THE
UNIVERSITY
OF CHICAGO
LIBRARY
DIVINE AUTHORITY
OF THE
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT
ASSERTED/
/c,
WITH A PARTICULAR VINDICATION
OF THE
CHARACTER OF MOSES, AND THE PROPHETS, OUR SAVIOUR
JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS APOSTLES,
AGAINST THE UNJUST ASPERSIONS AND FALSE KEASONINGS OF A BOOK,
ENTITLED,
THE MORAL PHILOSOPHER.
TO WHICH 18 ADDED
A DEFENCE OF THIS BOOK
AGAINST
THE EXCEPTIONS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THE SECOND VOLUME OF THE
MORAL PHILOSOPHER.
BY, JOHN LELAND, D. D.
LONDON :
\ PRINTED FOR T. TEGG AND SON, CHEAPSIDE;
| R. GRIFFIN AND CO. , GLASGOW ; T. T. AND H. TEGG, DUBLIN :
ft . ALSO J4 AND S. A. TEGG, SYDNEY AND HOBART TOWN.
M.DCCC.XXXVH.
ft
s
J. HADDON, PRINTER, CASTLE STREET, HNSliUIlY.
PREFACE.
A JUST liberty of thinking (which on the one hand is not governed
by old and popular prejudices, nor on the other hand led aside by
the affectation of novelty and a desire of thinking out of the common
way,) which hath nothing but truth in view, and the serving the
cause of real goodness and righteousness, is certainly one of the
noblest things in the world. To be a freethinker in this, which is
the most proper sense of the word, must be owned to be an
honourable and amiable character. This the enemies of our holy
religion are sensible of, and therefore they have done themselves the
honour to assume this character as if it were their sole privilege,
and a distinction that sets them above the rest of mankind. But
as no man is a freethinker or a good reasoner, merely for calling
himself so, the justness of their pretensions to that character must
be examined by other things than their own confident boastings.
If these gentlemen were really what they pretend to be, the sincere
lovers and friends of truth, and of a just liberty of thinking, this
would appear by their fair and ingenuous way of treating the argu-
ment they have undertaken. We should be able to trace in their
conduct and in their writings the fair and beautiful lines of candour
and sincerity, an impartial Jove of truth, and an openness of mind
to conviction and evidence, a modesty of sentiment, and a calm and
serious temper of mind becoming the importance of the inquiry.
But I shall hardly be thought severe, if I say, that he that would
look for any thing of this kind in the writings of those that have
lately appeared amongst us in the cause of infidelity, would find
himself very much disappointed. Bold and confident assertions he
will everywhere meet with, many things that discover high conceit,
of their own sagacity and penetration, and a contempt of others
that do not think in their way ; a willingness to use any arts of
misrepresentation to serve their cause ; and a strong desire to give
an odious or a ludicrous turn to every thing where revelation is
concerned ; and all covered over with a pretended regard (though
it must be owned the disguise is generally very thin) for that
religion they are using their repeated endeavours to subvert and to
destroy.
But amongst them all there is scarce any who hath rendered
himself more remarkable this way than one that hath lately ap-
A 2
IV PREFACE.
peared under the character of the ' Moral Philosopher,' though, if
there be any morality in writing, I never knew any that had a less
just pretension to this character. I would be one of the last to
charge any man with a want of honesty and sincerity ; but there
are many things in his book that look like a wilful perversion and
misrepresentation of facts as well as arguments ; and sometimes so
circumstanced, that it is scarce possible for the most extensive
charity to suppose that it was owing to mere ignorance. Perhaps
the author himself would not be willing to accept of this apology.
I cannot help looking upon it as an honour to Christianity, that its
adversaries find themselves obliged to take such methods as these,
in order to carry on their designs against it. Does not this argue a
secret consciousness that they can never prevail by a fair attack
upon the Scriptures ? For surely he must be either very wicked or
very foolish that would have 1'ecourse to such base arts as these to
serve his cause, if he thought his end could be answered without
it, and that fair and just reasoning and an equal candid manage-
ment would do as well.
This author pretends to go further in his concessions, than some
of his brethren and fellow-labourers in the same cause. He ac-
knowledgeth the great usefulness of revelation, in aid of human
reason in the present corrupt state of mankind ; and seems to find
fault with those who maintain, that ' under the present pravity
and corruption of mankind, the religion of nature is written with
sufficient strength and clearness upon every man's heart ;' and who
therefore are not so thankful as they ought to be ' for the light of
the gospel,' p. 145. And though he openly and avowedly rejects
the Old Testament, and plainly declares that he will have ' nothing
to do with it in religion ;' yet if we were to judge of his sentiments
by several passages in his book separately considered, one would
be apt to think that he entertained very favourable thoughts of
Christianity. It were easy to fill several pages with direct and
formal passages, where he speaks honourably of Jesus Christ, and
the religion he hath introduced, as having brought clearer disco-
veries of our duty, and enforced it by stronger motives, and pro-
vided more effectual aids, than ever was done before And he
expressly declares himself to be a ' Christian upon the foot of the
New Testament/ p. 352. But if we compare these with other
passages in his book, we shall find reason to think that all his
pretended regard for Christianity, and the religion of Jesus is only
the better to carry on his design of subverting it. At the same
time that he affects to speak with great respect of Jesus Christ, he
insinuates several base reflections upon his conduct and character ;
and justifies those that put him to death as acting like good pa-
triots, who were under a necessity of doing what they did out of a
regard to the welfare and safety of their country. Though he pre-
tends to acknowledge the usefulness of divine revelation, and par-
ticularly of the revelation brought by Jesus Christ in the present
corrupt state of mankind, he leaves us no way of knowing when a
divine revelation is really given ; and particularly endeavours to
PREFACE. V
destroy the proof on which the authority of Christ's divine mission,
.and of the Christian revelation is established, drawn from miracles,
.prophecy, and the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost: yea,
he absolutely denies them to be any proofs at all. Though, he
sometimes talks of the great benefit of the light of the gospel, yet
he will not allow that any one thing was discovered by that reve-
lation but what was known as well before, except ' salvation by
Jesus Christ as the Jewish Messiah,' that. is, as he explains it, the
national deliver of the Jews, and the restorer of the kingdom to
Israel in a temporal political sense. This very thing which he all
along explodes as false and absurd, he represents as the only proper
article of the Christian faith,* and as the whole of that gospel
which was preached by all the apostles, except St. Paul, who t he
pretends preached a different gospel from the rest. He professeth
.to be a Christian on the foot of the New Testament, and yet he
represents it as 'leaning strongly towards Judaism,' and as a
jumble of inconsistent religions, and not at all to be depended on
for a just account either of doctrines or facts. And what plainly
discovereth his determined malice against the New Testament, is,
that he pretends the canon, as we now have it, was 'corrected,
revised, and published by the Jews, who altered it according to
.their own prejudices and false opinions ; even by those very Jews
who soon after, upon being disappointed in Jesus, set up Barchocab
.for their Messiah,' pp. 440, 441. Finally after all the compliments
.he pays to revelation in general, and to the Christian revelation in
particular, as of great use in the present corrupt and degenerate
state of mankind, and notwithstanding his acknowledgment that
the religion. of nature is not written with sufficient strength and
.clearness upon every man's heart, yet when he comes to describe
.the true religion, or moral philosophy, as he calls it in the latter
end of his book, and the means by which it is to be obtained, he
.doth not send men to the gospel for instruction, but sends every
man to the light of nature in his own breast, to ' the heaven, to the
earth, and especially to the brute creatures, to learn, reason, virtue,
and religion.' Where he seems to put a special note upon the brute
'creatures as much more proper ins(ructors than books of historical
religion, which is the title he usually thinks fit to bestow upon the
Holy Scriptures, see pp. 418 430.
This may give the reader some notion of this writer's candour
and sincerity, and what we are to think of his pretended regard for
Christianity, which in effect amounts to this : that the Christianity
.revealed in the writings of the New Testament is Jewish Christi-
anity, that is, Christianity corrupted and adulterated with Judaism,
which according to him is the worst religion in the world. But
the true and genuine Christianity is Christian Deism, to be learned
not from the writings of the New Testament, but from the volume
of nature, from every man's own breast, from the heavens, the
earth, and ' especially the brute creatures,' the genuine uncorrupted
v
- * See p. 349.
VI PREFACE.
instructors in our author's Christianity. So that the gentlemen
that assume to themselves the title of Deists, seem resolved that
for the future they only shall be called the true Christians too.
Those that look upon the New Testament to be divinely inspired,
and receive it as the rule of their faith, and take their religion from
thence, must be called Christian Jews, who only put a strange
mixture of inconsistent religions upon the world for Christianity :
whereas these Christian Deists teach it in its purity, and in order
to propagate pure uncorrupted Christianity they do their utmost
to discard the writings of the New Testament, that is, the writ-
ings that give us an account of the doctrines taught by Christ and
his apostles. But since these gentlemen will not allow us the
honourable title of Christians, it is but fair that they should leave
us that of Free-thinkers, to which I really think the advocates for
the gospel revelation have a much juster pretension than they.
But they seem to be too fond of this title to part with it. All the
religion this writer seems willing to allow us is only an historical,
political, clerical, mechanical faith and religion, which are terms
of art he often makes use of to describe revealed religion ; whilst
he appropriates real religion, and ' moral truth and righteousness,'
to himself, and those of his own faction.
Thus, whatever the rest of the world think of these gentlemen,
they are resolved to think very well of themselves. If others will
but take their words for it, they must pass for the only free-thinkers,
the only moral .philosophers, and the only men of sense ; for he lets
us know, that there is not ' a man of sense in England' that goes to
church for any other reason but for fear of the imputation of athe-
ism, that the clergy would otherwise lay upon him, p. 115. They
are the men, and wisdom must die with them ; the only men of real
religion, and friends of moral truth and righteousness ; and finally,
in their own opinion, the only true Christians. It will be easily
allowed, that their pretensions to all these characters are alike just
and well-founded.
But besides all this, they seem to set up for a kind of infallibility
too, This writer talks of his moral philosopher's having his ' under-
standing irradiated with the beams of immutable eternal reason,'
which he calls an ' infallible light from heaven to teach and inform
us how to act.' He represents him as ' receiving intelligence and
information from eternal wisdom, and hearing the clear intelligible
voice of his Maker and Former, speaking to his silent undisturbed
attentive reason ;' whereas others that seek for information in reli-
gion from books ' meet with nothing but confusion and distraction,
a Babel of faith and religion.' He often talks as if he and those of
his way, who pretend wholly to govern themselves by the principles
of moral truth and righteousness, had an infallible criterion of divine
truth, by which they were secured from error, and in which men
cannot be mistaken. He represents the principles of the religion of
nature as what all men must agree in, whereas they are for ever
divided in points of mere revelation, p. 94, But how comes it then,
that this writer, in this very book, thinks himself obliged to argue
FEEFACE. Vll
against some of his brethren, who he tells us would be thought to be
' great philosophers and very wise men,' who yet deny man's free-
agency, the obligations of the duty of prayer, and God's continual
and immediate agency and influence in the government of the
world ? I suppose he will hardly pretend that these are uncertain
and of no importance, because men, and those too that profess to be
impartial inquirers, are divided about them. For he tells us, that
these things are of * infinite consequence to mankind ;' and yet ia
several parts of his book he raises a mighty stir about the differences
among Christians, with relation to the articles of their faith, as if
this were a demonstration that these doctrines are uncertain and
obscure, and of no use to mankind. An argument that may be
turned with equal force against natural religion, and against the
common principles of sense and reason.
He expresses his apprehension, that this performance of his
would raise up all the clergy of the nation ; that ' the silversmiths
would be all in an uproar; the judaizing clergy would be in arms ;
and many large elaborate volumes would be written, and a thou-
sand sermons preached against his book.' He also foretels, that
they would ' clearly and triumphantly confute all that he had said,
without so much as answering any one objection/ see pp. 11, 357,
358. All that can be concluded from this is, that be looks upon
himself to be a writer of very great importance. But I do not find
there has been so general an alarm, or that his attack against re-
vealed religion has been judged so very formidable as he seems to
apprehend. Perhaps to have taken no notice of him at all would
have been a greater mortification to this writer than the best answer
that could be published against him. And yet, on the other hand,
it is not unlikely that in the opinion he seems to have formed of his
own sufficiency, he might be ready to flatter himself that if the
friends of revelation did not answer him, it was because they could
not do it. Indeed I should think it of very little consequence to the
world what he thought of this matter ; but possibly the suffering
such an insolent attack upon revealed religion to pass unregarded
might be of disadvantage in an age already too much inclined to
infidelity. This writer's smart and confident way of saying things,
and the high pretences he every where makes to reason and demon-
stration, may be apt to impose upon some that will not give them-
selves the trouble of a very close examination. And the objections
he has raised give occasion to the clearing some difficulties, and to
the setting some things in a proper light, that they may be of ser-
vice to those who, though they are not without their doubts, are
willing to be informed. I thought therefore it might be of use to
enter upon a strict examination of this philosopher; in which I
have not willingly concealed the strength of any objection he has
advanced, and perhaps have considered several things he offers
more fully and particularly than some will judge needful.
This work is entirely confined to the objections he urgeth
against the Old and New Testament, and therefore no notice is
taken of the account he pretends to give of the sentiments
and practice of the primitive Christians, though, this might
Vlll PREFACE.
furnish us with farther proofs of the injustice and disin-
genuity of this writer. Nor have i meddled with his invectives
against the ' clergy, the priests, the theologasters, the system-
mongers, the faith-mongers,' &c. These are things so much to be
expected from writers of this kind, that they only pass for words of
course. He acknowledgeth indeed that many ' ecclesiastics of the
several denominations are wise and reasonable men ;' but I believe
they will scarce feel themselves obliged to him. for his compliment,
since he insinuates at the same time that they are in his own way
of thinking. But as for those that stand up for * positive, insti-
tuted, revealed, and political religion, or the religion of the
hierarchy,' for all these are in his language the same thing, he
plainly lets us know that it ' is not his design to distinguish
between one sort of clergy and another, because in this case they
are scarce distinguishable,' p. 94.
I have endeavoured in the following answer to dispose his ob-
jections into some order, than which nothing can be more confused
and irregular as they lie in his book. I first consider what he
offereth concerning the proofs of divine revelation in general j and
then proceed to examine the objections he hath advanced against
the Old Testament or the law of Moses and the prophets, with
regard to which he acteth an open undisguised part, and nowhere
concealeth his malice. In the last place the authority of the New
Testament, and the doctrine and character of our Saviour Jesus
Christ and his apostles, is asserted and vindicated, and his pretended
account of the Jewish Christianity detected. The summary of the
several chapters which followeth this preface will give the reader a
fuller view of the design and method of this work; in which several
things are considered more fully than would have been necessary,
if I had nothing in view but precisely to answer the book before
me. As I have once before engaged in a work of this nature, I
sometimes beg leave to refer to it that I may not be guilty of
needless repetitions.
Our author declares in his preface that he had no other design
in view than to ' serve the cause of virtue and true religion.' How
far the methods he makes use of are consistent with such a design,
the impartial reader will determine. I can sincerely profess that the
reason of my undertaking this work is because I am firmly per-
suaded that the cause of Christianity is the cause of God, of
religious truth and virtue : that to assert the authority of the
Scriptures is one of the best services that can be done to mankind,
and even to the interests of natural religion, the main principles of
which are there most clearly explained, most strongly established,
and most powerfully enforced : that if the Christian revelation were
once discarded, the strongest restraints to vice and wickedness
would be removed, and the most effectual motives to the practice
of virtue and the purest morals, together with those glorious and
divine hopes which are the chief support and joy of a good man's
life, would be subverted, or in a great degree weakened : that to
take the Scriptures out of the hands of the people would be to give
PREFACE. IX
them up to all manner of wickedness, ignorance, superstition, and
false worship, and to leave them exposed to be practised upon by
artful and designing men, against all which a thorough acquaintance
with the Holy Scriptures, and a firm adherence to them as the great
rule of faith and practice, is the most effectual preservative.
I can scarce form to myself an idea of a re'velation whose doc-
trines and precepts have a more manifest tendency to promote the
honour of God and the good of mankind, or that is more remote
from the views of worldly ambition, avarice, and sensuality ; in a
word, that carries in it greater internal characters of goodness and
purity, or is attended with more illustrious external attestations of
a divine original. Nor are the difficulties that attend it greater than
may well be expected, supposing a revelation really given to man-
kind. Several of these difficulties are obviated in the following
book, and if what is here offered may be of service to the interests
of real religion and important truth, I shall not repent the pains I
have been at under much bodily weakness to serve so glorious
a cause.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
Page
The Moral Philosopher's concessions concerning the usefulness of Divine Reve-
lation in the present corrupt state of mankind. He leaves no way of knowing
when such a Revelation is really given. His pretence that moral truth and fit-
ness, as appearing to our understandings, is the only proof or evidence of divine
Truth, or of any doctrine as coming from God, examined. That not only the
persons to whom the Revelation is originally and immediately made, but others
also, may have a sufficient assurance of its being a revelation from God, so as to
muke it reasonable for them to receive it as of divine authority. And par-
ticularly that miracles may be so circumstanced as to furnish a sufficient proof
of a person's divine mission, and of the divine original and authority of doctrines
and laws attested and confirmed by those miracles. The Author's exceptions
against this considered. And what he offers to show that a Divine Revelation
cannot be conveyed to us by human testimony, so as to be a matter of divine faith,
examined. . . . . . . . . . - 1
CHAPTER II.
An Entrance on the Author's Objections against the Old Testament. The strange
Representation he makes of the Law of Moses. Some general considerations
concerning the Nature and Design of that Law. Its moral Precepts pure and
excellent. Its ritual Injunctions appointed for wise Reasons. The Nature of
its Sanctions considered. Reasons of God's erecting the People of Israel into a
peculiar Polity. Nothing absurd in this Constitution. It was designed in a
Subserviency to the general Good. The miraculous Facts whereby that Law
was confirmed, not poetical Embellishments, hut real Facts. The Author's
Reasons to prove that those Facts could not be understood in a literal Historical
Sense shown to be vain and insufficient. . . . . .26
CHAPTER III.
The Author's Arguments against the Law of Moses from the Authority of St. Paul
considered. Our Saviour Jesus Christ, and the Apostle Paul, strongly assert
and confirm the divine original of the Law of Moses. The diminishing and
degrading manner in which that Apostle seems sometimes to speak of that Law,
accounted for. The Instances the Author produces to show that there was no
end of that Law but what the Apostle expressly contradicts^ examined. The
attempt he makes to prove that there was no such Typical or Mystical Sense of
the Law as St. Paul supposes in his arguings with the Jews. No Absurdity, but
a Beauty and Harmony in supposing that what is obscurely hinted at in the Law
> is more clearly revealed in the Gospel. .... 4T
CHAPTER IV.
The author's objections against the Law of Moses from the internal constitution
of that law, considered. His pretence that that law extended only to the outward
practice and behaviour of men in Society, and that the obligation of it with re-
spect to civil and social virtue extended no farther than to the members of that
Society, and that they were put into a state of war with all the rest of the world.
It is shown that that law required an inward purity of heart and affections. The
great tenderness and humanity that appears in its precepts. It required a kind
and benevolent conduct, not only towards those of their own Society, but towards
CONTENTS. XI
Page
strangers. That constitution not founded in the principles of persecution. It
tolerated all that worshipped the one true God, though not conforming to their
peculiar rites and usages. Tbe punishing idolatry with death in the common-
wealth of Israel accounted for. No obligation by that law to extirpate idolatry,
and destroy idolaters in all other countries by fire and sword. His pretence that
Moses directed the Israelites to extend their conquests through all nations, and
that their constitution and plan of a government was contrived for it, examined.
The contrary to this shown; The military laws, Deut. xx. explained. Whether
that law absolutely prohibited all alliances with idolaters. . . .68
CHAPTER V.
The author's pretence that the law of Moses encouraged human sacrifices as the
highest acts of religion and devotion" when offered not to idols but to the true
God. Such sacrifices plainly forbidden in the law to be offered to God. His
account of Lev. xxvii. 28, 29, considered. The argument he draws from the
law for the redemption of the first-born turned against him. The case of Abra-
ham's offering up his son Isaac considered at large. Not done in conformity to
the customs of the Canaanites. The true state of the case laid down. Human
sacrifices not encouraged by this instance, but the contrary. Abraham himself
had full assurance that this command came from God, Upon what grounds his
having had such a command from God is credible and probable to us. It could
not be owing to the illusions of an evil spirit ; nor to the force of his own enthu-
siasm. The author's pretence that this instance destroys the law of nature, and
leaves all to mere arbitrary will and pleasure, examined. , . .86
CHAPTER VI.
The Moral Philosopher's account of the original of sacrifices and of the priesthood,
aud of Joseph's first establishing an independent priesthood in Egypt. The
representation he makes of the Mosaical priesthood, considered. The priests had
not the government of the nation vested in them by that constitution, nor were
they exempted from the jurisdiction of the law, nor had an interest separate from,
and inconsistent with the state. Concerning the church revenues established by
the law of Moses. The particular manner of providing for the maintenance of
the priests and Levites accounted for. The .author's pretence, that it was an
insufferable burden and impoverishment to the people, and the cause of their fre-
quent revoltings to idolatry, examined. Some observations concerning the sacri-
fices prescribed under the Mosaical economy. The author's objections against
them considered. No sacrifices were to be offered in cases where civil penalties
were expressly appointed by law, and why. The atoning virtue of the sacrifices
supposed to consist in the sprinkling of the blood. This shown not to be a
priestly cheat, but appointed for wise reasons. .... 106
CHAPTER VII.
His pretence that the law of Moses made no.distihction between morals and rituals,
and never urged things as in themselves fit and reasonable ; and that the stories
of the miracles recorded there were the cause of the Jews' obduracy and impen-
itency throughout all their generations. His bitter invectives against the Jews,
and the strange representation he makes of that people, with a view to cast a
reproach upon their law. ;It is shown, that by the advantage of their law, they
far exceeded all other nations in the knowledge of religion, and that they were
famed for wisdom even among the heathens. The proper use that should be
made of the accounts given us of their faults, and of the punishments inflicted
on them. ...... .... 118
CHAPTER VIII.
A transition to the author's objections against other parts of the Old Testament.
Concerning the two different turns, or distinct popular appearances, which he
pretends the Spirit of Prophecy took in Israel. And first concerning the Urim
Xll CONTENTS.
Page
and Thummim. His account of the original and design of that oracle considered.
The attempt he makes to destroy the credit of it, because of the part it had in
the war against the Benjamites for the injury done to the Levite and his concu-
bine at Gibeah. The whole transaction particularly considered. His account
of the ceasing of that oracle, and the reasons he assigns for it, examined. The
order of prophets, by his own confession, a wise and excellent institution. The
strange inconsistent representation he gives of their character and conduct. The
way he takes to account for their foretelling future events, shown to be insufficient.
Their predictions not merely general and ambiguous, but clear, express, and cir-
cumstantial. The difference between the false prophets and the true, considered.
No argument to he drawn from the former to the disadvantage of the latter. 128
CHAPTER IX.
Some general reflections on the attempt the author makes, to show that the prophets
were the great disturbers of their country, and that they were of persecuting prin-
ciples, enemies to toleration and liberty of conscience. It is shown that they were
the truest friends to their country, and that if their counselshad been hearkened to,
its ruin would have been prevented. His invective against the prophet Samuel,
whom he represents as the founder of the prophetic order. His pretence that
he kept Saul twenty years out of the exercise of the royal power, after he was
chosen king. The account he gives of Samuel's quarrel against Saul for deposing
him from the high-priesthood, and of the several plots laid by him for the destruc-
tion of that prince, especially in the affair of the Amalekites, considered. In what
sense it is said that it repented God that he had^made Saul king. That this was not
a pretence of Samuel to cast his own follies and want of foresight upon the Al-
mighty. David's character considered and vindicated. His behaviour towards
Saul shown to be noble and generous. Notwithstanding the faults he was guilty
of, in his general conduct he was an excellent person. Concerning his dancing
before the ark. The author's base representation of it. Lord S y's account
of it, and of the saltant naked spirit of prophecy considered. . . .152
CHAPTER X.
The author's farther invective against the prophets considered. His account of
their pretended conspiracy against Solomon. The rending the kingdom of the
ten tribes from the house of David, not owing to the intrigues of the prophets,
but to the just judgments of God. The prophets not the authors of the several
civil ware and revolutions in the kingdom of Israel. The favourable account he
gives of Ahab and Jezebel and the other idolatrous princes, as friends to toleration
and liberty of conscience. The falsehood of this shown. His attempt to vindicate
the persecution raised against the true prophets of the Lord. Concerning Elijah's
character and conduct, and particularly concerning his causing Baal's prophets
to be put to death at Mount Carmel. The case of Elisba's anointing Jehu to be
king of Israel, with a commission to destroy the royal house of Ahab considered ;
as also his management with Hazael. The charge this writer brings against the
prophets fomenting the wars between the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and
at length occasioning the ruin of both, shown to be false and inconsistent. . 177
CHAPTER XT.
His charge against the prophets that lived before the Assyrian captivity, that they
declaimed ouly against idolatry, and not against the other vices and immoralities
ofthe people. The falsehood of this shown. The excellent scheme of religion .
and morals taught by the ancient prophets. His pretence that the whole nation
of the Jews, from the time of Moses to Ezra, were Sadducees or deistical Mate-
rialists ; aud that they received the first notions of a future state from the Persian
magi, examined. His account of the change introduced into the Jewish religion
nt that time shown to be groundless and absurd. A future state implied in the
law, and all along believed among the people, and clearly intimated in the writings
of 1 the prophets. This proved from several passages. . ... .194
CONTENTS. Xlll
CHAPTER XII.
. . Pago
A transition to the Moral Philosopher's objections against the New Testament.
Though he pretends a very high respect for our blessed Saviour, yet he insihiu-
ales several reflections upon his conduct and character. Those reflections shown
to be groundless and unjust. Our Lord did not comply with the prejudices of
the people in any thing contrary to truth, or to the honour of God. He was far
from assuming to be a temporal prince, yet he all along claimed to be the Mes-
siah promised and foretold by the prophets. The author's pretence that he re-
nounced that character at his death, shown to be false. The Messiah spoken of
by the prophets, -was not merely to be a national Deliverer of the Jews, nor were
the benefits of his kingdom to be confined to that nation only, but to be extended
to the Gentiles. This shown from the prophecies themselves. The attestation
given to Christ's divine mission, by the prophecies of the Old Testament, con-
sidered and vindicated. . ... . . . . 20-1
CHAPTER XIII.
The author's charge against the apostles, examined. His pretence that they them-
selves were far from claiming infallibility, considered. It is shown that they did
profess to be under the unerring guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in
publishing the gospel of Jesus ; and that they gave sufficient proofs to convince
the world of their divine mission. The attestations given to Christianity and to
the doctrines taught by the apostles, by the extraordinary gifts and powers of
the Holy Ghost, considered and vindicated, against our author's exceptions.
His pretence that those gifts of the Holy Ghost might be used like natural facul-
ties and talents, according to the pleasure of the persons who were endowed with
them, either for the promoting truth or error ; and that the false teachers, as
well as the true, had those extraordinary gifts and powers, and made use of
them in confirmation of their false doctrines, examined at large. . . 217
CHAPTER XIV.
The gospel taught by the apostles was 'the same. The author's account of the
Jewish gospel, preached by them, false and groundless. The pretended differ-
ence between St. Paul and the other apostles, concerning the obligation of the
law of Moses on the Jewish converts, examined. None of the apostles urged the
observation of that law, as necessary to justification and acceptance with God,
under the gospel ; though they all judged it lawful to observe the Mosaic rites
for a season. The wisdom and consistency of this their conduct, and the entire
harmony between St. Paul and the other apostles in this matter, shown. The
pretended difference between them relating to the law of proselytism to be urged
on the Gentile converts. The decree of the Apostolical Council at Jerusalem,
considered: and the reasons and grounds of that decree inquired into. No proof
that the apostle Paul disapproved or counteracted that decree. The conduct of
that apostle at his trial, justified. ...... 230
CHAPTER XV.
The author's pretence that the apocalypse is most properly the Christian revelation, .
and that it is there th.it we are principally to look for the doctrines of Christi-
anity, considered. There is nothing in that book to countenance the worship of
angels, invocation of saints, or prayers for the dead. Salvation is not there
confined to the Jews only. His account of the fifth monarchy which he pretends
is foretold in that book, shown to be false and absurd. The attempt he makes
against the whole canon of the New Testament, under pretence that it was cor-
rupted and interpolated by the Jews, and that Christ's own disciples reported
doctrines and facts according to their own false notions and prejudices, examined
and disproved. ......... 250
CHAPTER XVI.
The Moral Philosopher sets up for rectifying the errors of Christians with regard to
some of the particular doctrines of Christianity. His objeetions against the doc-
XIV CONTENTS.
trine of Christ's satisfaction, considered. There is nothing in it contrary to
justice. The fulness of the satisfaction not inconsistent with a free pardon. It
doth not rob God of the glory of his mercy, and give the whole praise to Christ.
The pretence that Christ's satisfaction is needless because repentance alone is
sufficient without it, examined. It doth not destroy the necessity of personal
repentance and obedience, but established! it. Christ's prayer to the Father
that the cup might pass from him not inconsistent with the notion of his dying
for the sins of the world. The author's assertion that there was no such thing
as vicarious sacrifices under the law of Moses ; and the way he takes to account
for Christ's being called a propitiation, examined. The representation he makes
of the gospel doctrine of pardon upon repentance. His absurdity and inconsis-
tency in this shown. His attempt against the positive precepts of Christianity,
considered. The arguments he draws from the differences among Christians,
to prove that none of the doctrines of revealed religion are of any certainty or
use to mankind, shown to be vain and inconclusive. His encomium on Moral
Philosophy. The Conclusion. . . . . . . .261
PART II.
INTRODUCTION.
Page
The author's confused way of talking about revelation. His account of the anti-
infidel faith examined. Concerning the infallibility of the Biblical historians.
Revelation not confined to things above reason, nor opposed to the fitness of
things. The advantage of divine revelation as additional to the light of nature,
and the harmony between reason and revelation shown. The author's charge
against his adversaries, as placing the most important divine truth upon the footof
human fallible authority, considered. He confounds the question concerning the
means of conveying that revelation to us. Its being conveyed to us through the
hands of fallible men, no prejudice to its certainty or divine authority. The
summary he pretends to give of the reasoning part of the book he undertakes to
answer, very unfair and disingenuous. , ..... 296
CHAPTER I.
An examination of what the author represents as the main principles of his book.
Their absurdity and inconsistency shown. His account of the nature of truth,
and the grounds of its communicability ; and the attempt he makes to show that
truth cannot be proved by authority, considered. That authority may in many
cases be of advantage for ascertaining us of truth, and that a divine authority, or
testimony, may be of signal use in matters of religion and morality. This par-
ticularly shown with regard to the Christian revelation. . . .311
CHAPTER II.
The question concerning the proper proofs of truth, as coming from God, stated.
The author's ambiguities detected. Our not being able to explain the particular
manner of extraordinary revelation, or immediate inspiration, no objection against
the reality of it. Things originally received in a way of extraordinary revelation
from God, capable of being communicated to others, to whom the revelation was
not immediately made. Exceptions against this considered and obviated. In
what sense miracles may be proofs and evidences of the divine authority of per-
sons or doctrines. The true notion of miracles explained. The propositions the
author lays down relating to them, examined. His objections against the proof
of doctrines from miracles, shown to be vain and inconclusive .. . . 326
CONTEXTS. XVI
CHAPTER III.
Page
The miracles wrought by Moses vindicated against the author's objections. The
case of the Egyptian sorcerers, and their miracles, considered. His attempt to
prove that Moses might have been assisted by some supernatural evil power, be-
cause his miracles were wrought not for the good, but for the destruction of man-
kind, and were done out of a particular partiality to the Israelites. The nature
of those miracles, and the end for which they were wrought, prove they could
not be the work of an evil being. The miracles of Jesus Christ vindicated. Not
merely wrought to procure attention from the people, but designed as propter
proofs and attestations to his divine mission, and the truth and divine authority
of his laws and doctrine. The wonderful effects of Christ's miracles not owing
to the strength of imagination. The extraordinary miraculous facts, wrought in
attestation of the Mosaical and Christian dispensation, come to us with sufficient
evidence to make it reasonable for us to believe the truth of these facts. . 342
CHAPTER IV.
The law of Moses is in itself reasonable and excellent. This does not render
the attestation given it by miracles needless ; but strengthens and enforces
it. The covenant of peculiarity not a vain pretence and national delusion.
The argument brought against it from the authority of St. Paul and the nature
of the Abrahamic covenant considered. The God of Israel not represented in
Scripture as a national, local, tutelar deity. The author's strange way of ac-
counting for some of Moses's miracles. The extravagance of his suppositions
shown. The objections against his being the author of the Pentateuch, con-
sidered and obviated. The plan Moses laid down for the conquest of Canaan,
not inconsistent with the nature of the promise made to Abraham. Other ex-
ceptions of this writer considered. ...... 363
CHAPTER V.
The testimony given by St. Paul to the divine inspiration of the Scriptures of the
Old Testament vindicated against the author's exceptions. The apostle recom-
mended those sacred writings as of divine authority to the churches which he
founded among the Gentiles. He regarded the law of Moses as having been
originally of divine institution, though he knew by revelation it was no longer to
be in force under the gospel. Objections against this obviated. The typical
reference of (hat law vindicated. His attempt to prove that St. Paul was not the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews considered . . .' ' .383
CHAPTER VI.
That the law of Moses did not extend only to the outward actions, but the inward
dispositions. That it did not confine benevolence to those of their own particu-
lar body, nor was founded in the principles of persecution, shown, in opposition
to the author's attempt to prove to the contrary. What he further offers to
prove, that human sacrifices were indulged and encouraged in that law, shown
to be vain and insufficient. Hia exceptions, with'regard to the case of Abraham's
offering up Isaac, considered. That patriarch vindicated from his charge of en-
thusiasm. ... . . . . . 399
CHAPTER VII.
What he offers to show the whole power of the government, by the Mosaic consti-
tution, was vested in the tribe of Levi, examined. His vain attempt to vindicate
what he said concerning the priests having twenty shillings in the pound upon
all the lands of Israel. The falsehood and extravagance of his computations
shown. The burden of the legal priesthood not the cause of the revolt of the ten
tribes from Hehoboam. The law of Moses did not forbid all inquiries into the
XVI CON-TENTS.
Page
reasons of its injunctions. Reasons for several of those injunctions given in^the
law itself. Sabiisme prohibited in the law of Moses, which was the most ancient
kind of idolatry that prevailed among the eastern nations. . . .414
CHAPTER VIII.
