fixdi hour, when Jefus was condemned^ we are to underftand fix o'clock in the morning ; the in- termediate time from fix to nine, when he was crucihed, being eniployed in preparing for the cru- cifixion. But if this difficulty fhouid be ftili ef- tecmed infuperable, it does not follow that it will always remain fo ; and if it ihould, the main point, the crucifixion of Jefus, will not be afFedled there-
I cannot, in this place, omit remarking fome circumftances attending the crucifixion, which are fo natural, that we might have wondered if they had not occurred. Of all the difciples of Jefus, John was beloved by him with a peculiar^ degree of afFedlion ; and, as kicdnefs produces kindnefs, there can be little doubt that the regard was reciprocal. Now, whom fhouid we expecSb- to be the attendants of Jefus in his laft fulfering ? Whom but John, the friend of his heart? — Whom but his mother, whofe foul was now pierced through by the fword of forrow, which Simeon had foretold? — Whom but thofe, who had been attached to him through life ; w^ho, hav-. ing been healed by him of their infirmities, were }mpelle<j by gratitude to minifter to him of their fubfiance, to be attentive to all his wants ? — Thefe-
were
( "6 )
were the perfons whom we fliould have expelled to attend his execution ; and thcle were there. To whom would an expiring fon, of the beft afFec« tions, recommend a poor, and, probably, a widow- ed mother, but to his warmeil (riend? — And this did Jefus. — Unmindful of the extremity of his own torture, and anxious to alleviate the burden of her forrows, and to protect her old age from future want and miiery, he faid to his beloved difciple — ■ " Behold thy mother! and from that hour that difciple took her to his own home." I own to you, that fuch inilances as thefe, of the conformity of events to our probable expedlation, are to ;Tie genuine marks of the fimplicity and truth ot the goO^els ; and far outweigh a thoufand little objec- tions, ariilng from our ignorance of manners, times, and circumitances, or from our incapacity to compreliend the means ufed by the Supreme Being in the moral government of his creatures.
St. Matthew mentions feveral miracles whici) attended our Saviour's crucitixion — the darkncfs which overfpread the land — the rending of the veil of the temple — an earthquake which rent the rocks — and the rcfurre6i:ion of many faints, and their going into the holy city. — " Such," you fay, " is the account which this dalliing writer of the book of Matthew gives, but in which he is not fupported by the writers of the other books." This is. not accurately exprefTed ; Mauhew is fup- ' ported by Mark and Luke, with refpedt to two of the miracles — the darknefs — and the rending c^^the veil : — and their omifTion of the others doe*. iK)t prove, that they were either ignorant of them,
or.
( 117 )
i5r difbelieved them. I think it idle to pretend t© fay poluively what influenced them to mention only two miracles ; they probably thought them fufficient to convince any perfon, as they con- vinced the centurion, that Jefus " was a righteous man" — " the Son of God." And thefe two mi- ricles were better calculated to produce general convidlion amongft the perfons for whofe benefit Mark and Luke wrote their gofpels, than either the earthquake or the relurre6lion of the faints. The earthquake was, probably, confined to a particular fpot, and might, by an cbjedlor, have been called a natural phenomenon ; and thofe to whom the faints appeared might, at the time of wTiting the gofpels of Mark and Luke, have been dead: but the darknefs muft have been generally known and remembered ; and the veil of the tem- ple might flill be preferved at the time thefe au- thors wrote. — As to John not mentioning any of thefe miracles — it is well known that his gofpel . was written as a kind of fupplement to the other gofpels; he has therefore omitted many things which the other three evangelifts had related, and he has added feveral things which they had not mentioned; in particular, he has added a circum- ftance of great importance; he telis us that he faw one of the foldiers pierce the fide of Jefus with a fpear, and that blood and water flowed through the wound ; and left any one fhould doubt of the fadl, from its not being mentioned by the other evangeliilis, he afierts it with peculiar ear- jieftnefs — " And he that faw it, bare record, and his record is true ; and he knoweth that he faith
truej
( ii8 )
true, that ye might believe." — John faw blood ami
water flowing from the wound ; the blood is eafily accounted for ; but whence came the water ? The auatomifts tell us — that it came from t\\Q pericar- dium : — fo confiltent is evangelical teftimony with the moft curious refearches into natural fcience ! — You amufe yourfelf with the account of what the fcripture calls many faints, and you call an army oi faints, and are angry with Matthew- for not having told you a great many things about them. — It is very pofTible that Matthew might have known the fact of their rsfurreclion, with- out knov/ing every thing about them ; but if he had gratihed your curiofity in every particular, I am of opinion that you would not have believed a word of what he had told you. I have ro curiofity on the fubje6l; it is enough for me to know that " Chrifl was the hrfl. fruits of them that ilept," arid " that all that are in the graves fhall hear his voice and ihall come forth," as thofe holy men did, who heard the voice of the Son of God at his refurre6lion, and palTed from death to lite. If I durft indulge myfelf in being wife above what is written, I might be able to anfwer many of your inquiries relative to thefe faints: but I dare nor touch the ark of the Lord, I dare not fupport the authority of fcripture by the boldnefs of con- je61:ure. Whatever difficulty there may be in accounting for the filence of the other evangelifts, and of St. Paul alfo, on this fubjedl, yet there is a greater difficulty in fupponng that Ivlatthev/ did not give a true narration of what had happened at th? crucifixion. If there had been no fupernatural
daikuefs
( "9 )
'^arknefs, no earthquake, nor ending of the veil of -the temple, no graves opened, no refurrecftion of holy men, no appearance of them unto many — if none of thefe tilings had been true, or rather, If any one of them had been falfe, what motive could Matthew, writing to the jews, have had for trumping up fuch wonderful fiiories? He wrote, as every man does, with an intention 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, iliould addreis to the French nation an hiftory of Louis XVl. would venture to af- finn, that when he was beheaded there was dark^^ nefs for three hours over all France ? that there was an earthquake ? that rocks were fplit ? graves opened ? and dead men brought to lite, who ap^ peared to many perfons in Paris? — It is quite im-- poffible to fuppofe, that any one would dare to publiiTi fuch obvious lies ; and I think it equally impoflible to fuppofe, that Matthew would have dared to publiili his account of what happened at the death of Jefus, had not that account been generally known to be true.
LETTER
( ^^o )
LETTER VIII.
THE " tale of the refurre6lIon," you fay, " follows that of the crucifixion." — You have accuflomed me fo much to this kind of Ian- guage, that when I find you fpeaking of a tale, I have no doubt of meeting with a truth. From the apparent difagreement in the accounts which the evangeiifts have given of fome circumftances refpedling therefurre£t;on, you remark — " If the writers of thefe books had gone into any court of juftice to prove an alil/i, (tor it is of the nature of an alibi that is here attempted to be proved, namely, the abfence of a dead body by fnpernatu- ral means,) and had given their evidence in the fame contradi6lory manner as it is here given, they would have been in danger of having their ears cropt for perjury, and would have juftly de^ ferved it" — " hard words, or hanging," it feems, if you had been their judge. Now, I maintain, that it is the brevity with which the account of the Tefurre6lion is given by all the evangeiifts, which has occafioned the Jeeming confufion ; and that this confufion would have been cleared up at once, if the witnefTes of the refurrection had been exa- mined before any judicature. As v/e cannot have this "jiva voce examination of all the witnefTes, ietus call up and queftionthe evangeiifts as wit- nefles to a fupernatural ahbi. — Did you find the
fepulchre
( >2I )
fepulchre of Jefus empty ? One of us a(rtuany faw it empty, and the reft heard, from eye-wit- neffes, that it was empty. — Did you, or any of thfr followers of Jefus, take away the dead body from the fepulchre ? All anfwer, No. — Did the {bldiers, or the jews, take away the body ? No, — How are you certain of that ? Becaufe we faw the body when it v/as dead, and we faw it afterwards when it was alive. — How do you know that what you faw was tlie body of Jefus ? We had been long and intimately acquainted with Jefus, and knew his perfon perfectly. — Were you not af- frighted, 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 the fide, and the print of the nails in the hands and feer. — And all this you are ready to fwear? W^e are; and we are ready to die alfo, fooner than we will deny any part of it. — I'his is the teftimony which all the evangelifts would give, in whatever court of juf- tlce they were examined; and this, I apprehend, would fufficientiy eftabliih the alibi of the dead body from the fepulchre by fupernatural means.
But as the refurredion of Jefus is a point which you attack widi all your force, I will examine minutely the principal of your objcaions ; I da not think them deferving oi this notice, hut they ihall have it. The book of M itihew, you fay, " Hates that when Chrift was put in the fepul' ■chre, the jews applied to Piiate for a watch or a .guard to be placed over the fepulchre, to prevent the body being ftolen by thedifciples."— ladmit ^' tliis
I 122 )
tliis account, but it is not the whole of tlie ac- count: you have omitted the-reafon for the re- queft 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 lemark this ; for at the very time that Jefus predi6led his refurredion, he pre- dided alfo his crucifixion, and all that he fhouM fuffer from the malice of thofe very men who now applied to Pilate for a guard. — " He fhewed to his difciples, how that he mull: go unto Jerufalem, and fufFer many things of the elders, and chief priefts, and fcribes, and be killed, and be raifed again the third day." (Matt. xvi. 21.) Thefe men knew full well that the firft part of this pre- didtion had been accurately fulfilled through their malignity ; and, inftead of repenting of what they had done, they were fo infatuated as to fuppofe, that by a guard of foldiers they could prevent the completion of the fecond. — The other books, yeu obferve, " fav nothing about this application, nor about the fealing of the ftone, nor the guard, nor the watch, and according to thefe accounts there were none." — This, fir, I deny. The other books do not fay that there were none of ihefe things ; how often muft I repeat, that omiffions are not contradidtlons, nor lilence concerning a fadt a denial of it ?