The oracle of Urim. and Thummim not designed to try private judicial causes. The
answers of that oracle did not depend on the pleasure of the high priest. The
author's continued misrepresentation of the story of the Levite's wife, and the
war with the Benjamites, detected. The clear and circumstantial predictions of
future events given by the ancient prophets, a proof of their divine inspiration.
Their writing not corrupted by the after-revisors and editors. The distinction
between the true and the false prophets asserted, against this writer's exceptions.
His attempt to vindicate the charge he had brought against Samuel. A particu-
lar examination of his farther invectives against David. . . . 427
CHAPTER IX.
His vindication of what he had said against the prophets, and particularly concern,
ing Elisha's management with Hazael, considered. What he farther offers to
show, that the prophets were the principal fomenters of the war between Israel
and Judah, proved to be false and groundless. The difference between the Baal-
itish idolatry and that of Jeroboam shown. The heathen idolatry, not merely
the worship of the one true God, by the mediation of inferior deities. Our au-
thor's account of the ancient Persians considered. Their doctrine of two prin-
ciples, not the same with that of the Jews and Christians. They were worship-
pers of the sun and of fire. His account of Zoroaster's doetrine, concerning the
future punishment of the wicked. His pretence that our Saviour's doctrine, con-
cerning the resurrection and a future judgment, was a transcript from the second
book of Esdras considered. That a future state was believed among the ancient
Jews, vindicated against this writer's exceptions. . . . . 452
CHAPTER X.
The restoring the kingdom to Israel in a temporal sense, and the bringing all na-
tions into subjection to the Jews, not an essential character of the Messiah ac-
cording to the prophets. What he offers to prove that the apostles were not
under an infallible guidance examined. His account of the extraordinary gifts
of the Holy Ghost, and especially the strange and absurd representation he makes
of the gifts of tongues, considered and exposed. Concerning the power of work-
ing miracles in the apostolical age. It did not depend upon those that had this
power, to make use of it as they themselves pleased for the propagation of error
as well as truth. ........ 470
CHAPTER XI.
The author's attempt to vindicate what he had said concerning the apostle's preach-
ing different gospels, shown to be vain and insufficient. His censures on the
Apocalypse considered. The doctrine of Christ's satisfaction farther vindicated
against his exceptions. His concluding attempt to prove that there are plain
marks of imposture in the law of Moses ; and particularly that it was calculated
to advance the carnal worldly interest of the politician, and that it gave a large
indulgence to personal intemperance, and the lusts of uncleanness. The strange
representations he makes of the law of jealousy. The injustice of his reflections
upon it shown. The conclusion. ...... 485
THE DIVINE AUTHORITY
OF THE
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT ASSERTED,
<?fC.
CHAPTER I.
The Moral Philosopher's concessions concerning the usefulness of Divine Revelation in
the present corrupt state of mankind. He leaves no way of knowing when such a Re-
velation is really given. His pretence that moral truth and fitness, as appearing to our
understandings, is the only proof or evidence of divine Truth, or of any doctrine as
coming from God, examined. That not only the persons to whom the Revelation is
originally and immediately made, but others also, may have a sufficient assurance of
its being a revelation from God, so as to make it reasonable for them to receive it as
of divine authority. And particularly that miracles may be so circumstanced as
to furnish a sufficient proof of a person's divine mission, and of the divine original
and authority of doctrines and laws attested and confirmed by those miracles. The
Author's exceptions against this considered. And what he offers to show that a
Divine Hevelation cannot be conveyed to us by human testimony, so as to be a
matter of divine faith, examined.
THE Moral Philosopher, in several parts of his book, speaks of
Revelation with respect. He nowhere expressly denies either the
possibility or usefulness of Divine Revelation in general. On the
contrary, he seems plainly to assert that it may be of great use in.
aid of human reason in the present corrupt state of mankind. What
he ofiereth to this purpose, pp. 143 145, is very strong and ex-
press. He there acknowledged that at the time of Christ's coming
into the world, mankind in general were in ( a state of gross igno-
rance and darkness,' with respect to ' the true knowledge of God
and of themselves, and of all those moral revelations and obligations
we stand in to the Supreme Being, and to one another.' That they
were under ' great uncertainty concerning a future state/ and the
' concern of divine providence in the government of the world,' and
at the same time were filled ' with a proud and vain conceit of their
own natural abilities and self-sufficiency.' That ' our Saviour's
doctrines on these heads,' though they ' appeared to be the true and
genuine principles of nature and reason, when he had set them in a
THE DIVINE AUTHORITY
proper light, yet were such as the people had never lieard or thought
of before,' and ' never would have known without such an in-
structor, and such means and opportunities of knowledge;' and
that it doth not follow, that hecause these are ' natural truths and
moral obligations,' that therefore ' there could be no need of Re-
velation to discover them :' as the books of Euclid and Newton's
Principia ' contain natural truths, and such as are necessarily founded
in the reason of things/ and yet ' none but a fool or a madman would
say that he could have informed himself in these matters as well
without them.' He speaks of our ' natural weakness and inability,'
and represents those as ' conceited of themselves,' who talk of 'the
strength of human reason in matters of religion' in the present
state of mankind. He saith that they ' who would judge uprightly
of the strength of human reason in matters of morality and religion,
under the present corrupt and degenerate state of mankind, ought
to take their estimate from those parts of the world which never
had the benefit of Revelation ; and this, perhaps, might make them
less conceited of themselves,, and more thankful to God for the
light of the Gospel.' He asks, ' if the religion of nature, under the
present pravity and corruption of mankind, was written with suf-
ficient strength and clearness upon every man's heart, why might
not a Chinese or an Indian draw up as good a system of natural
religion as a Christian, and why have we never met with any such?
and he adds, that let ' us take Confucius, Zoroaster, Plato, Socrates,
or the greatest moralist that ever lived without the light of Reve-
lation, and it will appear that their best systems of morality were
intermixed and blended with much superstition, and so many
gross absurdities as quite eluded and defeated the main design of
them.'
All this seems fairly to grant the need there is of a divine reve-
lation, and its great usefulness and expediency, in the present
corrupt state of mankind, to instruct them in things of considerable
importance, and. to give them more clear and certain knowledge in
matters of religion and morality, than they could have by the mere
strength of their own reason without it. One would be apt to think
that such an acknowledgment could only be made with a friendly
design to establish the authority of Divine Revelation, and to pre-
pare men's minds for a more favourable reception of it. But this 1
does not appear to be the author's real and prevailing intention.
Whilst he seems to make such fair concessions, he finds another
way to make that revelation, the usefulness of which he would be
thought to acknowledge, to be really of little or no use or authority
at all. For he in effect leaves us no way of knowing or being as-
sured when such a Revelation is really given. And it is the same
thing with respect to the use it may be of to mankind to say, < that
no Revelation was ever given, or that it is entirely needless,' and
to say, ' that if it be given, we can have no way of knowing with
sufficient certainty that it is given, so as to make it reasonable for
us to depend upon its authority.
He maintains, that ' whatever certainty God may convey to a
OF HEVET,ATfON. 3
man's 'mind by Inspiration or immediate revelation, the knowledge
of such truth can go no farther upon divine authority, or as a
matter of divine faith, than to the person or persons thus inspired,
or to whom the original revelation is made; and whoever after-
wards receives it from them must take it upon their sole credit and
authority, and not upon a divine testimony, or the authority of
God ; in which case he believes in them, and not in God, unless
God should in like manner reveal to him that he had made such a
prior revelation to them, and then the proof of their revelation
would be needless to him,' p. 82. He expressly asserts, that ' the
certainty any man may have concerning any truth by immediate
revelation from God is not naturally communicable. For he could
not convince any other man not thus inspired, that he had any
such revelation from God. if God speaks to me immediately and
directly, I believe him upon his own authority without any human
interposition ; but if a man speaks to me as from God, I must take
his own word for it, unless he could prove to me the natural rea-
sonableness or fitness of the thing ; and ' then I should take it
indeed as coming from God, but not upon any human authority at
all. In a word, there can be no such thing as divine faith upon
human testimony ; and this absurd supposition has been the ground
of all the superstition and false religion in the world,' pp. 83, 84.
And the whole truth of the matter he thinks, in short, is this,
' There is one, and but one certain and infallible mark or criterion
of divine truth, or of any doctrine as coming from God, which we
are obliged to comply with as a matter of religion and conscience ;
and that is the moral truth, reason, or fitness of the thing itself,
whenever it comes to be fairly proposed to and considered by the
mind or understanding. The ways of conveying the doctrines of
religion to the mind of man, and of proposing them to a fair and
equitable consideration, may be various and different. They may-
be proposed and conveyed to the mind by inspiration or immediate
revelation from God, by historical traditional evidence, or by the
exercise of men's natural faculties, by which those truths occurred
to the mind under the evidence of their moral reason or fitness : but
in which soever of those ways the doctrines and truths of religion
are conveyed and proposed to the mind, the ground and reason of
their reception and belief, and their evidence and proof as coming
from God is still the same, i.e. the moral eternal reason and fitness
of the things themselves, as appearing to the understanding upon
a fair impartial consideration and judgment of reason;' see pp. 85,
86, compared with p. 10. Here we may observe, that he plainly
puts human testimony or tradition, and inspiration or immediate
revelation from God, entirely on the same foot in point of authority :
that the one no more than the other is in itself a reason for my
believing any thing that cometh to me from another person in either
of these ways. But I believe it both in the one case and the other,
merely because upon an impartial consideration it appeareth to my
own reason to be true in itself, abstracting entirely from the au-
thority of him from whom I had it whether God or man. ...;
J! 2 i
4 THE DIVINE AUTHORITY
By this the reader may be enabled to judge of the author's pre-
tended regard for revelation. For the account he gives of it comes
plainly to this : That we must not believe any doctrines to be true,
because they are revealed from God to any other sent to ourselves,
but we must believe them to be revealed from God, because we
know them by our own reason to be true, by arguments drawn
fi-om the nature of the thing independent of the authority of reve-
lation. And if we thus know them by our own reason to be true,
we shall believe them whether they be supposed to have been im-
mediately revealed by God or not. Which is in effect to say, that
we are to receive nothing upon the credit of Divine Revelation at
all, unless the revelation be immediately to ourselves ; and that the
doctrines and laws delivered as by revelation from God, are entirely
on the same foot of authority and evidence with those taught by
the philosophers and others, who do not pretend to any immediate
revelation. If those things were uncertain to our season before the
revelation was published, they are so still, nor can the testimony or
authority of that revelation give us any additional assurance con-
cerning them. One, while he supposes that in the present state of
mankind they need a revelation from God to ascertain them of
several things of considerable use and importance ; and another
while such a revelation cannot ascertain them of those things at
all ; because, in judging of those things brought by revelation, they
are to have no regard to the authority of that revelation as a reason
for believing; them; but just to consider them as they lie before
their own reason, and if they cannot prove them to be true from
the reason and nature of the thing, independently of that revelation,
they are not to believe them to be revealed at all.
The foundation of all this depends upon this principle, which he
frequently repeats in several parts of his book, that * moral truth'
or 'righteousness' and 'fitness,' is 'the only infallible mark or criterion
of divine truth,' or of any doctrine as coming from God. He re-
duces all the proofs and evidences of religion to this alone, and re-
presents it as a thing which ' cannot be mistaken,' p. 92. This is
the design of the second and fifth of those principles which he tells
were agreed upon among the gentlemen of their club as true and
defensible against all the objections that could be urged against
them, see pp. 8, 10.
It is not easy to form a distinct idea of what this writer means
by ' moral truth and righteousness,' or by a thing's appearing to
the understanding to be morally true ; which he declares to be the
only sure evidence and infallible criterion of divine truth, or of any
doctrine as coming from God. The most natural meaning of this
expression, ' moral truth,' seems to be this, that a moral truth is a
truth relating to morality, or a proposition which truly affirms
something concerning some moral obligation. So he seems to un-
derstand it, when he talks so often of the ' doctrines and obli-
gations of moral truth and righteousness.' But will he not allow
any doctrine to belong to religion that is not in this sense morally
true ? This would discard several important principles even in
OF REVELATION. - 5
natural religion. For it is evident there are principles in religion
of great consequence, distinct from the propositions immediately
relating to the duties or precepts of it. The propositions and prin-
ciples relating to the being, the attributes, and the providence of
God, the immortality of the soul, and a future state, are not in this
sense moral truths, that is, they do not directly and immediately
affirm any moral duty or obligation, and yet I believe he will
scarce deny that these things are of considerable importance in
religion, and that we may have sufficient evidence of their being
true.
Or does he mean by the moral truth and righteousness of doc-
trines that they have a good moral tendency ; a tendency to pro-
mote the practice of morality and righteousness, and that this
tendency is the only evidence of their truth ? But neither can this
be maintained. For though no doctrine is to be admitted into re-
ligion that is manifestly subversive of morality and righteousness,
yet the good tendency of a principle or doctrine is not of itself alone
a sufficient proof or evidence of the truth of that principle or doc-
trine. For many things might be mentioned which would have a
good tendency supposing them to be true, but this alone would
not prove them true. And the man would be ridiculous, that when
required to prove or demonstrate the truth of them, would only
attempt to show that if they were true they would tend to promote
the practice of moral goodness, and that therefore this is a full proof
and evidence that they are actually true. He would not be thought
a very proper advocate for the existence of a God and a Providence,
that should produce no other argument to prove them than that
they are of a good moral tendency. The truth of these principles
must be proved from other topics, and by other arguments, and
then it will be a farther recommendation of them, and a great ad-
vantage, to show the good influence these principles must have
upon mankind, and the practice of righteousness and virtue. All
the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, where they are sincerely re-
ceived and entertained, have a good effect on morality, and the
practice of real holiness, and tend to strengthen and improve good
affections and dispositions in the mind ; and many good men have
found it to be so in their own experience ; but this alone is not the
proper evidence of their truth. This must be proved by other ar^
guments, and then their good tendency will be proper to show,
their usefulness and importance.
But after all he sometimes talks as if by the moral truth of doc-
trines and principles, he meant no more than the reasonableness of
those doctrines, or the evidence of the doctrines arising from the
reason of the thing. ' The moral truth, reason, and fitness of
things,' and the ' moral truth, reasonableness, and fitness of the
doctrines themselves,' are used by him as terms of the same sig-
nification, see pp. 10, 86, 94. Where by moral truth he seems to
mean that which he calls the ' natural reasonableness and fitness
of the thing,' and which he represents as a sufficient proof of its
' coming from God/ p. 84. And yet he there also distinguished
6 THE DIVINE AUTHORITY
between the 'natural reasons' and ' moral fitnesses of tilings,'
and allows each of these, i. e. the natural reasonableness and fitness
of the thing, and its being morally true and fit, to be a proper suf-
ficient evidence of its coming from God. . Where he plainly sets
up two criterions of divine truth, the natural and moral truth
and fitness of the thing itself; and how this is consistent with what
he so often affirms, that moral truth and fitness is the only evidence
and criterion of divine truth, he would do well to explain. Indeed,
it is hard to fix the idea of the word moral as used by this author
and applied to truth. It seems only to be put in because it is a
word of a good sound, and to make an appearance of saying some-
thing, whilst in reality, as he useth it, it serves only to perplex and
confound the question concerning the proper evidence or proof of
doctrines and principles. But that we may get out of this con-
fusion, I shall take it as if he had said that the reasonableness of
the doctrine itself appearing to the understanding is the only evi-
dence of its being a ' divine truth,' or of its ' coming from God.'
And here again it may be asked, what he means by a ' divine
truth,' or a truth as ' coming from God ?' Does he mean a truth
that came by immediate revelation from God ? So he ought to
understand it if he would speak to the purpose ; since the ques-
tion, as he himself seems to put it, is concerning the proper proofs
and evidences of a divine revelation, or how we may know that a
doctrine is revealed from God. And according to this state of the
case, the principle advanced by our author is to be understood thus>
that a doctrine's being reasonable in itself, and appearing to our
understanding to be true by arguments drawn from the nature and
reason of the thing, is the only proof of its coming by immediate
revelation from God. Whereas in reality this is no proof of its
being thus revealed at all. For a thing may be very true and very
reasonable in itself, and yet not have come by immediate revelation
from God. So that to say, that this is the only proof or evidence
of divine revelation, is to say, that there can be no proof of any
doctrine as coming by immediate revelation from God at all. And
this seems to be the author's intention. But is it not very odd to
see him assume this all along without proving it, and argue from
it as a principle that cannot be contested, when it is the very point
in question?
Having thus endeavoured to detect the confusion and obscurity
this writer attempts to throw upon the question relating to the way
by which we may come to know that any thing is revealed by God,
I shall now proceed to treat this matter more distinctly.
It is a principle here supposed (and which the author pretendeth
not to contest) that a revelation from God may be of great use
in the present corrupt and degenerate state of mankind, to direct
men in true religion, and instruct them in things which it is of con-
siderable importance for them to know. Arid this is what I have
proved at large elsewhere.* Now supposing that God should in
* See Answer to ' Christianity as old as the Creation,' Vol. I. chap. v. vi.
OF REVELATION. 7
his great goodness see fit to give an extraordinary revelation for the
use of mankind, the most likely way of publishing that revelation for
general use seems to be this : that God should first communicate the
knowledge of his will by immediate inspiration to some person or
persons, and then appoint or commission them to instruct mankind,
and to communicate to others what they themselves received ; at
the same time furnishing them with sufficient proofs or creden-
tials, to convince others that they were indeed sent of God, and
that what they thus deliver to the world in his name, is not their
own invention, but that which they received by immediate revelation
from God himself. It was in this method that the Christian Reve-
lation was published to the world, the usefulness of which this
writer would be thought to acknowledge.
There are two questions therefore to be distinctly considered.
The one is, whether those to whom the original revelation is imme-
diately made, may have a sufficient certainty that what they receive
by immediate inspiration is indeed a revelation from God : the
other is, whether other persons besides those to whom the original
revelation was made, may have a sufficient ground of reasonable
assurance, that what those persons published to the world as by
revelation from God, is indeed a revelation from God, and is there-
fore to be received and submitted to as such.
As to the first question j That God can communicate the know-
ledge of things by immediate revelation or inspiration in such a
manner, that the person or persons to whom such a revelation is
immediately made may be certain that it is indeed a revelation
from God, cannot reasonably be denied. For it would be the most
unreasonable and the most presumptuous thing in the world to say,
That when one man hath a power of conveying his thoughts to
another so as to make him sensible that it is he and no other per-
son that speaks to him, God himself, the author of our natures,
should have no way of communicating his will to his own creatures,
so as to make them know that it is he that revealeth himself to
them. Nor is it any objection against this, that we cannot dis-
tinctly explain or account for the way in which he doth it. We
have little notion of the way in which spirits communicate their
thoughts to one another, but must we therefore conclude that they
have no way at all of doing it, because we cannot now comprehend
or explain the manner of it, and because they have not the organs
of bodily speech as we have? No doubt they have far nobler and
more perfect ways of communicating their ideas to one another,
than one man hath of conveying his thoughts to another here on
earth. And we may be sure that God bath a far nearer access to
the human mind, and a far more intimate and effectual way of ope-
rating upon it, or exciting and impressing ideas there, than any
created spirit can have ; or than one man can have of communicat-
ing his sentiments to another. Therefore, if it pleaseth him to
communicate doctrines or laws to any person by immediate reve-
lation, he can do it in such a manner, and with such an overpow-
-ering light and. evidence, as to produce an absolute certainty in the
8 THE DIVINE AUTHORITY
mind of that person, that those doctrines and laws are by revela-
tion from him. Accordingly, this writer himself seems to acknow-
ledge inspiration thus far, though it cannot well be reconciled to
other passages in his book. As he makes ' immediate inspiration
or revelation from God/ to be one way of communicating the
knowledge of the doctrines and truths of religion to the mind, dis-
tinct from ' tradition and human testimony,' and from the common
light of reason in the ' natural ordinary use of man's own faculties,'
so he sometimes seems plainly to grant, that this may convey a cer-
tainty to the man himself that is thus immediately inspired, though
he will not allow that the knowledge of such truth can go any far-
ther upon divine authority, or as a matter of divine faith, than to
the person or persons thus inspired, or to whom the original revela-
tion is made, p. 82. And when he undertakes to state the question
concerning the way in which we may know whether any law comes
from God j he supposes that there are two ways in which there
may be a ' rational proof given of a command or law from God ;'
the one is, ' where God himself speaks to the person immediately
and directly,' the other is, ' where the moral reason or fitness of
the thing is proposed or manifested to the person or persons con-
cerned at the same time with the law or command,' p. 90. And he
expressly saith, p. 84, ' If God speaks to me immediately and di-
rectly, I believe him upon his own authority.' Where he both
owns that God may speak or communicate a thing to the mind
immediately and directly, and that where he doth so, what is thus
revealed is to be believed by the person to whom it is immediately
communicated, upon his authority, that is, because he reveals it.
He illustrates this by an instance, which he saith ' will come up
exactly f to the purpose.' He puts the case of a mathematical pro-
position, being communicated to one man by immediate revelation,
to another man by its proper evidence, or by its being plainly de-
monstrated to him from the ' natural necessary relation and con-
nexion of the ideas themselves.' And he saith that the one may
be as certain of it as the other. He who hath it ' immediately re-
vealed to him from God,' though we should suppose ' he knew no-
thing, and could know nothing of it as a truth necessarily founded
in nature/ yet would be ' as certain of it' as he who received it
upon the evidence of mathematical demonstration ; ' because he
would connect the certain truth of the proposition, with the neces-
sary veracity of God :' though he could not communicate that
certainty which he himself had to others ; see pp. 82, 83. Here
he seemeth plainly to assert that the person to whom God is pleased
to make known a truth by way of immediate inspiration, may be
certainly assured that God doth thus reveal it to him ; and that in
this case, though he doth not by his own reason apprehend the ne-
cessary connexion of the terms, or the natural fitness of the thing
itself, he receiveth it upon the authority of fc God who reveals it :
And that this authority or revelation from God affordeth a certainty
to the mind equal to that arising from a mathematical demonstra-
tion. So that here he plainly supposeth, in direct contradiction to
OF REVELATION. 9
what he elsewhere asserts, that the moral reason and fitness of the
thing, as appearing to the mind, is not the sole evidence or criterion
of a doctrine as coming from God ; but that immediate revelation
may be a just and certain ground of a person's believing a thing to
be true, and to come from God, distinct from the apprehended
reason and fitness of the thing itself : and that upon the authority
of that revelation, the person to whom the revelation is originally
and immediately made, may receive it as true and as coming from
God, though the fitness of it in itself be not made evident to him
by any reasons drawn from the nature of the thing. And if a
thing's being revealed from God, be a sufficient ground of certainty
to the person himself to whom the original revelation is imme-
diately made, distinct from the proofs brought of its truth from the
reason of the thing, then it must be so to others too in proportion
to the assurance they have that it is a revelation from God. So
that if there be any way of ascertaining others, besides those to
whom the revelation is originally and immediately made, that any
doctrine or law is by revelation from God, they are obliged to be-
lieve and receive it on that account, as of divine authority, though
they cannot prove it to be necessarily true by arguments drawn
from the reason of the thing independent of that authority.
This leads me to the second question that was proposed to be
considered ; with regard to which I lay down this proposition :
That there may be such proofs and evidences given that the persons
professing doctrines and laws from God for the use of mankind,
were indeed sent and inspired by him, and did receive them by
revelation from, him ; such proofs and evidences as make it reason-
able for those to whom they are made known, to receive such laws
and doctrines as of divine authority : in which case to refuse to be-
lieve those doctrines, and to submit to those laws, would be a very
criminal conduct, and a manifest breach of the duty that reasonable
creatures owe to the Supreme Being. This is the proper question
in debate. For though this writer pretends not to deny that the
persons to whom the original revelation is immediately made, may
be certain that they themselves received it by immediate revela-
tion from God himself, yet he denies that they have any way of
proving to others that it is a revelation from God, except by prov-
ing the reasonableness of the thing itself: which is to say, that
they have no way of proving to others that it came by divine reve-
lation at all. For as I have already observed the reasonableness
of a doctrine or law will never prove that the man that teacheth that
doctrine, or bringeth that law, had it by immediate revelation from
God. This must be proved, if it be proved at all, by other evidences.
It will be easily granted that persons being themselves persuaded
that they have received any thing from God by immediate revela-
tion, is not of itself a sufficient reason to others to engage them to
receive it as such ; and that if we had only their own words for it
without any other proof, we could not take this for a proper evi-
dence without laying ourselves open to the delusions of enthusiasts
and impostors. The question then is, whether abstracting from the
10 THE DIVINE AUTHORITY
credit and testimony of the persons themselves to whom the ori-
ginal revelation is made, there may not be proofs and evidences
given sufficient to convince others that they were indeed sent of
God, and that what they publish as from God, and in his name,
is indeed a revelation from him.
Now let us suppose that a person professeth to have received
doctrines and laws by revelation from God, for the instruction and
direction of mankind, and that accordingly he urgeth men to believe
those doctrines, and submit to those laws as of divine authority.
And let us suppose that such person appeareth as far as can be
judged from his whole conduct, to be one of great probity and sin-
cerity, animated with a hearty zeal for the glory of God, and the
good of mankind : and also that the doctrines he teacheth, and the
laws he giveth as from God, have nothing in them contrary to true
piety and virtue, but rather have a tendency to promote it. This
forms a strong prejudice in his favour, but doth not alone prove that
he received those doctrines and laws by revelation from God him-
self. But if that person is farther enabled, as a testimony of his
divine mission, to perform works of so wonderful a nature, so grand,
so glorious, as manifestly and undeniably transcend all the power
and skill of any man or all the men upon earth, and therefore evi-
dently argue a supernatural interposition ; and if this is done not
merely in a single instance or two, in which case let the fact be ever
so extraordinary and above all the power of man, yet it might be
suspected that it was only some strange thing that had happened
without a particular view to the establishment of any doctrines or
laws : I say, let us suppose a marvellous concurrence of many such
amazing and extraordinary acts of power and dominion, of such a
-kind as naturally and almost unavoidably lead us to consider them
as proceeding from the sovereign Lord and Governor of the
world, and of mankind ; and that for a course of years together,
all plainly wrought in attestation and evidence of that person's di-
vine mission, and in confirmation of that scheme of doctrines and
laws which he delivered to the world as from God, and without
ever being controlled or overruled by any superior evidence ; I
think it is very reasonable in such a case to regard him as sent of
God, and to receive the doctrines and laws he delivereth in the
name of God, and which come to us thus attested and confirmed,
as the doctrines and laws of God. For supposing those miracles to
be of such a nature, and so circumstanced, as that either none
but God can do them, or at least to be such that it can never be
supposed, that a wise and good Providence would suffer them to
be done in attestation of an imposture,* the doing such miracles in
* I will grant, that God is not obliged, by his providence, to hinder every thing that
may in fact seduce men from the truth. He is not obliged to hinder cunning impostors
from employing their arts of subtlety to deceive, or to hinder evil beings from attempt-
ing to seduce mankind; or from sometimes doing things that may appear strange and
miraculous. But this I say, that there may be miracles supposed of such a nature, and
so circumstanced, and which carry in them such glorious indications of a divine power
and dominion, that it cannot reasonably be reconciled to the notion of an infinitely wise
?nd good Mind presiding over the affairs of men, to suppose that they should be suffered
OF. REVEL ATI ON. 11
proof of such doctrines and laws, is really a divine testimony to
those doctrines and laws as coming from. God. And in every such
case we cannot be said to receive the doctrines and laws thus at-
tested and confirmed upon the word of men, or upon the sole
credit and authority of the person professing to be extraordinarily
sent and inspired, but we receive them upon the testimony and
authority of God himself. And supposing God in his great good-
ness to have really designed to give an extraordinary revelation of
doctrines and laws for the use of mankind, and to send a person or
persons to publish them in his name, it is scarce possible to con-
ceive what stronger proofs could be given of the divine mission of
that person or persons, and the divine authority of such doctrines
and laws, than such a series and succession of glorious uncontrolled
miracles, as we are now supposing 1 .
But the force of this will more fully appear when particularly
applied to the miracles that were done at the first establishment of
the Jewish dispensation.
Let us suppose that the miracles were really wrought that are
recorded to have been wrought by Moses, the question is
whether those miracles and wonderful works which he performed
were a sufficient proof of his divine mission, and made it
reasonable for them that saw those miracles to receive the doctrines
and laws he published as from God. And I think, a bare
representation of them would go a great way to determine this
question. It is evident, that supposing the amazing and stupen-
dous works done by the ministry of Moses in Egypt, at the Red
Sea, and in the Wilderness, the promulgation of the law at Sinai,
the feeding the people with manna for forty years together, &c.,
and the signal judgments inflicted on those that opposed his autho-
rity and laws ; supposing these things to have been really done as
they are represented, they -were far above all the power of man,
and seemed to argue such a dominion over nature as is proper to
the supreme universal Lord. And it is also evident that the Being,
in whose name and by whose power these things were done, who
gave these laws, and brought the Israelites out of Egypt, all along
assumed the character and peculiar prerogatives of the supreme
God, the independent Jehovah, and claimed their highest love, reve-
rence, adoration, and obedience to himself alone, in exclusion of
all other deities. To suppose that he who gave forth those laws,
by whose power these great and astonishing things were effected,
was an evil being, would be the greatest of absurdities. Can it be
thought that a wise and good God would thus suffer an evil being
to assume his character, and set up for the Creator and Lord of the
to be wrought in attestation of an imposture, especially for a succession of years toge-
ther, -without ever being controlled by superior miracles, or contrary evidence. So that
the question here doth not properly proceed concerning all miracles in general, whether
all lands of miracles are proofs of doctrines as coming from God : but -whether miracles
may not be of such a nature, and so circumstanced, for number, grandeur, and conti-
nuance, as to yield a sufficient attestation to the divine mission of the persons by
whom, and to the divine original of the doctrines in confirmation of which, they were
wrought : and particularly whether the miracles wrought in confirmation of the Mosaic
and Christian dispensation were not such.
12 THE DIVINE AUTHORITY
universe, and require to be acknowledged and adored as such, and
to confirm this his claim by such a series of the most glorious and
stupendous works as must almost unavoidably lead all that beheld
them to acknowledge a divine hand, and not only to give forth laws
with the most amazing solemnity in the name of the universal
Lord, but to inflict the most awful judgments upon those that re-
fused to submit to those laws, and acknowledge him as their Lord ;
and thus bring them under a kind of necessity of being deluded,
or submitting to the falsely usurped authority 1 Can we think
that the Supreme Being would look on all the while with indiffer-
ency, and suffer an evil being thus to personate him, and to abuse
and deceive his creatures, and take no care, by any superior mi-
racles or contrary evidence, to overrule and detect the imposture ?
This appears to me to be absolutely inconsistent with all the no-
tions of a wise and good providence presiding over the world, and
the affairs of mankind. It is not to be accounted for upon any
other supposition than that of an almighty evil principle, acting
independently of the good God, and not at all under his control.
But if this cannot be supposed without the greatest absurdity,
then it must be said, that it was God himself immediately, or
which comes to the same thing, by the agency of subordinate good
beings superior to man, acting under him as his instruments, and
according to his will, that wrought those wonderful works in attes-
tation of Moses's divine mission, and the laws he gave in the name
of God. And then I think it cannot be denied, that those laws
thus attested were to be received as coming from God, and to have
refused to submit to them in these circumstances, and after all
these glorious attestations would have been to rebel against God,
and to resist the divine authority : and consequently would have
been a veiy unjustifiable and criminal conduct, highly displeasing
to the Supreme Being. And those who upon the credit of such
illustrious attestations believed his divine mission, and received the
revelation he brought, and the laws he gave, as from God, could
not in that case be said to believe him merely upon his own word,
or to receive those doctrines and laws upon his sole credit and au-
thority, but upon a divine testimony, and upon the authority of God.
The argument is still stronger when applied to the miracles wrought
by Christ and his apostles. Let us suppose that the facts as represented
in the gospel are true, concerning Christ's healing the most obsti-
nate and incurable diseases, of many years' continuance, in an in-
stant; restoring the blind and lame, casting out devils, command-
ing the winds and the sea, feeding five thousand at once with five
loaves and two fishes, and even raising the dead ; but especially
his own resurrection from the dead, ascension into heaven, and the
consequent effusion of the Holy Ghost in his extraordinary gifts
and powers, whereby his disciples were enabled to perform the most
astonishing miracles like to those which he himself had performed
whilst on earth : and all these things done in a vast variety of in-
stances, and for a long course of years together in his name, and in
attestation of his divine mission, and the scheme of laws and doc-
OF REVELATION. 13
trines he introduced : I say, supposing all these things to have
been really done as they are recorded in the New Testament, I
think they form the strongest proof that can be supposed in favour
of the doctrines and laws so attested. They evidently transcended
all human powel: and skill, and must therefore have been wrought
by the assistance and power of a superior being or beings. And
this could not be an evil being : not only because many of the
works themselves areof such anature, that it can scarcely be supposed
that an evil being could have it in his power or inclination to per-
form them : but because it can hardly be thought that the wise and
righteous Governor of the world would suffer an evil being or be-
ings, to give such a series of glorious attestations bearing the illus-
trious characters of divinity upon them, in favour of doctrines
and laws falsely pretended to be given by him, without ever con-
trolling or overruling them by any superior evidence : and lastly,
because it would be to the last degree absurd, to imagine that an
evil being should ever exert his power in such an extraordinary
manner to confirm a revelation pretending to come from God, the-
principal design and manifest tendency of which was to recover
men from idolatry, vice and wickedness, to the knowledge and
love of God, and the practice of piety, righteousness, and virtue.
It followeth, therefore, that they must have been wrought by the
immediate agency of God himself, or by some good being or beings
superior to man, acting xmder him, and by his direction and influ-
ence. And this being the case, either it must be said that the per-
son in attestation of whose divine mission all these marvellous
things were done, was indeed, as he professed himself to be, extra-
ordinarily sent of God, and that the scheme of. religion, that is, of
doctrines and laws, in confirmation of which they were wrought,
was indeed true and of divine authority : or it must be said that
God himself gave his own power, or good beings acting under his
direction lent their assistance, and that in a series of the most asto-
nishing instances, and for a succession of years together, to give
testimony to a falsehood and imposture, and to put a cheat upon
mankind in the name of God. A supposition which is not consist-
ent with the belief of a God and a providence.
Thus I think it appeareth, that miracles may be supposed of such
a nature, and so circumstanced, as to afford a sufficient attesta-
tion to the divine mission of the person in favour of whom, and
to the truth and divine original of the doctrines and laws in con-
firmation of which, they were wrought. And that particularly, sup-
posing the things to have been really done, that are recorded to
have been done at the first establishment of the Jewish and Chris-
tian dispensation, they yielded a full attestation to the divine mis-
8 sion of Moses and our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the scheme or
system of doctrines and laws published in the name of God. The
evidence was not put upon a single wonder or two, however extra-
ordinary and glorious, but there was a marvellous series and suc-
cession of wonderful acts and supernatural attestations to strengthen
the evidence, and put it beyond all reasonable doubt. For all the
14 THE DIVINE AUTHORITY
miracles done not only by Moses, but the succeeding prophets,
centred in proving his divine mission, and the authority of the
laws he gave as from God ; since all the subsequent revelations by
the prophets in the Old Testament still supposed the authority of
the law of Moses, and gave an additional attestation to it. And
in like manner all the miracles done by Christ himself, and by his
apostles and disciples after him, had one main view to which they
were all directed, that is, to confirm the divine mission of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and the truth and divine authority of the doctrines
and laws which he introduced ; so that each of these schemes of
revelation was confirmed by a series' of the most illustrious attesta-
tions. And besides this, each of them gave testimony to the other.
Moses and the prophets foretold the coming and glory of Christ,
and the new dispensation he was to introduce, and prepared the
world for it. And Jesus confirmed by his testimony the divine
mission of Moses and the prophets. So that in this view, all the
attestations given to both, really contributed to confirm the divine
original and authority of each of them. And all together form an
evidence so great and so strong, the like of which cannot possibly
be produced in favour of any other system of doctrines and laws,
and which it cannot reasonably be supposed could ever have been
given, or that a wise and good providence would have suffered it to
be given, to an imposture.
I shall now proceed to consider what this writer obj ects against the
proof from miracles. What he offers on this head is of no great weight,
though advanced with an uncommon air of confidence. He iirges
that ' there will be always two very strong objections against
such an argument as this when applied to religion. First, that it
would be a hard matter to prove the thing as unexceptionably true
in fact, or that the first report and belief of it did not arise from
ignorance, presumption, prejudice, &c. And in the next place,
that no consequence can be drawn from any such thing, supposing
it ever so true, and clearly proved in fact,' p. 345. As to the first,
I do not see but miracles, supposing them to be facts obvious to the
senses, done in open view, and even in the view of enemies them-
selves concerned and zealous to detect an imposture, are as capable
of being proved as any other facts whatsoever : and that both those
that at first were eye-witnesses to them might be as sure of them
as men can be of any thing which they themselves hear and see,
and for which they have the testimony of their senses ; and those
that have the accounts transmitted to them, may have them trans-
mitted in such a manner, and with such evidence, that it would be
an unreasonable incredulity to doubt of them. This must be al-
lowed, unless men are resolved not to believe any accounts of facts
done in former ages. And it might be easily shown, and hath been
often proved, that the miracles done at the first establishment of
the Mosaical and Christian dispensation were of this kind. As to
what he adds, and which is the only present question, that suppos-
ing the facts ever so true, no consequence can be drawn from them
in favour of any religion, the reasons he there offers are very weak.
OF REVELATION. 15
The first is, that it is certain that the being and moral perfections
of God, and the natural relations of man to him as his reasonable
creature, and a subject of his moral government, cannot depend
upon the truth or falsehood of any historical facts, or upon our
forming a right or wrong judgment concerning them. This is very
oddly expressed. Nobody pretends that the being of a God, or the
natural relations between him and us, depend upon miracles. But
a revelation from God, containing a clearer discovery of his glori-
ous perfections, of his nature and will, and of the obligations in-
cumbent upon us towards him, &c., may be attested by miracles
in such a manner as to give the world convincing proofs that it is
indeed a true" divine revelation, and to be depended on as such.
And then, upon the credit of that revelation, we may come to know
several things relating to these subjects, which we could not have
known at all, or not with certainty without it. The second reason
he there offers is, that he hath already proved, that the character-
istic of moral truth and righteousness is the only sure mark or cri-
terion of any doctrine or practice as coming from God, and divinely
authorized. I do not know in what part of his book he hath
proved this, except we take strong assertions for proofs. But this
pretence hath been examined already; and is in eft'ect no more than
a confident affirming that there can be no external proofs of divine
revelation, which is the very point in question.
But there are some other things he offers to invalidate the proof
from miracles. He asserts that 'it is plain, that the power of
working miracles had no connexion with the truth of the doctrines
taught by such miracle-workers, because false prophets, and the
most wicked seducers, might and did work miracles, which they
could not have done, had miracles been any evidence or proof of
truth and sound doctrine/ p. 81. This he hath over again, p. 98,
where he urges, that ' False prophets, and the most wicked sedu-
cers, and even the devil himself, may work miracles ; and there-
fore, miracles alone considered can prove nothing at all, and ought
to have no weight or influence with anybody.'*
But if there may be miracles of such a nature, and so circum-
stanced, that no seducer can ever equal them, and it cannot be
supposed they could ever be done, or at least that God would suffer
them to be done, in attestation of an imposture, then the evidence
from such miracles, so circumstanced, still holds good, notwith-
standing what this writer here offers to the contrary. And this hath
been already shown with regard to the miracles wrought in con-
firmation of the Jewish and Christian dispensation. I will grant
that seducers may, by human art and skill, be supposed to do
things that appear very strange and unaccountable, and set the
people a wondering ; and that they may do yet stranger things,
supposing the agency and assistance of evil spirits ; but still we
may be sure, from the wisdom and goodness of Divine Providence,
* See this objection more fully considered, 'Answer to Christianity as old as the
Creation.' Part II. from p. 72 to 92.
16 THE DIVINE AUTHORITY
that the miracles wrought by the assistance of his Spirit, and in
confirmation of a revelation which he gives to mankind, shall be
of such a nature, as shall in their number, their grandeur, and con-
tinuance, beyond all comparison transcend whatever were or shall
be wrought in favour of any imposture. There have been two
systems of doctrines and laws really given by divine revelation, the
Mosaical and the Christian ; and God took care, in his great wis-
dom and goodness, that each of them should be attended with such
an abundance of extraordinary attestations, as no imposture was
ever attended with, and no skill or power of deceivers could ever
effect.
Moses indeed makes a supposition of a false prophet's working
a sign or wonder to seduce the people from the worship of the true
God, and warns them in that case not to regard him, nor to suffer
themselves to be deceived by him. This is a strong way of put-
ting a case, to show that on no account whatsoever they should
suffer themselves to be drawn into idolatry. But certainly he
never did suppose that any false prophet should be [able to pro-
duce such a series of miraculous attestation, in confirmation of any
false doctrine or idolatrous worship, as could in any wise come in
competition with those which were wrought at the establishment
and for confirmation of the laws, which he gave them in the name
of God. On the contrary, he all along supposes that as there was no
God save the Lord, so neither were there any works to be com-
pared to his works ; and he appeals to these works as the manifest
proofs of his unequalled sovereignty and glory, and of the divine
original and authority of that law which they were designed to con-
firm and to establish.
Under the New Testament our Saviour speaks of false prophets,
and false Christs, that should arise, and show great signs and won-
ders. Matt. xxiv. 5, 6, 24. This plainly relates to the false pro-
phets and seducers that arose among the Jews, a little before the
destruction of Jerusalem, whom Josephus represents as magicians
and sorcerers, or jugglers, [juayoi not -yorji-lc] and who, he tells us,
pretended to divine inspiration, and promised the people to do won-
derful things for them. But it is certain, none of their pretended
wonders could in any wise be compared to those which our Saviour
himself (the true Messiah) wrought. Nor could he intend by these
words to signify, that they would do as great things as he himself had
done, since he so often appeals to his wonderful works, as the un-
contested proofs of his divine mission. So he saith, John v. 36.
'The works which my Father hath given me to finish, the same
works that I do bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent
me.' And John x. 37, 38 : ' If I do not the works of my Father,
believe me not ; but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the
works, that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me,
and I in him.' And again, John xv. 24: ' If I had not done among
them the works which none other man .did, they had not had sin.'
And John x. 24, 25 : ' When the Jews said unto him, If thou be
the Christ, tell us plainly :' Jesus answered them ; I told you,
OF REVELATION. 17
and ye believed not ; the works that I do in ray Father's name,
they bear witness of me.' See also John xiv. 11. From hence
St. Peter represents Jesus of Nazareth as approved of God, [aTro-
$E$iy/j.vov] demonstrated, as the word properly signifies, by mi-
racles, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of them ;
Acts ii. 22. It could never therefore be our Saviour's design to
signify that any of the false prophets and seducers among the Jews,
should do miracles that could in any measure be compared to his
own. And it is certain, in fact, that they did not : they pretended
to foretel things to come, and the event soon confuted them, and
showed the vanity of their pretences. They pretended to do great
wonders, but they might properly be called lying wonders. For
though they-had the art of seducing great numbers of people, they
and their works soon perished, and the falsehood and imposture
of them soon appeared.
As to what the author supposeth concerning the apostles oppos-
ing miracles to miracles, in confirmation of their different schemes
of Christianity, this shall be considered afterwards, when I come
to examine his objections against the New Testament. At present
I shall only say that it may be proved with the clearest evidence,
that the apostles of our Lord taught one and the same uniform har-
monious scheme of doctrines, the same gospel to which God ' bore
witness with signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of
the Holy Ghost :' and that the false teachers in that age could
never produce anything in attestation of their false doctrines, that
could in the least be compared to the illustrious evidences and
proofs brought by the apostles to confirm the gospel which they
preached.
Another thing he offers to show that miracles can be no proof,
is this, that the ' power of working miracles did not make the
workers of them either infallible, or impeccable ; raise them above
the possibility of being deceived themselves in their inward judg-
ment, or of deceiving others in the outward sentence and declara- 1
tion of that judgment.'* pp. 80, 83, 93. But it appears that the
proof or evidence from miracles, as already stated, hath not pro-
perly anything to do with the fallibility or infallibility, the pecca-
bility or impeccability, of the person in himself considered, by
whom these miracles are wrought. For in that case, the credit of
his having received a revelation from God doth not merely depend
upon his own word, or veracity, or integrity ; upon which suppo-
* Our author, wlien Le here speaks of the power of working miracles, seeifls to have a
particular reference to the gift of miracles communicated by the Holy Ghost, in the first
age of Christianity j which he understands as if it were a permanent habit residing- in
the person, to be used at pleasure, whenever he thought fit, like a natural faculty or
habit ; which therefore might be used by him, either for confirming truth or falsehood.
But this is a very great mistake : that power of working miracles was not a power of
doing them whenever the persons themselves pleased. They could then only work mi-
racles, when it seemed fit to the divine wisdom they should do them for valuable ends.
And it cannot be supposed that God who gave them this power on purpose to confirm
the truth, would enable them to exercise it to confirm a falsehood. But concerning this,
see below, chap. xiii. where this is more largely considered.
18 THE DIVINE AUTHORITY
sition it might be said, that the word of fallible and peccable men
was not entirely to be depended on ; but it depends upon a real
proof, distinct from his word, and independent of it, viz. upon the
testimony given by God himself, to his divine mission and inspira-
tion, and to the laws he publisheth to the world in his name. And
we may be sure, that however fallible men are in themselves, yet
if God sends them on purpose to deliver doctrines and laws to
mankind, as by revelation from him, and enables them, in confirm- [
ation of them, to perform such a series of illustrious miracles as we [
are now supposing, he will also assist them in communicating those
doctrines and laws, so as to preserve them from error in delivering
them.
This will appear in a just light, if applied to the cases already !
mentioned. Moses professed to be extraordinarily sent of God,
and to have received laws by revelation from him, which laws he
delivered to the people in his name. In confirmation of -this his
mission, he performed a number of the most extraordinary miracles,
for a succession of years together, of such a nature, and so cir-
cumstanced, that they bore upon them the evident characters of a
divine interposition, and could never be supposed to have been
done, or that God would suffer thqm to be done, in favour of an ;
imposture. Now this being the case, it is nothing to the purpose,
whether we suppose Moses to have been fallible and peccable in
himself or not. Let us grant him to have been in himself fallible,
or capable of being deceived and imposed upon : yet we have a
sufficient assurance that he was not actually deceived in this case.
If by an enthusiastic heat he had only imagined himself to be in-
spired, and to have received those laws by immediate revelation '<
from God, this conceit of his would never have enabled him to per- ;
form such a series of the most stupendous works above all the art
of man, or power of enthusiasm. And his doing such things ma- ?
nifestly proved that his divine mission was not the delusion of his ;
own misguided imagination, but a glorious reality : and that he
did not merely fancy himself sent and inspired of God, but that he
really was so.
. Again, let us suppose that he was peccable, that is, that he was
capable of forming a design to deceive the people, and of putting
his own inventions upon them for divine revelation (though I think
Moses's excellent character will scarce suffer us to suppose that he
was capable of carrying on a deliberate solemn cheat and imposture,
in the name of God himself; but let us suppose him to have been
capable of such a design), yet it is evident that in this case he did !
not impose upon them, and that the laws he gave them, as from '
God, and in his name, were indeed the laws of God, and not merely
his own inventions ; because God himself, in the manner already
mentioned, bore witness to those laws. And whatever designs
Moses might be capable of, yet God himself, or good beings supe-
rior to man, acting under his influence and direction, by whose as-
sistance alone works so circumstanced could be done, would never
have joined with him on carrying on the imposture, and giving at-
OF REVELATION. 19
testation to a lie. And this way of reasoning may be urged with
still greater force when applied to the revelation brought by our
Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles. Whereas, therefore, this writer
frequently argues, that we cannot take miracles for a ' proof or
evidence of doctrines without exposing ourselves to all the enthu-
siasm and imposture in the world,' it is manifest that we can run
no hazard of this by receiving doctrines and laws as coming from
God, that have been confirmed by such a series of extraordinary
miraculous attestations as were those given to the Mosaical and
Christian revelation. Because they were of such a nature, and so
circumstanced, as no imposture was ever attended with, and no art
of deceivers, or power of enthusiasm can ever effect. Such a re-
velation once given, and so gloriously attested, where it is steadily
believed and adhered to, is one of the best preservatives against
being led astray by the deceptions of, enthusiasts and impostors.
What our author offers to show that miracles can be no proof of
positive precepts, though produced with great pomp (for he pretends
to state the question with greater accuracy than hath been hitherto
done, and tells us that the question is not concerning God's right
of instituting such precepts which he doth not deny, but concern-
ing the way of knowing when God gives such commands, see
p. 87, &c, I say, the force of all that he offers on this head) de-
pends entirely upon what he so often asserts, but never proves, viz.
that moral truth and fitness is the only proof and evidence of any
doctrine or law, as coming from God : from whence he argues, that
precepts concerning matters of a ritual and positive nature cannot
be proved to corne from God, as not being necessarily founded in
the nature and fitness of things. He therefore compares such
commands to commands pretended to be sent from parents or
masters to their children or servants, but which do not come to
them under their own hand and seal, and may for that reason be
disregarded. But if we must keep to the author's comparison, why
may not God's giving us laws by persons whom he hath sent and
authorized for that purpose, and to whom he hath given sufficient
credentials, by confirming the message they bring by numerous un-
controlled miracles ; why may not this be compared to a parent or
master's sending directions or orders to his children and servants,
by messengers under his own hand and seal, in which case he allows
that they are obliged to conform to those orders though they do
not know the particular reasons of them ? Yea, miracles may be
supposed to be of such a nature; that the proof arising from them
may be stronger than what ariseth merely from a man's own hand
and seal. For it is possible that a man's hand and seal may be so
exactly counterfeited that no person upon comparing them may be
able to discern the difference between the genuine and the counter-
feit, not even the person himself whose hand is counterfeited, any
farther than that by other means he may know that he did not
write it, and that he gave no such orders. But miracles may be
supposed of such a nature, and so circumstanced, and raised so far
have all competition' and parallel, that no deceivers can work the
c 2
20 THE DIVINE AUTHORITY
like, nor have been ever able, or can be supposed to be able so to
imitate them, but that upon carefully examining and comparing
them, we may easily see a vast difference. If, therefore, a man's
giving orders under his own hand and seal be allowed to be a suf-
ficient notification of his will and pleasure, and maketh it reason-
able for his children and servants to obey those orders, though it
is not impossible they may be counterfeited ; then the command of
God coming to us, confirmed with the attestation of miracles of
such a nature as no imposture was ever attended with (and such I
have shown were the miracles wrought at the establishment of the
Jewish and Christian dispensation) is a sufficient ground for our
yielding obedience to such commands. And our not apprehending
the things required to be in themselves antecedently necessary in
their own nature, cannot be a sufficient reason for our rejecting
them; because, upon this supposition, they come to us upon the
authority or testimony of God himself, who by the author's own
concession hath a right of commanding us in things of a positive
nature.
It ought to be observed, that at the same time that this writer
doth all he can to show that miracles can be no proof at all of any
doctrine or revelation at all as coming from God, he would not be
thought to insinuate that miracles are of no use, and can serve to
no purpose at all in religion. He saith ' that miracles, especially if
wrought for the good of mankind, and with a visible regard for
their interest and happiness, are perhaps the most effectual means
of removing prejudices and procuring attention to what is delivered,'
pp. 98, 99. But ldo not see how this can be made to consist upon
his scheme. If it be supposed that miracles can in any case be so
circumstanced as to yield a sufficient attestation to the divine mis-
sion of the person who is enabled to work these miracles, and to
the truth and divinity of the doctrines and precepts that are con-
firmed by these miracles ; then when I see a person performing
such extraordinary works, above all the power of man, this will
naturally command and engage my attention to what he delivers.
But if it be supposed that they can never be of such a nature and
so circumstanced as to give any attestation to the divine mission of
any person, or to the truth and divine original of any doctrine,
I can see no reason why I should attend to a doctrine more for
being accompanied with miracles, than if it were not so, or why I
should concern myself about miracles at all ; because, if ever so
true or good, they can give no attestation, and furnish no proof;
or, as this writer expresseth it, ' can prove nothing at all, and
ought to have no weight or influence with any body.'
All the use he is pleased to assign for the miracles wrought by
Christ and his apostles is, that ' they tended to convince the people
that they were no enemies to God, and to their country, and disposed
them coolly and soberly to consider the na.ture and tendency of the
doctrines they had to propose to them ;' but that they were not de-
signed for a proof of the truth or divinity of those doctrines, see p. 98.
" does no f *mr Saviour himself frequently and plainly appeal to the
OF REVELATION. 21
vv underfill works he wrought as the proper evidences of his divine mis-
sion, and as bearing witness to him and to his doctrine ? Does not
he often expressly put the proof upon this, and suppose it to be a
proof so strong as would leave the Jews utterly inexcusable if they
did not believe him ? And the effect these miracles properly had
upon those that attended to them is well expressed by Nicodemus,
' We know that thou art a teacher sent from God ; for no man can do
these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him, 1 John iii. 2.
Nor had the Pharisees any other way of avoiding the force of this,
than by saying that he did his miracles by the assistance of the
devil : a blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, [which our Saviour
pronounces never to be forgiven, as being the most obstinate and
malicious opposition to divine truth, and a resisting the utmost
evidence.
This may be sufficient to show what assurance those who them-
selves were witnesses to such a series of miraculous attestations
might have of that doctrine orj law coming from God, which they
beheld thus attested and confirmed. But there is another thing
that deserves to be considered, and that is, what reasonable ground
of assurance they may also have of a doctrine or law coming from
God, who did not themselves see those miracles whereby it was
attested and confirmed, or did not live in the age when those
miracles were wrought. Can it be reasonable for such to receive
doctrines and laws as of divine authority, upon the evidence of
miracles which they themselves were not eye witnesses of ? In,
answer to this, I think it cannot be reasonably denied, that sup-
posing miracles may be so circumstanced as to be in themselves a
sufficient proof to those that saw them, then they are also a sufficient
proof to others, in proportion to the assurance they have that those
miracles were really done. So that the question is reduced to this:
whether there may be such evidence given of miracles done in
former ages as make it reasonable for those that live in succeeding
ages to believe, and be persuaded that those miracles were wrought?
For if so, then, supposing miracles to be a proof, they are obliged
to believe that the doctrines and laws which were attested by these
miracles came originally by revelation from God, and are to be re-
ceived as of divine authority. Now this depends upon another ques-
tion, and that is, whether in any case we can have sufficient as-
surance of facts which we ourselves did not see, or which were done
in former ages ? It is not sufficient to prove things uncertain, and
not to be depended upon, to say that we have them by human
tradition and testimony, that is, by the testimony of men that are
neither infallible nor impeccable. For human tradition and tes-
timony may be so circumstanced as to yield sufficient assurance
that those facts were done in past ages, or such laws enacted :
and therefore the man that should doubt of them, and give no
other reason for his doubting, or rejecting them but this, that they
came from human tradition and testimony, would only render
himself ridiculous.
This autfoSr, to show the insufficiency of tradition for conveying
22 THE DIVIDE AUTHORITY
doctrines and laws of religion, is pleased to compare it to a parent
or master's writing ' to another person, and he to a third, and the
third to a fourth, and so on to the hundreth or thousandth hand,
which orders were at last come to his family, about something of
near interest and concern between him and them. In this case it
is said that children and servants would not be justly blamed if
they should ' suspend their obedience till they heard from him in
a more direct and unexceptionable way,' pp. 88, 89. But this in-
stance doth not at all come up to the point. The case should be
put thus, supposing laws to have been enacted in former ages, and
those laws committed to writing, the question is, whether those
laws may not be transmitted to posterity with such evidence, that
we may have assurance sufficient to convince any reasonable person
that those laws were really enacted, and that these are the veiy
laws ? And whether it would be esteemed a good reason, or ac-
cepted as a proper excuse for doubting of the authority of those
laws, or refusing obedience to them, that we ourselves did not live
in the age when those laws were made ; and that they are trans-
mitted to us through the hands of persons capable of an intention
to deceive us, or of being themselves deceived. Again, supposing
facts to have been done in former ages of considerable importance,
and those facts recorded at the time in which they were done, the
question is, whether they may not be transmitted to us in authentic
records, with such evidence that it would be perfectly unreasonable
to doubt of them ; and whether it would diminish the credit of
them, that the writings which contain an account of those facts
have been spread through many hands, often transcribed, dispersed
among different nations, and translated into various languages ?
One would think, by our author's manner of representing it, that
he intended to insinuate that this would render the accounts un-
certain ; whereas there being many copies of them is a much
greater security than if there were but a few extant.
It cannot be denied, that laws had originally from Revelation,
are as capable of being transmitted to posterity as any other laws ;
and miraculous^/acfs, done in attestation of those laws, may be of
such a nature, and so circumstanced, as to be capable of being
transmitted to succeeding ages as well as any other facts. If,
therefore, it be allowed that any laws or facts may be so trans-
mitted, that those who live in after ages may have a reasonable
assurance, sufficient to convince them that these are the very laws
which were enacted, and that these facts were really done ; then it must
also be allowed that the laws which came originally by Revelation,
and the facts whereby those laws were attested and confirmed, may
be transmitted to us in such a manner, and with such a degree of
evidence, that we cannot reasonably doubt of their being the very
laws which were originally published by revelation from God, and
that those miraculous facts were really wrought. If we refuse to
receive those laws or believe those facts, because we ourselves did
not see them, or live in the age when the laws were first given, and
the facts were done, though they come to us transmitted with such
OF REVELATION. 23
evidence as we ourselves would count sufficient in any other case ;
this is certainly a most unreasonable conduct, and will hardly be
justified to the great Governor of the world. To insist upon it, that
those laws should be again promulgated in the manner in which they
were published at first, and that the extraordinary miraculous facts
wrought in attestation of them, should be done over again in every
age, and in every nation, for the satisfaction of every single person
(for one man in one age and one country hath as much right to
expect and demand it in another) would be a most absurd demand ;
it would be unbecoming the divine wisdom to grant them; and
indeed, such extraordinary attestations, by being continually re-
peated, would cease to be extraordinary, and be regarded no more
than common things, and so would lose their force. It is enough,
that they are transmitted to us in such a manner, and with such
evidence that it would be perfectly unreasonable to doubt whether
these are the very laws that were originally given as from God, and
whether these facts were really done. And it might easily be
proved, and hath been often shown, that the Scripture laws and
doctrines, and the facts whereby they were attested, and confirmed,
are transmitted to us with an evidence that scarce any other
laws, or any other facts done in former ages were ever attended
with.*
Our author himself does not deny, that ' a matter of revelation
is as capable of being conveyed down to posterity as any other
matter of fact, of what nature or kind soever, and that either this
must be allowed, or we must reject all historical evidence of every
other kind.' And then he saith, that he must still insist upon it,
that ' no reason or proof can be given of any revelation as coming
from God, but the moral fitness and reasonableness of the thing
itself, in its own nature, antecedent to, and abstracted fvom, any
such tradition or human testimony ; and consequently, that tra-
dition or human testimony is here brought in, to no manner of
purpose and without effect/ P 85. This writer often puts me in
mind of what he is pleased to say, concerning the ' common run of
our enthusiastic pulpiteers, whose manner/ he tells us, it 'is always
first to beg the main point in question, and then triumph upon it as
a thing proved/ p. 88. This is the manner of our author, who re-
peats it on all occasions that moral truth and fitness is the only
evidence or proof of any doctrine or law as coming from God; and
without offering any argument to prove it, but only supposing it,
makes use of this all along as a demonstration that miracles can.
be no proof or evidence of the divine original of any doctrine or
law. And if you will but grant him that the other is the only
proof, then he will easily show that this is not a proof. But since
it hath been shown that miracles may be of such a nature as to
yield a sufficient proof of the divine original and authority of doc-
trines and laws attested and confirmed by those miracles ; then if
* See to this purpose, Answer to Christianity as old as the Creation, Part II.
chap. iv. v.-vi.
24 THE DIVINE AUTHORITY
human tradition and testimony may give us a reasonable and suf-
ficient assurance that those miracles were really wrought, it is
evident that it is here brought in to very good purpose. And
that human tradition may be so circumstanced as to give sufficient
assurance that these miracles were really wrought, is as true as that
human tradition can give us a sufficient assurance of any past
facts ; nor can this be reasonably denied, except upon this prin-
ciple, that no past facts can be transmitted to us with sufficient
evidence for a reasonable man to depend upon. A thing which
the enemies of Revelation have not yet ventured to assert.
All the use he is pleased to allow to tradition or human testimony
in matters of religion is this, ' That we may be probably assured
from tradition and human testimony what our fore-fathers believed
about God and religion, and what reasons they assigned for it ; but
whether they ought to have believed as they did, or whether their
reasons will hold good or not, is another question, concerning which
tradition or human testimony can never inform us,' p. 85. Let us,
therefore, proceed upon his own state of the case. I am not to
believe any religion to be true and divine, merely because my an-
cestors believed it ; but if I know what the grounds were upon
which they believed it, and am satisfied that the grounds were just,
then I am obliged to believe it upon those grounds as well as they
were. And supposing the grounds upon which it was first received
and submitted to as of divine authority, were, besides the good
tendency of its doctrines and laws, the illustrious miraculous at-
testations whereby it was confirmed, tradition may give me a suf-
ficient assurance to satisfy any reasonable mind of the truth of those
extraordinary miraculous facts, or that those facts were really done.
And this is all that tradition or human testimony is properly brought
for. For whether those facts were a sufficient proof of the divine
authority of the revelation attested and confirmed by them, must
be judged not by tradition but by our own reason, upon considering
the nature and circumstances of those facts and attestations. And
if our own reason convinceth us that those facts, supposing them
true, were proper and sufficient attestations to the divine original of
that revelation, and if also we have all the proof that can be reason-
ably desired that the facts are true, then we are obliged to receive
that revelation as coming from God, and as of divine authority.
And indeed the proof of those facts is so strong, they are transmitted
to us with such convincing evidence, that I am persuaded few
resist the argument taken from the facts in favour of Christianity,
but who would have been among the unbelieving, had they lived
in the very age in which those facts were done. For the true
reason of their not believing, is not that there is not sufficient proof
of those facts to convince and satisfy a reasonable mind, and such
as is esteemed sufficient in any other case ; but it is owing to cer-
tain prejudices and dispositions of mind, which probably would
have hindered their submitting to the evidence brought for the
Christian Revelation, had they themselves been eye-witnesses to
the facts. And we may well reckon our author one of this make
OF REVELATION. 25
and disposition of rnind, since he takes care to let us know that he
looks upon miracles to be no proofs at all, and therefore would not
have been moved by them, though he had seen them done before
his eyes.
This writer is pleased positively to -insist upon it, ' That there
can be no such thing as divine faith upon human testimony ; and
that this absurd supposition has been the ground of all the super-
stition and false religion in the world. And that the knowledge of
any truth can go no farther upon divine authority, or as a matter
of divine faith, than to the person or persons immediately inspired,
or to whom the original revelation was made.' pp. 82, 84.
But if, by ' divine faith upon human testimony/ be only meant,
that an original divine revelation may be transmitted or conveyed
to us by human testimony, together with the extraordinary mira-
culous facts whereby it was attested and confirmed, and that in
such a manner as to make it reasonable for us to believe that it is
indeed a divine revelation, this hath been already shown. And if
T have sufficient grounds of reasonable assurance concerning any
doctrines and laws, that they came originally by divine revelation,
I am as truly obliged to regard them as coming from God, and to
believe and obey them on that account, as if I had them myself, by
immediate inspiration. For the obligation to believe and obey
them doth not depend upon the particular way of my receiving
them, but upon my having sufficient to convince me that they came
from God. This writer indeed seems resolved that whatever argu-
ments can be brought to prove that any thing is a divine revelation,
the receiving it as such shall not be called ' divine faith,' except the
person that believeth it hath received it immediately from God him-
self. But whether he will allow it to be called ' divine faith/ or
not, the calling it by another name doth not at all alter the nature
of the thing, or dissolve the obligation. If I have sufficient reason
to be convinced that miracles of such a nature, and so circum-
stanced, supposing them to have been really done, are strong attes-
tations to the truth, and divine original of the doctrines and laws
which they are wrought to confirm ; and if I have sufficient as-
surance that these facts were really done, then I am obliged to
believe and receive those doctrines, and obey those laws, as of
divine authority. To do otherwise would be to refuse to believe
doctrines which I have just ground to conclude were revealed from
God himself, and to refuse to obey laws which I have just ground
to believe God himself hath enjoined ; which would be a very cri-
minal conduct, highly displeasing to God, and contrary to the duty
that reasonable creatures owe to the Supreme Being.
Thus I have considered what this author offers with regard to the
proofs or evidences of divine revelation in general, in which his
design is plainly to show that there can be no proper proofs or
evidences of divine revelation to any but the persons immediatqly
receiving it, and yet at the same time he affects to own the great
usefulness of revelation in the present corrupt and degenerate state
of mankind.
26 DIVINE AUTHORITY
CHAPTER II.
An Entrance on the Author's Objections against the Old Testament. The strange Re-
pressntation he makes of the law of Moses. Some general Considerations concerning
the Nature and Design of that Law. Its moral Precepts pure and excellent. Its
ritual Injunctions appointed for wise Reasons. The Nature of its Sanctions consi-
dered. Reasons of God's erecting the People of Israel into a peculiar Polity. No-
thing absurd in this Constitution. It was designed in a Subserviency to the general
Good. ' The miraculous Facts whereby that Law was confirmed not poetical Embel-
lishments, but real Facts. The Author's Reasons to prove that those Facts could not
be understood in a literal Historical Sense shown to be vain and insufficient.
HAVING considered what this author hath advanced concerning
divine revelation in general, and the proofs whereby it is established,
I now proceed to the particular attempts he makes to destroy the
authority of the revelation contained in the sacred writings of the
Old and New Testament, He seems willing indeed to observe some
measures with regard to Christianity, but as to the Old Testament
he throws off all disguise; he everywhere openly rejects, and makes
the most disadvantageous representation possible both of the law of
Moses and the prophetical writings, and expressly declares he will
' have nothing to do with them in religion,' p. 394. If his repre-
sentation be true, they are not only no true divine revelation, but
a grand imposture, contrary to reason and common sense, and to
the liberties of mankind.
To begin with the account he gives of the law of Moses he ex-
pressly declares that in its original proper and literal sense, which
he says was the only sense intended by the lawgiver, ' It had neither
anything of truth or goodness in it, bvit was a blinding enslaving
constitution, and an intolerable yoke of darkness and bondage, ty-
ranny and vassalage, wrath and misery,' p. 29. That it was a law
' that introduced and confirmed a state of civil and religious blind-
ness and bigotry,' &c. p. 32. That it was a ' national slavery,
which the Jews had been unjustly subjected to, and which they
had a right to throw off whenever they had a proper opportunity,
and to assert and reassume their natural and religious rights and
liberties/ p. 51. He calls it a ' wretched scheme of superstition,
blindness, and slavery, contrary to all reason and common sense,
set up under the specious popular pretence of a divine institution
and revelation from God/ p. 71. These and others of the like
nature are the handsome epithets he everywhere bestows upon the
law of Moses, He is not content with declaring it to be a mere
piece of human policy, but makes it the worst constitution in the
world. Nor did any of the heathens, the greatest enemies of the
Jews, ever speak in such opprobrious terms of Moses and his con-
stitutions as this pretended Christian writer has done. If the law
of Moses merits these epithets, it certainly deserves the abhorrence
of all mankind, and Moses, instead of being extraordinarily sent
and inspired by God, was the most pernicious impostor that ever
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 27
was, and the greatest enemy to his nation, who, instead of regarding
him as they always did with the utmost veneration, should rather
have execrated his memory.
Before I enter on a particular discussion of the objection he ad-
vances against the law of Moses, I shall offer some general consi-
derations concerning the nature and design of that law, whereby
the true original intent, and the excellency and property of that law
may more evidently appear.
At the time when the law was given, idolatry had made a very
great progress, the primitive religion which was both derived by
tradition 'from the early patriarchs, the progenitors of the human
race, and was also very agreeable to right reason, was very much
corrupted, especially in the main principle of it, the worship and
acknowledgment of one only the living and true God : and though
there were considerable remains of the ancient true religion still
preserved in some particular families, yet things were growing worse
and worse; and it is highly .probable that, if God had not extra-
ordinarily interposed, true religion and the just knowledge and wor-
ship of the deity would have been lost among men. It pleased
him therefore, in this state of things, to select a nation to himself,
among whom the knowledge and worship of the true God should
be preserved in a world overrun with idolatry. And to that end he
first exerted his own almighty power and goodness in delivering
that nation from a state of extreme distress, slavery, and oppression,
and that in so extraordinary a manner as exhibited a marvellous
display of his own majesty and glory, and an entire triumph over
idols in the very seat of idolatry, for so Egypt then was; and then
caused the most pure and excellent laws to be given them, which
Were promulgated with the greatest solemnity, and attested by the
most amazing and unparalleled miracles. And, in order the more
effectually to answer the main design he had in view, it pleased
him to enter into a peculiar relation to that people, and to take
them for his own by a solemn public act or covenant, whereby the
people on the one hand brought themselves under the most express
and solemn engagements, to obey the laws he gave them, and to
be absolutely devoted to his service ; and he, on his part, engaged
to be their God and King in a special relation, to give them the
land of Canaan for their inheritance, and to pour forth many signal
benefits upon them, and make them a happy people. I see nothing
in this unworthy of God, or that can be shown to be inconsistent
with his divine perfection. Nor can this writer himself consistently
find fault with it, since speaking of the covenant God made with
Abraham, in which he promised to ' be a God to him, and to
his seed, and to settle them in the possession of the land of Canaan,
and make them happy upon the condition of their continuing in
the religion and worship of the one true God,' &c.,he saith this was
' a wise and reasonable transaction between God and Abraham ; and,
had the conditions been performed by Abraham's family and pos-
terity, no doubt but the grant on God's part had been made good.'
pp. 258, 259.