You go on — " The book of Matdiew conti- nues its account, that at the end of the fabbath, as it began to dawn, towards the firft day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to fee the fepukhre. Mark fays it was
fun-
( 123 ) &n^riring, and John fays it was dark. Luke fays k 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 alone. So well do they agree about their lirfl evidence ! they all appear, how- ever, to have known mofi: about Mary Magdalene ; (lie was a wom:ai of a large acquaintance, and it was not an ill conje6lure that flie might be upon the ftroli." — I'his is a long paragraph; I will anfwer it diftindly: — firft, there is no difagree- ment of evidence with refpecSt to the time when the women wen to the fepulchre; all the evangc- lifcs agree as to the day on which they w^ent; and, as to the time of the day, it was early in the morning ; what court of juftice in the world would fet afide this evidence, as iniuificient to fabftan- tiate the fa6l of the women's having gone to the fepiilchre, becaufe the witnefTes differed as to the degree of twilight which lighted them on their way ? Secondly, there is no difagreement of evi- dence with refpeCt to the perfons who went to the fepulciire. John (fates that Mary Magdalene went to the fepulchre ; but he does not ft ate, as you make hlmjiate, that Mary Magdalene went alone ; fhe miglit, for any thing you have proved, or can prove, to the contrary, have been accom- panied by all the women mentioned by Luke : — is it an unufual thing to diftinguifh byname a principal perfon going on a vifit, or an embafTy, without mentioning his fubordinate attendants ? Thirdly, in oppofiiion to your inhnuation that Marv Mag- dalene was a common woman, I wifli it to be
conhdered
( 12+ r
confidered whether there is any fcriptural autho- rity for that imputation ; and whether there be or not, I muft contend, that a repentant and reformed woman ought not to be efleemed an improper wit* nefs of a fa6t. The conjecture, which you adopt concerning her, is notb.ing lefs tlian an illiberal, indecent, unfounded calumny, not excufable in t]:ie mouth of a libertine, and intolerable in your's. The book of Matthew, you obferve, goes on to fay — " And behold, there was an earthquake, for the angel of the Lord defcended from heaven, and came and relied back the ftone from the door, and fat upon it : — but the other books fay nothing about any earthquake," — what then? does their filence prove that there was none? — " nor about the angel lolling back the (lone and fitting upon it ;" — v.hat then ? does their filence prove^ that the Hone was not rolled back by an angel; and that he did not fit upon it?—" and according to their accounts t4HM"e was iiD angel fitting there." — This conclufion 1 mufi deny ; their accounts do not fay there was no angel fitting there, at the time that Matthew fays he fat upon the ilone* They do not deny the fadl, they fimply omit the n~iention of k ; and they all take notice that the women, when they arrived at the fepulchre, found the ftone rolled away : lience it is evident that the ftone was rolled away before the women ar- rived at the fepulchre; and the other evangelifts, giving an account of what happened to the wo- men IV hen they reached the fepulchre, have mere- ly omitted giving an account of a tranfa£tion pre- vious to their arrival. Where is the contradic- tion }
( 125 )
tlon ? What {pace of time Intervened between the rolling away the ftone, 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 iitting on the ourfide he might have entered into the fepulchre ; and another angel might have made his appear- ance ; or, from the firlt, there might have been two, one on the outfide rolling away the ftonc, and the other within.= Luke, you tell us, " fays there were two, and they were both ftanding; and John fays there were two, and both f^'ing." — It is impoflible, I grant, even for an angel to be fitting and flanding at the fame intlant of time ; but Luke and John^o not fpeak of the. fame in- ftant, nor of the fame appearance — Luke fpeak s of the appearance to all the women; and John . of the appearance to Mary Magdalene alone,-, who tarried weeping at the fepulchie after Pete*" and John had left it.. But I forbear making any more minute remarks on ftill minuter objecStions, ail of which aie grounded on this miftake — that the angels were feen at one particular time, in one particular place, and by the fame individuals.
As to your inference, from Matthew^s ufing' (he expreffion unto this day, " that the book raufl have been manufadlured after a lapfe of fome generations at ieail," it cannot be admitted againft the pofitive teftimony of all antiquity. That the ftory about dealing away the body was a bungling ftory, I readily admit; but the chief priefts are anfwerable for it; it is not worthy either your notice or. mine, except as it is a L 2 ib-cn^ ;
( 126 )
ftrong inflance to you, to me, and to evcrj body, how far prejudice may miflead the under- flandlng.
You come to that part of the evidence in thofe books that refpedf, you fay, " the pretended ap- pearances of Chrifl after his pretended refunec- tion; the writer of the book of Matthew relates, that the angel that was fucing on the ftone at the mouth of the fcpulchre, faid to the twa Marys, (chap, xxviii. 7.) Behold, Chrid: is gone before you into Galilee, there fhall you fee him." The gofpel, fir, was preached to poor and illiterate men: and n is the duty of priefts to preach it to them in all its purity ; to guard them againd: the errors of miftaken, or the de- figns^of wicked men. You then, who can read your Bible, turn to this paffage, and you will find that the angel did not fay, " Behold, Chrift is gone before you into Galilee," — but, " Be- hold, /je gceth before you into Galilee." I know not what Bible you made ufe of in this quotation ; none that 1 have feen render the ori- ginal word by — he is gone : — it might be proper- ly rendered, he will go ; and it is literally ren- dered, he is going. This phrafe does not imply an immediate 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 fome di fiance. Even your daihing Matthev/ could not be guilty of fuch a blunder as to make the angel fay he Is gone ; for he tells US immediately afteiwaixls, tliat, as the women
were
( 127 ) were departing from the fepulchre to tell his dif- ciples whit the angels had faid to them, Jefus himfelf met them. Now how Jefus could be gone into Galilee, and yet meet the women at Jerufalem, 1 leave you to explain, for the blun- der is not chargeable upon Matthew. I excufe your introducing the exprelTion — '' then the ele- ven difciples went away into Gililee," for the quotation is rightly made; but had vou turned to the Greek Tellament, vou would not have found in this place any word anfwering to then\ the paffage is better tranilated — and the eleven. Chrift had faid to his difciples, (Matt. xxvi. 32.) " After I am rifen again, I will go before vou into Galilee:" — and the angel put the women in mind of the very exprefiion and predication — he is r'lfen^ as he faid; and behold, he goeth before you into Galilee. Matthew, intent upon the appearance in Galilee, of which there were, probably, at the time he wiore, many living wit- neffes in Judea, omits the mention of many ap- pearances taken notice of by John ; and, by this omiffion, feems to connect the day of the refur- re6lion of Jefus widi that of the departure of the difciples for Galilee. You feem to think this a great difficulty, and incapable of folution ; for you fay — " It is not poffible, unlefs we ad-- mit thefe difciples the right of wilful lying, that the writers of thefe books could be any of the eleven perfons called difciples ; for if, according to. Matthew, the eleven went into Galilee to meet Jefus in a mountain, by his own appoint- ment, on the fame day that he is faid to have
rifen,
( 128 )
rifen, Luke and John muft have been two of that eleven ; yet the writer ot Luke fays expreffly^ and John implies as much, tliat 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 Jerufa^ lem, Matthew mujfthave been one of that eleven 5 ; yet Matthew fays, die meeting was in a raoun- - tain, in- Galilee, and confequently the evidence ^iveii- in. thofe. books deffroys each, other/' When 1 was a young man in tlie univerfity, I was pretty much ^ccufiomed to drawing ot con- fequences; biit my Alma Mater did not fuiFer. me to draw confequences after your manner; fhe taught me — that a falfe polition mull: end in an abfurd conclufion. I have ihewn your po- fition— ^that the eleven .went into GaliJee on the day of the refurre61:ion-r-to be falfe, and hence your confequcnc8= — ^that the evidence given in thefe two books deftroys each other— is not to be ad^ mitted. Y.ou> ought, moreover, to have confi-, dered, that; the. feaft of unleavened bread, which immediately followed the day on. which the paffover was eaten,, lafted. feven .days ; and that llri^l obfervers of the law did not diink them* feives at liberty to leave Jerufalem till that feafl was ended; and this is a colkit&ral proof that the difciples did not go to Galilee on the day of : ihe refurre£tion..
You certainly have read the New Teftament,- but not, I think, with great attention, or you^ would have known who the apoflles were. li\ this place, you. reckon. Luks as one of the. eleven^
an4..
( 129 )
snd in otiier places you fpeak of hrm as an e\'e- wirnefs of the things he relates; 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 teftimouy ot others. If this miftake proceeds from your ignorance, you are not a fit perfon to write comments on the Bible; if from defign, (which. J am unwilling to fuf- pecl,) vou are ftill lefs fit; in either cafe it may fuggeil to your readers the propriety of fufpeil- ing the truth and accuracy ot your afTertions, however daring and intemperate. — '^ Of the nu- merous priefts or parfons of the prefent day, biihops and all, the fum total of whofe learning, '* according to you, " is a b ab, and hie, hsec, hoc, there is not one amongft them." you lay, '* who can write poetry like Homer, or fcience like Euclid," — If I fliould admit this, (though there are many of them, I doubt not, who underitand tlwfe authors better than you do,) yet I cannot admit that there is one amongft them, biihops xind all, fo ignorant as to rank Luke the evan- gelift among the apoftles of Chrift. I will not prefs this point ; any man may tall into a miftake, and the conlcioufnefs of this falhbility fhould create in all men a little modefty, a little diffi- dence, a litde caution, before they prefume to call the moft iliuflrious characters of antiquity liars, fools, and knaves.
You want to know why Jefus did not (hew himfelf to all the people after his refurredion. — This is one of Spinoza's objections ; and it may found well enough in the mouth of a jew, wiih-
ing
( 13^ ) ing to excufe the infidelity of his countrymen r but it is not judicioufly adopted by deifls 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, hut he does not oom.- pel us to the cultivation of them : he gave the jews opportunities of leeing the miracles of Jefus, . but he did not obJige them to believe them. They who perfevered in their incredulity after the- refurredllon of Lazarus, would have perfevered alfo after the refurrec^ion of Jefus. Lazarus had> been buried four days, Jefus but three ; the body- of Lazarus had begun to undergo corruption, the body of Jefus faw no corrupticm ; why fhould. you expedf, that they would have believed in Jefus on his ow^n reiurre61:ion, when they had not believed in him on the refurreftion of La^^ zarus? When the pharifces were told of the refurredilion of Lazarus, they, together with the chief priefts, gatlarred a council, and faid^ — '* What do we ? for this man doeth many mira^ cles. If we let him thus alone, all men will be- lieve on him: — then from that day forth they took council together to put him to death." The great men at Jerufalem, you fee, admitted diat- Jefus had raifed Lazarus trom the dead ; yet the belief of that miracle did not generate coavic- tion that Jefus was the Chrifi: ; it only exafperat- ed their malice, and accelerated their purpofe of deftroying him. Had Jefus fliewn himfelf after his reiurre6tion, the chief prlcfts would probably have gathered another council, have opened it with, What do we ? and ended it with a deter-
mi nation
( 131 )
mliiaiion to put him to death. As to us, the evidence of the refurrec^ion of Jefus, which we have in the New Teftament, is far more con- vincing than if it had been related that he (hew- ed himfelf to every man in Jerufalem ; for then we iliould have had a fufpicion, that the whole ftory had been fabricated by the jews.