28 "DIVINE AUTHORITY
e If we inquire into the nature of the laws that were given them,
the main design of them seems evidently to be t- ': ; to preserve
them from idolatry, and vice, and wickedness, and to engage them
to the worship of the only true God, and to the practice of righte-
ousness. The great fundamental principle that lies at the foinda-
tion of the whole body of laws delivered by Moses, and to v ::ich
there is a constant reference in that whole constitution, and whereby
it is eminently distinguished from all other the most celebrated an-
cient laws and constitutions is this, that there is but one only the
living and true God, who is alone to be worshipped and adored,
loved and obeyed. He is there represented as the eternal and self-
existent Jehovah, Almighty and Allsufficient, to whom there is none
like, or that can be compared, and who is not to be represented by
any corporeal form ; that he is the great Creator of the universe,
who made heaven and earth and all things that are therein, by the
word of his power, and who preserveth and governeth all things by
his Providence, directing and ordering all events ; that he is most
just and holy, most faithful and true, a hater of iniquity, who will
severely punish obstinate presumptuous transgressors, and yet is
' full of compassion and gracious longsuffering, and abundant in
goodness and truth,' and ready to forgive penitent returning sin-
ners. In that law they are everywhere most strictly commanded
to worship and serve the Lord God, and him only, to love him
with all their hearts and souls, to fear him, and dread his displeasure
above all things, to put their whole trust and confidence in him, to
submit themselves cheerfully to his rightful authority, and to obey
all his commands.
And as the law of Moses directs and instructs men in the duties
they more immediately owe to God, so also in those they owe to
one another. It forbids in the strongest manner all malice, and
wrath, and bitterness ; all injustice and fraud, violence and oppres-
sion ; all fornication, and adultery, and uncleanness ; all falsehood,
and guile, and deceit ; and even all covetous and inordinate affec-
tions and desires : it not only requires exact truth and fidelity, a
strict inviolable honesty in our dealings towards all men, but it
expressly requires us to love our neighbours as ourselves, to be
ready to assist and do good to one another upon all occasions, yea,
even to our enemies themselves, to show mercy to the poor, the in-
digent, and destitute strangers and servants.* Upon the whole,
the moral precepts of the law of Moses are pure and excellent ;
they are such as, if duly practised and obeyed, could not fail to
make that nation happy, if the pure worship of God, and the prac-
tice of righteousness, justice, fidelity, temperance, and of mutual
charity and benevolence could make them so. Moses therefore
might justly represent these laws and statutes as sufficient, if care-
fully obeyed and attended to, to make them a ' wise and under-
standing people/ above other nations, Deut. iv. 5, 6 ; and again,
SeeExod. xx.12 18; xxii. 21, 24; xxiii: 1 8. Lev. vi.2, 5; xix. 18,36; xxv.
1417 ; xiv. 29 ; xxii. 1 4, 2229; xxiii. 17; xxiv. 2022; xxv. 1316.
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 29
ver. 8 : ' What nation is there so great, that hath statutes and
judgments so righteous, as all this law which I set before you
this day ? '
As to the ritual precepts there enjoined, which are many and
various ; though it cannot be expected that we should be able to
assign the particular reasons of them at this distance, yet we have
just reason to conclude that they were all given for wise and good
purposes, which rendered them very fit and proper for that time,
and for that people. * Many of them were designed for the more
effectual obtaining that which was the proper and principal end of
that law, which was to preserve the Jews from idolatry. For this
end, many of the rites prescribed them were in direct opposition to
those of the neighbouring idolatrous nations ; and great care was
taken by many peculiar usages to keep them a distinct and separate
people. There were many rites also that added a great outward
pomp and solemnity to their worship, that they might be the less
in danger of being drawn aside by the splendour and decorations
of the heathenish idolatry. Other rites were instituted in com-
memoration of great and signal events, extraordinary acts of Pro-
vidence towards their nation, the keeping up of a constant remem-
brance of which could not but be of great use for preserving the
love and worship of God amongst them, awakening their gratitude,
and engaging their dutiful obedience. And lastly, many of the
rites then prescribed had a farther view to the Messiah, his ofBces,
* I doubt not but if we had distinct views of the reasons of the several ritual injunc-
tions prescribed in the law of Moses, the wisdom and goodness of God in appointing
them would eminently appear. Many happy attempts have been made this way by
learned persons, both Jews and Christians, that have given great light to many of the
Mosaic rites and constitutions. It is evident there is nothing in any of them that in-
trencheth on the sacred rules of virtue, purity, and decency, as did many of the rites
in use among the heathen nations : e. g., the cruel rites of Moloch, and the impure ones
of Baal-Peor. Aud it may not be improper to observe, that some of the Mosaic consti-
tutions, which seem at first view most strange and extraordinary, if closely considered,
do furnish a proof of the divine original of that constitution and polity. Of this kind I
take the law relating to the Sabbatical year to be. Every seventh year was to be a
Sabbath of rest unto the land, a Sabbath for the Lord, in which they were neither to sow
their fields nor prune their vineyards. And it is expressly promised that God would
command his blessing upon them in the sixth year, and it should bring forth fruit for
three years, that is, for the sixth and the two succeeding years, the seventh and eighth,
Lev. xxv. 2, 4, 20, 22. No constitution like this can be found in the laws of any other
nation. And it may be strongly argued, that Moses would not have proposed such a
law, if he had been left merely to himself ia his legislation, and had not received it
from God, who was alone able to make good that promise upon-which the observation
of it depended ; and by so doing, gave a standing remarkable evidence of his constant
special presence and Providence amongst them, and both confirmed the authority of
that law, and answered the main design of it, which was to keep them close to the ac-
knowledgment, obedience, and adoration of him the only true God, in preference to all
idols, since nothing of this kind could be produced in favour of any of the idol deities.
And accordingly, in the Sabbatical year, the whole nation, not the men only, but the
women and children, were obliged to appear at the place which the Lord should choose,
and were to hear the whole law read to them, Deut. xxxi. 10 13, which was then most
likely to be attended to, and to make an impression, as they had then in the abundant
plenty of that year, and the extraordinary provision made for them j a sensible proof of
God's sovereign dominion and providence, and of the divine original and authority of
that law before their eyes. Other reflections of this kind might be made on several of
the Mosaic constitutions. But the particular consideration of them would take up
more time than is consistent with my present design.
30 THE DIVINE AUTHORITY
and benefits, of which they were designed as types and prefigura-
tions. I know this writer will not allow this, but he must not take
it ill if we prefer the authority of the apostle Paul to his; what he
offers against it shall be considered afterwards. But though many
and various rites are enjoined and prescribed in the Mosaical law,
yet still it is evident that the main stress is there laid on things of
a moral nature, the great essential duties of religion. The absolute
necessity of real universal righteousness, piety, and charity, justice,
temperance, the fear and love of God, is there frequently and
strongly inculcated, and most pathetically enforced. Scarce any-
thing can be more moving and affecting than the exhortations to
piety and virtue given by Moses to the people of Israel, especially
in the last part of his life in the book of Deuteronomy. Any one
that seriously and impartially considers them will find such a
wonderful force and pathos, as well as a divine solemnity in them,
as cannot but give a very advantageous idea of that excellent per-
son, and of the laws he gave them in the name of God. All along
in that law the favour of God is promised to those that go on in the
practice of righteousness ; that God will love them, and delight in
them, and will most certainly reward them, and make them happy.
And on the other hand, the most awful threatenings are there de-
nounced against presumptuous transgressors. God's purity and
holiness, his detestation against sin, and the terrors of his wrath
and vengeance, are there described in the most strong, and ardent,
and significant expressions, which have a manifest tendency where
they are really believed, and seriously considered to fill men with a
deep sense of the evil and malignity of sin, and to deter them from
committing it.
It is true that the immortality of the soul and a future state of
rewards and punishments, is rather supposed and implied in the
law of Moses, than directly asserted and revealed ; and one reason
of this might be, that these things were not controverted or denied
in those early ages. A considerable part even of the idolatry that
then prevailed, proceeded upon the notion of separate incorporeal
beings ; and especially the worship of departed heroes, necessarily
supposed that their souls survived after death. Cicero speaks of
the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, as a tradition derived
from the most ancient time. And it might easily be shown that it
spread universally through all nations, and still continued to be
believed among them, even when they had lost the true knowledge
and worship of God. This appears from the best accounts we have
of the sentiments of the ancient Egyptians, Chaldeans, Phoeni-
cians, Scythians, Stc., but afterwards through the false refinements
of philosophy and vain deceit in the latter ages, under the pretence
of wisdom above the vulgar, many began to dispute against, and to
deny the immortality of the soul and a future state. And there-
fore it became then absolutely necessary to make the most clear
and express revelation of it, and to set it in the strongest light, as
it is done by the gospel of Jesus ; but as far as appears, it was uni-
versally acknowledged when the law of Moses was given; and I
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 31
shall afterwards show that it is plainly implied in that law, and was
all along believed by the body of the Jewish nation in all ages.
But it must be considered, that as the law of Moses was imme-
diately directed to the whole people of Israel considered as a nation
or community, so the sanctions of that law, or the promises and
threatenings whereby obedience to it was enforced, were suited to
the nature and circumstances of a community, and therefore were
directly and immediately of a temporal nature, relating to the hap-
piness or misery, the good or evil consequences, their obedience or
disobedience would bring upon them in this present world. And
there was a manifest propriety in it, that these things should be
much insisted on in that law ; because some of its injunctions and
observances, though instituted for wise reasons, seemed laborious
and burdensome, as well as contrary to those of other nations ;
God was pleased therefore to assure them that this should not turn
to their disadvantage even in this present state; that he would
abundantly compensate their obedience by various blessings, which
he would pour forth upon them in this world ; and that by a faith-
ful adherence to his service they would promote their present in-
terest, and by a neglect and disobedience to his laws would draw
upon themselves the greatest evils and calamities. Such promises
and blessings were most likely to make strong and vigorous im-
pressions on the minds of the people, and were wisely and conde-
scendingly adapted to their tempers and circumstances, to allure
and engage them to obedience, and to deter them from idolatry and
wickedness. But still these did not exclude the rewards and
punishments of a future state, which were all along supposed and
implied, and the knowledge and belief of which was derived to
them from the ancient patriarchs, and had obtained among them
and other nations from the beginning.
Upon this brief view of the law of Moses, it appears that the
main design of it was most excellent, viz. to preserve those to whom
it was given from the general idolatry and wickedness that had
overspread the world, and to maintain the knowledge and worship
of the only true God, and the practice of true religion and righte-
ousness among them. And all the subsequent administrations of
God toward them were wisely fitted to promote the same valuable
design. It was for this that he interposed from time to time in an
extraordinary manner, by signal acts of Providence, in a way of
judgment or mercy, sufficient to awaken the most stupid to ac-
knowledge and adore his hand, and to convince them that their
blessings and punishments came from him. The idolatrous nations
had with the true worship of God almost lost the right notions of
his Providence. They attributed their blessings and calamities
wholly to inferior deities, in whose hands they supposed the ad-
ministration and government of human affairs to be vested ; to
whom therefore they addressed themselves, and paid all their wor-
ship and homage, whilstthey almost entirely neglected the Supreme
Being, as not concerning himself with the, affairs of men. But
32 DIVINE AUTHORITY
God's treatment of the Jews, and his way of administration to-
wards them, was a constant proof of his Providence, and was pe-
culiarly fitted to prevent their being led away by those pernicious
notions, and to lead them to regard and consider the hand of God
in all things that befel them.
If it be urged as an absurd thing in that constitution, that God
is there represented as entering into a peculiar relation to one par-
ticular people, who were to be kept distinct and separate from all
others ; let it be considered that the particular relation that for
wise ends he entered into towards this people, was no way incon-
sistent with his universal dominion and government, but supposed
it. He was still as much as ever the Ruler of the world, and the
God and Parent of all mankind. Nor did the particular and spe-
cial benefits conferred upon this people at all lessen his universal
goodness. And surely no man who believeth that God presides
over all events, and concerns himself in human affairs, and at the
same time doth observe the mighty difference that hath been and
is made between some persons, and some nations, and others, with
respect to all advantages for improvement in knowledge and virtue,
will pretend to say that it is inconsistent with the wisdom or
goodness of Divine Providence, to distinguish one nation with pe-
culiar privileges and advantages above others, since it is still true
that he doth, and hath all along done, much good to all in the
methods of his kind providence, and giveth them many advantages
if they were careful to make a right improvement of them.
But besides it must be considered, that God's thus selecting a
peculiar people or nation in so extraordinary a manner, and giving
them such laws, was not merely designed for the sake of that par-
ticular people, but was designed in a subserviency to the general
good, and had a tendency to promote it by keeping up the know-
ledge of true religion in the world, which otherwise was in danger
of being extinguished. By virtue of this peculiar constitution
there was still a remnant preserved, professing and maintaining the
knowledge and worship of the only true God free from idolatry.
There was still true religion maintained like a light shining in a
dark place, and how far this light was diffused, and how many
kindled their lamps at it, we cannot tell. The Israelites were
placed in a convenient situation between Egypt, and Assyria, and
Chaldea, the most remarkable countries then on earth. And the
carrying them out of Egypt in such a wonderful manner, and
settling them in Canaan, with such a series of mighty acts, and an
outstretched arm, and afterwards the marvellous interpositions of
Divine Providence towards them in a way of judgment or mercy,
would probably reach a great way, and spread the fear of God unto
distant nations. And in many passages of Scripture it is signified
that this was one design for which they were intended. The fame
of the mighty acts done for Israel, and the laws given them, is
represented as reaching to the heathens, and spreading the glory
and majesty of God ; and the nations are called upon to regard
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 33
and to consider them.* It is very probable, particularly that in
the days of David, when the kingdom of Israel made a great figure,
and was of considerable extent, and in the reign of Solomon, who
was so admired and sought unto from all parts for his wisdom, and
under whom the most glorious structure was built to the only true
God that ever the world saw ; the Israelites and their laws and
constitutions, became more generally known, and this might have
a very good effect in bringing many to the knowledge and worship
and obedience of the true God. It is evident, from the language
of Hiram, king of Tyre, and of the queen of Sheba, that they had
a high esteem and veneration for the Lord Jehovah, the God of
Israel, 2 Chron. xi. 11, 12, 1 Kings x. 9, and the like may be sup-
posed concerning many others.
After this even their captivities and dispersions were made sub-
servient by Divine Providence towards spreading the knowledge of
religion in the countries where they were scattered, and where
many of them became very eminent, and with a remarkable steadi-
ness adhered to their law, and to the religion and worship of the
true God there prescribed. The decrees of Nebuchadnezzar, and
Darius, and Cyrus, show the esteem they had for the only living
and true God, the God of Israel, Dan. xi. 47, iii. 29, iv. 33 37, vi.
25 27 ; Ezra i. 2, 4. And it has been very probably supposed
by many learned men, and it was owing very much to the light de-
rived from the Jews, and the admirable writings and laws preserved
among them, that there was more of the knowledge of God, and of
some of the main principles of religion preserved in the East than
in other parts of the world. The nearer we come to the times of
the gospel, the plainer proofs we have of the knowledge and wor-
ship of the true God and religion, being spread and propagated by
the Jews. As they were diffused almost all over the Roman em-
"pire, as well as in Persia and the Eastern countries, so they
every where proselyted great numbers to the worship of the only
true God hi opposition to the fashionable idolatry which then uni-
versally prevailed. It does not appear that any of the most re-
fined philosophers, those men of admired knowledge and genius,
ever converted so much as a single person or village from their
idolatrous superstitions ; on the contrary, they all meanly sub-
mitted and conformed to the idolatry established in their respective
countries, and exhorted others to do so too. Whereas the Jews
were instrumental to turn many from idolatry, and to spread the
knowledge of the true God far and wide in many parts of the
Roman empire, Babylonia, Persia, &c., and this tended to prepare
the world for receiving that last and most perfect dispensation
which our Lord Jesus Christ was to introduce.
This naturally leads our thoughts to another valuable end, which.
shows the propriety of erecting the Jews into a particular polity,
and separating them from the rest of mankind by peculiar laws ;
_* See Exod. vii. 5, ix. 6; Lev. xxvi. 45; Numb. sir. 13,15 ; Deut. iv. 6; 1 Kings
m. 4143, Ivii. 9, Ixvi. 15 ; Psal. xcviii. 14; Jer. xxxiii. 9.
34 DIVINE AUTHORITY
and that is, the subserviency this had to the great design the wisdom
of God had all along in view, viz. the sending his Son in the fulness
of time, to save and to redeem mankind, and to bring the clearest
and most perfect revelation of ^his will. There had been some
general promises and expectations of the Redeemer to come made
and communicated to mankind from the beginning of the world.
But this, like other traditions derived from the earliest ages, was,
in process of time, corrupted and lost ; so that if this promise and
hope had been left merely at large among the nations in general,
there would have been scarce any traces of it remaining. This the
divine wisdom foresaw, and therefore it pleased God for this, as
well as other purposes, to select a peculiar people, to be, as it were,
the depositaries of that hope and promise, who accordingly were
kept distinct, as a kind of special inclosure from the rest of man-
kind. He appointed that the Saviour who was to come, and who
had been foretold from the beginning, should spring and arise out
of that nation, and from a particular tribe and Tamily amongst
them. He ordered it so, that many of their laws and rights had a
reference to this great event. A succession of prophets was raised
among them, who described that glorious person that was to come
by his most remarkable characters ; foretold the benefits of his
kingdom, and plainly pointed out the time and place of his birth,
and principal circumstances of his appearance. And accordingly
among that people there was constantly kept up a belief and ex-
pectation of his coming, and from them it spread generally through
the nations. All this prepared the world for receiving him, and
together with the illustrious attestations given to him at his actual
appearance, by the miracles he performed, by his resurrection from
the dead, and the consequent effusion of the Holy Ghost, yielded
all the evidence that was proper in a case of such vast importance.
Thus that peculiar constitution tended to keep the proofs of his
mission more distinct, and give them a greater force. Accordingly
the first harvest of converts to Christianity was among the Jews,
and the Jewish proselytes, who were prepared for it by the know-
ledge of the only true God, and the belief of the Mosaic and pro-
phetical writings. And even the unbelieving Jews, who rejected
the Messiah ; when he actually came, were, and still are, without
intending it, remarkable witnesses for Christianity. The proofs
drawn from those books, the divine inspiration of which they them-
selves acknowledge, come with greater force and evidence when
transmitted and attested by enemies, than if they had been con-
veyed to us by them as friends. And when after their long in-
fidelity, the body of them shall be converted to the Christian faith,
which I think is plain from what the apostle Paul saith in the
eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, this shall give a
farther evidence in favour of Christianity. All this we may justly
suppose to have entered into the scheme of God's most wise pro-
vidence, who saw all things from the beginning, in setting apart
the Jews to be a peculiar people to himself, and giving them such a
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 35
constitution whereby they were to be kept separate and distinct
from the rest of mankind.
These several observations may serve to give us an idea of the
Mosaic constitution, which appears to have been excellently fitted
and designed to preserve the knowledge and worship of the only-
true God, in opposition to all idolatry, to guide those to whom it
was given to true religion, and the practice of righteousness ; and
to preserve the faith and hope of the Redeemer, to prepare the
world for his coming, and give fuller attestations to him when he
actually came ; and consequently, it appears that this constitution
answered many wise purposes of Divine Providence, and was made
subservient to the general good of mankind.
And now I shall proceed to consider the objections this writer
brings against the Mosaic law and constitution. He pretends to
invalidate the truth of the miraculous attestations whereby that
law was attested ; he argues against that law and constitution,
from the authority of St. Paul, and from the pretended inconsistency
between it and the New Testament ; and endeavours, in several
instances to show, that it was in itself an unrighteous constitution,
tyrannical and absurd, and unworthy of God.
Let us first consider what our author offers against the truth of
the extraordinary miraculous facts whereby this law was attested.
And the way he goes about to invalidate them, is not by denying
that this history was written by Moses, or proving that the history
is false ; but he undertakes to show, that the relations there given
us of those facts were not designed to be understood as historical
accounts of facts that really happened, but purely were poetical
embellishments, like the fictions of Homer, and never intended by
Moses himself to be taken in a literal sense. He first pretends to
give an account of the original of miracles, which he derives from
the juggles and impostures of the Egyptian priests : ' Who having
set themselves diligently to the study of occult philosophy, or
natural magic, in which they made great improvements, and which
they kept as deep secrets to themselves, made the people believe
that they had an immediate intercourse and communication with
the gods. From that time Egypt became a land of miracles and
prodigies, continually wrought by these holy magicians, which had
such an effect upon the Israelites, in the course of 210 years, whilst
they remained in Egypt, that nothing could influence them but
miracles ; and they would never have regarded Moses if he could
not have outdone the Egyptian Sorcerers,' pp. 241, 242. And
again he tells us, that ' as they had seen nothing for 200 years to-
gether but miracles and prodigies, wrought by these priestly
magicians, they could conceive of no other way of receiving in-
formation and instruction from God,' pp. 247, 248. And then he
goes on to observe,
That ' Moses and the prophets being under a necessity, from the
blindness and obduracy of the people, always wrote with a double
intention, or ambiguous construction. They had a popular political
sense, which, as the most literal and obvious, was most suited to the
D 2
36 DIVINE AUTHORITY
gross apprehensions, prejudices, and superstitions of the vulgar ;
and at the same time another meaning or construction, which was
the true and rational fone ; but to be supposed and understood only
by the wiser sort, the case was this, that the most ancient narrative
authors, whether sacred or profane, did not write as mere his-
torians, but as orators, poets, and dramatists, in which way of
writing they kept up to strict historical truth, as to the fundamental
leading facts, or principal events, but with regard to the manner
and circumstances of action, the orator and poet often took the
liberty to embellish and recommend the history with such sensible
images and dramatic representations, as being most agreeable to
the popular taste, and vulgar notions, might the more effectually
move and direct the affections and passions of the people, as the
great engines and springs of government." Thus he observes, that
' Homer's account of the Trojan war, and of the conquest of the
country by the Greeks is historically true, as to the principal facts
and persons concerned on both sides ; but his manner and circum-
stances of action, his miraculous imagery, and poetic ornaments,
are all his own, like our Milton and Shakspeare.' And observes,
that ' the history of the Exodus and conquest of Canaan relates to
things done 600 years before Homer's time, and is written much
in the same oratorial and dramatic way ; that these poetic beauties
and dramatic representations of things can occasion no difficulty
to those who enter into the spirit and design of the author, and
who can distinguish the orator or poet from the historian : but
vulgar heads must make strange work with such performances,
who, without entering into the spring and design, should under-
stand every thing according to the letter ; and this was the case
of the Jewish nation, with regard to the writings of Moses and the
prophets, and St. Paul has evidently and irrefutably proved it,'
pp. 249 251.
Let us suppose all that this writer affirms to be true concerning
the Egyptian priests and their pretended miracles and prodigies.
I think it clearly follows from this representation of things, that if
they pretended to work miracles in support of idolatry, and made
use of these to propagate the worship of demons, this made it
highly becoming the wisdom and goodness of God, when he had it
in view to establish a constitution, or peculiar polity, and give a
system of laws, particularly designed in opposition to the spreading
idolatry, to establish it by such extraordinary and amazing acts of
power, as should fully exert his divinity and glory, and supreme
dominion ; works of such a nature, that none of the pretended
wonders wrought by the Egyptian priests or magicians could be
set in competition with them. This shows the propriety of all those
miraculous works done in Egypt, those signs and wonders, as they
are often called, done in the land of Ham. The doing these things
in Egypt, the seat of idolatry, from whence it was propagated to
other nations, was such a triumph over all their idols, and those
great patrons and propagators of idolatry, as ought to have had a
mighty influence upon them. The plagues and judgments inflicted
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 37
upon them, should have awakened them, and all that heard of these
things, to serious reflections. And God's interposing in these cir-
cumstances, by a series of such wonderful works, so far superior to
all that were wrought, or pretended to be wrought, in favour of
idolatry, was of great service for the establishing true religion in
the world.
If the miracles wrought by Moses had not been of a very extra-
ordinary and unparalleled nature, this writer, and others of
his way, would have been ready to say there was nothing in them
supernatural, nothing but what might have been performed by the
art of cunning men, or by skill in occult philosophy, and natural
magic. And yet now that they are so amazing and stupendous, so
beyond all parallel, their very greatness and extraordinary nature is
made an objection against them, and a reason for not believing
them.
This writer has let us plainly enough know that he does not be-
lieve the miracles to have been really wrought, that are recorded in
the books of Moses, to have been wrought in Egypt, and in the
wilderness, and he has in his great sagacity, found out a very ex-
traordinary expedient for salving the credit of Moses, and yet deny-
ing the truth of the facts which he relates. He has discovered
that Moses's history is a poem, and that all these accounts of facts
are only poetical embellishments or fictions ; and that he always
wrote with a ' double or ambiguous construction,' the one full of the
marvellous, suited to the f gross apprehensions of the vulgar,' the
other the true ' and rational one, to be understood only by the wiser
sort.' But certainly, never was there any thing more remote from
poetical ornaments, or the affectation of studied oratory, than the
Mosaic history. It was not that Moses, if he had designed to
write a poem, was not capable of doing it to great advantage. The
admirable specimens he has given us of this kind, in the song he
composed on occasion of the Israelites passing the Red Sea, and in
that which he gave to them a little before his decease, and in the
blessings he pronounced upon the tribes, show the sublimity of his
figures, noble and lofty expressions, beautiful and significant meta-
phors ; but in the body of his history, where he gives an account
of laws and facts, all these things are carefully avoided. Every
thing is related in the most simple unadorned manner, as becomes
plain truth, and a naked narration of facts. The orator and poet
nowhere appears, but the plain grave historian and lawgiver ; the
extraordinary miraculous facts whereby the law was attested, are
proposed to the people as things that really happened, yea, as things
which they themselves had seen, and to which they were witnesses.
He appeals to the body of the people concerning the truth of these
facts, and founds the authority of his laws upon them. And will
this writer, or any man that has any regard to reason or argument,
say there is any parallel between this and the writing an heroic
poem like Homer ? or can any man of common sense suppose that
Homer intended to put all the fictions he relates, upon the people,
for things that literally and historically happened ?
38 DIVINE AUTHORITY
'r If Moses himself wrote those books that give an account of the
laws and facts ; and we have as full a proof of this, as we can have
that any book was written by any author under whose name it goes ;
for we have the constant testimony of the whole nation to whom
those laws were given, and who regarded them with great venera-
tion, as the rule of their polity; and of all other nations that had
occasion to mention them, still ascribed these laws and writings to
Moses ; and which ought to have a great weight with Christians,
they are all along ascribed to him in the New Testament by our
Saviour and his apostles ; nor do I find that our author himself
denies, but rather supposes it : I say, if Moses himself Wrote those
accounts of the laws and facts, they were written and published at
the very time in which these extraordinary and miraculous facts
were said to be done. And if so, the facts related were of such a
nature, that it was impossible the people should not know whether
they had really happened or not ; and it was impossible to have
imposed them upon the people as true, or made them to have be-
lieved them true, if they had not known them to be so. I will
grant all that this writer is pleased to suppose concerning the stu-
pidity and blindness of the Israelites. Let us suppose them to have
been the most ignorant, brutish, superstitious generation of men
that ever lived upon the earth ; yet if it be allowed that they had
their senses at all, and that they could tell what was actually done
before their eyes, which I think is but a reasonable supposition,
then they could know whether these things were done in Egypt, at
the Red Sea, and in the Wilderness, which Moses told them, were
done in their own sight. Could they possibly have been persuaded
that they were brought out of Egypt by such a series of mighty
stupendous acts done in their own view ; that they had passed
through the Red Sea as on dryland, whilst the army of Egypt, fol-
lowing them, were overwhelmed with the waters, and that they
themselves had seen it ; that when they were ready to perish for
thirst in the wilderness, Moses only struck the rock in their sight,
and waters gushed out in abundance like a river, of which they
drank plentifully and their cattle ; that they were present when the
law was promulgated with such amazing solemnity amidst the most
awful thunders and lightnings, and that the words were distinctly
pronounced in their own hearing ; that they had been fed in the
barren wilderness for forty years together, by bread that fell from
heaven six days in the week and intermitted the seventh, and that
they themselves had gathered it, and lived upon it all along. I say,
could a whole nation possibly have been made to believe that all
these things had happened to themselves, and in their own sight,
if it had not been so ? This were the wildest, the most extrava-
gant supposition in the world ; nor is a man, that is capable of
making such a supposition fit to be disputed with any longer, since
it is scarcely possible to drive any man to a greater absurdity.
Nor is it less absurd, to suppose that any man in his senses, much
less so wise a man as Moses certainly w'as, would have taken such
a way as this of dealing. with the people, and would have appealed
Or THE OLD TESTAMENT. '39
to them concerning such facts, of the falsehood of which the whole
nation could have convinced him, if they had not been true. This
would have been to have taken the most effectual way in the world
to defeat his own design, by putting the credit of his own divine
mission, and the authority of his laws, upon facts of so public a
nature, which it was the easiest thing in the world to contradict,
and which the meanest of the people, that had the use of their
senses, must on that supposition have known to be false. And the
frequent murmurings against Moses, and the opposition made to
his authority and to his laws, many of which were contrary to the
people's deeply imbibed prejudices and customs, shows that it
would not have been easy to have managed them, if they had not
been fully convinced that all those facts to which Moses appealed
were true. His exhortations to the people in the book of Deuter-
onomy, not long before his death, when he made a solemn repetition of
the laws and facts ; I say, the pathetical exhortations he gives them
to obedience, are founded on those facts, and have a constant refer-
ence to them ; and they are delivered with the greatest gravity and
solemnity, and at the same time with the greatest plainness and
simplicity, and a most fatherly tenderness and compassion towards
the people. They have all the marks of seriousness and truth that
any thing can possibly have. And as he commanded the people to
acquaint themselves with the laws he had given them in the name
of God, and to teach them diligently to their children, so also to
instruct them in the great things which God had done for them, or
the extraordinary miraculous facts wrought in attestation of those
laws. Besides all which, he instituted sacred rites, which were to
be observed by all the people, with great solemnity, at stated times
every year, on purpose to keep up the remembrance of these extra-
ordinary facts, and to transmit them to future generations. And
accordingly, the memory of these wonderful facts was still preserved,
and the truth of them acknowledged, by the whole nation, and that
in the times of their greatest degeneracy, and under all the revolu-
tions of their government. In all their public monuments, in all the
writings that were published in different ages among them, there is
a constant reference, not only to these laws as given by Moses to
their nation, but to the wonderful facts that were done in attestation
of these laws, as of undoubted credit.
As to what our author talks, of a double sense in the writings of
Moses and the prophets, the one designed for the vulgar, the other
for the wiser sort ; it is to be observed, that he is only for admitting
this double sense in the historical narration of facts related in the
writings of Moses ; but he denies that any of the laws of Moses, or
the prophecies, have any mystical or typical sense at all, or any
farther reference than the mere letter ; as I shall have occasion to
take notice afterwards. Thus the laws of Moses, and the prophe-
tical writings, must be taken in a literal or mystical sense, just as
he thinks will best answer the end he has in view, of exposing them.
Prophecies delivered in figurative expressions, and the whole turn
of which leads to a farther view, they are to be carried no farther
40 DIVINE AUTHORITY
than the bare letter ; but matters of fact told in a plain simple
manner must be figurative and mystical. He tells us indeed that
this pretended figurative sense of the facts was * understood by the
wiser sort.' But it is certain that in this respect there was no
difference between the wise men and the vulgar among the Jews,
all without exception believed the account of these extraordinary
miraculous feats recorded by Moses ; even their wisest men, whose
admirable writings, far superior to those of the most celebrated
philosophers, show them to have been men of excellent sense and
knowledge, and just notions of things.
But what is most extraordinary, our author is for bringing in the
apostle Paul as a voucher to prove that the facts recorded in the
law of Moses, were no more than poetical embellishments. He
says that apostle ' has evidently and irrefutably proved ' that the
Jews were in the wrong in understanding the writings of Moses
according to the letter, that is, in taking the facts there recorded,
(for of these the author is there speaking) for things that really and
literally happened, see p. 251. But nothing can be more evident
to any one that is acquainted with the writings of St. Paul, than
that whenever he has occasion to refer to any of the extraordinary
miraculous facts done in attestation of the Mosaical dispensation,
he always supposes them to be things of undoubted truth and
credit, and which really and actually happened ; but with respect
to some of the rites prescribed in the law of Moses, he shows they
had a farther view to the gospel times, as types and shadows of
good things to come, and were designed as preparatory to the dis-
pensation of the Messiah. Now this the author ventures to con-
tradict, and in opposition to the apostle boldly asserts, that the law
of Moses had no such typical view or mystical sense at all ; but
with regard to the historical facts which are plainly and clearly re-
lated, these things are only to be understood and taken in a mysti-
cal or allegorical sense. And this he would pass upon us for St.
Paul's opinion, as if this was that spiritual and typical sense of the
law which that apostle pleads for. The raost extensive charity
scarce leaves room to suppose that this author is so blind as not to
know that this is gross and wilful misrepresentation.
But let us consider what he pretends to offer as a proof that the
miraculous facts recorded in the writings of Moses, and by which
that law was attested, are not to be understood in a literal sense ;
that is, as he intends it, that they were not types in fact, nor ac-
counts of things that really happened, but merely poetical embel-
lishments.
He says, p. 251 : ' Should we take this drama in the obvious
literal sense [that is if we take the historical accounts Moses gives
to be really true] we must suppose him to have been a more
fabulous romantic writer than Homer, ^Esop, Ovid, or any of the
heathen poets and mythologists.' This is very boldly and confi-
dently said after the author's manner, but let us see what proof he
brings of so strange an assertion.
He saith that, ' if the history of the Exodus, as he calls it, or
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 41
deliverance out of Egypt, and conquest of Canaan be taken in the
literal obvious sense, we must suppose that God in those days ap-
peared, spoke, and acted like a man, or a finite circumscribed
Being, in a visible sensible manner ; that he conversed intimately
and familiarly with Moses, as a man talketh with his friend ; that
he went out of Egypt at the head of the Israelites' army, and
walked with them through the Red Sea ; that he travelled up and
down with them forty years in the wilderness, always at the beck
or call of Moses, to consult and talk with him upon every occa-
sion ; that God, in a visible sensible manner, as personally present,
always gave Moses the word of command when they should march,
and when they should not, and marked out every foot of ground
from time to time for the encampments of their respective tribes.
In short, God himself, as visibly and personally present, acted as a
General, and Moses had nothing to do but to follow orders, and
obey the word of command, and which a fool might have done as
well as a wise man.' p. 252.
And is this all the proof he brings, that the historical facts re-
corded in the writings of Moses, are no more to be credited than
yEsop's Fables, or Ovid's Metamorphoses, because there are some
metaphorical expressions used, which, as they are circumstanced,
and comparing one part of these writings with another, can scarce
mislead the meanest understandings ? and I will undertake to say
that whatever opinion he has of the stupidity of the Jews, they
were not so senseless as to understand those expressions in that
sense he puts upon them, though they all firmly believed the
facts.
He would have it believed that according to the literal obvious
sense of the Mosaic history, God is represented to the people as a
finite circumscribed Being, appearing to the Israelites all along in.
the shape of a man, walking as such with them through the Red
Sea, going at the head of their army as their General, and tra-
velling up and down with them through the wilderness, &c.,
whereas there is not one passage in the whole account that repre-
sents God as appearing to the Israelites in human shape ; but the
very contrary is directly and strongly asserted, and that as the
foundation of the laws that were given them. They are expressly
forbidden to worship God by any image or corporeal representation
whatsoever, or under ' the likeness of any thing in heaven and
earth,' and that because they saw 'no manner of similitude,' when,
the Lord spake unto them, Deut. iv. 12, 15. Where would have
been the force of this, if it had been represented to them that God
continually walked among them and before them in human shape?
All that can be gathered from the obvious sense of the Mosaic
account, literally understood, is this : That as it pleased God for
wise ends to select the people of Israel as a peculiar people to him-
self, so, in order to impress them with a more lively sense of his
immediate presence and divine majesty, he manifested himself
among them by a visible 'cloud of glory/ the illustrious symbol
and token of his special presence ; which exhibited a wondrous
42 DIVINE AUTHORITY
splendour without any human shape or bodily form. This cloud
of glory conducted the people in their journeyings through the
wilderness. Thither Moses had frequently recourse for direction,
and probably received orders and instructions, by a voice proceed-
ing from amidst that glory. All this was indeed a marvellous in-
stance of goodness and condescension in the Supreme Being, but it
can never be proved to have any thing in it absurd or unworthy of
God, and inconsistent with his essential attributes and perfections.
1 suppose this author himself will hardly deny that though God is
every where essentially present, yet he can give more illustrious
displays and exhibitions of his divine presence and majesty by a
visible external glory and splendour in some places, and on some oc-
casions than others ; and that he can also, if he pleases, either by
his own immediate power, or by the ministry of angels, form an
audible voice, by which he may declare his will to one or more
among mankind, outwardly to their ears as well as inwardly by
immediate impressions on the mind. It doth not follow from either
of these suppositions that God is a finite limited Being, or that his
Essence .is circumscribed, or confined to the particular place,
where it pleaseth him thus peculiarly to manifest his special pre-
sence. Nor does it appear that the meanest of the Jews ever un-
derstood it so, who are every where taught in the writings of Moses
to form the noblest conceptions of the divine majesty and great-
ness, as the Maker and Lord, the Preserver and Governor of the
world, and as filling the whole universe with his glory, the God
' in heaven above, and in earth beneath,' as it is expressed, Deut.
iv. 29.
As to that passage he produces where God is said to speak to
Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend, it is plain it is
to be understood only of the clear open familiar manner, in which
God condescended to reveal himself to Moses above any o? the
other prophets. The apostle Paul useth such a phrase as this to
signify the clearness and perfection of our knowledge in heaven ;
that then we shall 'not see through a glass darkly, but shall see
face to face.' And does it follow that because such a phrase as
this appears in the writings of Moses, a phrase which, as it there
stands, has no difficulty in it, and is very easy to be understood ;
that therefore his whole history is a fiction, and the facts there re-
lated, though told in a plain simple manner, are all hyperbole and
romance?
Will this writer pretend that it is beneath the majesty of God,
to concern himself in so peculiar a manner for one particular peo-
ple, and to grant them such visible tokens of his special presence,
and take them under his immediate conduct and government? But
if it be not unworthy of his general Providence for him to take care
of, and concern himself for particular persons and their affairs, I
do not see how it can be proved inconsistent with his glory and
perfection to manifest his presence in a special manner, and to give
remarkable proofs of his tender care towards a whole nation, in
order to keep them close to his worship and service, and secure a
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 43
regard to the law be had been pleased to give them. All that can
be said in that case is, that it was a most amazing condescension,
and a wonderful grace and goodness, and so it is that he should
concern himself with mankind at all. And as this author seems
to think it unworthy of the Divine Majesty to concern himself so
particularly in the direction and government of that people, so
there have been persons that from pretended high thoughts of God,
have judged it unworthy of his greatness to concern himself with
men or their affairs at all, and thus have been for complimenting
him out of his Providence. And others have denied his continual
agency and influence in the government of the world, which they
suppose to be a great machine first made and put in motion by a
divine hand and then left to itself, and to the laws established in
the beginning ; under pretence that it is unworthy of him continu-
ally to interpose in a way of immediate agency : whom this writer
zealously opposes, and seems to account little better than atheists.
But he urges it farther as another absurdity in the literal sense
of the story : ' That such was the interest of Moses with God that
he could make him do whatsoever he pleased. He often changed
his mind when he had resolved to destroy the people, and prevailed
with him to go further when he had determined to leave them and
go no further ; and this, lest the Egyptians should mock the God
of Israel, and say that he was not able to conduct them through
the wilderness, and give them possession of the land which he had
promised them, and for which he had engaged his honour and
veracity, for above 400 years before, to do it at this very time.
This was the main topical argument which Moses is said to have
used with God, and by which he gained his ends in every thing
but the main point, which was the conquest of the country, which
these Israelites were never able to do till David's days, about 400
years after the promise to Abraham was expired. It is true they
conquered and took possession of a small part of the country upon
the mountains ; but they could not drive the inhabitants out of the
plains, because they had chariots of iron, or because God never
enabled them as infantry to stand before the Canaanites' horse.'
pp. 252, 253.
As to Moses's interest with God, as he calls it, supposing Moses
to have been what he really was, an excellent person, a devout
fearer and lover and adorer of the Deity; I can see no absurdity
in supposing that he had an interest with God, if by that be meant
no more than that God had a regard to his humble and earnest
supplications. But that he could not make God do whatsoever he
pleased, as this writer ridiculously expresseth it, is evident, because
we are there expressly told that he could not procure thai his own
life should be prolonged, so as to enter actually into the promised
land, though he earnestly desired it, see Deut. iii. 23 26. In his
prayers for the people we may observe a deep humility and pro-
found reverence for the Divine Majesty, a fervent zeal for the glory
of God, and for the interest of true religion in the world, and a
most affectionate concern and love for the people, whose welfare he
44 DIVINE AUTHORITY
valued more than his own life, or the particular advancement of
himself or his family. These were noble and excellent dispositions,
and where is the absurdity of supposing that a wise, and holy, and
merciful God, had a regard to the supplications he offered for the
people, flowing from such excellent dispositions ? Certainly the
reflections the author here makes are very little consistent with the
zeal he elsewhere seems to express for the duty of prayer, since
they are really no other than the objections that others advance
against prayer in general.. When he talks of God's changing his
mind, and altering his resolution upon Moses's addressing him, I
ask, is it in no case proper to apply to God by prayer, for obtaining
blessings for ourselves or others, and for deprecating evils, or
averting threatened or deserved judgments? and may it not well
be supposed that God hath a regard to prayer as a necessary con-
dition for obtaining these blessings, or averting those evils ? And
when he hearkens to those prayers, he cannot be justly said to
change his mind, or alter his purpose, since he does no other than
what he had before determined to do. For he both foresaw those
prayers and determined to hear them, and not to confer those
blessings, or avert those judgments, if those prayers had not been
offered. There is nothing in all this but what every man must ac-
knowledge who stands up for prayer as a duty.
To apply this to the present case : God had determined to
punish and abandon the Israelites for their idolatry and wicked-
ness, if Moses should not interpose and intercede by humble and
earnest supplications ; but at the same time he perfectly knew that
Moses would thus interpose, and had determined to grant his hum-
ble request in their behalf. And in this view all is perfectly con-
sistent. He knew that his threatening to forsake and punish
them for their sins, would give occasion to that good and excellent
man to plead with him by earnest prayer, and thereby show his
love to the people, and zeal for the divine glory, which prayers he
had determined to grant. And there was a manifest propriety in
it, that God should not pardon and restore the people but upon
Moses's intercession, as this tended to procure a greater affection
and veneration for him in their minds, and to engage them to pay
a greater regard to the laws he gave them in the name of God.
With regard to the topical argument, as this writer calls it, which
Moses made use of in pleading with God for the Israelites ; if he
had fairly represented it, there would have appeared nothing in it
absurd, or unfit for such a man as Moses to make use of, as the
case was circumstanced, and for God to have a regard unto. If
Moses prayed to God at all to avert deserved judgments from the
people, was it not proper for him to use reasons or arguments
humbly to enforce his petitions ? One would think that this
author, who would be thought such an advocate for prayer, and
who passes such severe censures on those who ridicule and discard
it, should readily grant this. If it be allowable for us to offer up
our requests to God, then certainly it must be also allowed to be
very proper for us to urge our requests with such reasons or argu-
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 45
ments as may be fit for reasonable beings to offer to that God who
condescends to admit our supplications. Since this tends very
much to the exercising and strengthening those good affections
and pious dispositions, which it is one great design of the duty of
prayer to exercise and improve. Now I cannot see what more
proper arguments Moses could have made use of as the case was
circumstanced, than what he did. For what arguments can be
more fit to be offered to the Supreme Being than [those that are
drawn from what is becoming his government and excellencies, his
wisdom, his faithfulness and truth, his goodness and mercy, and
from a regard to the honour of his name, and the interest of true
religion in the world ? And such as these are the arguments
Moses makes use of, as appears from the several passages that re-
late to this matter, see Exod. xxxii. 9, 14, Numb. xiv. 13 16,
JDeut. ix. 25 29. Though no doubt his prayers were more at
large than is there recorded, and delivered with the greatest hu-
mility and earnestness, and it is only a very short abstract and
summary of them that is there given us. And the particular argu-
ment which this author is pleased to ridicule, was very proper, and
of great force, if taken out of his ludicrous and sneering manner of
representing it ; viz., drawn from the reflections the Egyptians and
other idolatrous nations would cast on the only true God, if he de-
stroyed that people whom he had so miraculously delivered, and
whom he seemed to have chosen peculiarly to himself; and the oc-
casion they would thence take to harden themselves in their idola-
try, and in their opposition to God and his worship ; and to charge
him with unmercifulness, with breach of promise, or want of power.
All this Moses humbly represents in his prayers to God ; and God
perfectly knew all this before Moses represented it, and had de-
termined to act in a manner becoming his own supreme wisdom
and glory. But it was his will that Moses should thus plead with
him in order to his showing favour to so guilty people, and avert-
ing the judgments he had threatened, and they had deserved. In
like manner whenever God hath regard to the humble and earnest
prayers of good men, he well knows beforehand all that they can
urge and represent before him, yet he will have these things repre-
sented by themselves, as a condition of his doing it for them.
As to what this writer adds, as if God did not after all perform
his promise to Abraham and the Israelites, since they were not put
in full possession of the promised land till the time of David, 400
years after the time fixed, for that promise was expired ; I need
not say much to it, since he himself in several passages of his book
acknowledges and asserts that this promise was conditional ; and
that ' had the conditions been performed by Abraham's family and
posterity, no doubt but the grant on God's part had been made
good/' see p. 259. It is certain that Moses declares to the
Israelites in the most solemn manner, calling heaven and earth to
witness, that their obtaining the possession of the promised land,
and continuing in it depended on their obedience to the divina
law, and keeping close to his true worship and service, and that
46 DIVINE AUTHORITY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT.
otherwise they themselves should perish out of the land, see Deut.
iv. 25, 26, &c., and many other passages to the same purpose. To
which it may be added, that it is most expressly again and again
declared and foretold, that God would not drive out the Canaanites
from before them ' all at once, but by little and little,' see Exod.
xxiii. 29 31, Deut. vii. 22, 23, which was most literally and
punctually fulfilled. It is scarce worth while to take notice of his
little sneers, though often repeated by the late writers on that side,
concerning God's not being able to drive out the inhabitants of the
Tallies, because they had chariots of iron. The passage referred to
is Judges i. 19: 'And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out
the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabi-
tants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.' All that
can be fairly gathered from this passage, is this, that the tribe of
Judah attacked the inhabitants of the mountains, and God pros-
pered and gave them success ; but they suffered themselves to be
affrighted and disheartened by the iron chariots of the Canaanites
that dwelt in the valleys, and therefore durst not venture to attack
them. And this their diffidence and distrust, and not the strength
of the Canaanites, was the true cause of their not being able to
subdue them. When the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh ex-
pressed the same apprehensions, Joshua reproves them for their
fears, and assures them that if they did not suffer themselves to be
discouraged they should drive out the Canaanites, ' though they
were strong, and had iron chariots,' Josh. xvii. 16, 18. And certain
it is, that the reason why the men of Judah could not drive out
the Canaanites, was not, as this writer is pleased ludicrously to
represent it, 'because the Lord never enabled the Israelites as
infantry to stand before the Canaanites' horse.' For Joshua at-
tacked and destroyed a mighty host of the Canaanites, ^though they
had horses and chariots very many,' Josh. xi. 4, 7, 8, 9, and after-
wards we find Sisera and his numerous army, with 300 chariots of
iron, was entirely defeated by a small number of Israelites under
Barak, Judges iv. 3, 7, 15.
This is all that this writer is pleased to offer to show that Moses's
history when taken in the literal sense is more absurd and romantic
than Homer, or .ZEsop's Fables, or Ovid's Metamorphoses. But
though he has discovered a very strong inclination to prove this,
nothing can be more miserable than the attempts he has made this
way. For any thing that he offers to the contrary, Moses's his-
tory still holds good ; and the miraculous extraordinary facts were
really done as recorded ; and if they were, they yield an invincible
attestation to the truth and divinity of the laws thus attested and
confirmed, and manifestly show them to have proceeded from God.
And it cannot without the highest absurdity be supposed, that such
glorious exhibitions of the divine power and majesty should ever
have been given in favour of an imposture.
I shall next proceed to consider what our author offers against
the divine original of the law of Moses from the authority of St.
Paul, and the pretended opposition and inconsistency between that
law and the New Testament.
47
CHAPTER III.
The Author's Arguments against the law of Moses from the Authority of St. Paul con-
sidered. Our Saviour Jesus Christ, and the Apostle Paul, strongly assert and confirm
the divine original of the Law of Moses. The diminishing and degrading manner in
which that Apostle seems sometimes to speak of that Law, accounted for. The In-
stances the Author produces to show that there -was no end of the Law but what the
Apostle expressly contradicts, examined. The attempt he makes to prove that there
was no such Typic.-l or Mystical Sense of the Law as St. Paul supposes in his Argu-
ings with, the Jews. No Absurdity, but a Beauty and Harmony in supposing that
what is obscurely hinted at in the Law is more clearly revealed in the Gospel.
THIS author proposes the question to be debated, c whether the
positive and ceremonial law of Moses, commonly called the Levitical
Law, or the law concerning their priesthood, was originally a divine
institution or revelation from God, to be afterwards nullified,
abolished, and set aside by another revelation ; or whether it was a
mere piece of carnal worldly policy.' This latter part of the ques-
tion is what he undertakes to maintain, and which is more extraor-
dinary, he declares, that 'if he cannot make it appear that St.
Paul, when he comes to be rightly understood, is plainly on his
side, he will give up the argument.' p. 23.
He manages this in a great many words with some digressions
from p. 24 to p. 80 ; but though he seems in putting the question
to confine it to the part of the law of Moses that relates to the
priesthood, yet it is plain he intends it against the divine original
of the whole law ; and his arguments, if they prove any thing, prove
that it was wholly a political institution ; and that no part of it
came by immediate revelation from God. And it is evident either
the whole law was by immediate revelation from God, or no part
of it was so, since Moses equally professed to receive the whole
from God ; and the many extraordinary miraculous attestations
that were given to it, if they confirmed that. law at all, extended
equally to the confirmation of the whole.
Before I enter on the particular consideration of what this writer
offers on this head, I shall first show that the apostle Paul did
himself believe, and all along in the plainest manner suppose and
assert, that the law of Moses was originally a divine institution or
revelation from God. And no words can be more strong and full
to this purpose than that remarkable passage, 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16.
He is there writing to his beloved Timothy a little before his own
death, whom this author represents as the only teacher in that age,
who heartily joined with the apostle Paul as his faithful helper and
fellow-labourer, p. 72. And was of the same opinion with him in
the controversy concerning the law of Moses, in opposition to the
Christian Jews. The apostle might therefore use freedom with
48 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE
him, and was under no temptation to disguise his sentiments to
him, as our author insinuates he was frequently obliged to do on
other occasions. And he there commends Timothy, for that from
a child he had known the Holy Scriptures; and declares that they
were able to make him wise unto salvation. Where by the holy
Scriptures he incontestably refers to the writings of the Old Testa-
ment, viz. those of Moses and the prophets, which were the only
Scriptures Timothy could have been acquainted with from his
childhood. And he adds, that all Scripture (or the whole Scrip-
ture) ' is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.' No
declaration can possibly be plainer for the divine authority and
inspiration of Moses and the prophets, whose writings he mani-
festly understands by what he there calls the Scripture. And in-
deed nothing is more usual with this apostle in all his epistles, than
when he brings passages out of the law of Moses to call it the
Scripture, and cite it as of divine authority ; see Rom. iv. 3, ix.
17 ; Gal. iii. 8, iv. 30 ; 1 Tim. v. 8. And having occasion to men-
tion a particular command of the law of Moses, and which seemed
to be of a civil nature, he supposes that God gave that command,
1 Cor. ix. 9. He mentions it as the signal advantage of the Jews
above the Gentiles, ' that unto them were committed the oracles of
God,' Rom. iii. 1, 2. And of those oracles the law of Moses was
certainly regarded as a principal part, Acts vii. 38. And again,
that to them, viz. the Jews,' pertained the covenant, and the giving
of the law, and the service of God,' Rom. ix. 4, where he evidently
refers to the Levitical Service and worship. In the whole epistle
to the Hebrews, where it is his great design to show the supreme
excellency of the evangelical dispensation above the Mosaical, he
all along evidently supposes the law of Moses, and the manner of
worship and divine service there prescribed, to have been originally
from God, and of divine appointment. He expressly saith, that
' Christ Jesus was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses
was faithful in all his house,' Heb. iii. 2, 5. Where it is undeni-
ably evident, that he supposes that God sent and appointed Moses
as truly as he did Jesus Christ, and that Moses was faithful, and
kept close to what God had appointed. With respect particularly
to the Levitical priesthood, he supposes this to have been of divine
institution, and that Aaron was called of God to be high priest,
and did not take this honour unto himself, Heb. v. 4, and viii. 5,
he saith, ' the priests under the law serve to the example and sha-
dow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he
was about to make the tabernacle; for see, (saith he) that thou
make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the
mount.' Where he expressly represents Moses as receiving orders
from God by divine revelation relating to the sanctuary and priest-
hood. And when he set himself to prove Heb. viii., that the first
covenant, that is, the Mosaical economy was abolished, he still sup-
poses at the same time, that it had God for its author, as well as
the second more excellent and perfect dispensation that was to
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 49
succeed it. And this also appears from the quotation he produced
from the prophet Jeremiah to prove it ; ' Behold the days come,
saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house
of Judah, not according to the covenant which I made with their
fathers, when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the
land of Egypt,' Heb. viii. 8, 9, 10 ; see also Heb. ix 20. Where
it is plainly implied and asserted that God was the author of the
first covenant, made with the children of Israel by the hand of
Moses.
From all this I think it is evident as the plainest words can
make it, that the apostle Paul still represents the Mosaical law,
and particularly that part of it relating to the priesthood and cere-
monies to have been originally a divine institution. And indeed
in this belief he only followed the sentiments of his great Lord
and Master Jesus Christ, who in all his discourses to the people
and to his own disciples, whenever he hath occasion to mention
the law of Moses, always speaks of it in a manner that shows
he regarded it as originally of divine appointment. He declares
in the most express manner that he 'came not to destroy the law
and the prophets, but to fulfil them ;' that is, he came not to
deny and subvert their divine authority, but to fulfil the true and
proper design and end of them ; to confirm and perfect the moral
precepts, to fulfil and give the substance of the types and cere-
monies, which the apostle tells us were the ' shadow of good things
to come, but the body is of Christ,' and to accomplish the pre-
dictions there contained. And he declares that ' till heaven and
earth pass away, one jot or tittle should not pass away from the
law till all be fulfilled,' Matt. v. 17, 18 ; Luke xvi. 17. And I do
not know whether any words could more strongly assert its divine
original, and that no part of it should fail of its just accomplish-
ment. He severely reproves the Pharisees for ' teaching for doc-
trines the commandments of men,' and making 'void the law of
God by their traditions / and by the law of God he understands the
commandments given by Moses, which he there calls the com-
mandments of God, and the word of God, in opposition to human
inventions and traditions, Markxii. 3, 9, 13. In the remarkable pa-
rable of the rich man and Lazarus, he refers them to the law of Moses
and the prophets, as exhibiting a sufficient signification of the
divine will, and that if they did not hear, that is, believe and obey
them, neither would they ' be persuaded though one rose from the
dead,' Luke xvi. 29 31. He tells the Sadducees, that they
erred, ' not knowing the Scriptures, and the power of God/ and
he explains what he means by the Scriptures, by referring to the
book of Moses, Mark xii. 24 26. And lastly, after his resurrec-
tion, when ' beginning at Moses and the prophets, he expounded
to his disciples in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself/
Luke xxiv. 39. And again, when he said to them, 'These are the
words which I spake unto you, whilst 1 was with you, that all
things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses,
a nd in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me/ ver. 44,
E
50 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
45. Can any thing be a plainer proof, that he would have his dis-
ciples regard the writings of Moses and the prophets as of divine
original, and containing a true revelation from God ? .
Having thus shown that the apostle Paul, in conformity to the
example of our blessed Saviour himself, asserted the divine original
of the law of Moses, let us now consider the account this writer
gives of the- opinion of that great apostle in this matter, by whose
judgment he pretends he is willing to be determined.
He represents it as the sense of the apostle Paul, that ' the ritual
and ceremonial law of Moses was carnal, worldly, and deadly, and
in its original, proper and literal sense had neither any thing of
truth or goodness in it, but was a blinding enslaving constitution,
and such an intolerable yoke of darkness and bondage, tyranny
and vassalage, wrath and misery, that neither they nor their fathers
were able to bear. And how St. Paul could declare all this, witli
any notion or belief of the ritual ceremonial law and priesthood, as
a divine institution or revelation from God, he would be glad to
know, pp. 29, 30, and he asks, p. 32, whether .God can ' establish
iniquity by a law/ or whether a law, -which in St. Paul's opinion
introduced and confirmed a state of civil and religious blindness
and bigotry, tyranny and slavery, could in the same judgment have
been originally a divine institution and an immediate revelation
from God ? and he observes that it was not only the abuses of the
law that he lays his charge against, but that it was the law itself,
in its own intrinsic constitution and natural tendency, that in St.
Paul's language and style was ' carnal, worldly,' and ' deadly.'
He thinks these to be plain declarations that ' such a law could
never be of divine institution, and consequently there needed no
new revelation to set it aside,' pp. 51,52. And whereas, 'St.
Paul argues for setting aside the obligation of the ceremonial law,
because it was fulfilled, abolished, and done away, by the death of
Christ ; and because the law having been originally intended only
as a figure and type of the better things to come, that is, of Christ
and the gospel dispensation, it was hereby to cease, and to be abo-
lished for ever :' this writer takes upon him to affirm, that ' he did
not argue thus from the truth of things, and on the foot of any re-
velation from God in that case made to him, but argued ad homi-
nem only against the Jews, as endeavouring upon prudential and
political principles to set aside that absurd, tyrannical, blinding,
and enslaving law of his country. For that the ceremonial law
never had any repeal or abrogation by any new revelation he thinks
is plain from the practice of St. Paul himself, who when he could
not carry this point of setting aside and abrogating the ceremonial
law; submitted to it as long as he lived, as did all the Jewish pro-
selytes in the apostolical times: he submitted to it, not as binding
the conscience in point of religion and acceptance with God, but in
his political capacity, as the law of his country, and as a matter of
human liberty. Whereas had he thought it an original, immediate,
positive institution from God, and afterwards nulled and abrogated
by the same authority, he could not have submitted to it, consist-
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 51
ent with his declared judgment and conscience/ p. 52 54. Fi-
nally he declares, that the truth is, ' St. Paul was the great free-
thinker of his age, the bold and brave defender of reason against
authority, in opposition to those who had set up a wretched scheme
of superstition, blindness and slavery, contrary to all reason and
common sense, and this under the specious pretence of a divine
institution and revelation from God,' p. 71.
Before I proceed to a distinct consideration of what this writer
here oflers, I would first observe what a strange representation he
makes of the apostle Paul, at the same time that he affects to com-
mend and to admire him, and pretends to have as good an opinion
of that great apostle as any man can have, p. 21. It cannot be
denied that in all his epistles he cites the Mosaical and prophetical
writings as of divine authority; he delivered those writings to all
the churches of the Gentiles among whom he preached, and whom
he instructed in the Christian religion, under the notion of Scrip-
ture, or divinely inspired writings ; and yet at the same time, ac-
cording to this author, he was persuaded that the law of Moses was
no revelation from God at all, but a pernicious imposture put upon
the world, in the name of God ; a mere piece of carnal policy, and
one of the most absurd and tyrannical and unreasonable constitu-
tions that were ever imposed upon any nation. Again, he declared
that many of the rites of the law of Moses, in their original inten-
tion, were of a figurative and typical nature, designed to prefigure
Christ, and his benefits, and to be ' the shadow of good things to
come ;' whereas, according to this writer he himself knew and be-
lieved that they had no such original intention and design at all.
'He insisted upon it that he had received an immediate revelation
from God' concerning the abrogating the ceremonial law, as our
author himself acknowledges, p. 79, and yet he represents him as
having proceeded wholly upon political and prudential principles ;
and that he himself well knew he had received no revelation from
God at all relating to that matter, but only made the Jews believe
so, that he might the better carry his point with them. I cannot
see how a man that could prevaricate at so strange a rate, could
deserve to be called a ' bold and brave defender' of religion and
liberty ; or how this is consistent with the character he elsewhere
gives of him, that he ' was a man of the strictest honesty and inte-
grity/ p. 69. I know not what scheme of morals our moral philo-
sopher bath formed to himself for the regulating of his own con-
duct; but such a conduct is no way suitable to the character of the
apostle Paul, or the principles upon which he acted. He was far
from allowing that maxim, that it is lawful ' to do evil that good
may come of it.' He rejects the imputation of it with the utmost
abhorrence, and passes a most severe censure on those that govern
themselves by such maxims, for he pronounces that their ' damna-
tion is just,' Rom. iii. 8. Though he always showed the greatest
condescension and tenderness for weak consciences, yet he never
allowed himself in deliberate fraud and imposture, or to do things
contrary to truth and good conscience, under pretence of complying
E 2
52 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
with their prejudices. He manifested on all occasions an unshaken
and unparalleled fortitude and constancy in the cause of God, and
truth, and religion, even though he exposed himself by it to the
greatest sufferings. In a word, he could say, that his 'rejoicing
was this, the testimony of his conscience, that in simplicity and
godly sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, he
had his conversation in the world,' 2 Cor. i. 12. It is certain
therefore this excellent apostle was incapable of a conduct so little
reconcileable to truth or common honesty, as that which this
writer ascribes to him. And therefore those expressions in which
he seems to speak in disadvantageous terms of the law of Moses,
could never be intended by him in that sense which our author
thinks fit to put upon them, and which is directly contrary to his
declared sentiments.
But let us consider this matter more distinctly. It is plain that
the apostle Paul had a great controversy relating to the law of
Moses with some Judaizing teachers of that age, to which he refers
in almost all his epistles. There were many that had then con-
ceived a very high and extravagant opinion of that law, as so ab-
solutely perfect in itself that it was never to be changed or altered,
nor any of its rites abrogated ; but was to be of standing perpetual
obligation, and was to extend to all nations; that a strict observance
of all the commands and ritual disjunctions there prescribed, was
the only way of justification and obtaining the favour of God, and
that without this the Gentiles themselves could not be saved. This
was the doctrine of the persons mentioned, Acts xv. 24, and of
those against whom the apostle argues in his epistle to the Gala-
latians, who constrained the Christian converts to be circumcised,
and to observe the Law, that is, obliged them to it as absolutely
necessary to salvation, even though they had been Gentiles.
Now in opposition to these persons St. Paul doth not allege, as
this author would have it, that the law of Moses was not originally
of Divine institution. For this he all along supposes, yea, and
directly and strongly asserts it, as hath been shown ; but that it
was never designed to be of perpetual obligation ; that it was an
imperfect dispensation, suited to the imperfect state of the Church,
and fell greatly short of the clear light, the spiritual glory, and
perfect liberty of the Gospel. That in the intention of God, and
in its original proper design, the law was a temporary subservient
dispensation, designed to make way for a more pure and spiritual
and perfect dispensation, of which Christ was the author. That
therefore these false teachers greatly mistook and perverted the
original design of that law, and the end for which it was given;
and that taken in their perverted sense, and as opposed by them to
the grace of the Gospel, it would prove of bad consequence to
those that put their trust in it, and expected justification from it.
But he abhors the charge as if he supposed the law to be sin, or to
bring death in its own nature, see Rom. vii. 7 13, which yet is
the representation this writer thinks fit to make of the apostle's
sense; as if he held the law to be in itself deadly, and that the es-
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 53
tablishing the Mosaic constitution was ' establishing iniquity by a
law.' He expressly denies that in its original constitution and
design it was all ' against the promises of God/ Gal. iii. 21. And
upon the whole shows that it was designed for a time till ' the seed
should come, to whom the promise was made,' Gal. iii. 19, and its
rites and ordinances were ' imposed until the time of reformation/
Heb. ix. 10; that is, till the introducing that more perfect dispen-
sation to which the other was intended to be subservient and pre-
paratory. That the Jews were kept under it, shut up, or separated
from other nations, under its strict discipline and injunctions, ' till
the faith should be revealed,' Gal. iii. 23. And that now Christ
was come, he hath ' abolished the law of commandments,' and
hath taken down the ' partition wall' between Jews and Gentiles,
Eph. xi. 15; so that now we are no longer ' under the law,' but
' under grace,' Rom. vi. 14. This is evidently the apostle Paul's
scheme, the doctrine which he teacheth with regard to the law of
Moses. In which, directly contrary to what the writer alleges, it
is plainly supposed that the law of Moses was originally a divine
institution or revelation from God, which was afterwards abolished
and set aside by another revelation : though it was not so imme-
diately and expressly abolished as to render it absolutely unlawful
for any persons at that time to observe those legal rites. The
apostle Paul was for showing great condescension to those be-
lieving Jews, who though they looked for salvation through the
mercy of God in Jesus Christ, yet from a conscientious scruple
were for observing the Mosaical rites themselves, but did not impose
them upon the Gentiles. And he thought it lawful on some occa-
sions to observe those rites himself in condescension to their in-
firmities. And his practice and sentiments in this matter were
agreeable to those of the other apostles. Whilst in the mean time
care was taken by the doctrine they all taught, to remove the pre-
judices of the Jewish Christians, and to give them a full view of
the liberty with which Christ came to make them free. But I
shall have occasion to consider this at large, and set the conduct of
the apostle Paul and the other apostles in a proper light, and show
the harmony there was between them, when I come more particularly
to examine the objections the author raises on this head against
the New Testament.
Let us consider what he produces to prove, that St. Paul, con-
trary to his own express declarations, did not look upon the law of
Moses to be of divine original. And what he seems chiefly to
insist upon is the disadvantageous character the apostle gives of
that law, representing it as a ' yoke of bondage,' and its ordinances
as c carnal,' &c. But it is not hard to account for the manner in
which he speaks of the law of Moses, if we keep his scheme and
design in view.
in St. Paul's opinion, ' an enslaving constitution contrary to the
54 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
natural rights and liberties of mankind, a state of civil and reli-
gious tyranny and slavery, an intolerable yoke which neither they
nor their fathers were able to bear.' It is to be observed that these
last expressions which the author ascribes to the apostle Paul, p. 29,
and which are at least as strong as any that he makes use of, were
used not by him but by St. Peter, Acts xv. 10; and yet this writer
himself will not pretend that Peter intended by these expressions
to signify that the law of Moses was not of divine original ; since
all along he supposes him to be at the head of the Judaizing Chris-
tians, who stood up for the divine authority and obligation of that
law in opposition to St. Paul. All that he intends to signify by
this manner of expression, is only that the ritual injunctions and
ceremonies of the law were difficult and burdensome in the observ-
ance ; and it is a way of speaking common almost to all languages
for persons to be said not to be able to bear a thing which they
cannot bear without great labour and difficulty. And yet those
numerous rites prescribed in the law, however burdensome they
might be in the observance, were instituted for very wise ends and
valuable purposes, and were very proper for the state of the Church
and people to whom they were given. And this is what the apostle
Paul plainly signifies even in that very passage where he represents
the being ' under the law' as a state of ' bondage,' Gal. iv. 3, 9.
He had observed in the preceding chapter, ver. 24, 25, that ' the
law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, but after that
faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Where it is
evident that he speaks not merely of the moral law as the author
would have it, p. 26, but of the ceremonial law. And in pursuance
of the same metaphor he saith, ch. iv. 1 3, ' Now I say that the
heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant,
though he be Lord of all ; but is under tutors and governors, until
the time appointed of the Father, even so we when we were chil-
dren were in bondage under the elements of the world. Where it
is plain what he means by ' bondage,' not that the law is ' a blind-
ing enslaving constitution, contrary to the natural rights and liberties
of mankind,' but is such a bondage as an heir is under whilst he is
a child, the bondage of being under tutors and governors, and sub-
ject to a discipline, which, though it may seem hard and severe,
yet is useful and necessary ; so the various injunctions of the law,
though they might seem a troublesome yoke, yet were very useful
and well suited to the state of the Church, at the time in which it
was given. But as it would be wrong to keep the heir in such a
subjection, and under the discipline of a child, when he is out of
his non-age, and arrived to a state of maturity ; and it would argue
a very strange and mean temper of mind for him to be willing to
put himself under that pedagogy again, or to exercise himself in
his childish rudiments, when he had obtained his manly freedom ;
so it would be a strange conduct when. we are freed by the Gospel
from the paedagogy of the law, and brought under a more manly
and perfect dispensation to be willing to return to it again. On
this account he might justly expostulate as he does, ver. 9, ' How
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. Oa
turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, wliereunto ye
desire again to be in bondage ?' and ' Stand fast in the liberty
wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again
with the yoke of bondage/ ch. v. 1.