You think Paul an improper witnefs of the refurre6tion ; I think him one of the fitteft that could have been chofen ; and for this reafon — his teiiimony is the teilrimonv of a former enemy. He had, in his own miraculous converfion, fuf- ficient ground for changing his opinion as to a matter of facft ; for believing that to have been a fa61:, which he had formerly, through extreme prejudice, confidered as a fable. For the truth of the refurre61:ion of Jefus he appeals to above two hundred and fifty living witnelTes ; and be- fore whom does he make this appeal ? — Before his enemies, who were able and willing to blafi: 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 teffclfied to the jews, that Jefus was the Chrift; that finding the bulk of that na- .tion obflinate 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 letter to the converts which he had made in that place, and who, after his departure, had been fplit into diiferent factions, and had adopted different
teachers /
( 13^ ) teacKers in oppofition to Paul. From this ac- count we may be certain, that Paul's letter, and every circumftance in it, would be minutely ex- amined. The city of Corinth was full of jews; thefe men were, in general, Paul's bitter enem.ies ; yet, in the face of them all, he afferts, " that Jefus Chri{l was buried ; that he rofe again the third day ; that he was feen of Cephas, then of the twelve ; that he was afterwards feen of above ^ve hundred brethren at once, of Vvh m the greater part were then alive. An appeal to above 25Q living witnefies, is a .pretty flrong proof of a fa6t; but it becomes irreliflible, 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 ideot, 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 refurre^lion of Jefus was true: and it is a tevlimony, in my opinion, of the greateft weight.
You come, you fay, to the la ft fcene, the af- <:enf]on ; upon which, in your opinion, " the rea- lity of the future miffion of the difciples was to left for proof." — I do not agree with you in this. The realiiy of the future miftion of the apoftles might have been proved, though Jefus Chrift had not vifibly afcended into heaven. Miracles ^re the proper proofs of a divine miffion ; and when Jefus gave the apoftles a commiffion to preach the gofpel, he command^ ^hem to ftay
at
( ^3 ) atjerufaiem, till they " were endued with power from on high." Matthew has omitted the mention of the afcenfion; and John, you fay, has not faid a fyllable about it. I think other- wife. John has not given an exprefs account of the afcenfion, but has certainly faid fomething about it; for he informs us, that Jefus faid to Mary — *' Touch me not; for I am not yet af^ cendedto my father: but go to my brethren, and fay unto them, I afcend unto my father and your father, and to my God and your God." This is furely faying fomething about the afcen- fion ; and if the fadt of the afcenfion be not re- lated by John or Matthew, it may reafonably be fuppofed, that the omiflion was made on account of the notoriety of the fact. Thst the fatl: was generally known, may bejufl:lyccile6ledfrom tlie reference which Peter makes to it in the hearing of all the jews, a very few days after it had hap- pened— '* This Jefus hath God raifed up, where- of we all are witnefTes. Therefore being by the rlg-ht hand of God exalted." — Paul bears teftl- mony alfo to the afcenfion, when he fays, that Jefus was received up into glory. As to tji,e difference you contend for, between die account of the afcenfion, as given by Mark and Luke, it does not exift ; except in this, that Mark omits the particulai-s of Jefus going with his apoilles to Bethany, and blelTing thein there, which are men- tioned by Luke. But omiflions, I muft oftea put you in mind, are not contradidlions.
You have now, you fay, " gone through th^
examination of the four books afcribed to Mat-
M thew.
■{ 134 ) tliew, Mark, Luke, and John ; and when it is tronfidered that the whole fpace of time, from the ■crucifixion to what is called the afcenfion, is but a few days, apparently not more than three or four, and that all the circumftances are reported to have happened near the fame fpot, Jerufalem, it is, I believe, inipofTible to find, in any ftory upon record, fo many, and fuch glaring abfurdi- ties, contradiilions, and falfhoods, as are in thofe books." — What am I to fay to this? Am I to fay that, in writing this paragraph, you have for- feited your chara6ter as an honeft m.an? Or, admitting your honefty, am I to fay that you are grofily ignorant of the fubje6l r Let the reader iudge. — -John fays, that Jefus appeared to hrs <31fciples at Jerufalem on the day of his refurrec- tion, and that Thomas was not then with theiTL ■ — The fame John fays, that after eight days l>e appeared to them again, when Thomas was with them. — Now, fir, how apparently three or four days can be confifient with really eight days, I leave you to make out. But this is not the v^ hole cf John's tefiimony, either with refpecl io place cr time — for he fays — Afier thefe things (after the two appearances to the difciples at Jerufalem on the firft and on the eiglith day after tlie refur- re£lion) Jefu^ fhewed himfelf again to his difci- ples at the fea of Tiberias. The fea of Tibe- rias, I prefume you know, was in Galilee ; and Galilee, you may know, was fixty cr feventy miles from Jerufalem ; it muft have taken the dii'- ciples fome time, after the eighth day, to travel from Jerufalem into Galilee. What, in you
r
OWli
( ^3^ ) AxtTi infuklng language to the priefts, what have 5^ou to anfvver, as to the fame fpot^ Jerufalem^ as to your apparently three or four days P — But this IS n jt ail. Luke, in the heginning of the A£ls, refers to his go pel, and fays — " Chrifi: ihe-vved himfelf alive after his palTion, by many iafaliible proofs, being feen of the apoftles forty. days, and fpeaking of the things pertaining to the- kingdom of God:'* — inflead oi four, you per- ceive there wQXt forty, days between the cruci- fixion and the afcenhon. I need not, I truft, after this, trouble myfeif about the faUhoods and contradi6l;ons which you impute to \}i\q evange- lilfs ; your readers cannot but be up^n their guard^ as to the credit due to your alTertions, however bold and improper. You will fuiPer me to re- mark, that the evangelifts were plain men; who, convinced of the truch of their narration, and confcious of their own integrity, have related what they knew, with admirable fimplicitv. They feem to hive faid to the jews of their time, and to fay to the jews and unbelievers of all times, We have told you the truth ; and if you will not believe us, we have nothing more to fay. — Had they been impoflors, they would have written, with more caution and art, — have obviated every cavil, and avoided every appearance of contra- diction. This they have not done; and this I confider as a proof of their honefly and veracitv.
John the baptiif had given his teftimonv to the truth ot our Saviour's miffion in the mofl un- equivocal terms; he afterwards fent two of his dU'cipies to Jefus, to afk him wheiher lie was
really
( 136 ) really the expe6led Mefliah or not. Matthew relates both thefe circumftances: had the writer of the book of Matthew been an impoftor, would he have invalidated John's teftimony, by bring- ing forward his real or apparent doubt ? Impof- fible ! Matthew, having proved the refurre6lion of Jefus, tells us, that the eleven difciples went away into Galilee into a mountain where Jefus liad appointed them, and " when they faw him, they worfhipped him: but fome doubted." — Vv'^ould an impoflor, in the very laft place w^here he mentions the refurre6lion, and in the conciu- fion of his book, have fuggefted fuch a cavil to unbelievers, as to fay — fome doubted? Impof- fible ! The evangelift has left us to colle6t the 3-eafon why fome doubled:— the difciples faw Jefus, at a diflance, on the mountain ; and fome of them fell down and worfhipped •., whilfl: others doubted whether the perfon they faw was really Jefus; their doubt, however, could not have laft- ed 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 icarne<l men, to harmonize the feveral ac- counts given us by the evangel ills of the refur- reclion. It does not feem to me to be a matter of any great confequence to chriftianity, whether ({\Q accounts can, in every mainute particular, be harmonized or not ; fmce there is no fuch dif- cordance in them, as to render the fa£t of the re- furrc6lion doubtful to any impartial mind. If any m.an, in a court of juftice, fhould give pofi- five evidence of a fadt ; and three others fhould
9-fterward$
( 137 ) afterwards be examined, and all of them iliould conlirm tiie evidence of the tirfi: as to the ia6l, but Qiould apparently dilFer from him and froni' each other, by being more or lefs particular in their accounts of the circuiriftances attending the fa6t; ought we to doubt of the fa6^, becaufe we could not harmonize tlie evidence refpei\ing the circumfbances relating to it? The omiffion of any one cJrcumftance (fuch as that of I\Iary Magdalene having gone twice to the fenulchre; or that of the angel having, after he had rolled away the ftone from the fepulchre, entered into the fepulchre) may render an harmony impofiTible, without having recourfe to fuppoiition to fupply the defecl. You deifts laugh at all fuch attempts, and call them prieftcraft, . I think it better then^, in arguing with you, to admit there may be (not granting, however, that there is) an ineconcile- able diiFerence between the evangeiifls in fome of their accounts refpe^ting the life of Jefus, or his refurrecfion. — Be it (o ; w-liat.then ? Does this difference, adinitting it to be real, deilrov the credibility of the gofpei hiflorv in any of its ef- fential points? Certainly, in rnv opinion, not. . As I look upon this to be a general anfwer to > moft of your deiftical ob;e6lions, Iprofefs my finceritv, in faving, that f confider it as^a true • and luiiicicnt anfwer; and I leave it to vour con- - Tideration. 1 have purpofely, in the whole of this difcuffion,.been filent as to the infpiration of the - evangeiifls; well knowing that vou would have. ^ rejected, with fcorn, any thing I'could have faid ^ OD that point : but, in difputing with a deifl, I do > M2^ mcit.
( I3S ) moft rolemnly contend, that the chriftian feJigion is true and worthy of all acceptation, whether the evangeliiis were infpired or not.
Unbelievers, m general, wifh to conceal their fentiments ; they have a decent refpedl for public opinion ; are cautious of affronting the religion of their country; fearful of undermining the foundation of civil focicty. Some few have been more daring, but lefs judicious ; and have, without difgujfe, profeiTed their unbelief. But you are the firif \^ho ever fwore that he was an infidel, concluding your deiftical creed with — So help me God ! 1 pray that God may help you ; that he may, through the influence of 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 believe in him fliould not perifh, but have everlafling life.
You fwear, that you think the chriflian religiort is not true. I give full credit to your oath; it is an oath in confirmation — of what? — of an opi- nion.— It proves the fniceiity of your declaration of your opinion ; but the opinion, notwithfland- ing the oath, may be either true or falfe. Permif 11^ to produce to you an oath not confirming an oj)inion, but a fad; it is the oath of St. Paul, when he fwears to the Galatians, that, in what he told them of his miraculous conveifion, he did not tell a lie: '^ Now, the things v.'hich I write unto you, behold, bef*3re God, I He not:" — do but give that credit to Paul which I give to you ; do but confider the difference between an
oomion
( ^39 ) opinion and a fac^, and I fliall not defpair of your becoming a chriftian.
Deifm, you favi conliilis in a belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral chara6ler, or the pra6lice of what is called virtue ; and in this (as far as religion is concerned) you refi all your hopes. — There is nothing in deifm but what is in chriflianity, but there is much inchrilfianity which is not in deifm. The chrillian has no doubt concerning a future flate; every deift, from Plato to Thom.as Paine, is, on this fabjedt, over-- whelmed widi doubts infuperable by human rea-. fon. The chriftian has no mifgivings as to the pardon of penitent fmners. through the intercef-. iion of a mediator; the deifl: is harrafled with ap- prehenfion, left the moral juftice of God fhould demand, with inexorable rigour, punifhment for tranfgreilion. The chriftian has no doubt con- cerning the lawfulnefs and the efficacy of prayer: the deift is difturbed on this point by abftradl con-, iideraticns concerning 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 admits the providence of God, and the iibertv of human a£lions ; the deift is involved in great diffi- culties, when he undei takes the proof of eithen The chriftian has afturance that the Spirit of God will help his infirmities; the deift does not deny the poffibility that God may have accefs to the hu- man mind, but he has no ground to believe t]iQ faft of his either enlightening the underltanding, influencing the will, or purifying the heart.