And whereas in the passage now cited, Gal. iv. 3, the apostle
calls the Mosaic rites the * elements of the world/ and ' weak and
beggarly elements/ and elsewhere calls its ordinances ' carnal or-
dinances/ Heb. ix. 10, it is evident that his clesigh is not to sig-
nify that the ceremonial law was not originally a divine institution,
but a ' mere piece of carnal worldly policy/ which is the inter-
pretation this writer puts upon those expressions : but as he com-
pares their being under the law to an heir's being under the dis-
cipline of tutors and governors whilst he is a child, so carrying on
the same metaphor he calls the Mosaic rites, the elements or rudi-
ments of the world. As an heir ' is under tutors and governors
until the time appointed of the Father ; even so when we were
children, were in bondage under the elements of the world/ It is
an allusion to the way of instructing children ; he calls them ' the
elements aroi-^ua ;' so the grammarians call the first principles or
letters, out of which the syllables are compounded that are after-
wards formed into words. So that he compares the being under
the legal rites, to children's beginning first to learn their letters,
or being entered into their first rudiments. And he calls them
' the elements' or 'rudiments of the world/ to signify that with
respect to the matter of them they were taken from the things of
this world, and were of an inferior earthly nature compared with
the more sublime and spiritual dispensation of the Gospel. Under
the law the people were instructed in a manner suitable to their
state of childish weakness ; for they were as yet imperfect and
rude in the knowledge of religion, nor fitted for the simplicity of a
pure and spiritual institution, in which there were but few external
rites. It pleased God, therefore, to deal with them as children,
and to exercise their obedience by employing them in many inferior
ritual services in condescension to their infirmity, till the proper
season came for their being raised to a more pure and noble and
spiritual worship. Maimonides gives pretty much the same ac-
count, and yet, I believe, nobody will pretend to say that he denied
the law of Moses to be of divine original, or looked upon it to be a
mere piece of carnal worldly policy. He supposes that as God did
not bring the Israelites directly, and all at once into Canaan, but
after a long circuit through the wilderness, so he did not give the
people the best and most exalted scheme of religion at first, but
such as they were capable of. He condescended to their weakness,
and brought them on gradually as they could bear it, that they
might arrive at last to the thing he principally aimed at, right ap-
prehensions of him, and the effectual forsaking of idolatry. This
is the substance of a remarkable passage in Maimonides, More
Nevoch. p. iii. cap. 32. And in the same chapter he also ob-
serves, that as because animals, when they are born are tender and
not fit to be nourished with dry or strong meat, therefore God
56 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
hath provided milk for them, that by such a kind of moist diet
suited to the temperament of their bodies they might be nourished,
till by degrees they obtain strength and firmness ; so there is some-
thing like this in the manner of government of the great and good
God with regard to several things in the law. And he applies this
observation particularly to some of the rites there prescribed, and
to the pompous external way of worship by priests, temple, and
sacrifices, which he supposes to be instituted in condescension to
their weakness, because the people could not then bear a more
spiritual and exalted way of worship.
It appears then that in the judgment of the wisest among the
Jews themselves, who are most zealous for the divine authority of
the law of Moses, the representation the apostle Paul makes of
the comparative imperfection of the law of Moses as a dispensation
suited to the weakness and to the imperfect state of the Church and
people at that time, was not inconsistent with the belief of its
having been originally appointed by God himself. But especially
the consistency of this appears if it be farther considered that the
apostle represents the legal rites not only as instituted in conde-
scension to their weakness, but at the same time as designed and
contrived by divine wisdom to be ' shadows and types of good
things to come,' and preparatory to a more excellent and perfect
state of things that was to be introduced under the Messiah.
When, therefore, he calls the legal rites ' weak and beggarly
elements or rudiments,' he speaks in opposition to those who ex-
travagantly extolled these rites as in themselves so perfect and ex-
cellent, that they were never to be abolished, or to give way to a
more perfect dispensation. And it is in the same view that he de-
clares concerning the law, that it was ' weak and unprofitable,'
Heb. vii. 18, 19. * There was a disannulling of the commandment
going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.' He
doth not intend by this to intimate as if it was in its original design ab-
solutely unprofitable and good for nothing; for we find that elsewhere
in answer to that question, ' What advantage then hath the Jew ? or
what profit is there in circumcision ?' he answers, 'much every way!
chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God,'
Rom. iii. 1, 2 ; and by the oracles of God we are there in a special
manner to understand the law of Moses, who, as St. Stephen speaks,
' received the lively oracles to give unto us,' Acts vii. 38. But
what the apostle means by there calling the law especially re-
lating to the piiesthood ' weak and unprofitable,' he himself ex-
plains in the words immediately following : for he adds, ' that the
law made nothing perfect/ and a little before he had showed that
* perfection was not by the Levitical priesthood,' ver. 2. His design
is to signify that the Mosaical economy was never intended to be
the last and most perfect dispensation, and therefore it was wrong
to set it up as of absolute necessity, and of universal and perpetual
obligation ; but it was designed to prepare and make way for a
more glorious and perfect dispensation which was to succeed it.
In like manner, when he calls the ordinances under the law
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 57
' carnal ordinances, StfccuwjuaTti crapKoe, ordinances of the flesh/ or
relating to the flesh, Heb. ix. 10 : his meaning is not as this writer
seems willing to understand it, as if they were in themselves of an evil
corrupt nature and tendency, which is sometimes the import of the
word carnal in Scripture, but merely as he himself explains it,
ver. 13, that they ' sanctified to the purifying of the flesh,' and
could not of themselves, and by any virtue of their own, purge the
soul or conscience from sin, but were the types and shadows of
greater and better things ; and therefore in that very passage he
supposes them to be ' imposed till the times of reformation,' that
is, till the bringing in of a more perfect scheme of religion, for
which the other was designed to be preparatory.
The same observation may be applied to that passage where he
calls the law establishing the Levitical priesthood ' the law of a
carnal commandment,' he is far from intending to signify by that
expression that it was a mere political engine and human invention ;
for he evidently supposes that commandment to be from God in
the very passage where he calls it a ' carnal commandment;' but
he calls it so because it related to a priesthood managed by frail
mortal men, and was a commandment of a temporary nature. That
this is his meaning there is evident from the opposition he puts be-
tween ' the law of a carnal commandment and the power of an
endless life,' Heb. vii. 16, where he saith, 'That Christ was made
a priest, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the
power of an endless life.' And again, ver. 28, ' the law maketh
men high-priests which have infirmity ; but the word of the oath
which was since the law, maketh the Son, who was consecrated
for evermore.
Upon the whole, if we will allow the apostle Paul to explain
himself, it manifestly appears, that when he speaks of the law of
Moses in seemingly disparaging terms, it never was his intention by
any of those expressions, to insinuate that the law of Moses was
not of divine original, for he every where supposes that it was or-
dained and appointed by God himself; but in opposition to those
who set it up for a complete and perfect dispensation, he shows
the comparative imperfection of it when set in competition with
that more perfect dispensation which our Saviour introduced by
the Gospel, and to which it was designed to be preparatory. Thus
he saith speaking of the Mosaical economy, that ' that which was
glorious had no glory in this respect by reason of the glory that
excelleth,' 2 Cor. iii. 10, where he represents it as having ' no
glory,' not absolutely, for he there expressly saith that it ' was
glorious ;' but it had no glory when compared to the more perfect
excelling glory of the Gospel dispensation. In like manner the
other expressions he makes use of with regard to the law are not
to be understood in a strict and absolute, but in a comparative
sense.
But this writer further argues, that the apostle Paul could not
look upon the law of Moses to be of divine institution, because he
teaches things directly contraiy to that law. He says, ' the plain
58 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
truth of the matter was, that St. Paul preached a new doctrine
contrary to Moses and the prophets,' p. 41. But it is certain that
if the apostle Paul himself may be depended on for giving a right
account of his own sentiments, ' He believed all things which are
written in the law and the prophets,' Acts xxiv. 14; and he said,
' none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did
say should come,' Acts xxvi. 22. He preached a new doctrine in-
deed, and published a new dispensation, but not contrary unto, but
perfectly consistent with Moses and the prophets, to which they
were designed to be preparatory and subservient.
But let us see how he proves the charge. He goes on to say, 'that
there is not one end, use, or purpose of the ritual law as declared
by Moses, but what is directly contradicted and denied by this
apostle.' This he proves. ' first, because Moses delivered the whole
law to the Israelites as a perpetual standing ordinance or everlast-
ing covenant between God and them throughout all their gene-
rations to the end of the world ; St. Paul, on the contrary, declares
it to be only an occasional temporary thing, never intended for per-
petuity, but to last only for a few ages,' p. 241. But it does not
appear from Moses that the law was designed for perpetuity, so as
never to give way to another dispensation, as if God himself .would
never change or abrogate any of these laws ; nor does he any where
say, as this writer represents it, that the law was to continue to be
observed by them ' to the end of the world.' That the Hebrew
phrase which we translate for ' ever' and ' everlasting,' does not
always signify a perpetual duration, or a duration to the end of
the world, is so well known, that it is unworthy of any man that
pretends to learning to draw an argument merely from those ex-
pressions. If Moses had expressly called the whole law ' an ever-
lasting covenant,' which he nowhere does, no argument could be
drawn from it to show that it was intended to continue to the end
of the world. To Abraham's seed the land of Canaan is promised
for * an everlasting possession,' Gen. xxvii. 8 ; and yet Moses ex-
pressly foretels that they should be expelled that land ' and scat-
tered among all nations.' Nor does that other phrase, ' throughout
all their generations, prove that it was designed to be of perpetual
and unalterable obligation ; though Moses never uses that word
' throughout all their generations,' speaking of the observation of
the law or any of its ordinances, but only that it should be observed
' throughout their generations,' or as it is often expressed, ' in their
generations.' And that this phrase is not necessarily to be under-
stood of a perpetual duration, or a duration to the end of the world,
is evident from many passages. Thus the psalmist observes, speak-
ing of rich worldlings, ' their inward thought is that their houses
shall continue for ever, and their dwelling places to all generations,'
Psalm xlix. 11. Not as if they thought their houses would con-
tinue in strictness to the end of the world, which no man in his
senses could once suppose, but that they should continue for a
long time to them and to their posterity after them. See also
Lev. xxv. 29, 30. It was not proper that it should be expressly
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 59
declared in the law itself that it was an occasional temporary dis-
pensation only to continue for a time. This might have diminished
their regard for the law, and they might, upon this pretence, have
thrown off the observance of it before the proper season came. The
plain design of those phrases, that they were to observe the legal
ordinances ' for ever,' and ' throughout their generations,' was to
signify to them that they were to observe them always in their suc-
cessive generations, till God should signify his will to the contrary;
that it was to last for ever, so as never to be abrogated by any
human authority ; nor were the people themselves to cast off the
obligation of it merely by an act of their own upon any pretence
whatsoever. But that they might expect a new law and new in-
junctions from God, Moses himself signifies to them as plainly as
was proper for him in that remarkable passage, Deut. xviii. 17 19,
where he tells the people that the Lord their God would ' raise up
from the midst of them a prophet like unto him,' and that unto
him should ' they hearken ,-' and that ' God would put his words
into his mouth,' and ' he should speak unto them all that God
should command him ; and that it should come to pass, that who-
soever would not hearken unto his words, God would require it of
him.' It is expressly said concerning the ordinary subsequent
prophets which ' arose in Israel, that none of them was like unto
Moses,' Deut. xxxiv. 13 ; and God himself declares how -much
Moses was superior to the other prophets, Numb. xii. 5 8 ; but
here Moses tells the people that God would raise up from among
them a ' prophet like unto him,' that is, not an ordinary prophet,
but one of peculiar eminence, that should, like Moses, give them
laws in the name of God himself, and to whom they were indis-
pensably obliged to hearken, and to pay an entire obedience. This
was sufficient to have directed them to look for another law-giver,
and might naturally lead their thoughts to the promised Messiah,
of whom they had an expectation derived to them from their fathers.
And afterwards, as the time drew nearer, the abolition of the law
of Moses was more plainly signified. The prophets indeed intimated
clearly enough that a new dispensation was to be introduced, and a
new covenant, different from that which ' God made with their
fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt,' Jer. xxxi.
31, 32. The ceasing of the Aaronical priesthood, and consequently
of the law of Moses, is signified, when it is foretold with the greatest
solemnity that God would raise up a glorious person ' to be a priest
for ever after the order of Melchisedek,' Ps. ex. 4, Heb. vii. 12 ;
and that God's name should be great among the Gentiles, * from
the rising of the sun to the going down of the same,' and that in
' every place incense should be offered to his name and a pure
offering,' Mai. i. 2, which supposes the law of Moses abrogated,
which confined the offering up of incense to the sanctuary and
temple. And indeed the very nature of the law itself, according to
which a considerable part of the ordinances and rites there pre-
scribed were'to be entirely confined to the land of Canaan, and not
to be observed any where out of that land, sufficiently shows that
60 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
it was not originally designed to be of invariable continuance,
nor fitted in the nature of the thing for universal and perpetual
obligation.
Again, another instance produced by this writer of the apostle
Paul contradicting Moses is this : ' That Moses every where most
expressly establishes propitiations and atonements for sin by the
blood of beasts, and declares upon the action of the priest in sprink-
ling the sacrificial blood, the atonement should be made, and the
offence forgiven; and ordains daily and annual sacrifices for the
sins of the whole people, and this without the least hint or inti-
mation of any type or farther reference. But St. Paul, on the con-
trary, declares it is impossible for the blood of bulls or goats ' to
take away sins ;' and condemns this literal sense of the law as a
scheme of natural blindness and bondage that cannot consist
either with the civil or religious rights or liberties of mankind.'
That Moses establishes propitiations and atonements for sin by
the blood of beasts, will be readily acknowledged ; and if this
author could prove that the apostle Paul denies that such sacrifices
had been ever appointed by God at all, this would contradict Moses,
who prescribes them as of divine appointment. But on the con-
trary, it is evident that the apostle all along supposes that these
sacrifices had been appointed by God himself through the ministry
of Moses. He represents them, indeed, as now abolished, but this
is only to say, that the Mosaic law is no longer obligatory, and
that God hath not thought fit to require those sacrifices under the
New Testament. As to what he adds, ' that Moses declares that the
atonement should be made and the offence forgiven upon the action
of the priest in sprinkling the sacrificial blood, without the least
hint or intimation of any type or farther reference. Whereas the
apostle declares it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to
take away sin.' The apostle himself plainly shows us how to re-
concile these, by declaring that the gifts and sacrifices under the
law ' sanctified to the purifying of the flesh ;' and this external
atonement is what Moses intends as the immediate consequence of
the priests sprinkling the blood. The person thereupon was legally
clean and free, but he never intended to signify that merely upon
the outward act done of the priest's sprinkling the sacrificial blood,
the man's conscience was immediately purged from the guilt of sin,
without repentance and new obedience. For the necessity of re-
pentance and obedience in order to forgiveness and acceptance with
God is strongly represented in the law. The case then with respect
to those sacrifices stands thus : The outward act of offering the
sacrifice, and the priests sprinkling the blood when done as the
law prescribes, was an external atonement or expiation, by which
the person was outwardly and legally cleansed from the guilt he had
contracted. Besides which to the truly penitent and sincere this
rite was an outward sign or pledge of God's pardon and acceptance.
And if the apostle Paul may be allowed a better interpreter of the
design of those sacrifices than this writer, one great end for which
they were instituted was to prefigure that of Christ, and by those
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 61
typical atonements to prepare them for that great propitiation of
infinite virtue which he was to offer for the sins of the world. And
if this was one primary intention of that part of the Mosaic law,
it gives us a more comprehensive view of the wisdom of this con-
stitution. It shows those sacrifices to have been originally ap-
pointed by God himself, and that the great end of them is now
fulfilled, and consequently that this part of the law of Moses, in-
stead of being contrary to the Gospel, was designed to be subser-
vient to it. And as to the exception he makes that Moses himself
gives no intimation of any type or farther reference, it shall be con-
sidered afterwards when I come more particularly to examine what
he offers concerning the mystical sense of that law.
The next instance he produceth to prove that the law of Moses
is contradicted and denied by the apostle Paul is absolutely mis-
represented. For it nowhere appears that * Moses commanded all
idolatry to be exterminated by fire and sword, not only in Canaan,
but all the rest of the world, as far as his people should have it in
their power, of which he was very confident,' And as to the par-
ticular law about the punishment of idolaters in the Jewish com-
monwealth, this, with the author's pretence that it is inconsistent
with the rights of private judgment and liberty of conscience, shall
be considered afterwards.
The last instance he produceth to show the contradiction and
inconsistency between the doctrine of the apostle Paul, and the
law of Moses, amounts to no more than this, ' that the Levitical
order of priesthood is now abolished, and that the apostle Paul de-
clares it to be so;' which will be easily granted. But at the same
time, it is certain that even when he argues that the priesthood is
now changed, he still plainly shows that he looked upon it to have
been originally of divine appointment. And though he nowhere
expressly declares in what particular way the Christian ministiy is
to be maintained, yet it is not true, as this author alleges, that he
' leaves the Christian ministry to subsist only upon charity,' if by
that he meant that it is a matter of mere courtesy ; for it is certain
he insists upon it as a matter of right, and declares that the ' Lord
hath ordained that those that preach the Gospel should live of the
Gospel.'
The author might, at this rate of arguing, have produced most
of the particular constitutions of the law of Moses which are no
longer in force under the Gospel, and from thence have argued a
contradiction and inconsistency between the Gospel and the law.
But all that follows from it is, that the legal economy is now ab-
rogated with its peculiar rites and injunctions. But it does not
follow that therefore our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles believed
that it was not originally of divine institution : except it could be
proved that God can never give any occasional injunctions, which
are to last only for a time ; or that all his laws must be as himself
immutable ; or that that cannot be fit and proper at one time, or
m one circumstance of things, which is not so in another : the con-
trary to which this writer himself acknowledges, p. 207, where,
62 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
having observed ' that all wise states and governments have ever
found it necessary to abrogate and alter the old, or to enact new
laws, according to mutable and variable relations and circumstances
of persons in Society,' he adds, that ' this will equally hold good,
when applied to the laws of God himself. For what God would
require at one time under such particular relations and circum-
stances, he would not require at another time under other relations,
and quite different or contrary circumstances.' From whence it is
manifest that his argument to show an inconsistency between the
law of Moses and the Christian religion is explained by St. Paul,
because many things that were required in the one are abrogated
by the other, hath nothing in it. It doth not follow that the
Mosaic economy was not instituted by God, because many of its rites
and constitutions were abrogated and superseded by a succeeding
dispensation ; when the circumstances of things were much altered
from what they were at the first giving of the law, and the design
for which that particular economy had been erected was answered
and fulfilled.
I shall conclude this chapter with observing that this writer, in
order to show an inconsistency between the law of Moses and the
Gospel, absolutely denies any mystical or typical sense of the law
of Moses, or that any of its rites had, in their original intention,
any farther reference than the bare letter.
He asks, ' Whether there can be found any reason or foundation
in all the writings of Moses, or his commentators the prophets, for
that typical, figurative, and allegorical sense of the legal priest-
hood, sacrifices, and ceremonies which St. Paul supposes and argues
upon in his reasonings against the Jews, in order to set aside this
priesthood, and the law of ceremonies depending upon it, as ful-
filled and accomplished in Christ T And observes, in the passage
I mentioned before, that ' Moses establishes propitiations and
atonements for sin by the blood of beasts, and ordains sacrifices,
without the least hint or intimation of any type or farther reference,'
p. 41. And therefore he concludes that ' St. Paul's rejecting and
renouncing the ceremonial law in its literal sense, when Moses had
delivered and inforced it in no other sense was a plain declaration
that such a law could never be of divine institution,' p. 51. But it
is not true that the apostle Paul condemned and renounced the
ceremonial law in its literal sense, if by that he meant that he sup-
posed its rites literally taken not to have been instituted by God ;
for he all along supposes that even literally taken the legal rites
and ordinances were of divine appointment, and were imposed upon
the Jews by a divine authority to be observed by them ' until the
times of reformation :' that is, till the last and most perfect dispen-
sation should be introduced under the Messiah. But he argues
that beside the literal they had a mystical sense, and that in in-
stituting them the divine wisdom had a farther view, and designed
them as types and figures of greater and better things under that
more perfect dispensation that was to succeed.
And let us see what this. author offers to prove that it was not
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 63
so. All his long discourse about the typical mystical sense of the
law, amounts to no more than this. That ' there is not the least
hint in the writings of Moses, or his commentators the prophets, of
any such typical sense or reference ; that such a mystical sense of
the law and prophets was never known nor heard of among the
Jews till after the days of Ezra, when the Jewish cabalists put what
sense they pleased on those writings ; and when they could not
prove the new doctrines they advanced (amongst which he reckons
that of the resurrection, a general judgment, and a state of future
rewards and punishments) by the original literal sense of those
writings, they introduced a mystical allegorical sense of their
original books, and pretended an oral tradition to justify their
arbitrary interpretations. That the apostle Paul and Christ himself
argued with the Jews in their own way, and upon their own con-
cessions, and justified the Gospel scheme upon the foot of Moses
and the prophets, not from the proper original sense of the prophets
themselves, but by mystical allegorical interpretations, for which
there was really no foundation in ths writings themselves of Moses
and the prophets. And he asks why might not they take up the
same principles against such men to introduce 'and establish the
true religion, which they had made use of and applied to establish,
and perpetuate a false one ?' This is the sum of what he saith
from p. 43 51.
But if we should grant that there is no hint of any such
mystical typical sense or reference in the law of Moses or the pro-
phets, this would not prove that there was no such sense in the
original intention of the Holy Ghost in giving these laws. For
supposing such an original typical intention, it might not be proper
to declare this in the law itself, or to let the people directly and ex-
pressly know that its rites were typical, the shadows and figures of
good things to come under another and more perfect dispensation.
This might have diminished their regard to the law, and have ren-
dered them negligent in the observation of its injunctions, even
when it was proper for good reasons that they should be kept close
to the observation of them. Types might be originally intended,
though not then explained and understood when they were first in-
stituted. And there is no absurdity in supposing, that God whose
wisdom penetrates through all ages, had some ends in view in in-
stituting those rites and ceremonies, which he did not open all at
once, but which were to be understood in the proper season : and
particularly that he designed them among other ends, (for it is
not pretended that it is the only end) for types and figures of good
things to come, with a view that when the time came for accom-
plishing them, their apt correspondency might more fully appear.
And indeed the typical sense and reference could not be well un-
derstood till the antitype came, by comparing it with which, the
exact and beautiful harmony between both, and the wisdom of
God in appointing it so, might be fully manifest, And who so
proper in that case to explain the original sense intended by the
Holy Ghost, as those who' were inspired by the same divine Spirit ?
64 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
I shall therefore beg leave to suppose that our Lord Jesus Christ
and his apostles, particularly the apostle Paul, are more to be de-
pended on for a just account of the original sense of Moses and the
prophets, than this writer who confidently avers they had no such
original typical sense and reference, though Christ and his apostles
assure us they had.
But after all, it is not true, that there is not ' the least founda-
tion in the writings of Moses or his commentators the prophets for
that typical figurative sense of the legal priesthood, sacrifices and
ceremonies, which St. Paul supposes and argues upon in order
to set aside this priesthood, and the law of ceremonies depending
upon it, as fulfilled and accomplished in Christ.' There are several
hints concerning a Redeemer to come interspersed in the Mosaical
writings, and still more in those of the prophets. He had been
promised and foretold from the beginning at sundry times and in
divers manners. This was the principal thing intended in the pro-
mise made to Abrahan concerning ' all nations being blessed in his
seed,' and so Abraham himself understood it, who, if we may be-
lieve our Saviour, ' saw his day and was glad.' Jacob spoke of
him under the name of Shiloh. And the Israelites had derived
to them from the patriarchs an expectation of this glorious person
as one that should arise from among them. And this being the
case the most wise and understanding of them might be naturally
led to think that there was a farther view and reference to the
great eventj in many of the rites that were then prescribed, and in
that particular constitution and polity that was then erected, espe-
cially since Moses himself directed their views this way, by telling
them of ' another prophet whom God would raise up from the midst
of them like unto him,' to whom they were to pay an entire obedi-
ence, and to observe whatsoever laws or commands he should bring
them from God. The sacrifices, the chief part of the legal rites
and services, are sometimes spoken of in the Old Testament, with
a seeming contempt, as things in which God had no pleasure. It
is certain these expressions were not intended to signify that God
had not instituted or required those sacrifices at all : but it was na-
tural to conclude from those expressions, that they were not insti-
tuted merely for their own sakes, but had a farther view and refe-
rence. Thus particularly in the fortieth Psalm, ver. 5, 6, the per-
son there spoken of, after having plainly declared the insufficiency
of the legal sacrifices, adds concerning himself, ' Then said I, lo, I
come, in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to
do thy will, God.' Where he represents himself and his com-
ing, as written of in the law. And this I think can scarce be un-
derstood to relate to any but the Messiah ; of whom David often
speaks, and of whom the apostle interprets it, Heb. x. 5 9, and
if so, here is an instance to prove, that at the time when this
Psalm was composed, which was in the days of David, many ages
before Ezra, the law was understood, as having a reference to the
Messiah. And in that passage there is also a plain intimation
that the legal sacrifices were to cease, and to be abolished at the
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 65
Messiah's coming. But especially the liii. chapter of Isaiah, which
the most ancient Jews interpreted of the Messiah, and which indeed
cannot reasonably be .understood of any other, points to a farther
reference of the legal sacrifices, to be e fulfilled and accomplished
in Christ.' The prophet there speaks of him in phrases that pro-
perly related to sacrifices. As he describes the grievous sufferings
he was to endure, so he represents them as having an expiatory
virtue, and making an atonement for our sins. He represents him
as 'bearing our iniquities,' and making ' his soul an offering for sin,'
and that ' God laid upon him the iniquities of us all.' This ought
to have led the Jews to look beyond the legal sacrifices and obla-
tions, to that great propitiation of infinite virtue which was to be
offered for our sins in the fulness of time, and of which those sa-
crifices were only the imperfect figures and shadows : and what the
prophet here saith is perfectly agreeable to what St. Paul and the
other apostles so often represent concerning our Lord Jesus Christ,
as offering himself a ' sacrifice for our sins ' and doing that in re-
ality which the others only did in type and figure. Indeed the
prophets in all their writings have numberless references to the
Messiah, and there is no explaining many passages in those writ-
ings without such a reference. They often speak of things that
literally, and in the first sense relate to their own time in terms
which evidently have a farther view. And that they understood
and explained the prophecies before them as typical of the Mes-
siah, and often prophesied by types themselves, and intimated at
the very time of delivering those prophecies that they were to be
referred to him, is largely and fully shown in the bishop of Lich-
field's learned defence of Christianity from the ancient prophecies,
chap, iii.; sect. 1,2, 3,4. Whereas therefore this writer asserts
over and over with great confidence, that what he calls the ' figura-
tive spiritualizing sense' of the law and the prophets, was never
heard of among the Jews before the days of Ezra, and that it had
its first rise among the Jewish cabalistical doctors after that time :
the contrary is rather true, that all along from the beginning, the
law and the prophets were understood as containing a spiritual and
mystical sense, and as having a farther view and reference. When
Moses urges the people to ' circumcise the foreskin of their heart?,'
Beut. x. 16, and again, speaks of God's 'circumcising their hearts
that they might love him with all their heart and soul/ Deut.
xxx. 6; here is a plain instance of a 'spiritual sense' in the law
itself with regard to one of the principal rites there enjoined, the
solemn rite of initiation into that peculiar polity. He here plainly
directs them to carry their thoughts beyond the outward sign, and
intimates to them that it had a farther view, even to signify the
necessity of an inward purity, and of mortifying their corrupt affec-
tions and lusts. And indeed considering the frequent use of signs
and symbols among the eastern nations, especially in the early
ages, which were still supposed to contain some other significa-
tions under them, and to have a further view than the bare letter ;
and considering the high esteem they had of the great wisdom of
66 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
the law and the Mosaic institutions, every thing in which even the
most minute rites were regarded as prescribed by God himself; and
considering that an expectation of the Messiah, and of a more new
and more glorious state of things under him, was still kept up
among them : it was natural for them to think that there was a
farther view and reference in that variety of legal rites, and sacri-
fices, and ceremonies, beyond what appeared in the bare letter.
And it was because it had been all along a known and acknow-
ledged principle in their nation, that many things in the law and
the prophets had a farther view, that the Jewish doctors, after the
time of Ezra, when immediate inspiration ceased, and there were
no longer any extraordinary prophets among them, took occasion
to introduce their traditionary explications. And it is probable
some of these explications were agreeable to the true original sense
derived from the prophets themselves, as Dr. Prideaux supposes,
to whom -this writer is pleased to refer us. Though in process of
time they added many inventions, and arbitrary explications of
their own, which never were originally intended. They supposed
all along a frequent reference to the Messiah in the Mosaical and
prophetical writings, and so far they were right in general, aud
undoubtedly they were so in the sense they give of many parti-
cular passages. Some considerable remains there are of these ex-
plications in the most ancient and approved Jewish writings ;
though the modern Jews would fain give a different turn to them
to avoid the force of the arguments the Christians bring against them
from these interpretations that they were made by their ancestors.
It also appears from some passages in their approved writings, that
they expected their own law to be more fully opened to them at
the Messiah's coming, and the reason of several of their own rites
explained. See the above mentioned ' Defence of Christianity, pp.
409, 410.
Upon the whole, though this writer represents it, p. 19, as a
very ridiculous thing to suppose that what was more obscurely
hinted in the law and the prophets is more clearly revealed in the
gospel, and speaks in a gibing manner of ' those men of deep
penetration and discernment' that can see this ' sort of connexion
and harmony between the gospel and the law, and to whom it
appears just and beautiful,' p. 19. I can see nothing in it but what
is worthy of the wisdom of God, that he should at different times
and in different circumstances of things, make gradual discoveries
of his will ; and that he should so order former revelations as to
prepare the way for the latter, and the latter, so as to illustrate and
confirm the former ; and that what is more darkly and imperfectly
hinted at in the one, should be more clearly and fully delivered in
the other. Considered in this view and mutual reference, I must
own that both the Old Testament and the New appear to me with
a brighter glory, and derive mutual light and strength to one
another. And the gradual opening and unfolding of the divine
light in so many various views, has yielded great satisfaction in
the contemplation of it to men that truly deserved the character of
THE LAW OF JIOSES CONSIDERED. C7
persons of ' deep discernment and penetration,' with which this
writer sneeringly honours them. As God's sending his own Son
into the world for the redemption of mankind was the most
important event that ever was; so to consider it as having been
all along prefigured and foretold at sundry times and in divers
manners, sometimes more clearly and openly signified by express
predictions, sometimes more covertly by various types and figures,
so many things pointing this way through so long a succession of
ages, and all centering here ; gives a noble and comprehensive
view of this grand design, and shows one and the same important
scheme still uniformly carrying on, one wise presiding Spirit and
glorious divine Author, whose views extend through all ages. This
is truly glorious and worthy of the supreme wisdom, and it is not
an odd turn of expression, calling 'literal Christianity mystical
Judaism,' and ' literal Judaism figurative Christianity/ and a jingle
of the like phrases which the author makes use of to ridicule it,
that will show the absurdity of such a scheme as this. And it is
certain that what he ridicules is the very scheme advanced by our
Saviour himself and his apostles, particularly the apostle Paul.
He pretends indeed to apologize for them by alleging, that in this
they only made use of the false way of arguing that had obtained
amongst the Jews ; that is, he would have it thought, first that
they acknowledged and asserted the divine authority and inspira-
tion of Moses and the prophets, though at the same time they
believed them to be only false pretenders to inspiration ; and then
that they set up a sense of their writings which they themselves
very well knew was not their sense, and endeavoured to put that
false sense upon the Jews for the mind of the Holy Ghost. A
conduct which is too inconsistent with common honesty and inte-
frity, and with the known character of Christ and his apostles, to
e admitted.
I shall only farther observe, to show the great consistency of
this writer ; that though in this part of his book he so confidently
asserts and endeavours in many words to prove, that the prophetical
and Mosaical writings were never understood to have any mystical
sense till after the days of Ezra, when it had its first rise among
the Jewish Cabalists; yet he elsewhere expressly declares that
Moses and the prophets always wrote with a double intention, and
had a double sense ; the one literal and popular, the other to be
understood only by the wiser sort. And he blames the Jewish
nation for understanding the writings of Moses and the prophets
according to the letter, without entering into the spirit and design
of them, as he saith, ' St Paul hath evidently and irrefutably
proved,' p. 249, 251. It is true, he very absurdly applies this to
the historical narrations of facts which he would not have to be
understood literally : But it is certain the apostle Paul, who he
there pretends to believe hath evidently and irrefutably proved the
mystical sense of the law and the prophets, and hath shown that
the Jews did not enter into the true spirit and design of them,
understood this not with regard to the historical facts and narra-
F 2
68 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
lions, but to the legal rites and ordinances, and shows they had a
typical reference and a farther view. So that if he will be con-
cluded by the judgment of that great apostle in this matter, as he
pretends to be willing to be, there was such a sense originally
intended in the legal priesthood and sacrifices. And what then
must we think of this Author, who contradicts and denies what
by his own confession ' St. Paul hath evidently and irrefutably
proved ?'
As to the proof he brings to show that the mystical and spiritual
sense of the law and the prophets was never heard of before Ezra,
because before that period ' no Jewish writer, priest, or prophet
had ever mentioned a word of the resurrection, general judgment,
and state of future rewards and punishments, as the proper sanc-
tions of virtue and religion in this life, whereas all the Jewish
writings afterwards are full of them,' p. 46. This is entirely
misrepresented ; as I shall show when I come to consider what he
offers to prove, that all the Jews were * Deistical Materialists and
Sadducees,' and did not believe a future state, till after their
return from the Babylonish captivity.
CHAPTER IV.
TLe author's objections against the law of Moses from the internal constitution of that
law considered. His pretence that that law extended only to the outward practice
and behaviour of men in Society, and that the obligation of it with respect to civil
and social virtue extended no farther than to the members of that Society, and that
they were put into a state of war wth all the rest of the world. It is shown that
that law required an inward purity of heart and affections. The great tenderness
and humanity that appears in its precepts. It lequired a kind and benevolent
conduct, not only towards those of their own Society, but towards strangers. That
constitution not founded in the principles of persecution. It tolerated all that
worshipped the one true God, though not conforming to their peculiar rites and
usages. The punishing idolatry with death in the commonwealth of Israel ac-
counted for. No obligation by that law to extirpate idolatry, and destroy idolaters
in all other countries by fire and sword. His pretence that Moses directed the
Israelites to extend their conquests through all nations, and that their constitution
and plan of a government was contrived for it, examined. The contrary to this
shown. The military laws, Deut. xx. explained. Whether that law absolutely
prohibited all alliances with idolaters.
HAVING considered the author's objections against the law of
Moses drawn from the authority of St. Paul, and from the pre-
tended inconsistency between it and the gospel, I shall now
proceed to consider those objections of his that are taken from
the internal constitution of that Law, which he everywhere sup-
poses to be altogether unworthy of God, and therefore impossible
to be given by him. If his account be true, it was one of the
worst, the most absurd, and tyrannical constitutions in the world ;
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 69
' a wretched scheme of superstition, blindness and slavery, bigotry
and enthusiasm, that had nothing of truth or goodness in it, and
was contrary to all reason and common sense.' These and other
hard epithets of the like kind he liberally bestows upon the law
of Moses. Let us consider what he offers to support such severe
invectives.
And first, one of his objections against even the moral law given
by Moses to the people of Israel is, that as the law was consti-
tuted : ' All its sanctions being merely temporal, relating only to
men's outward practice and behaviour in society, and none of its
rewards or punishments relating to any future state ; it could only
relate to outward actions, and thereby secure civil virtue, and the
civil rights and properties of the Society, against such fraud or
violence, as might fall under a human cognizance ; but could not
relate to the inward principles and motives of action, whether
good or bad, and therefore could not purify the conscience,
regulate the affections, or correct and restrain the vicious desires,
inclinations, and dispositions of the mind, and this is what St.
Paul means, as often as he declares the weakness or insufficiency
of this law, to enforce or secure a state of inward zeal, virtue, or
.righteousness, with respect to God and conscience,' p. 27.
But it is capable of as clear a proof as any thing whatsoever,
(and our author himself is sensible of it, as is evident from what
he makes Tbeophanes his Christian Jew object against Philalethes
his moral philosopher, on this head, p. 33, &c.)> that the law of
Moses did not relate to the outward actions alone, but to the inward
principles and motives of action : and that ' Moses not only
always supposed,' as he grants, ' an inward right motive, or the
principle and disposition of love to God and our neighbour, as
necessary to constitute the true morality and religion of an action
with respect to God and conscience :' but that he directly and ex-
pressly, frequently, and in the strongest manner requires a right
disposition of the heart and mind ; and that this law was designed,
contrary to what this author asserts, ' to regulate the affections,
and to correct and restrain the vicious desires, inclinations, and
dispositions of the mind.' This is the evident intention of the
tenth commandment, which forbids not only outward evil actions,
but the inward irregular affections and motions of concupiscence.
This St. Paul takes notice of when he declares, that he should not
have been sensible that such desires were sinful, or that they
deserved death, if the law had not forbidden them, Rom. vii. 7,
and again, ver. 14, he saith, 'the law is spiritual,' by which he
evidently means that it extends to the inward dispositions of the
soul and spirit as well as to the outward actions, and forbids and
condemns all evil thoughts and inclinations. And the supposition
of this vast extent and spirituality of the law lies at the foundation
f his argument, that none can be justified by it; because none
can be found that yield a perfect obedience to its pure and excel-
lent precepts. This writer therefore plainly misrepresents St. Paul's
sense, when after having said that the law could only relate to
70 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
outward actions, and thereby secure civil virtue, but did not
relate to the inward principles or motives of action whether
good or bad, and therefore could not regulate the affections, re-
strain the vicious desires and 'inclinations of the mind, he adds,
that is what ' St. Paul means as often as he declares the weakness
or insufficiency of this law, to enforce or secure a state of inward
real virtue or righteousness with respect to God and conscience.'
p. 27. For the apostle by saying the law (if taken of the moral
law) is weak, doth not mean as this writer insinuates, that its
precepts relate only to the outward practice, and not to the inward
dispositions of. the heart and soul; for he expressly affirms that it
is spiritual, and doth relate to the inward desires and affections :
but he intends to show that the law was in itself unable to jus-
tify men, or entitle them to pardon and acceptance with God, and
give them a right to eternal life (which is what he means by jus-
tification), because it could only justify those that obeyed its
precepts, and no man doth perfectly obey it. So that it is weak,
as he expresses it, through the flesh; that is, it is unable to jus-
tify men, because of the present weakness and corruption of
human nature ; whereby it comes to pass that in many instances
they fall short of the pure and perfect obedience there required,
and therefore their acceptance and justification must be wholly
owing to the free grace and mercy of God, which is most clearly
and gloriously dispensed and manifested through Jesus Christ in
the gospel dispensation. ~"
The passages this writer himself in the person of Theophanes
refers to, clearly prove, that the law of Moses relates not merely
to the outward actions, or external behaviour of persons in society,
but to the inward dispositions of the heart, Deut. xii. 4, 5 : " Hear,
O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord ; and thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with
all thy might.' This excellent and comprehensive command,
which takes in the sum of real vital religion and piety is often re-
peated in the law, see Deut. x. 12, xi. 13. The other passage he
cites is from Lev. xix. 17, 18 : 'Thou shalt not avenge or bear any
grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.' Where they are not only
forbidden to avenge themselves, but even to entertain a secret
grudge against their neighbours, and are commanded to love them
as themselves. And this is enforced by this consideration, 'lam
the Lord,' who search the hearts, and know your inward dispo-
sition, and will reward and punish you accordingly. And indeed,
as God himself in that polity, and under that peculiar form of
government, was regarded as in a special and immediate manner
their king and judge, who perfectly knew their hearts and most
secret dispositions, so they were taught by Moses still to have a
regard to God in their obedience, and to expect rewards and
punishments from him, not merely according to their outward
actions, but the inward dispositions of their minds. And as to
their outward actions, in this as well as other laws, they fell under
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 71
the jurisdiction of the magistrate. There were open punishments
to be inflicted for public notorious offences, and evil practices against
the good of the society.
Many instances might be produced besides those now referred to
which plainly show, that the law of Moses reached not merely like
the laws of other nations to men's outward actions and behaviour
in society, but was designed to govern and regulate their inward
affections and dispositions of soul. Thus Lev. xix. 17, in the
words immediately preceding those last cited, it is said, * Thou
shalfc not hate thy brother in thine heart ; thou shall in anywise
rebuke thy neighbour ; and not suffer sin upon him.' A most
remarkable passage, the like of which precept can scarce be found
in any other law : it is there reckoned a hating our brother in our
heart, if we have not such a regard for him as to put us upon
tender affectionate admonitions, when we see him engaged in any
wrong practice. In the precepts given the people concerning their
distributing to the necessities of their poor and indigent neighbours,
they are not only commanded to give, but to give from a charit-
able disposition, not to ' be grieved when they give,' Deut. xv. 10.
They are commanded not only to observe God's statutes and judg-
ments, ' but to keep them with all their heart, and with all their
soul,' and that as they expect that God would bless and favour
them, see Deut. xi. 13 18, xxvi. 16. The repentance required of
them is expressed by 'turning to the Lord their God with all
their heart, and with all their soul, Deut. xxx. 10, iv. 29, and they
are required to circumcise the foreskin of their heart/ Deut. x. 16',
which is explained, Deut. xxx. 6, by their loving ' God with all
their heart,' and ' with all their soul, that they may live. Nothing
can be plainer from all these passages, to which .many more might
easily be added, than that the law of Moses insists upon the
necessity of real inward religion, and right affections and dispo-
sitions of heart. And to such an obedience as this it is that life
and happiness is there promised. And we may therefore conclude,
that under the life there promised, a promise of future happiness
is couched and included, though not directly expressed. The
author's argument in this case may be turned against him, he
argues that because the law had only the sanctions of temporal
prosperity and adversity ; therefore it could only relate to outward
actions, and not to the inward principles and motives of action,
p. 27. On the contrary, it may reasonably be concluded, that
because the law evidently reached unto, and was designed to regu-
late the inward principles and dispositions of the heart, and indis-
pensably required inward vital religion and godliness, therefore the
promises, at least, the general ones of the Lord's being their God,
Sec., were understood to extend farther than merely to outward
temporal prosperity and adversity; and that under and together
with the promise of temporal blessings, those of a spiritual and
eternal nature were signified, though not directly expressed. And
I shall afterwards show that good men, under that dispensation
all along had a view to the future happiness, as the reward of
72 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
true religion and righteousness ; and took the promises of temporal
blessings not exclusively of, but as additional to, or as the types
and pledges of the spiritual and eternal rewards of another world,
which were all along believed among that people.
But this writer farther objects, that ' as this law could only
reach the outward practice and behaviour of men in society, so it
was very defective even in that, as providing no sufficient remedy
against any such immoralities, excesses, and debaucheries, in which
a man might not only make a fool or a beast of himself, without
directly hurting his neighbour or injuring the society,' p. 27.
What he means by these excesses and debaucheries I do not well
know. Adultery and fornication are strongly and expressly for-
bidden in the law. And as to drunkenness and intemperance
which he seems to have particularly in view, I think that passage,
Deut. xxix. 19, 20, fairly and strongly implies a prohibition and
condemnation of it. Where it is said concerning the man ' that
blesseth himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I
walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst,
and that. the Lord will not spare him, but the anger of the Lord,
and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses
that are written in this book shall lie upon him,' &c., so Deut. xxi.
20. When the parents are ordered to bring a rebellious son to be pu-
nished: drunkenness and gluttony are particularly mentioned, as
the crimes whereof he is accused before the magistrates ; they shall
say unto the elders of his city, ' this our son is stubborn and rebel-
lious, he will not obey our voice, he is a glutton and a drunkard :'
this is here represented as one of the worst characters ; and then
it is added, ver. 21, ' And all the men of his city shall stone him
with stones that he die.' When the priests are most strictly com-
manded to drink ' neither wine nor strong drink lest they should
die,' when they went ' into the tabernacle, that they might put dif-
ference between holy and unholy, between clean and unclean ; and
' that they might teach the children of Israel all the statutes which
the Lord had commanded,' Lev. x. 9, 10, ll. Though the prohibi-
tion taken in its utmost rigour, as it extended to a total abstinence
from all wine and strong drink, only obliged them whilst they
were actually ministering in the sanctuary : yet the reason of the
command sufficiently intimated the necessity of a constant sobriety
and temperance in their whole conversation, that this was what
God expected and required of all, and that drunkenness was what
he highly condemned and disapproved. The same might be ga-
thered from that particular constitution concerning the Nazarites,
who being peculiarly devoted to God, were to ' separate themselves
from wine and strong drink' during the time of their vow, Numb,
vii. 3. Which was designed to let the people know how pleasing
sobriety and temperance was to God, and that as they were all to
be a ' peculiar people, holy unto the Lord,' so they should carefully
avoid all intemperance and excess.
But what this writer seems to lay the principal stress upon is,
* that the obligation of the law with respect to civil or social vir-
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 73
tue, extended no farther than to the members of that society : that
is, to those who were of the natural seed of Abraham, or such as
by proselytism were incorporated with them, and allowed to live
amongst them ; but though they were obliged to live in peace and
amity with one another, or within themselves, yet they were put
into a state of war with all the rest of the world. They were not
only left at liberty, but encouraged and directed by Moses himself
to extend their conquests as far as they could, and to destroy by
fire and sword, any or every nation or people that resisted them,
and would not submit to become their subjects and tributaries
upon demand.' And after mentioning their being commanded to
extirpate the inhabitants of Canaan, he adds, that 'with regard
to their farther conquest of other nations, for which they were de-
signed, and for which their plan of government u as contrived, their
commission from Moses was, to offer them terms of peace, in which
their lives were to be spared upon condition of their becoming
subjects and tributaries to them ; and in case of refusal, they were
to destroy all the males, and to take the women captives, and
to seize upon all, their wealth, and proper goods, and cattle, as
lawful plunder, Deut. xx. 10 18. And that thus it is evident,
that the people of Israel, upon the very constitution and fundamen-
tal principles of Moses, were not to maintain any peace or amity
with any other nation or people, but on condition of submitting
unto them as their subjects, slaves, and tributaries, under such
terms as they should think fit to impose,' pp. 28, 29, and again p.
42, he saith, that ' Moses commands all idolatry to be exterminated
by fire and sword, not only in Canaan, but in all the rest of the
world, so far as his people should have it in their power.' And
p. 359, that ' the Jewish state, or the religion of Moses was founded
in the principles of persecution, in which idolatry was to be ex-
terminated, and idolaters to be destroyed by fire and sword ; and
he there observes that the proselytes of the gate, that were not
obliged to be circumcised, or to submit to the ceremonial law,
yet were obliged absolutely to separate themselves from all idol-
aters, or people of other religions ; which separation was to regard
alKfamily intercourse of eating and drinking together, and even
alliance in war, or any other conjunction of interest, though it
should appear ever so necessary for mutual defence, and self-pre-
servation.' He adds, ' that this strict and rigid separation from
all the rest of the world, and abjuring their friendship or alliance
as idolaters, is so closely interwoven with all the laws of Moses,
that it may be called the fundamental constitution of that state or
body politic. This Jewish lawgiver thought that it would be im-
possible to keep idolatry and false religion out of the society, but
by punishing it with death ; and that true religion might be pro-
moted and secured by force,' p. 360, and again, p. 373. That ' this
vvas the nature and genius of the Jewish religion, in which the
knowledge and worship of the only true God was to be promoted
and secured by force and persecution, and by rooting out idolatry,
and destroying idolaters by fire and sword.'
74 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
I have put these several passages together that we may collect the
author's sentiments on this head, in one view, and in their full force.
As to the first thing he observes, ' that the obligations of the law
with respect to civil or social virtue, extended no farther than to
the members of that society, and that though they were obliged
to live in amity with one another, yet they were put into
a state of war with all the rest of the world :' this is a very unfair
representation. It must be considered indeed, that the law of
Moses, though of divine institution and authority, never was in-
tended to be an universal law obligatory on all mankind, but was
peculiarly designed for that one nation, to whom it was immedi-
ately directed and published ; and it was in the nature of a spe-
cial covenant between God and them. It must be expected there-
fore that directly, and in the first place, it should prescribe how the
members of that society should behave among themselves ; and if
it prescribed a just, a friendly, and a benevolent conduct in society,
this must be owned to be highly laudable. And in this respect
the laws of Moses are admirable, and wonderfully fitted to engage
those to whom it was given to all the offices of kindness, and bro-
therly affection towards one another. The obligation it lays upon
them not to oppress the poor, nor to detain from the poor debtor
his pledge, if it was any thing that was the necessary means of his
subsistence, or maintaining his family : the commands given them
to lay aside all enmity and revenge, and not bear a secret grudge
against their neighbour, nor refuse assistance even unto their ene-
mies, but to be ready to do them kind offices, Exod. xxii. 25 27 :
xxiii. 4,5; Deut. xxiv. 10, 13. The kindness and equity with
which they were obliged to treat their servants, to whom they are
often urged by this consideration, that they ' themselves had been
servants and bondmen in the land of Egypt,' Exod. xxi. 26, 27;
Deut. v. 15; xv. 12 15; xvi. 11, 12; xxiii. 15, 16; xxiv. 14, 15;
the many precepts obliging them to pity and assist the poor and
distressed, and to treat them, not with haughty contempt and dis-
dain, but with all kindness and tenderness, and to give to them
liberally and without grudging, Lev. xxv. 35 ; Deut. xv; 7 11.
The inj unctions laid upon them not to take advantage of any per-
son's bodily weakness and infirmities for abusing them, not to lay
a stumbling block before the blind, nor to curse the deaf, Lev. xix.
14; Deut. xxvii. 18. These and other precepts of the like nature
show such an equity, such a spirit of tenderness and humanity in
the law of Moses, as can scarce be paralleled in any laws that were
given to any other nation.
Nor was this to be confined merely to those of their own nation
or society. They are very frequently commanded to show kind-
ness to strangers, and not only not to rex and oppress them,
but to deal kindly and tenderly towards them. The Jews
themselves observe that the precepts prescribing a just and
kind conduct to strangers are inculcated one and twenty times in
their law. They are commanded to ' love the strangers as them-
selves,' Lev. xix. 34. And to love them not merely as they were
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 75
incorporated into the same society with themselves, as this author
represents it, but to love and do good to them considered as
strangers, and under that denomination. This is urged upon them
in a pathetical manner, both by arguments drawn from the example
of the merciful God himself, 'who loveth the stranger;' and be-
cause they themselves had ' been strangers,' and ' knew the heart
of strangers/ Deut. x. 17, 18, 19. The strangers are often joined
with the poor, the widow, and the fatherless, yea, and with the
Levites, as persons that should in a particular manner be pitied and
assisted ; and whom it was a very great wickedness to vex or op-
press, Deut. xxiv. 19 ; Lev. xxv. 35 ; Numb. xxvi. 11. The glean-
ings of the fields were to be left for them as well as the other poor,
Lev. xix. 10 . xxiii. 22; Deut. xxiv. 20, 21. 22. And agreeable to
these declarations of the law, to deal by oppression with the
stranger,' and to ' oppress the stranger wrongfully,' is represented
as a crime and wickedness of a very heinous nature, and those that
are guilty of it are reckoned amongst the worst of sinners, Ezek.
xxii, 7, 29 ; Mai. iii. 5. I add as a proof of the great humanity
of Moses's laws, that one design for which the Sabbath was insti-
tuted is there represented to be, that their men servants and maid
servants, and the stranger might ' rest and be refreshed,' Exod.
xxiii. 12 ; Deut. v. 14, 16. Nor does it appear that their kindness
was to be confined to strangers of any one party or religion. It is
true, they were not to suffer strangers to dwell among them that
openly professed idolatry, because this was (as I shall show) a
subversion of their peculiar constitution. But in every other case
they were to allow strangers of all nations to live among them, and
were obliged by their law to treat them with great kindness and
humanity. So that this constitution was not on so narrow a foun-
dation as the author represents it. They were not to confine their
kindness to those of their own nation or religion, but to extend it to
all that worshipped the one true God, though they did not live by
their laws, nor observe their customs : and were far from exacting
a rigid uniformity of sentiments or practice.
This writer indeed, to make the Mosaical constitution seem nar-
rower, thinks fit to represent it thus, that their kindness ' was to
extend no further than to members />f their own society/ that is,
' to those who were of the natural seed of Abraham, or such as by
proselytism were incorporated with them.' But it is far from being
true, that their kindness was to be confined to those who ' were in-
corporated with them/ and made members of that particular soci-
ety. This writer himself elsewhere acknowledges, * that under
that constitution there was room left for all nations to be pro-
selyted or naturalized, without being circumcised or submitting to
the ceremonial law,' p. 359. Here indeed he shows his ignorance
of the Jewish constitutions, or else wilfully misrepresents it, when
he makes their being proselyted and their being naturalized to be
the same thing ; and in several other parts of his book he calls
proselytism naturalization, as if they were synonymous terms. But
though the proselytes of justice, who were circumcised and obliged
76 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
to observe the ceremonial law, might be properly said to be natu-
ralized, and incorporated with them, and to become members of
that society : the proselytes of the gate of whom he there speaks,
could not be said to be so, nor were ever regarded by the Jews as
incorporated with them, or members of their society. They still
regarded them as Gentiles, and were wont to call them ' the pious
among the Gentiles.' And yet all such persons of whatsoever na-
tion were allowed to live amongst them, and the law of Moses
obliged the Israelites to treat them with great humanity and bene-
volence, though they were not circumcised, and did not submit to
the ceremonial law. Nor were they ever warranted by that law to
enforce the observation of it by fire and sword, or to use any me-
thods of violence in order to proselyte those of any other nation to
their religion, or to persecute them if they refused to conform to
their peculiar rites. There is not any one precept in the whole law
to this purpose. It is therefore a very wrong account that he gives
of the Jewish state or religion of Moses, when he represents ' it
as founded in the principles of persecution,' and as absolutely in-
consistent with toleration, indulgence, and liberty of conscience, or
the rights of private judgment.
, It is true, that under that constitution, if any among the Israel-
ites openly served other gods, and endeavoured to seduce others
to do so, they were to be put to death ; and if a town or city fell-
off to the open practice of idolatry, the ringleaders were to be in-
quired after and punished with death ; and if the town persisted
in it after due inquiry and admonition, it was to be destroyed.
But if we consider the peculiar nature of that constitution, this
may easily be accounted for. One great design for which that
polity was erected, was to establish the worship of the one true
God in opposition to idolatry. This was not only the chief prin-
ciple of their religion, but the principal maxim of their state. For
they were properly a community or body of people formed into a
sacred polity under God, not only as the great Governor of the
world as he is to the rest of mankind, but as in a special sense
their King and Governor, who had been pleased to enter into a pe-
culiar relation to them to this purpose, whom they had by solemn
covenant acknowledged and recognized as such, and to whom they
had promised and vowed obedience. This was the fundamental of
their polity, the original contract upon which their state was
founded. Their possession of the land of Canaan, and all the ad-
vantages and privileges promised them, absolutely depended by
covenant upon their persevering in the worship of the true God.
So that idolatry or the worshipping of other gods, besides the com-
mon guilt inseparable from it, as it is a very criminal breach of
the law of nature, was in that constitution an act of rebellion
against their rightful acknowledged sovereign, and a dissolving
the original fundamental contract that lay at the foundation of their
whole constitution, and by which it subsisted. And in this view
of things, those that were guilty of idolatry were to be regarded as
in the worst sense traitors and enemies to their country, engaged
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 77
in a design to subvert their fundamental constitution, and that ori-
ginnl covenant on which their preservation as a community, and
their right to all their privileges, and to their country itself de-
pended. And therefore in such a circumstance of things, and in
a state so constituted, it was far from being cruel or unjust, or con-
trary to the liberties of mankind, or the rights of conscience, to pu-
nish idolaters with death ; any more than it is in other countries
and states to punish high treason with death, or a conspiracy to
subvert the state. And to have tolerated idolatry in such a consti-
tution, would have been as great an absurdity, as it would have
been in any other state to tolerate the open avowed enemies of the
state, and those who manifestly endeavour to subvert it.
Nor does it follow that therefore idolaters are now to be punished
with death in Christian states and commonwealths, because that
particular law and constitution enjoining it is now no longer in
force. It is true this writer urges, that ' whereas it has been com-
monly said, that the Jewish religion 'and government was a theo-
cracy, and that no consequence can be drawn from it, to any other
mere human forms of government ; this must be a great mistake.
For it can scarcely be doubted, that if God was to form any scheme
or model of government, it would be in all respects the fittest,
wisest, and best that could be pitched upon, and worthy to be imi-
tated under every other state and constitution. To deny this
would be to deny God's righteousness and superior wisdom. And
therefore he hopes the patrons of the old scheme of the Jewish
law and religion, and they who would now found Christianity upon
Judaism, will consider what they are about before they go much
further,' p. 373.
It will be easily owned that a scheme and model of government
of God's own appointment must be the fittest and wisest, and
most worthy to be imitated in the like circumstances and state of
things ; and consequently it will be owned that in such a polity so
circumstanced and constituted, and of such a peculiar nature as the
Jewish was, the constitutions of that commonwealth which were
of divine appointment would be worthy to be imitated. But it
does not follow that what God himself, who is certainly the best
judge, thought fittest and properest in one circumstance or state
of things, ought to be followed and imitated in every other state
and circumstance of things : or that the laws and constitutions he
gave as peculiarly adapted to such a constitution should be im-
itated by others, where that constitution with the peculiar reasons
on which it was founded no longer subsists. And this author him-
self must acknowledge this, since he expressly saith, p. 207. That
' what God would require at one time under such particular relations
and circumstances, he would not require at another time under
other relations, and quite different or contrary circumstances.'
But though idolatry for the reasons now mentioned was punished
with death in the land of Israel, yet it is far from being true,
though this author repeats it over and over with great confidence,
that they were obliged by the law to 'extirpate idolatry, and de-
78 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
stroy idolaters in all nations with fire and sword. 1 No such thing
appears in the law of Moses. The commands there given to de-
stroy idolaters manifestly relate to those among themselves, and
in their own land that should worship other gods : as is evident
from Deut. chap. xiii. And when they are commanded to destroy
all the monuments of idolatry, that also plainly relates to the land
of Canaan, as appears from all the passages where this is required,
Exod. xxiii. 23, 24; xxxiv. 11, 13; Numb, xxxiii. 52; Deut. vii.
5 25 ; xii. 1, 21. See also Judg. ii. 2, and there is not one pre-
cept in the whole law directing and encouraging them to extirpate
idolatry, and to destroy idolaters in other countries by fire and
sword. Nor do we read of any war ever undertaken by any of the
kings of Judah or Israel beyond the bounds of Palestine, merely to
extirpate idolatry and to destroy idolaters. David was the most
victorious prince they ever had, and was exceedingly zealous
against idolatry, and yet it doth not appear that any one of his
wars was undertaken merely for the sake of exterminating idol-
atry ; nor is it ever taken notice of that he destroyed the monu-
ments of idolatry in those countries which he subdued, but only
that they became tributary to him, and brought him gifts.
It is hard to conceive upon what grounds this writer could assert
as he does, that Moses was very confident that his people should
have it in their power to extend their conquering arms, not only
in Canaan but all the rest of the world. He often indeed expresses
his confidence that they should conquer Canaan and destroy the
nations there whom God had devoted to destruction; but he
never once intimates any confidence that he had concerning their
obtaining an universal empire. There is not the least hint in all
the Mosaic writings that ever he believed or expected any such
thing, but a great deal to the contrary. He most clearly and ex*
pressly foretels their many calamities and dispensations ; that they
should be scattered through all nations, not as lords and conquer-
ors, but as captives, and under the power of their enemies, see Lev.
xxvi. and Deut. xxviii., and his admirable song, Deut. xxxii. This
author himself tells us, * that nothing has since happened to the
Jews, but what Moses had foretold. He knew from what he had
seen and experienced of them, that after his death they would for-
sake God, forfeit all the favour and protection of his providence,
and be finally destroyed and dissolved as a people. And he left
it upon record against them, and caused his last dying words to be
written and prescribed in the book of the law, pp. 327, 328.'
Though the account he gives of what Moses had experienced of
them will by no means account for the clear and admirable predic-
tions he utters concerning the fate of that people in succeeding
ages, and the surprising revolutions that befel them ; yet it appears
from the author's own confession, that Moses did not believe and
expect that they would extend their conquests through all nations,
and subdue them by fire and sword, of which yet this same writer
tells us ' Moses was very confident.' Nor is it true that he encou-
raged and directed them to extend their conquests, or that ' their
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED 70
constitution and plan of government was designed and contrived'
for it. So far from this, that rather the whole frame of their go-
vernment was so contrived as to discourage and hinder them from
an ambition of enlarging their empire. Moses could not more
effectually hinder it, than by binding them to the observance of
such laws and constitutions, as rendered it in a great measure ex-
tremely difficult, if not impracticable, to make and maintain large
conquests abroad. The utmost extent of dominion that is ever men-
tioned as what should any way, or at any time belong unto them,
and which they actually possessed in the reign of David and Solo-
mon, was but of a small extent compared with the rest of the
world, even as known in Moses's time, viz. from the river of Egypt
to Euphrates, Gen. xv. 18, but the land that was particularly given
them for a possession was very small, and Moses describes it with
great exactness, and the bounds of it, Numb; xxxiv. 1 13.
Their being divided into several tribes, each of which were kept
distinct, and had their several lots particularly assigned them in the
land of Canaan ; and their being forbidden ever to alienate their
inheritances there ; their having their cities of refuge assigned to
them only within the limits of that land ; their being obliged to
offer all their sacrifices in that land, and at the tabernacle or temple
there; their sabbatical years and jubilees, and many other consti-
tutions of a peculiar nature, and which were confined in the ori-
ginal appointment to the land of Canaan ; all these things suffici-
ently show that they were originally designed quietly to enjoy
their own land, governed by their own laws, without ambitiously
attempting to extend their conquests and disturb their neighbours.
Nor can it be supposed that Moses, who was a very wise man,
much less that God himself would have ever given them such laws
and constitutions as these, if he had had it in view to encourage
the people to go to conquer all nations, and extend their empire
and religion throughout the world. Must they attempt an univer-
sal or extensive dominion, all whose most solemn acts of religion
and worship were by the fundamental law of their polity to be
confined to one small country ? and to one particular place there ?
Must they attempt to disturb and annoy their neighbours merely
from an ambitious desire of empire, when all their males were ex-
pressly and solemnly obliged by their law to appear three times a
year before God at the sanctuary, and to leave their towns and
houses unguarded, except with women and children ? The same
remark may be made upon that constitution whereby their kings
are forbidden to multiply horses to themselves. Can it be supposed,
that Moses would have commanded this if he had designed his
people for extending their conquests through a great part of the
world, which could scarcely be expected or attempted without cru-
elty ? This is a plain proof that he designed to prevent or mortify
a restless ambition and desire of conquest, by in a great measure
rendering them incapable of it in an ordinary way. Though if they
were invaded he exhorts them not to fear the horses and chariots
of their enemies, but to trust in God ; to show, that they were de-
80 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
signed chiefly for defending themselves in the land which God
had given them, and not for arbitrarily offending and invading
others from no other motive or view but that of conquest. When
Moses promises national blessings and prosperity to them upon
their obedience, Levit. xxvi. Deut. xxviii. he doth not mention
God's raising them to universal empire, but that God would
give them plenty, and peace, and prosperity, that they might
dwell safely and comfortably in their own land; and that they
should be more happy and honourable than other nations ; and
that he would give them victory over their enemies that ' should
rise up against them,' i. e. that should attempt to disturb and in-
vade them : for that this is the meaning of that phrase in the
sacred writings is evident from many passages. See particularly,
Deut. xix. 11 ; 2 Kings xvi. 7 ; Ps. iii. 1 ; xvii. 7 xviii. 48 ; lix.
1 4; xcii. 11.
These observations will help us to form a right judgment of the
military laws in the twentieth chapter of Deuteionomy which the
author refers to. If wecompare this with other passages of the law,
and with the whole of their constitution, we shall be convinced that
the design of this chapter is not to direct and encourage them to
' extend their conquests as far as they could, and to destroy any or
every nation that would not submit to become their subjects and
tributaries upon demand.' As if they might invade whomsoever
they would without provocation, or any other reason than the
desire of making conquests. This is never once mentioned in the
whole law as a sufficient reason for going to war. They are not
encouraged or commanded to invade any except the devoted nations,
which was a peculiar case, and in which they were only the ex-
ecutioners of the just sentence denounced against them by God
himself for their execrable wickedness. But there were several
even of the neighbouring nations whom they were expressly for-
bidden to meddle with ; as the Edomites, the Ammonites, the
Moabites ; and were told that God had given those nations the
several countries they possessed for an inheritance, from which
they were not to endeavour to dispossess them. The Ammonites
and Moabites were amongst the nations with whom they were not
to cultivate any particular friendship or amity, or to seek their
prosperity, because of their injurious and wicked treatment of them
when they came out of Egypt, Deut. xxiii. 3, 4, 6 ; yet they were
expressly prohibited to invade their country, or to distress them,
Deut. xi. 5, 9, 15. This sufficiently showed that they were not
causelessly, and of their own mere motion to invade other nations,
even though they were idolaters, from a mere desire of conquest,
and enlarging their dominion : the rules, therefore, given them for
their wars in the twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy, do not relate
to wars undertaken only from a motive of ambition and conquest,
but to wars that were just and necessary. And with respect to the
management of such wars they are directed and encouraged in the
first place, not to be afraid of their enemies in the field, let them
appear to be never so numerous, and formidable, and better ap-
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 81
pointed for war than themselves ; for that * God would be with
them.' And then if they conquered their enemies in battle, they
are instructed how to deal with their cities which they should come
to besiege, ver. 10, &c. Let the provocation given them be never
so great, and the cause of the war never so just, and though they
had it in their power to destroy their enemies, yet they were obliged",
when they came before any of their cities first ' to proclaim peace '
unto them, that is, to offer to let them live quietly in the enjoyment
of their country, and of their goods and possessions, on condition
of their becoming subjects and tributaries to them. Thus we are
told concerning the Moabites and Syrians, that they ' became
David's servants, and brought him gifts,' 2 Sam. viii. 26 ; and
with regard to Solomon, that ' he reigned over all the kingdoms
from the river, that is, Euphrates, unto the land of the Philistines,
and to the border of Egypt' (which was the utmost extent of do-
minion that ever was promised any way to belong to Abraham's
seed), ' they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of
his life,' 1 Kings iv. 21 ; and it is probable that except the tribute
they paid they still continued to be governed by their own laws
and customs. Now it would be hard to show the injustice of im-
posing a tribute on a conquered enemy, whom they had beaten in
the field in a just war, and whose cities surrendered to them as
conquerors. For it is plain that this is the case here supposed.
The next direction given them, relates to a city that when sum-
moned by their victorious arms refused to surrender to them, and
was taken by assault. For this is the plain meaning of it when it
is said, ' if it (the city) will make no peace with thee, but will
make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it ; and when the
Lord thv God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite,'
&c., vef. 12, 13. Though they had refused the summons, yet if
they surrendered before they were taken by assault, and consented
to the conditions proposed to them, they were to be spared ; for
though only one summons or offer of peace is mentioned, yet no
time is limited, but it is plainly intimated that if they should
' make an answer of peace,' and open, or surrender unto them, at
any time before their city was taken by force, their lives were to be
spared. But if they obstinately rejected all offers of peace, and
after being made to know what they were to expect in case of being
taken by force, still refused to surrender, in that ease when ' God
delivered the city into their hands,' that is, when they took it by
assault (for this is the meaning of that phrase when applied to be-
sieged cities, see Josh. x. 30, 32), they were allowed to kill all the
males, i.e. all that bore arms ; as hath been usual in the taking of
towns by storm.* And yet even then they were not in the fuiy of
*_ In those days all the men were wont to fight and bear arms in a time of war, es-
pecially in a city that was besieged and assaulted. As we may see in the ease of Ai,
Jos. viii. 14 16, and may be plainly gathered from many other instances. There were
not properly regular forces in garrison then as now, but all the citizens were soldiers.
And on this foundation it is that when a city was taken by assault, the males and they
only were suffered to be put to the sword : that is, the victors by this law had a liberty
82 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
an assault to kill ' women and children,' see ver. 14 ; instances of
which there have been in many nations, and even among the
Romans themselves, and that under generals 'famed for their hu-
manity, as Scipio Germanicus, Titus, &c. ; see Grot, de Jure Belli
et Pacis, lib. iii. cap. 4, sect. 9. We find that in the language of
Scripture the ruin of a city taken by assault is sometimes expressed
by ' dashing their children against the stones,' because it was but
too usual to do this on such occasions, Isa. xiii. 16, 18, Ezek. ix. 5;
but the Israelites are here absolutely forbidden to imitate this bar-
barity. They were even in the heat of an assault to spare the
' women' and ' little ones;' and the word we there render ' little
ones,' signifies any male or female under twenty years of age*;
the principal design, therefore, of this law seems to be to limit
their rage, and to show the utmost to which they were ever to
proceed in cases of this kind, when they took towns by assault or
by storm : they were only to kill the males, that is, those that bore
arms, but were not to wreck their fury upon the young ones, or the
weaker sex. And with respect to the males, or men in arms, if
they had taken any of them captives, and had spared their lives,
this would not properly have been a breach of this law, which was
not designed absolutely to bind them in all such cases to kill all
the males ; but not to kill any other but the men, and so the Jews
understood it; who never looked upon it to be unlawful for them in
ordinary cases to take men captives in war, and to spare their lives.