LETTEPv
( HO )
LETTER IX.
^* ^THHOSE," you fay, *' who are not much _J^ acquainted with eccleliaftical hifrory, may iuppofe that the hook called the New Tefla- ment, has exjfted ever fi nee the time of Jefus, Chrifl:; but the facS: is hiftorically otherwife ; there was no fuch book as the New Teftament till more than three hundjed years after the time that Chriil is faid to have lived." — -This para- graph is calculated to miilead common readers ; it is neceiTary to unfold its meaning. The book, called the New Teftament, conlifts of twenty- - feven different parts; concerning feven of thefe,. viz. the Epiiile to the Hebrews, iliat of Jame?,, the fecondof Peter, the fecond of John, the third of John,, that of Judc, and the Revelation, there, were at iirfl: fome doubts ; and the qneftion, whe- ther they fliould be received into the canon, might- be decided,: as all. queftions concerning opinions, muft be, by vote.. With refpe^ft to the odier twenty parts, thofe who are moil: acquainted with, ecclefiailical hiflory will tell you, as Du Vhx does after Eufebius, that they were owned as. canonical, at all times, and by all chrillians. Whether the council of Laodicea was held bcforti. oj afcer that of Nice, is not a fettled point; all the books of the New Teftament, except the Re-, vehtion, are enumerated as canonical in the Con-.
( 141 )
^itutions of that council ; but it is a great miftakc CO fuppole, that the greatefl part of the books of the New Teftament were not in general ufe amongft chriflians, loDg before the council of Laodicea was held. This is not merely my opinion on the fubje6l ; it is the opinion of one much better acquainted with ecclefiaftical hlftory than I am, and, probably, than you are, — Mojliclm. " The opinions," fays this'author, " or rather the con- je6tures, of the learned concerning the time when the books of the New Teftament were colleded into one volum.e, as alfo about the authors of that collection, are extremely different. This import- ant queRion is attended with great and almoft infuperable difficulties to us in thefe latter times. It is, however, fufficient for us to know, that, be- fore the middle of the fecond century, the greatefb part of the books of the New Teftament were read in every chriftian fociety throughout the world, and received as a divine rule of faith and manners. Hence it appears, that thefe facred writings were carefully feparated from feveral human compofitions upon the fame fubjedt, either by iome of the apoftles themfclves, who lived fo long, or by their difciples and fucceffors, who were fpread abroad through all nations. We are well affured, that (\\^ four go [pels were col- le6ted during the life of St. John, and that the three firft received the approbation of this divine apoftie. And why may we not fuppofe, that the other books of the New Teftament were gather- ed together at the faine time ? What renders this highly probable is, the mofl: urgent neceinty re- quired
(^uiVed its being done. For, not long after ChrilVff alcenfion into heaven, feveral hiftories of his life and doctrines, full of pious frauds, and fabulous wonders, were compofed by perfons, whofe in- tentions, perhaps, were not bad, but whofe writ- ings difcovered die greateft fuperflition and igno- rance. Nor was this all : produilions appealed, which were iinpofed on the world by fraudulent- men as the writings of the holy apoftles. Thefe apocryphal and fpurious writings mull: have pro- duced a fad confufion, and rendered both die hif- tory and the dodrine of Cnrift uncertain, had. not the rulers of tlie church ufed all pofTible care, and dlllajence in feparating the books that were, truly apoflolical and divine, from all that fpurious train, and conveying them down to pofterity in- one volume."
Did you ever read the apology for the chrif- tians, which Jufiin Martyr prelented to the em- peror Antoninus Pius, to the fenate, and people of Rome ? I fnould fooner exped^ a fallity in a petition, which, any body of perfecuted men, imploring juftice, fhould prefent to the king and parliament of Great-Britain, than in -this apology. — Yet in this- apology, which was pre- fented not fifty years after the death of St. John, not only parts of all the four gofpels are quoted.^ but it is exprefiiy (aid, that on the day called Sun- day, a portion of them, wa? read in the public af- femblies of the chriilians. I forbear purfuing this matter farther; elfe it might eafily be fhewn, that probably, the gofpels, and certainly fome of St, Paul's epiftles, were knov*'n to Clement, Ig- natius^
•( 143 )
■natius, and Polycarp, contemporaries with the apofttes, Thefe men coulci not quote or refer to books which did not exiil:: and therefore, though you could make it out that the book called the New Teifament did not formally exiil: under that title, till 350 years after Chrift ; yet I hold it to be a certain fait, that all the books, ot wliich it is compofed, were written, and moft of them received by all chrilfians, within a tew years alter his death.
You raife a difficulty relative to the time which intervened between the death and refurredfiun of Jefus, who had laid, that the Son of man Ihall be three days and three nights in the heart of the eardi. — xlre you ignorant, then, that the jews ufed the phrafe three days and three nighrs to denote what we underlfand by three days? — It is faid in Geneas, chap. vii. 12. " The rain wis upon rile earth forty days and forty nights ;" and this is equivalent to the expreffion, (ver. 17.) *' And rile flood was forty days upon the earth." Tn- flead, then, of laying three days and three nigjhts, let us fimply fay — diree days — ^and you wilfnot objeil to Cnrift's being three davs — Friday, Sa- turday, and Sunday, in the heart of the earth. J do not fay that he was in the grave the whole of either Friday or Sunday; but an hundred in- ftances might be produced, from writers of all nations, in which a part of a day is fpoken of as the whole. — Thus much for the defence of the hiltorical part of the New Teframent.
You have introduced an account of FauJIus, as denying the genuinenefs of the books of tlie
New
( ^44 ) "New Teftament. Will you permit that great fcholar in facred literature, Michaells, to tell you fomething about this Fauftus? — " He was ig- norant, as were moft of the African writers, of the Greek language, and acquainted with the New Teftament merely through the channel of the Latin tranflation : he was not only devoid of a fufficient fund of learning, but illiterate in the higheft degree. An argument which he brings againfl the genuinenefs of the gofpel affords fuf- ficient ground for this affertion; for he contends, that, the gofpel of St. Matthew could not have ^been written by St. Matthev/ himfelf, becaufe he is always mentioned in the third perfon." You know who has argued like Fauftus, but I did not think myfelf authorifed on that account to call you illiterate in the higheft degree : but Mi- chaelis makes a ftill more fevere conclufton concerning Fauftus ; and he extends his obferva- tioH to every man who argued like him — " A jiian capable of fuch an argument muft have been ignorant not only of the Greek writers, the knowledge of whjch could not have been expe6i- ed from Fauftus, but even of the Commenraries of Ciefar. And were it thought improbable that fo heavy a ciiarge could be laid with juftice m\ the fide of his knowledge, it would fall with dou- ble weight on the fide of his honefty, and induce us to fuppofe, that, preferring the arts of fophif- try to the plainnefs of truth, he maintained opi- nions which he believed to be falfe. " (Marfli's Tranfl.) Never more, I think, Ihall we hear cf Mofes not being the author of the Pentateuch,
on
( HS ) on account of Its being written it the third pc!^ fon.
Not being able to produce any argument to render queftionable either the genuinenefs or the authenticity of St. Paul's Epillles, you tell us, that " it is a matter of no great import- ance by whom they were written, fmce the writer, whoever he was, attempts to prove his do6lrine by argument : he does not pretend to have been witnefs to any of the fcenes told of the refurre6lion and afceniion, and he declares that he had not believed them." That Paul had fo far refilled the evidence which the apof- tles had given of the refurredlion and afcenhon of Jefus, as to be a perfecutor of the difciples' of Chrift, is certain; but I do not remember the place where he declares that he had not believed them. Tiie high prieft and the fenate of the children of Ifrael did not deny the reality of the miracles which had been wrought bv Peter and the apoltles ; they did not contradi6l: their teftimo- nyconcerning the refurreclion and the afcenfion ; but whether they believed it or not, they wTre iired with indignation, and took counfel to put the apoitles to death: and this was alfo the tem- per of Paul ; whether he believed or did not be- lieve the flory of the refurreclion, he was ex- ceedingly mad againil the faints. The writer of Paul's Epiftles does not attempt to prove his doc- trine by argument ; he, in many places, tells us, that his doclrine was not taught him by man, or any invention of his own, which required the in- genuity oi argument to prove it: — <' I certify
N you',
( 146 ) you, brethren, that the gofpel, which was preach- ed of me, is. not after man. For I neither re- ceived it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jefus Chrift." Paul does not pretend to have been a witnefs of they?(5rv of the refuiredion, but he does much more ; he afTerts, that he was himfelf a witnefs of the refurreftion. 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 due tim.e." Whether you will admit Paul to have been a true witnefs or not, you cannot deny that he pretends to have been a witnefs of the re- furreclion.
The ftory of his being fl:ruck to the ground, as he was journeying to Damafcus, has nothing in it, you fay, miraculous or extraordinary : ycu reprefent him as flruck by lightning. — It is fome- what extraordinary for a man, who is ftruck by lightning, to have, at the very time, full pofTefTion of his underftandlng; to hear a voice ifTuing from the lightning, fpeaking to him in the Hebrew tongue, calling him by his name, and entering into converfation with him. His companions, you fay, appear not to have fufFered in the fame manner: — the greater the wonder. If it was a common ftorm of thunder and lightning which ftruck Paul and all his companions to the ground, it is fomewhat extraordinary that he alone fliould be hurt; and that, notwithflanding his being flruck blind by lightning, he fhould in other re- fpeds be fo little hurt, as to be immediately able to w^alk into the city of Da*nafcus. So difficult
is
( 147 )
B [f to- oppofe truth by an hypothefis ! — In the eharacler oF Paul you diicover a great deal of violence and fanatlcifm ; and fuch tnen, you ob- fcrve, are never good moral evidences of any do£trine they preach. — Read, lir, Lord Lyttlc- tons ob^^?rvations on the converiion and apoftle- iliip of Sc Paul, and I think you will be con- vinced of the contrary. That elegant writer thus expreiles his opinion on this fubjecl — " Behdes all the proofs of the chriftian religion, w^hich may be drawn from the prophecies of the Old Teftament, from the neceflary connection it has wiih the whole fyilem of tiie jewiui religion, from the miracles of Curifl, and from the evidence given of his refurreclion by all the other apof- tles, I think the converiion and apoftleihip of Sc. Paul alone, duly conhdered, is, of itfelf, a de- monftration fufiicient to prove chriftianity to be a divine revelation." I hope this opinion vvill have fome weight with you ; it is not the opinion of a lying Bible-prophet, of a ftupid evangelift, or of an a b ab prieft, — but of a learned layman, whofe illufLrious rank received fplendcr from his talents.
You are difpleafed with St. Paul '' for fetting out to prove the reluirecfion of the /ame body/*' — You know, I prefume, that the refurredt'ion of the lame body is not, by all, admitted to be a Icriptural dociTuie. — •' In die New Tefiament (wherein, I think, are contained all the articles of the chriftian faith) I hnd our Saviour ami the ^ apoftles to preach the refur region of the dead^ and die rejurretlion jy rjm the dead, \w many
places ;
■ 148 ) •
places ; but I do not rcinember any place where the reitirredtion of the fame body is fo much as mentioned." This obfervation of Mr. Locke I fo far adopt, as to deny that you can produce any })!ace in the writings of St. Paul, wherein he fets out to prove the refurredion of the fame body. I do not queftion the poffibility of the refunedtion of the fame body, and I am not ignorant of the manner in which fome learned m.en have explain- ed it ; (fomevv'hat after the way or" your vegetative ipeck in the kernel of a peach ;) but as you are difcrediting St. Paul's docftrine, you oi;ght to fiiew that what you attempt to difcredit is the doc- trine of the apoftle. As a matter of choice, you iiad rather have a better body — you will have a. better body, — " your natural body will be raifed a fpiritual body," your corruptible will put on in- corruption. You are fo much out of humour with your prefent body, that you infonn us, every animal in the creation excels us in fome- thing. Now I had always thought, that the fin- gle circumftance of our having hands, and their having none, gave us an infinite fuperiority not only over infecls, f.fhes, fnails, and fpiders> (which you reprefent as excelling us in locom.o- tive powers,) but over all the animals of the creation ; and enabled us, in the language of Cice- ro, 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 exig- ence being the only conceivable idea of a future life — it proves nothing, either for or againft thq refurredt-cn of a body, or of the fatr.e body; it
docs
( 149 ) does not inform us, whether to any or to what fobftance, material or immaterial, this confciouf- nefs is annexed. I leave it, however, to others, who do not admit perio.nal identity to confirl: in confcioufneCs, to difpute with vou on this point, and willingly fubfcrihe to the opinion of Mr. Locke, " that nothing but confcionfnefs can unite remote exiftences into the fame perfon."
From a caterj)illar's palling into a torpid ftato refembling dearh, and afterwards appearing a fplendid butter fiv, and from the (fuppofed) con- fcioufnefs of exiilence which the animal had in thefe different dates, you afk, Why muft I be- lieve, that the refurrevftion of the fame body is necefiary to connnue in me the confcioufnefs of exiflence hereafter? — I do not diilike analogical reafoning, when applied to pioper objedts, and kept within due bounds: — but where is it fa id in fcripture, that the refurreclion of the fame body is neceiTary to continue in you the confcioufnefs of exiflence ? Thofe who admit a confcious ftate of the foul between death and the refurre^lion, will contend, that the foul is the fubftance in which confcioufnefs is continued without interruption: thofe who deny the interiuediate liate of die foul, as a frate of confcioufntrfs, will contend, that con- fcioufnefs is notdeftroyed by death, but fufpended by it, as it is fufpended during a found fleep ; and that it may as eaiily be reftored after death, as after fleep, during which the faculties of the foul are not extinv5\, but dormant. — Thofe who think that the foul is nothing diftinct from the compages of the body, not a fubllance but a mere quality, will main- N ^. tain^.
( .150 ) tain, that the confcioiifnefs appertaining to tvcrj individual perfon is not loft when the body is de- ftroyed ; that it is known to God ; and may, at the general reiurrection, be annexed to any fyitera of matter he may think fit, or to that particular com- pages to which it belonged in this life.
In reading your book I have been frequently fhocked at the virulence of your zeal, at the in- decorum of your abufe in applying vulgar and offenfive epithets to men who have been held, and who will long, I truft, continue to be holden, in high eftimation. I know that the fear of calum- ny is feldom wholly effaced ; it remains long after the w^ound is healed ; and your abufe of holy men and holy things will be remembered, when your arguments againft them are refuted and forgotten. Mofes you term an arrogant coxcomb, a chief aflaffin ; Aaron, Jofhua, Samuel, David, monfcers and impoftors ; the jewifh kings a parcel of raf- cals ; Jeremiah and the reft of the prophets, liars ; and Paul a fool, for having written one of the fublimeft compofitions, and on the miofi: important fubje6l that ever occupied the mind of man — the ieflbn in our burial fervice ; — this leflbn you call a doubtful jargon, as deftitute of meaning as the tolling of the bell at the funeral. Men of low condition! preffed down, as you often are, by calamities generally incident to human nature, and groaning under burdens of niifery peculiar to your condition, what thought you when you heard this leffon read at the funeral of your child, your parent, or your friend ? Was it mere jargon to you, as deftitute of meanins, as the tolling of a
belL^
( 151 )
bell ? — No. — You underftood from it, that you. would not all fleep, but that vou would all be changed in a moment at the laft trump; you un- derwood from it, that this corruptible muft put on incorruption, that this mortal muft put on im- mortality, and diat death would be fvvallowed up in victory ; you underRood from it, that if (not- withftanding profane attempts to fubvert your faith) ye continue fledfafl:, uamoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, your labour will not be in vain.
You feem fond of difplaying your {Ikill in fcience and philofophy ; you fpeak more than once of Euclid ; and, in cenfuring St. Paul, you intimate to us, that when the apoftle fays — one ftar differeth from another ftar in glory — he ought to have faid — in dillance. — All men fee that o\i^ ft'ir differerh from another ftar in glory or brightnefs ; but few men know that their dif- ference in brightnefs arifes from their difference in diitance ; and I beg leave to fay, that even you, phiiofopher as you are, do not know it. You make an aiJumption which you cannot prove — that the Aars are eciual in magnitude, and placed at different diftances from tlie earth.j^-but you cannot prove that thev are not different in mag- nitude, and placed at eq^ual diltances, though none of them may be fo near to die earth, as to have- any feniible TLXvaViA parallax. I beg pardon of my readers for touching upon this fabjedl ; but it really moves one's indignation, to fee a fmatter- ing in philofophy urged as an argument againft. the veracity of an apoitle. — " Liltle learning is a ■ • ig.''
Paul,
( 152 )
Paul, you fay, afFedts to be a naturallfl: ; and to prove (you might more properly have faid illuilratej his fyftcm of refurredlion from the principles of vegetation — " I'hou fool," fays he, " that which thou foweft is not quickened except it die :" — to which one might reply, in his own lan- guage, and fay — "Thou fool, Paul, that which thou fowefl is not quickened except it die not.^^ It may be feen, Lthmk, from this pafTage, who affe6ts to be a naturalift, to be acquainted wirh the microfcopical difcoveries of modern times ; which were probably neither knov/n to Paul, nor to iho. Corinthians ; and which, had diey l>een known to them both, would have been ot little ufe in the illuftration of the fubjedt of the refurreclion, Paul faid — that which thou foweft is not quick- ened 'except it die: — every hufbandman in Co- rinth, though unable perhaps to define the term death, would underhand the apoftle's phrafe in a popular fenfe, and agree with him that a grain of wheat mufl become rotten in the ground before it could fprout ; and that, as God raifed from a rotten grain of wheat, the roots, the flem, the leaves, the ear of a new plant, he might alfo caufe a new body to fpring up from the rotten . carcafe In the grave. — Dodtor Clarke cbferves,- " In like manner as in every grain of corn there is contained a minute inferiiible fen";inal princi- pie, which is itfelf the entire future blade and ear, and in due feafon, when all the reft oi the grairt is corrupted, evolves and unfolds itfelt viiibly to. the eye; fo our prefent mortal and corruptible, body may be but the exiivii^i as it were, of lome
bidders
( ^53 ) hidden and at prefent infenfible principle, (pof- libly the prefent feat of the foul) vhicii, at the refurredlion, Ihall dlfcover itfelf in its proper form." I do not agree with this great man (for fuch I efteem him) in this philofopaical conjec- ture ; but the quotation iT>ay ferve to iliew you, that the germ does not evolve and un'bld itfeif vifibly to die eye till all the reft of the grain is corrupted; that is, in the language afld meaning of St. Paul, till it dle&. — Though the authority of Jefus may have as lirtle weight svi^h you as that of Paul, yet it may not be improper to quote to you our Saviour's exprefTion, when he foretels the numerous difciples which his death would produce — " Except a corn of wheat fall into [he ground, and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." — You perceive from this,, that the jews thougiri the dfath of the grain was neceiiary to i's reprodu6lion : — hence every one may lee what little reafon you had to objedl to the apoftie's popular illnftrrtion of the poffibility of a refuirectien. Had he known as much as any naturalift in Europe does, of the progrefs of an animal from one ftate to another, as from a worm to a butteriiy, (which you think applies to the cafe,) I am of opinion he would not have ufed that illuftration in pre- ference to what he has ufed, which is obvious and fatisfa(fl:ory.
Whether the fourteen eplftles afcribed to Paul were written by him or not, is, in your judg- ment, a matter of indifference. — So far from l)ein^ a matter of indifference, I conhder the ge-
uuinenefs
( 154 )
nulnenefs of St. Paul's eplftles to be a matter of tFic greateft importance; for if the epifiles afciibed to Paul, were written by him, (and there is un- (^ueftionable proof ihat they were,) it will be dif- ficult for you, or for any man, upon fair prin- ciples of found reafoning, to deny that the chrif- tian religion is true. I'he argument is a ihort oht, and obvious to every capacity. It [lands thus: — St. Paul wTOte feveral letters to thofe whom, in different countries, he had converted to the chriftian faith ; in thefe letters he affirms two things ; — firft, that he had wrought miracles in their prefence ; — fecondly, that miany of them- felves had received the gift of tongues, and other miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghoft. — The per- fons to whom thefe letters were addreffed mufl:, on reading them, have certainly known, whether Paul affirmed w^hat was true, or told a plain lie; they mufl: have known, whether they had feen him work miracles ; they muft have been con- fcious, whether they themfeives did or did not polTefs any miraculous gifts. — Now, can you, cr can any man, believe, for a moment, that Paul (a man certainly of great abilities) would have written public letters, full of lies, and w hich could not fail of being difcovered to be lies, as foon as his letters were read? Paul could not be guilty of fahhood in thefe tw^o points, or in either of thein; and if either of them be true, the chrifliian religion is true. References to theie two points are frequent in St. Paul's Epifrles : 1 will men- tion only a few. In his Epiftle to the Galatians, he fays, (chap, ii'i, 2, 5.) " This only would
I learii
(155 ) 5 learn of vou, received ye tlie fplrit (gifts of the fpirlt) by the works of ihe law ? — He miniftereth to vou the fpirit, and workerh miracles among you.'* — To the ThefTalonians he fays, (i ThefT. ch. i. 5.) " Our gofpei came not unto you in word only, but alfo in power, and in the Holy GhoH:." — To the^Corinthians he thus exprefles himfelf: (i Cor. li. 4.) " My preaching was not with enticing words of man's wifdom, but in the demon ftration of the fpirit and of power;" — and he adds the reafon for his working miracles — *' That your faith fhould not ftand in the wif- dom of men, but in the power of God." — With what alacrity would the fa6tion at Corinth, which -oppofed the apoftie, have laid hold of this and many hmilar declarations in the letter, had they been able to have dete6led any falihood in them ! There is no need to multiplv words on fo clear a point — the genuinenefs of Paul's Epiftles proves their authenticity, independently of every other proof; for it is abfurd in the extreme to fuppofc him, under circumiliances of obvious detedlion, capable of advancing what was not true; and if Paul's Epiflles be both geouine and authentic, the chrillian religion is true. — Think of this ar- ^gument.
You clofe your obfervations in the following manner: — '' Should the Bible (meanino-, as I have before remarked, the Old Tellament) and Teftament hereafter fall, it is not I that have been the occafion." You look, I think, upon your production with a parent's partial eye, when you fpeak of it in fuch a flyle of felf-complacency.
The
( 156 )
The Bible, fir, has withftt^od the learninjr of Ps'-phyry, and the power of yulian.^ to fav'no- tlring of the manichean Fauftui — it has rehfletl the genius of Bolhigbroke^ and die wit of Vol- taire, to fay nothing of a numerous herd of in- ferior ajGTailants — and it will not fail by your force. You have barbed anew the blunted arrows of former adverfaries ; you have feathered diem with blafphemy and ridicule; dipped them in your deadlieft poifon ; aimed them with your utmoft fkill; fhot them againft the fhield of faith with your utmoft vigour: but, like the feeble javelin of aged Priam, they will fcarcely reach the mark, will fall to the ground widiouta flroke.
LETTER X.
THE remaining part of your work can hardly be made the fubje6l of animadverfion. It principally confifls of unfupported affertlons, abufive appellations, illiberal farcafms,y?ri/'^j of wordsf profane babblings, and oppofitions of fcience faljely fo called. I am hurt at being, in mere iuftice to the fubje6t, under the neceffity of uh.ig fuch harfn language ; and am lincerely forry that, from what caufe [ know not, your mind has received a wrong bias in every poiiit refpedfing revealed religion. You are capable of better things , for there is a philofophical fub- limity in fome of your ideas, when you fpeak of
the
( 157 ) 'tlie Supreme Being, as the creator of the tini- verfe. That you may not accule me of difre- fpe6l, in paffing over any part of your work without beitowing proper attention upon it, I will wait upon you through what yoXi call your — conclulion.
You refer your reader to the forrher part o the Age of Reafon ; in which you have fpoken of w^hat you efteem diree frauds — myftery, mlra- ■c\e, and prophecy. — I have not at hand the book to which you refer, and know not what you have ' faid on thefe fubje6ls ; they are fubje6ls of great importance, and we, probably, (hould differ efTen- tiallv in our opinion concerning the-ra ; but, T confefs, I am not forr}^ to be excufed from ex- amining what you have faid on thefe points. The fpecimen of your reafoning, which is now before me, has taken from me every inclination to trou- ble either my reader, or myfelf, with any obfer- vations on your former book.
You admit the pofi-ibillty of God's revealing his will to man ; yet " the thing fo re\;^aled," you fay, " is revelation to the peribn only to whom it is made; his account of it to another is not rc- yelation." — This is true; his account is fimple teftimony. You add, there is no " pofTible cri- terion to judge of the truth of what he fays'." — ■ This I pofitively deny; and contend, that a real miracle, performed in atteftation of a revealed trudi, is a certain criterion by which we may judge of the truth of fliht atteftation. I am per- teClly aware of the oh^ieilions which may be made to this poiition ; I have examined them with O care :
f 158 ?
-care; I acknowledge them to be of weight; lait •I do not fpeak unadvifedly, or as wifhing to dic- tate to other men, when I fay, that I am perfuaded the pofition is true. So thought Mofes, *<fhen, -in the matter of Korah, he faid to the Ifraelites — *' If thefe men die the common death of all men, then the Lord hath not fent me."— So thought Elijah, when he faid — " Lord God of Abraham, Jfaac, and of Ifrael, let it be known this day, that thou art God in Ifrael, and that I am thy fer- vant;" — and the people before whom he fpake were of the fame opinion.; for, when the fire of the Lord fell, and confumed the burnt-facrifice, they faid — " The Lord, he is the God. "^— So thought our ■ Saviour, when he faid—'' The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear v/itnefs of me;" — and, " if 1 do not the works 01 my Father, believe me not." What reafon have we to believe Jefus fpeaking in the gofpel, and to difbelieve Mahomec fpeaking in the Koran ? Both of them lay claim to a divine commiffion; and yet we receive the words of the one as a reve- lation from God, and w^e rcjeft the words of the other as an impofture of man. The realon is evident ; Jefus efl:ahli{hed his pretenfions, not by alledging any fecret communication with the Deity, but by working numerous and indubitable miracles in the prefence of thoufands, and which the moft bitter and watchful of his enemies could not difailow ; but Mahomet wrought no miracles at all. — Nor is a miracle the only criteiion by v/nich we may judge of the truth of a revelation. If a feries of prophets fhould, tlirough a courle
of
t 159 )
ef many centuries, predict the appearance of a certain perfon, whom God would, at a particular tim^, fend into the world for a particular end ; and at length a perfon fhould appear, in whom all the prediftions were minutely accomplifhed ; fuch a completion of prophecy would be a crite- rion of the triu'i of that revelation, which that perfon {houid deliver to mankind. Or if a perfon fliould now fay, (as many falfe prophets have faid, and are daily faying,) that he had a commif-- fion to declare the will of God; and, as a proof of his veracity, fhould predi6l — 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 faid concerning the will of God. Now I tell you, (fays Jefus to his dif- ciples, concerning Judas, who was to betray him,) before it come, that when it is come to pafs ye may believe that I am he. In various parts of die gofpels our Saviour, with the utmoil: pro- priety, claims to be received as the mefTenger of God, not only from the miracles which h© wrought, but from die prophecies which were tultiiied in his perfon, and from the predictions which he himfelf delivered. Hence, inftead of there being no criterion by which we may judp-e of the truth, of die chrillian revelation, there are clearly three. It is an eafy m.atter to ufe an inde- corous flippancy of language in fpeaking of the chriftian religion, and with a fupercilious neg- ligence to clafs Chriii and his apoftles amoneil: the impoflors who have figured in the world; but
it
( i6o }-
it is not, I think, an eafy matter for any maH, or gQOcl fenfe and found erudition, to make an im- partial examination into any one of the three grounds of chriftianity v/hich I have here men- tioned, and to reje6t it.
What is it, you afK, the Bible teaches ? The prophet Micah. fliall anfwer you : it teaches us — '' to do juftly, to love mercy, and to walk hum- bly with our God:*''— juftiee, mercy, and piety; inftead of what you contend for— rapine, cruel- ty, and murder. What is it, you demand, the 'I eftament teaches us ? You anfwer your quef- tion — to believe that the Almighty committed de- bauchery with a womaii. — Ablurd and impious- affertion ! No, fir, no ; this profane docti ine, this Uiiferable ftufF, this biafphemous perverfion, of fcripture, is your do6triHe, not ' that of the New Teftament. 1 will tell you the \(iffon which, it teaches to infidels as well as to believers ; it is a lefibn wiiich philofophy never tauglit, which wit cannot ridictile, nor fophiftry diiprove : the lefibn is this — " The dead diall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear fhali live ; — all that are in their graves ihall come forth; they that have done good, unto the reiurrecSlion of life ; and they that have done evil, unto die reiurrec- tion of dantnation.'*
The moral precepts of the gofpel are fo well fitted to promote the happineis or mankind in this world, and to prepare human nature for the future enjoyment of that bleffcdnefs, ot which, in our prcfent llate, we can torm no conception, that I had uo expectation they would have met
with.
( i6i )
with your ditapprobatlon. You fay, however; • — :" As to the fcraps of morality that are irregu- larly and thinly fcattered in thofe books, they make no part of the pretended thing, revealed religion." — " Vv'hatfoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even fo to them." — Is this a fcrap of morality ? Is it not rather the con- centered effence of all ethics, the vigorous root from which every branch of moral duty towards each other may be derived ? Duties^, you know, are diftinguiilied by moralifts into duties of per- fect and imperfecft obligation: does • the Bible teach you nothing, when it inftrudis you, that this diilin6tioa is done away? when it bids you '•^ put on bowels of mercies, kindnefs, humblenefs of mind, meekncfs, long-fuitering, forbearing one another and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel againilt any?" Thefe,' and pre- cepts fuch as thefe, you will in vain :look for in the codes of Frederic, OY-fujiinian ; you cannot find them in our ftatuie books; they were not taught, nor are they taught in thefchools of hea- then philofophy ; or, if fome one or two of them - fliould chance to be glanced at by a Plato, a vSe- neca, or a Cicero, diey are not bound upon die confcienccs of mankind by any fanclion. It is in the goipel, and in t!ie gclpel alone, tha,t we learn - their, importance ; a iff s. of benevolence and bro- therly love may be to an unbeliever voluntary' a£l:s, to a chriftian they are indifpenffble duties. — Is a new commandment no part of revealed l religion ? " A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one anodier;" the law o^^. O 2 chridian ^
f 162 ) ,,, .
chriftian benevolence is enjoined us by Chrifl him- feif in the mofl: folemn manner, as the diftinguiih- ing badge of our being his dlfciples.
Two precepts you pardcularize as inconfiftent with the dignity and the nature of man — that of not refenting injuries, and that of loving enemies. — Who but yourfelf ever interpreted literally the proverbial phrafe — '' If a man fmite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other alfo?" — Dici Jelus himfelf turn the other cheek when the offi- cer of the high priefl: fmote him r It is evident, that a patient acquiefcence under flight peifonal inju- ries is here enjoined ; and that a pronenefs to re-- venge, which inftigates men to favage a6ls of bru- tality, for every trifling oifenee, is forbidden. As to loving enemies, it is explained, in another place, to mean, the doing them all the good in our power ; " if thine enemy hunger, feed him ; if he thirft, give him drink;" and what think you is more likely to preferve peace, and to promote kind af- fections amongH: men, than the returning good for evil? Chriftianity does not order us to love- '.in proportion to the injury — it does not " oiler a, premium for a crime," — it orders us to let our benevolence extend alike to all, that we may emu- late the benignity of God himfelf, who maketh "i his fun to rife on the evil and on the good."
In the law of Mofes, retaliation for deliberate injuries had been ordained — an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tocih.-^ Jrifiotle, in his treatife of morals, fays, that fome thought retaliation, of per- fonal wrongs an equitable proceeding ;' i?//^^^- manihus is fajd to have given it his fan<Stionj
the.
( i63 )
tire decemviral laws allowed it; the common law of England did not forbid it ; and it is (aid to he itJli tlie law of fome countries, even in chrif- tendom : but the mild fpirit of chriftianity abfo- lutely prohibits, not only the retaliation of inju- ries, but the indulgence of every refenttul pro-- penfity.
" It has been," you affirm, " the fcheme of the chriftian church lo hold man in ignorance of the creator, as it is of government to hold him in ignorance of his rights/' — I appeal to the plain, fenfe of any honeif man to judge whether this re- prefentation be true in either particular. When he attends the fervlce of the church, does he dif- cOver any defign in the mrnifter to keep him in ignorance of his creator? Are not the public prayers in which he joins, the leiTons which aie read to him, the fermons whicli are preached to him, all calculated to imprefs upon his mind a ftrong conviction of the mercy, mftice, hoiinefs, power, and wifdom of the one adorable God, bleiTed forever? By thcfe means, which the chriftian church hath provided for cur inftrudtion, I will venture to fay, that the moft unlearned congregation of chriftians in Great-Britain have more juft and fublime conceptions of the creator, a more {>erfe61: knovvledge of dieir duty towards. him, and a ftronger inducement to the practice of virtue, hoiinefs, and temperance, than all the plii- iofophers of all the heathen countries in the world ever had, or now have; If, indeed, vour fcheme fhould take pla-ce, and men fiiould no longer be- ^eve their Bible, then would they foon become
as
( i64 )
as ignorant of the creator as all the world was when God called Abraham from his kindred; and as all the world, which has had no commu- nication vvidi eitlier jew8 or chriftians, now is. Then would they foon bow down to ftocks and fipnes, kifs their hand (as they did in the. time of Job, and as the poor African docs now,) to the- moon walking inbrlghtnefs, and deny the God that IS above; then would they worfliip Jupiter, . Bacchus, and Venus, and emulate, in the tran- fcendant flagitioufnefs of their lives, the impure, morals of their gods. .
What defign has government to keep men irv? Ignorance of their rights? None whatever. — Ail wife ftatefmen are perfuaded, that the more men. know of their rights, the better fubjeits they will , become. Subjects,' not from neceffity but choice, are the firmeft friends of every government. The people of Great-Britain are well acquainted with their natural and foci a 1 rights ; they underftand ; them better than the people, of any other country do ; they know that they have a right to be free, , not only from the capricious tyranny of any one.. man's will, but, from the more aiBiciing defpotifm of republican fadlions ; and it is this very know- ledge which attaches them to the confl:iiution of their country. I have no fear that the people ihould know too much of their rights ; my fear is, that they iliould not know thern in all tl'reir rela- tions, and to dieir full extent. The government does, not defire that men fliould remain in igno- rance of their rights; but it both defnes, and re- Quires, that they iliould not dill:urb the public
pe^ce,_
( lOS ) ^teace, under vain pretences: that ihev ihoukl make theiulelves acquainted, not merely with the rights, but with the duties alio of men in civil Ib- ciety. I am tar from ridiculing (as fome have done) the rights of man ; 1 have long ago under- ftood that the poor as well as the rich, and that tl:e riclr as well as the poor, have, by nature, feme rights, which no human government can juPilv take from them, without their tacit or exprefs confent ; and fome alfo, which they themfcives have no pov/er to furrcnder to any governuient. One of the principal rights ot man, in a ftate ei- ther of nature or of fociecy, is a right ot property in the truits of his indufirv, ingenuity, or good for- tune.— Does government hold any nian in igno- rance ot this rivht? So much the contrary, that the chief care of government is to declare, afcertain, modify, and defend this righr ; nay, it. gives right, where nature gives none; it prote6ts the goods of an inteftate ; and it allows a man, at his death, to difoofe of that property which the law of nature would caiife to revert into the com- mon itock. Sincerely as I am attached to the liberties ot mankind, 1 cannot but profefs myfeif an utter enemy to that ipurious phiiofophy, that democratic infanity, which would equalize ail pro- perty, and level all diftinclions in civil fociety. Perionai diftin6tions, arifmg from fuperior pro- bity, learning, eloquence, fl-Lill, courage, andtrom every ether excellency of talents, are the vcrv hlood and nerves of the body politic , they anim.ate the who:e, and invigcrate eveiy part ; witiiout them, us bones would become reeds, and its
marrow
( i66 )
i narrow water ; it would prefently link into a^ fcetid fenfelefs mafs ot corruption. — Power may^ be ufed for private ends, and in oppofition to- the public good ; rank may be improperly con- ferred, and infolently fuftained ; riches may be^ wickedly acquired, and viciouily applied: but. as this is neither neceflarily nor generally the cafe, I cannot agree with thofe who, in af- ferting die natural equality of men, fpurn the inftituted diflin6lions attending power, rank-,, and riches. — But I mean not to enter into any difcuffion on this fubje6t, farther than to fay, that your crimination of government appears to me to be wholly unfounded; and to exprefs my hope, that no one individual will be fo far miilecl by difquifitions on the rights of man, as to think that he- has any right to do wrong, as To forget that other men hav,e rights as well as he.
You< are animated with proper fentiments of piety, when you fpeak of the ilrudlure of the univerfe. No one, indeed, who confiders it with attention,' can fail of having his mind filled with the fupremeft veneration for its author. Who can contemplate, without afloniihment, the mo- tion of a comet, running far beyond the orb of faturn, endeavouring to efcape into the pathlefs .regions of unbounded. fpace; yet feeling, at its utmoft diftance, the attractive influence of the fun, hearing, as it were, the voice ot God ar- refring its progrefs, and compelling it, after a lapfe of ages, to reiterate its ancient courfe r — M^ho can comprehend the diftance of the ftars from the earth, and from each other? — It is fo .. . . great,..
( i67 ) ;grcat, that it mocks our conception; our very ixnagi nation 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, wjU not, though emitced at this in- ftant, from the brighteft ftar, reach the earch, in lefs than lix years. — We think this earth a great gjlobe ; and we fee the fad wickednefs which individuals are often guilty of, in fcraping together a little of its dirt : we view, with ftill greater afto- niflimentand horror, the mighty ruin which has, in all ages, been brought upon human kind, by the low ambition of contending powers, to ac- quire a temporary poffefTion ot a little portion of its furface. But how does the whole of this globe link, as it were, to nothing, when w'e con- sider that a million of earths will fcarcely equal the bulk of the fun ; that all the ftars are funs ; and that millions of funs, -conftitute, probably, but a minute portion of that material world, which God hath dirtributed through the immen- ■iity of fpace ? Syftems, however, of infenfible matter, though arranged in exquifite order, prove only t'le wifdom and the power of the great Ar- chitect of nature. As percipient beings, we look for fomething more — for his goodnefs — ana we -cannot open our eyes witiiout feeing it.
Every portion of the earth, fea, and air, is full ■of feniitive beings, capable, in their refpeilive or- ders, of enjoying the good things which God has prepared for their comfort. All the orders of be- ings are enabled to propagate their kind ; and thus provilion is made for a fuccellive continua- tion
( i68 )
'tioti of happinefs. Individuals yield to the law of dlfTolution infeparable iroin the material ftriic- ture of their bodies: but no gap is thereby left in exiilence; their place is occupied by other in- dividuals capable cjf ^ar^ticipatin^ in the good- nefs of the Almighty. Contemplations fuch as thefe till the mind with humility, benevolence, and piety. But why lliould we flop here ? why not contemplate the goodnefs of God in the re- demption, as well as in the creation of the world ? By the death of his only begotten Son jefus Chrtft, he hath redeemed the whole human race from the eternal death, which the tranfgrefTion of Adam had entailed on all his pofterity. — You be- lieve nothing about the tranlgrelTion of Adam. The hiftory of Eve and the ferpent excites your contempt ; you will not admit that it is either a real hiflory, 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 whatever mean it was in- troduced: this is not a matter oi belief, but of lamentable knowledge. — The New Teftament tells us, that through the merciful difpenfarion of God, Chrift hath overcome death, and reftored man to that immortality which Adam had loft: — this alfo you refufe to believe. — Why ? Becaufe vou cannot account for rhe propriety of this re- .demption. — Miferable rcafon ! ftupid objedlion ! 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
( i69 )
refufe to eat of the fruits of the earth, becaufe ■God has not given you wifdom equal to his own ? Will you refufe to lay hold on immortality, be- caufe he has not given you, becaufe he, proba- bly, 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 attain- ment of that end ? What father of a family can make level to the apprehenfion of his infant chil- dren, all the views of happinefs which his pater- nal goodnefs is preparing for them ? How can he explain to them the utility of reproof, cor- Te6lion, inftru(5lion, example, of all the various 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 €xifl:ence ; juft feparated from the womb of eter- nal duration ; it may not be poffible for the Fa- ther 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 necelTary for our well-doing through ^11 eternity, we know not; what difcipline in this infancy of exiftence n>ay be necefTarv for ge- nerating thefe qualities, we know not ; 'whether God could or could not, confidently with the general good, have forgiven the tranfgreffion of Adam, without any atonement, we know not ; whether the malignity of fin be not fo great, fo oppofite to the general good, that it cannot be forgiven whilft it exifis, that is, whilft the mind •retains a propenfity to it, we know not: fo thac -if there (liould be much greater difficulty in com- P preiiending
( 170 )
prehending the mode of God's moral government of mankind than there really is, there would be no reafon for doubting of its reaitude. If the whole human race be confidered as but one fmall mem* ber of a large community of free and intelligent beings of different orders,' ainl if this whole com* munity be fubje6l to difcipline and laws produc- tive of the greateft poffible good to the whole fyf- tern, then may we dill more reafonably fufpedt our capacity to comprehend the wifdom and good^ nefs of all God's proceedings in the moral govern- ment of the univerfe.
You are lavifh in your pralfe of deifm ; it is fo inuch better than atheifm, that I mean not to fay any thing to its difcredit ; it is not, however, withh- out its difficulties. What think you of an un- caufed caufe of every thing? of a Being who has no relation to time, not being older to-day than he was yefterday, nor younger to day than he will be to-morrow ? who has no relation to fpace, not bring a part here and a part there, or a whole any where? What think you of an omnifcient Being, who cannot know the future a6lions of a man ? Or, if his omnifcience ena- bles him to know them, what think you of the contingency of human a6tions ? And if human a6lions are not contingent, what think you of the morality of adlions, of the diftinftion between vice and virtue, crime and innocence, fin and duty ? What think you of the infinite goodnefs of a Being, who exifted through eternity, with- out any cmanarion of his goodnefs manifefted in the creation of lenfitive beings ? Or, if you con- tend
\
( '71 ) tend that there has been an eternal creation, what think you of nn effect coeval with its caufe, of matter not poderior to its Maker? What think you of the exiil:cnce of evil, moral anJ natural, ia the work of an intinite Being, powerful, wife, and good? What think you of the gift of free- dom of will, when the abufe of freedom becomes the caufe of general miTery r I could propofe to your confideration a great many other queftions of a fimilar tendency, the contemplation of which has driven not a few from deifm to atheifm, jufl as the difficulties in revealed religion have driven vourfelf, and fome others, from chriftianity to deifm.
For my own part, I can fee no leafon whv either revealed or natural religion fhould be aban- doned, on account of the difficulties which attend either of them. 1 look up to the incomprehenfible Maker of heaven and earth with unfpeakablc ad- miration and feif-annihilation, and am a deift. — I contemplate, with the utmoil: gratitude and hu«^ ■ mility of mind, his unfearchabie wifdom and good- nefs in the redemption of the world from eternal death, through the intervention of his Son Jefus Chrilt, and am a chriftian. — As a deift, I have 'little expectation ; as a chriftian, I have no doubt of a future ftate. I fpeak for myfelf, and may be in an error, as ro the ground of the iirft part of this opinion. You, and other men, may con- clude differently. From the inert naiure of m.at- ter — from the faculties of the human mind — from the apparent imperfe6fion of God s moral govern- ment ot the world — from many mo<.les ot analo- gical
( 17^ ) glcal reafoning, and from other fources, fome of the philofophcrs of antiquity did colleii^, and mo- dern philofophers may, perliaps, colled: a ftrong probability of a future exigence ^ and not only of a future exigence, but (which is cjuite a diftin6t queftion) of a future ftate of retribution, propor- tioned to our moral condudl in this world. Far be it from me to loofen any of the obligations to. virtue ; but I muft confefs, that I cannot, from the fame fources of argumentation, derive any pofi- tive affurance on tlie fubje6t. Think then with, what thankfulnefs of heart I receive the Word of God, which tells me, that though, " in Adam (by the condition of our nature) all die;" yet " in. Chrifl: (by the covenant of grace) ihail all be made alive." 1 lay hold on " eternal life as the: gift of God through Jefas Chrift;" I coufider 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, and the Judge, of humankind.
*' Deifm," you affirm, " teaches us, without the poffibility of being miftaken, all that is necef- fary or proper to be known." — There are three things, which all reafonable men admit are necef- fary and proper to be known — the being of God. ' — the providence of God — a future ftate of retri- bution.— Whether thefe three truths are fo taught us by deifm, that there is no poflibility of being fniftaken concerning any of them, let the hiftory of philofophy, and of idolatry, and fuperftition, iu all ages and countries, determine. A volume
might
( '73 )
might be filled with an account of the miflakes into which die greatefi: reafoners have fallen, and of the uncertainty in w^hich they lived, with )e- fpe6t to every one of thefe points. I will advert, briefly, only to thelall of them. Notwiihfland- ing the llluft rious labours of Gajfendi, Cudzvorth, Clarke J Baxter, and of above two hundred other modern writeis on the fubjeft, the natural mor- tality or immort'alitv of the human foul is as little underllood bv us as it was by the pliilofopliers of Greece or Rome. The oppofite opinions of Plato and of Epicurus, on this iuhje^l:, have their feveral fupporters amongfl: the learned of the pre- fent age, in Great-Britain, Germany, France, Italy, in every enlightened part of the world ; and they who have been m^^ft ferioufly occupied in the fiudy of the queftion concerning a future frate, as deducible from the nature of the human foul, are leaft difpofed to give, from rcafon, a pofitive decifion of it either way. 'I'he importance of levelation is by nothing rendered more apparent, •than by the diicorJant fentiments of learned and good men (for I fpeak not of the ignorant and .'■ immoral) on this point. They fhew the infuf- liciency of human reafon, in a co'urfe of above two thoufand years, to unfold the myOeries of human nature, and to furnilh, from the contem- plation of it, any aiiurance of the quality of our future condition, li you (hould ever become perfuaded of this infufficiency. (and you can fcarce fail of becoming fo, if your .examine the matter deeply,) you will, if you a61: rationally, be difpofed to inveftigate, with ferioufnefs and > P. a impar;ialitv, .
( 174 ) impartiality, the truth of chriftianity. You will fay of the gofpel, as the Northumbrian heathens faid of Paulinus, by whom they were convert^ ed to the chriltian religion — " The morew^e re- flect on the nature of our foul, the lefs we know ot it. Whilll; it animates onr body, we may know fome ot its properties ; but when once fepa- rated, we know not whither it goes, or from whence it came. Since, then, the go/pel pretends to give us clearer notions of thefe matters, we ought to hear it, and laying aiide all paffion and prejudice, follow th^at which {hall appear molt conformable to right reafon."
What a bleffing is it to beings, with fuch limit- ed capacities as our's confeffedly are, to have God? himfelf for our infl;ru6lor in every thing which it much concerns us to know ! We are principally concerned in knowing — not the origin of arts, or the recondite deptlis of fcience — not the hillories of mighty empires dcfolating the globe by their contentions — not the fubtilties of logic, the myf- teries of metaphyfics, the fublimities of poetry^ or the niceties of criticifm. — The'e, and fubjedis fuch as thefe, properly occupy the leifureof a few- learned; 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 widi rhat which a German emperor voluntarily put himfcif into, when hemade arefolution, bor- dering on barbarifm, that he would never read a printed book. We are all, of every rank and condition, equally concerned in knowing — what will become of us after death j — and, if we are to
live
( 175 ) live again, we are interefted in knowing — whether it be poflible for us to do any thing whilft we live here, which may render that future Hfe an happy one. — Now, '* that thing called chriitianity," as you fcoffingly fpeak — that laft bell: gift of Al- mighty God, as I efteem it, the gofpel of Jefus Chrift, has given us the moil: clear and fatisrac- tory information on both thefe points. It tells us what deifm never could have told us, that we fhall certainly be raifed from the dead — that,, whatever be the nature of the foul, we fhall cer- tainly live for ever — and that, whilil; we live here, it is poffible for us to do much towards the ren- dering that everlaftiag life an happy one. — Thefe are tremendous truths to bad men ; they cannot be received and reflected on with indilference by the beft ; and they fuggeil: to all fuch a cogent motive to virtuous action, as deifm could not fur- niih even to Brutus himfelf.
Some men have been, warped to infidelity by vicioufnefs of life; and fomemay have hypocriti- cally profefled chriftianiry from profpects of tem- poral advantage : but, being a ftranger to your, charailer, T neither impute the former to you, nor can admit the latter ?s operating on myfelf. The generality of unbelievers are fuch, from want of information on the fubjevSl of religion ; having been engaged from their youth in il:ruggling for worldly dif^in6lion, or perplexed with- the incef- fant intricacies of bufinefs, or bewildered in the purfuits of pleafure, they have neither ability, in- clination, nor leifure, to enter into critical difqui- fitions concerning the truth of chriftianity. Meiir
of
( '76 )
of thisdefciiption are foon ftartkd by objections which they are not competent to anfwer ; and the loofe morality of the age (fo oppofite to chriftian perfection!) co-operating with their want of fcriptural knowledge, they prefcntly get rid of their nurl'ery faith, and are feidom fedulous in the acqnifition of another, founded, not on authority, but on fober inveftigation. Prefuming, however, that many deifts are as fincere in their belief as I am in mine, and knowing that feme are more able, and ail as much interefted as myfelf, to make a rational inquiry into the trudi of revealed reli- gion, 1 feel no propenfity to judg.e uncharitably. of any of them. Thev do not think as I do, on a fubje6l furpafTing all others in importance; but they are not, on that account, to be Ipoken of by me with afperity of language, to be thought of by me as perfcns alienated from the mercies of God. The gofpel has been oiFered to their ac- ceptance ; and, frQm whatever caufe diey rejedl it, I cannot but eftecm their fiiuadon to be dan^ gerous. Ui^der the influence of that perfuafion I have been induced to v/rite this book. 1 do not expedl to derive from, it cither fame or profit ; thefe- are not improper incentives to honourable activi- ty ; but there is a time of hfe when they ceafe to dire<5t the judgment of thinking men. What I have written will not, I fear, make any in;pref- fion on you ; but I indulge an hope, that it may not be widiout its effevft on feme (--f your readers. Infidelity is a rank weed, it threatens to ovei fpread the land ; its root is principally iixed amon.gfl the great and opulent, but you are endeavouring to*
extend
( '77 > extend the malignity of Its poifon through all the clafles of the community. There is a clafs o£ men, for whom I have the greateft refpedl, and- whom I am anxious to preferve fr-m the contami- nation of your irreligion — the merchants, manu- facturers, and tradcfmen of the kingdom. I con- lider the influence of the example of this clafs as elTential to the welfare of the community. 1 know, that they are in general given to reading, and de- flrous of information on all fuhjedts. If this little book fhould chance to fall into their hands after, they have read your's, and they fhould think that any of your obje6lions to the authority of the Bible have not been fully anfwered, I intreat them, to attribute the omiffion to the brevity whxh I have ftudied; to my defire of avoiding learned difquilitions ; to my inadvertency ; to my inability ; to any thing rather than to an Impoffibility of completely obviating every difficulty you have brought forward. 1 addrefs the fame requeft to fuch of the youth of both fexes, as may unhap- pily have imbibed, from your writings, the poifoa of infidelity ; befeeching them to believe, that all their religious doubts may be removed, though k may not have been in my power to anfwer, to their fatisfa6lion, all your objections. I pray God that the rifmg generation of this land may be pre- fer ved from that " evil heart of unbelief," which has brought ruin on a neighbouring nation ; that neither a negle6led education, nor domeftic irre- ligion, nor evil communication, nor the fafhion of a licentious world, may ever induce them to forget, lliat religion alone ought to be dieir rule of life.
In the conclufion ,of my Apology for ChVif-^ tianity, I informed Mr. Gibbon oT my extreme averiion to public controvcify. I am now twen- ty years older than I was then, and I perceive that this my nverfion has incrcafed with mv age. I have, through hfe, abandoned mv little literary productions to their fate : fuch of them as have been attacked, have never received any defence from me; nor will this receive any, if it fliould meet wich your public notice, or with that of any other man.
Sincerely wifhing that you raa^r become a par- taker of that faith in revealed religion, which is tlie foundation of m.y happinefs in this world, and of all my hopes in another, I bid you farewell.
R. LANDAFF.
Calgccnh Farl^ Jan, 20, 1796,
FINIS.
T. and J. SWORDS
^Have for fale, at their Book Store, No. 99 Pearl- ftreet, New-York,
A neat and cheap edition of
Newton sD ijfer tat ions on theProphecies.
Alfo, The Spirit of Defpotifm, Brown's Oracles, Flechere's Spiritual Letters, Butler's Analogy, Klopftock's Mefliah, The Chriftian Magazine, Signs of the Times, t Millennium,
Dutch Church Pfalms and Hymns, Bibles and Teftaments,
And ana/fortment of
Books and Stationary,
'•W;.;ch will be fold on the lovveft terms for cafh.
At the above Store are alfo for fale, A few copies of Watfon's
Apology for the Bible,
Printed on fine paper, and neatly bound and lettered.
PRINTING
Executed with ncatnefe and accuracy.
I
'
i