And this is plainly supposed in the answer which Elisha the
prophet, who very well understood the law, makes to the king of
Israel, when he asked whether he should smite the Syrian soldiers
whom he had taken in Samaria : ' Thou shalt not smite them :
wouldst thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy
sword and with thy bow ?' 2 Kings vi. '22.*}-
I would observe by the way, that, with respect to the women
that were taken captives, the Israelites were not allowed by the
given them to slay the men, or in other words, those that fought against them and re-
sisted them. Though this did not put it out of their power to show mercy to such
of them as they should see fit to spare. Josephus gives the sense of the law of Moses
with regard to the management of the war thus, that when they overcame in fight
Kparriaavrft; ry flaxy tne .V were to kill those that resisted roiig avrtraZafievovs, the word
properly relates to those that opposed them in fight, or were in arms against them, and
were to keep the rest alive for tribute. And this seems to have been the real intention
of this law, that they were to put those only to the swcrd that resisted them, and this
even in towns taken by storm or assault, when there is usually a greater liberty for
slaughter than in other cases, and against an enemy that had unjustly made war upon
them. And if we may credit the most eminent Jewish writers they thought themselves
obliged, when they besieged or assaulted a town not to begirt it' closely on all sides,
but to leave one side open, that such of their enemies as had a mind might flee away
and save their lives. And this custom they will have to be derived from Moses. Sf
MaimoTiides represents it. And that this was a very ancient tradition among them
appears from the Targum of Ben Uzziel, in Numb. xxxi. 7. See Selden de Jure Nat.
et Gentium, lib. vi. cap. 15 ; and Grot, de Jure Belli, etc., lib. iii. cap. 11, 1. 14.
* See Schindler in voce, tju.
t Of which words Ben Gerson gives this sense. If thou wouldst slay persons be-
cause thou hadst thyself taken them captives iu war, it would be a very unworthy
action, and it would be much more to slay those whom the blessed God himself ha'' 1
made thy cnptivrs. And Jarchi explains it to the same purpose
THE LAW OF JVJOSES CONSIDERED. 83
law to violate them. If any of them saw and liked a beautiful
captive, he was first to take her to his house, and allow her a month
to bewail her father and mother, which showed a great deal of ten-
derness and humanity towards the captive, and at the same time
gave space for the heat of his passion to abate ; and if his affection
to her still continued, he was to marry her, and take her for his
wife, or if he did not continue to love her, was to give her her
liberty, see Deut. xxi. 10 15. This wise constitution was de-
signed to lay a restraint on theiv exorbitant lusts, to which soldiers
are very prone to give a full loose, especially in a town taken, by
assault.
And lastly, the orders given in that 20th chapter of Deuteronomy,
ver. 19, not to ' destroy the fruit trees' in a siege, because they
were ' man's life ,' or useful for sustaining life ; and which the
Hebrew doctors justly interpret, as extending to all things of the
like nature; that is, not to commit needless cruel wastes and de-
vastations in the enemy's land, shows that Moses was far from
encouraging such a fierce and savage spirit in the management of
their wars as this writer would have us believe.
I would only farther observe, that whereas Moses, after giving
these directions as to the management of the war, saith, ' Thus
shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee :'
this is not to be understood, as this writer would have it, as if it
was designed to encourage them to carry their conquering arms
through all the world to the most distant nations. What is meant
by the cities ' veiy far off' from them, Moses himself explains in
the following words : for he immediately adds, ' Which are not of the
cities of these nations.' The latter phrase is evidently designed to
be explicatory of the former; and to show whom they were to un-
derstand by the cities that were very far off from them, even all
that did not properly belong to the devoted nations of the land of
Canaan. And it is certain that in Scripture language the words
' far off' do not always denote a great distance, but are sometimes
applied to places that were not truly remote. Thus we are told
concerning the waters of Jordan when the Israelites passed over,
that they 'rose up on an heap very far from the city Adam that
is beside Zaretan/ Josh. iii. 16, though this was not many miles
off in the plains of Jordan ; compare 1 Kings vii. 46. The inha-
bitants of Laish are said to be ' far from the Zidonians,' Judg.
xviii. 7, 88, though they were but a day's journey from them, ac-
cording to Josephiis. And any stranger that is not of Israel is
represented as ' of a far country/ and ' as coming from a far
country,' Deut. xxix. 22, 1 Kings viii. 41, 2 Chron. vi. 32. So
that the meaning is plainly this, that they were to conform to the
directions he had given them, in all their wars with any other
nations but the Canaanites, whom God had devoted to utter de-
struction.
Having considered what the author" objects against the law of
Moses from its constitutions of war, and supposed intentions of
o 2
84 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
universal conquest, I shall not need to say much to that part of
his reflections, where he urges it as a proof of the spirit of in-
humanity and persecution in that law, that it obliged them abso-
lutely to separate themselves from all idolaters, and to have no
alliances with them. He tells us, ' that by the law even the pro-
selytes of the gate, who were not obliged to be circumcised, yet
were obliged absolutely to separate themselves from all idolaters, or
people of other religions (so he very candidly interprets it, as if to
be ' idolaters,' and to be ' people of other religions,' were terms qf
the same signification) ; and that this separation was to regard all
family intercourse, of eating and drinking together, cohabitation,
intermarriages, alliances in war, or any other conjunction of in-
terest, though it should appear never so necessary for mutual de-
fence and self-preservation ; and that this strict and rigid sepa-
ration from all the rest of the world, and abjuring their friendship
and alliances as idolaters is so clearly interwoven with all the laws
of Moses, that it may be called the fundamental constitution of
that state or body politic,' p. 360.
It will be easily owned that the Jews were, by their constitution
and peculiarities, designed to be kept a separate people, and from
confounding themselves with other nations ; and this was ordered
for very wise and valuable ends, some of which have been hinted
at already. But the ' proselytes of the gate ' were not bound by
those peculiar distinctive rites that kept the Jews separate from
other nations ; especially those that related to the distinction of
meats, and to ceremonial impurities. And whereas "he tells us that
the ' proselytes of the gate' were obliged absolutely to separate
from all idolaters, even with regard to ' alliances in war, or any
other conjunction of interest, though it should appear never so ne-
cessary for mutual defence and self-preservation ; this is not true
even of the Jews themselves. They were not obliged by any
precept of that law never to have ' any alliances in war, or any
other conjunction of interest' with the heathen nations, though it
should ' appear never so necessary for mutual defence and self-
preservation.' The precepts of the law forbidding them to make
any covenant or league relating to the nations of Canaan, or the
inhabitants of the land, as is evident from all the passages where
this is mentioned, see Exod. xxiii. 32, 33, Exod. xxxiv. 12, 15,
Deut. vii. 1/2, to which may be added, Judg. ii. 2. The learned
Grotius hath, in a few words, set this matter in a clear light, de
Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. ii. cap. 15, sect. 9, where he observes that
the Jews are nowhere in the law forbidden to make treaties of
commerce with the Pagans, or any other such covenants which
tended to the mutual benefit of both parties. He instances in
Solomon's league with Hiram, king of Tyre, for which he is so far
from being blamed, that it is mentioned as an instance of the ' great
wisdom' which the ' Lord had given him,' 1 Kings v. 12; and be-
fore that there had been a great friendship between Hiram and
David, ver. 1, as also between king David, and Nahash, king of
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 85
the Ammonites ; and he was willing also to have kept up the same
friendly intercourse with his son, though no man was more zealous
against idolatry than that prince, see 2 Sam. x. 2. So far is it
from 'being true which this writer here alleges, that they were to
' abjure all friendship arid alliances with idolaters,' and that they
' were not to maintain any peace or amity with any other nation or
people, but on condition of submitting to them as their subjects,
slaves, and tributaries,' as he affirms, p. 29 ; and Grotius there ob-
serves, that the Maccabees, who were very strict in observing the
law of Moses, entered into a league with the Lacedemonians, and
with the Romans, for mutual assistance and defence, and that with
the consent of the priests and people, and even offered sacrifices for
their prosperity, 1 Mac. viii. and xii. As to marriages with idolaters
the case is different. This is a much nearer union than what arises
from treaties of commerce, or leagues made for mutual defence.
It depends more on a person's own choice and inclination, whereas
the other may be necessary in certain conjunctures and circumstances
for the public safety. The danger of being perverted to idolatry is
much greater in this case than in the other, and of having the chil-
dren and family bred up to idolatry and false worship, which every
good man would be desirous to prevent.
And accordingly, even the Christian Institution, which is so
kind and benevolent, and every where breathes universal charity
and good will towards mankind, yet forbids our entering into a
conjugal relation with idolaters and unbelievers; see 2 Cor. vL
14 16. So that this part of the Mosaic constitution is far from
proving what our author produces it for, that it was founded on
the principles of persecution, and on a want of benevolence to man-
kind. It is not indeed to be wondered at that this writer finds fault
with this, who commends the Gnosticks not only for marrying with
idolaters, but for feasting with them in the idol temples, and join-
ing with them in all the outward acts of their idolatrous worship,
which he seems to think not only lawful but commendable, pro-
vided they still kept from a mental adoration of the idol, pp. 388,
389. It will be easily granted this never was allowed to the Jews,
nor is it to those whom he is pleased to call Jewish Christians, that
is, to those that are Christians upon the foot of the New Testament,
or the religion taught by Christ and his apostles. And however
such a conduct may be consistent with this man's moral philosophy,
yet how it can be made to consist with common honesty I can-
not see.
86 HUMAN SACRIFICES NOT ENCOURAGED
CHAPTER V.
The author's pretence that the law of Moses encouraged human sacrifices as the highest
acts of religion and devotion when offered not to idols hut to the true God. Such
sacrifices plainly forhidden in the law to he offered to God. His account of Lev.
xxvii. 28, 29, considered. The argument he draws from the law for the redemptiou
of the first-bora turned against him. The case of Abraham's offering up his son
Isaac considered at large. Not done in conformity to the customs of the Canaanites.
The true state of the case laid down. Hum n sacrifices not encouraged by this in-
stance, but the contrary. Abraham himself had full assurance that this command came
from God. Upon what grounds his having had such a command from God is credible
and probable to us. It could not be owing to the illusions of an evil spirit : nor to
the force of his own enthusiasm. The author's pretence that this instance destroys
the law of nature, and leaves all to mere arbitrary will and pleasure, examined.
THE Moral Philosopher has several other objections against the
law of Moses scattered through his book. He would fain have it
thought that that law encourages and approves ' human sacrifices.'
The author of ' Christianity as old as the Creation,' had laboured
this point before him, and what he offers on this head hath received
a full answer.* But these gentlemen are never weary of repeating
the same objections with as much confidence as if not the least
notice had been ever taken of them before. This writer is pleased
to tell us, that, ' among the free will offerings offered by the Jews
under the law, human sacrifices were looked upon as the most
efficacious and acceptable to the Lord. And though they were not
exacted by law (though if the interpretation he pretends to give of
Lev. 28, 29, be just, they were exacted by law), yet they were en-
couraged and indulged as the riches and donations, and as the
testimony of the most perfect religion, and highest degree of love
to God. Indeed, such burnt-offerings of their sons and daughters
to idols and false gods were represented as the greatest possible
abomination ; and for the same reason such oblations were regarded
as the highest possible acts of religion and devotion, when they
were intended and given up as sacrifices of atonement to the true
God,' pp. 129, 130.
But certainly, since there are such particular directions given in
the law relating to sacrifices, appointing what things were to be
offered to God, and in what manner ; if human sacrifices, or the
offering of their sons and daughters, were there designed to be
encouraged as the most valuable oblations, and acts ' of the most
perfect religion,' there would have been directions in the law con-
cerning them. And there not being the least direction there given
relating to any such sacrifices, when there are such minute and
particular directions in every other kind of oblations, is a manifest
* See answer to Christianity as old as the Creation, vol. ii. p. 408, ot seq.
BY THE LAW O1T MOSES. 87
proof that they were never designed to be encouraged and approved
by that law, and indeed is equivalent to an express prohibition of
them under that constitution. For they were strictly enjoined to
keep close to the law in their sacred ceremonies, and not to add
thereto or diminish from it, and particularly were not suffered to
offer any other sacrifices, or in any other manner than was there
expressly appointed. But besides this, there is as plain a prohi-
bition of those human sacrifices as can be desired in the law itself,
Deut. xii. 30, 31. In that chapter God forbids his people to wor-
ship him in the same manner and with the same rites with which
the heathens worshipped their idols. In the beginning of that
chapter, after having mentioned their worshipping- their gods upon
the ' high mountains' and ' hills,' and in ' the groves,' and with
' graven images,' he adds, ver. 4, ' Thou shalt not do so unto the
Lord thy God ;' that is, thou shalt not offer sacrifices to him in the
high places and groves as they worshipped their idols ; but as it
follows, ver. 5, 6, ' Unto the place which the Lord thy God shall
choose, shall ye come, and thither shall ye bring your burnt-offer-
ings,' &c., and then, ver. 30, 31, he forbids their imitating the hea-
thens in offering up human sacrifices to him as they did unto their
gods. ' Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following
them, after that they be destroyed before thee, and that thou in-
quire not after their gods, saying, how did these nations serve their
gods ? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the
Lord thy God : for evevy abomination to the Lord which he hateth,
have they done unto their gods : for even their sons and daughters
they have burnt in the fire unto their gods.' It is very evident
here that God plainly forbids his people, not only to worship their
gods, but to imitate them in the manner of their worship. And
particularly he mentions their sacrificing of their sons and daughters
to their gods, as a thing which was highly abominable in his sight;
and that therefore the Israelites should not imitate this detestable
practice in his worship. ' They should not do so unto the Lord
their God.' And in the words immediately following in opposition
to this, he charges them to ' observe to do whatsoever he com-
manded them ;' and forbids them to ' add thereto or diminish from
it.' Taking the whole passage together, I think it plainly appears
from it, that by the law of Moses God was so far from encouraging
the Israelites to offer up human sacrifices to him as the heathens
<iid to their idols, or teaching them to regard it as the highest pos-
sible act of devotion when done to the true God, that he could
not more strongly express his absolute detestation and abhorrence
of it.
There is no necessity, therefore, of examining the author's account
of that passage, Lev. xxvii. 28, 29, which cannot admit the in-
terpretation he puts upon it. Indeed the account he gives of it,
and of the vows intended in that chapter, is so confused and ob-
scure, that I must confess I do not understand it, and it is of little
importance to seek out his meaning. I shall only observe that
.whereas he speaks of two sorts of vows, * general and special;' one
88 HUMAN SACRIFICES NOT ENCOURAGED
distinction between them he supposes to lie in this, that with regard
to the former there was a right of redemption by the law ; but in the
latter case, whatever portion or thing had been thus especially
' vowed, must be destroyed by fire, and taken off from the use of
man as a burnt-offering unto the Lord.' And to this he applies the
28th and 29th verses, which he renders thus : ' Nevertheless no-
thing separate from the common use, that a man doth separate
unto the Lord, of all that he hath, whether it be man or beast, or
land of his inheritance, may be sold or redeemed ; for every thing
separate from the common use is holy unto the Lord :' that is, ac-
cording to this author's account of it, it ' must be destroyed by
fire, and taken off from the use of man as a burnt-offering unto the
Lord.' So that if his interpretation be admitted, the field of a
man's possession when thus devoted to the Lord, was to be de-
stroyed by fire, and taken off from the use of man as a burnt-offer-
ing unto the Lord. And yet he that here makes the nature of these
special vows to consist in this, that what was thus specially vowed
to God was not to be redeemed, but of necessity must ' be de-
stroyed by fire as a burnt-offering unto the Lord ;' in a page or two
after declares, that the thing devoted to God by this special vow
became the ' absolute property of the priest, who might either
sacrifice it, or sell it, as he thought fit ; and he thinks that if there
were not ' as many burnt-offerings of the human kind as there
might have been, it was because the priest had good reason for it,
not to burn any thing in common cases that would yield money,'
p. 141. Thus our Moral Philosopher, in his eager zeal to expose
the priests' mercenariness, doth not reflect that he contradicts and
exposes himself as a captious and inconsistent writer.
I shall not enter into a large explication of that passage, Lev.
xxvii. 28, 29, which he has so miserably mangled. It is done fully
and accurately by the most learned Mr. Selden, lib. 4, de Jure
Nat. et Gent. cap. 6 11. I shall only observe briefly, that the
former part of that chapter relates to things dedicated or consecrated
to God by a ' simple vow,' whether men or beasts, or houses or
lands, which might, after having been thus dedicated or conse-
crated, be redeemed with money. The 28th verse relates to things
devoted to God by a cherem (for that is the word in the original,
different from what was used concerning the other vows), that is,
by a vow of a peculiar nature, accompanied with a curse (for this
is the proper notation of the word) ; and whatever a man ' should
thus devote unto the Lord of all that he had (that is, of persons or
things that were his own property), whether of man or beast, or
field of his possession, was to be perpetually employed for the uses
to which it was devoted. The man that gave or vowed it could
never redeem it. If it was land that was thus devoted, it was ab-
solutely given to the use of the sanctuary ; if it was a man or a
slave (for this is spoken concerning such men as were their abso-
lute property, and included under that general expression, ' all
that a man hath,' that is, his proper goods), he was to be per-
petually employed in the service of the sanctuary, or for the use of
BY THE LAW OF MOSES. . 89
the priests, and never to be redeemed ; such probably were the
Nethinims, whom David and the princes are said to have * ap-
pointed for the service of the Levites,' Ezra viii. 20. This, by the
unanimous consent of all the Jewish writers is all that is intended
in the 28th verse ; but the 29th verse, which follows, doth not
relate to things which a man should devote to sacred uses out of
what he had, that is, of his own possession or property, of which
alone the 28th verse is to be understood ; but it relates to persons
devoted to destruction by a solemn cherem or curse ; as the
Canaanites were, by God's own appointment, for their execrable
wickedness. An instance of which we have in Jericho, Josh. vii.
17, 18, where this word cherem is several times made use of to
signify their being accursed, or devoted to utter destruction. And
such of the Israelites as fell into open idolatry, were also, by the
appointment of the law itself, to be devoted to destruction. See
Exod. xxii. 20 : ' He that sacrificeth unto any God save unto the
Lord, he shall be utterly destroyed ; or he shall be devoted.' For the
word there used in the original is precisely the same that is used in
the passage we are considering, Lev. xxvii. 29, and is here rendered
' devoted.' The word cherem is also used, Deut. xiii. 15, to signify
the destruction of a city that revolted to idolatry ; it was to be
destroyed as execrable and accursed. And accordingly the Sep-
tuagint render the original word which we translate ' destroying it
utterly, avaSfe^an avaS'sjuartfre, ye shall curse it with a curse. And
none of these persons that were thus devoted to destruction for
just causes by a solemn cherem or curse were to be redeemed : no
ransom whatsoever was to be accepted for them, but they were
sure to be put to death. This is the account the Jews themselves
give of this passage, Lev. xxvii. 29, and which renders it perfectly
consistent with other passages in the law ; but certainly it cannot
be understood to relate to human sacrifices, which, as I have shown,
are nowhere required in the law, yea, are plainly forbidden there.
As to the instance of Jephthah which he here produces, whether
he did indeed sacrifice his daughter unto the Lord, is a question
debated amongst the most learned critics, both Jews and Christians,
and still like to be so ; though this writer, with his usual confidence,
veiy magisterially determines it, without bringing any new light to
the question, except by calling the opinion he does not like ' mon-
strous and ridiculous.' But let us suppose that Jephthah did indeed
sacrifice his daughter, it only follows that he did wrong in it through
a mistaken zeal and scrupulosity ; since, as I have shown, the law
of Moses nowhere allowed human sacrifices. None of the Jews,
ancient or modern, that ever mention this action of Jephthah's, ap-
prove his doing it; and if it had been approved and thought fit to
be imitated, how comes it that this is the only instance that can be
produced, and that we have no account of any of their most zealous
great men or heroes ever offering such human oblations, as un-
doubtedly they would have done, if such oblations had been re-
garded as the most exalted acts of devotion as this author would
hiive us believe ?
90 HUMAN SACRIFICES NOT ENCOURAGED
The argument he endeavours to bring from the law for redeeming
the first-born may be turned against him, and proves the very
contrary of what he produces it for. Since when God challenges
every first born male of man and beast to himself, in memorial of
his slaying the first-born of the Egyptians, and sparing the Israelites,
which was a wise constitution, aptly contrived to keep up a con-
stant memorial of this most extraordinary event, and consequently
of their deliverance out of Egypt, the remembrance of which it was
of high importance to preserve throughout all their generations ; I
say, when he made this constitution, he commanded the first-born
among clean beasts to be sacrificed ; but with regard to the first-
born of unclean beasts, which were forbidden in the law to be
sacrificed, and all the first-born among men, they were expressly
commanded to redeem them. A manifest proof that as he would
not have unclean beasts to be sacrificed, so neither would he have
any human sacrifices to be offered to him. This is the plain
original law relating to that matter, Exod. xiii. 15, 18. Yet this
writer has the confidence to tell us, that this law concerning the
redemption of the first-born, which he calls a ' severe law, whereby
were enjoined such terrible things in righteousness,' laid them under
an obligation to sacrifice their first-born children unto God. He is
pleased, indeed, to allow that ' this law was afterwards very much
mitigated or rather repealed/ viz. upon ' God's accepting all the
males of Levi for the first-born males of all other tribes, as a ransom
and redemption of their lives and souls.' And if we would know
how far that severe law was mitigated or repealed, he informs us
that it consisted in this, that ' God hereby remitted the legal ob-
ligation of human sacrifices, and left it to the free choice and volun-
tary oblation of his people, whether their burnt-offerings of this
kind should be either male or female, and whether it should be the
first-born or not/ see pp. 137, 138. So that he supposes, that
before the Levites were taken instead of the first-born, the Israelites
were under a legal obligation to offer up all their first-born male
children as sacrifices or burnt- offerings unto the Lord ; and after-
wards they had the honour done them to leave it to their choice,
not whether they should offer up any of their children at all, but
to offer either males or females, or any other of their children, whe-
ther of the first-born or not.
But certainly an author that is capable of writing at this rate
can have little regard either to truth or decency, or to his own re-
putation ; since it is impossible he should not be sensible that all
this is his own fiction, without the least foundation in the law itself
to support it. The original law which he refers to, Exod. xiii., is
so far from laying the Israelites under a ' legal obligation' to offer
their first-born as sacrifices to God, that to have done so would
have been the most express and manifest breach of that law, which
at the same time that it commands the firstlings of clean beasts to
he sacrificed, expressly commands, again and again, not that the
first-born of men should be sacrificed, but that they should be ' re-
deemed,' see Exod. xiii. 13, 14; see also Numb, xviii. 15, 16. And
BY THE LAW OF MOSES. 91
when God took the Levites instead of the first-born to himself, and
declared that they should be his, as the first-born should have been
his in whose stead they were taken ; this plainly shows that as the
firstlings of clean beasts were by virtue of their consecration to the
Lord to be sacrificed, because sacrifices of such things were what
the Lord accepted ; so the first-born among men, by virtue of their
being sanctified to the Lord, must have been not sacrificed, but
appropriated to his more immediate use, and to the service of the
sanctuary ; because God did not accept of human sacrifices. And
accordingly it pleased him to take the Levites in their stead to serve
him in the sanctuary, whom he gave to Aaron and the priests to
minister unto them. This is the plain meaning of that transaction
of which we have an account, Numb. iii. 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 41, 45.
His poor playing upon the word redeemed is too trifling and con-
temptible to be taken notice of in opposition to the evident meaning
of the text.
The instance he produceth of Abraham's attempting to offer up
his son Isaac is so far from proving that God is represented in the
backs of Moses as approving human sacrifices, that it rather proves
the contrary ; since, though God for the trial of his faith and obe-
dience saw fit to command him to offer up Isaac, yet he would not
suffer him to execute it. His forbidding him by a voice from
heaven to lay his hand upon his son, showed that though he would
have his servants pay an entire submission to his authority and
will in all things, and to be ready to renounce their dearest interests
for his sake, yet to be worshipped with human sacrifices was what
he did not approve, and would not in any case permit ; and there-
fore would not suffer it to take effect, not even in this single and
extraordinary instance, though he could easily have raised Isaac
from the dead, and have thus restored him to his indulgent
father.
But this case deserves to be more distinctly considered, especially
as our author here expresseth himself with such a peculiar air of
confidence and triumph, as if it were a thing that could not possibly
be defended. And many have taken pleasure in representing it as
absolutely contrary to all justice and reason, and the law of nature,
though the Scripture bestoweth high encomiums upon it as a noble
instance of Abraham's faith and obedience.
Our Moral Philosopher would be thought to state the question
relating to the case of Abraham with greater exactness than hath
been hitherto done, and pretends that it hath been very much mis-
taken by those that have undertaken to defend it. He acknow-
ledgeth that ' no doubt but every positive law, of what nature or kind
soever, must be just and right, supposing it to be a command from
God, how unreasonable or unfit soever it might appear to our weak,
imperfect, and limited understandings. But then he saith, ' the
question is, how God should command any such things, or what
proof could be given of it if he did. A question which our sys-
tematical divines and positive law-men never cared to meddle with,
92 HUMAN SACRIFICES NOT ENCOURAGED
though this is the only thing they ought to speak to, if they would
say any thing to the purpose,' p. 134.
It is not improper here to observe, that from his own concessions
it plainly follows, that a thing's appearing unreasonable or unfit to
our understandings is not a sufficient reason for our rejecting it, if
we have otherwise a sufficient proof that this command came from
God. For in that case we ought to charge the apparent unfitness
of it on the weakness or darkness of our own understandings, and
to believe that it would appear to us fit and reasonable, if we viewed
it in the same light in which the divine understanding beholds it,
and could take in the whole compass of things, and the relation
they bear to the order and harmony of the whole. But then he
saith the question is, ' how God should command such things, or
what proof could be given of it if he did ?' As to the question,
' how God should command such things, i.e. things that may ap-
pear unreasonable or unfit to our weak, imperfect, and limited un-
derstandings ?' the answer is plain, he may command such things
whenever it so happens, that though through the weakness of our
understandings they appear unfit to us, yet in his own comprehen-
sive wisdom he sees them to be fit and proper to be required of us
in that circumstance of things, and may, therefore, see reasons for
laying those commands upon us, which we do not at present see,
but shall know afterwards. But he farther asks, if God gave such
a command, what proof could be given of it ? And he particularly
asks, ' How came Abraham to know this ?' I answer, that Abraham
knew it by extraordinary revelation, which may be conveyed into
the mind with such overpowering, irresistible light and evidence
that a man can no more doubt of it than of any thing that he hears
or sees. Concerning which see above, pp. 12 14, where it is also
shown that this author himself acknowledgeth that such an imme-
diate revelation may give an assurance and certainty to the mind
equal to that arising from a mathematical demonstration. And
particularly with regard to this case of Abraham, I cannot but
think the reflection Maimonides makes a very just and sensible
one : ' That we are taught by this history that the prophets were
fully assured of the truth of those things which God spake to them,
which they believed as strongly as things of sense. For if Abraham
had in the least doubted, whether this was the will of God or no,
he would never have consented to a thing which nature abhorred.'
More Nevoch. p. 3, cap. 24.
It will farther confirm this, if it be considered, that this was not
the first time of God's communicating his will to Abraham in a
way of extraordinary revelation. He had done it several times
before, and that in such a manner as gave him full assurance that
it was God that spake to him.* In obedience to the will of God
thus signified he had left his own country and kindred, and came
into a land that he was an entire stranger to. And when it was
* See this well urged, ' Revelation examined with Candour,' vol. ii. dissert. 8.
BY THE LAW OF MOSES. 93
declared to him in the same way of extraordinary revelation, that
he should have a son by his wife Sarah, though he was an hundred
years old, and she was ninety, and had been barren all her days :
he firmly believed it, however incredible it might seem to be, be-
cause he knew and was persuaded that it was God himself that
promised it. And this promise of God, though contrary to the
course of nature, was exactly fulfilled. When, therefore, the com-
mand came to him about sacrificing his son, it found him perfectly
well acquainted with the manner of God's appearing to him, and
communicating his will. And however strange and unaccountable
that command might appear, yet he knew, by undoubted evidences,
that it was the same God that spake to him, and gave him this
command, that had spoken to him on so many occasions before,
and had entered into covenant with him, and given him so many
tokens of his favour. And as his soul was steadily possessed with
the most adoring thoughts of God's supreme authority and do-
minion, and the most unshaken persuasion of his power, wisdom,
righteousness, and goodness, so he did not doubt but he had wise
and glorious ends in view in this particular extraordinary method
of procedure, though he could not at present distinctly discern
them ; and therefore exercised an implicit dependence on the su-
preme wisdom and goodness, and an entire resignation to the divine
will. He knew what promises God had made to him with regard
to Isaac, and was firmly persuaded that he would order matters so
that they should all be fully accomplished ; and that as he had
received him from God in an extraordinary manner, and now was
going to give him up to him in obedience to his command, so he
should receive him from him again to greater advantage ; ' account-
ing that God was able to raise him from the dead ;' as the apostle
expresseth it, Heb. xi. 19. Considered in this view there is no-
thing in Abraham's conduct that is absurd or contrary to reason,
nothing but what is suitable to his own amiable character, and
which manifested the most excellent dispositions. And if God saw
fit to take this extraordinary method to produce those glorious dis-
positions into a full and open light to the view and admiration of
angels and men, by exercising him with one of the greatest trials
that human nature can undergo (for what could be a greater trial
than to command him to offer up his son Isaac, who was the heir
of the promises, which seemed not only to be a losing his most be-
loved son, but a subverting all his own hopes and the promises
niade to him ?) I can see nothing in this that can be proved to be
unworthy of the divine wisdom and goodness. The temporary
pangs and uneasiness this gave Abraham were abundantly com-
pensated by the unalterable transports of joy that must needs have
overflowed his soul when he found his beloved child at once re-
stored to him as it were from the dead, his obedience so highly ap-
proved by God himself, and the promises renewed to him in a more
ample and glorious manner than before. This triumph of hi s faith
m such an unparalleled trial, must have produced a satisfaction of
94 HUMAN SACRIFICES NOT ENCOUKAGED
mind that lasted through his whole life, and hath rendered him
illustrious to all generations.
But our author puts another question, and that is, ' What proof
could Abraham give that he had any such command or revelation
from God ? Will any of our present clergy undertake to prove that
such a command from God to Abraham can be now credible or
probable to us ? It may be probable enough that either Abraham
had such a belief or conceit, or that Moses mistook the case. But
that God in this or any other case should ' dissolve the law of
nature,' and make it a man's duty, as a thing morally reasonable
and fit, to act contrary to all the natural principles and passions of
the human constitution, is absolutely incredible, and cannot pos-
sibly be proved,' p. 133.
I shall first show what reasonable proof we have that Abraham
had such a command or revelation from God, and then answer the
author's objections against it.
He grants that it is probable enough, that ' either Abraham had
such a belief or conceit, or that Moses mistook the case.' With
regard to Moses, not to insist at present on his extraordinary in-
spiration, of which there is sufficient proof, he appears to have been
perfectly well apprised of the principal circumstances of the life of
Abraham, their great and renowned ancestor ; for whom they had
the profoundest veneration, and the covenant made with whom was
the grand foundation of their hopes. He carefully records the
principal events that befel him, and especially this, which was the
most remarkable of them all. Moses himself was far from encou-
raging human oblations, which, as I have shown, are plainly for-
bidden in his law. And it was a thing in itself so strange and im-
probable, that such a man as Abraham, of great power and riches,
renowned for his wisdom and probity as well as piety towards God,
who had only one son by his beloved wife Sarah, the child of his
old age, on whom he had fixed all his hopes, should attempt to
slay him with his own hands, and offer him up for a burnt-offering,
that no reason can be given why Moses should have recorded it, if
he had not been fully assured of the truth of the fact. No doubt,
Abraham himself gave an account of the whole transaction, and
how the execution of it was prevented, and so did Isaac too, who
was a competent witness of it, being of sufficient age when it hap-
pened, and who was himself to have been the victim. And we
may justly conclude, that there was no particular of Abraham's
whole life which was more universally known, and the memory of
which was more carefully preserved than this, since it must neces-
sarily have made a greater noise than any of the rest, and was
the most extraordinary of them all.
But the chief question is still behind : supposing that Abraham
had a belief or conceit (to use this author's expressions) that he
had received such a command from God, 'how can it be made
credible or probable to us,' that he really received it from God 1
I answer, that either he received this command from God, or it
BY THE LAW OP MOSES. 95
was owing to the illusions of an evil spirit, or to the heat of
his own enthusiastic imagination. That it was not owing- to the
illusions of an ' evil spirit,' is manifest among other reasons from
the conclusion of it. Can it be supposed, that if an evil spirit
had carried him on so far, he would have hindered him when he
was on the point of accomplishing it ? For it was evidently the
same power that bid him do it, and afterwards hindered his exe-
cuting his purpose. Besides, it cannot be supposed, that a wise
and good God who had honoured Abraham with such extraordi-
nary manifestations of his favour and revelations of his will, would
suffer an evil being so to personate him, to give commands to his
faithful servant in his name, in a manner so proper to the Deity,
that Abraham, who had been used to divine communications, could
not possibly distinguish this message of Satan from the immediate
command of God himself and was thereby under a necessity of
being deceived in a matter of such vast importance : and indeed,
if it was an evil spirit that gave this command, and then so solemnly
renewed the promise and covenant made with Abraham, it must be
said it was an evil spirit that had all along appeared to him with
such a divine majesty, and that took upon him the character of
God Almighty and All-sufficient, and made him such promises with
regard to him and to his seed. And if so, then it was an evil
spirit that appeared to Moses, and wrought all the stupendous mi-
racles that were done at the establishment of the law ; and that
inspired the prophets under the Old Testament, and afterwards
sent Jesus Christ into the world, and raised him from the dead,
and confirmed the gospel with such a series of illustrious attes-
tations. For he that did all this is the same that all along cha-
racterized himself with the title of the God of Abraham ; and there
is a constant reference to the promises and covenant made with
Abraham, both in the Old Testament and in the New.
But besides that, it would be to the highest degree absurd, to
imagine that an evil spirit should carry on an uniform design to
promote the cause of piety, righteousness, and virtue among men,
and to destroy his awn kingdom and interests ; besides this, I say,
to suppose an evil being to have such influence, and to exert such
amazing acts of power and majesty for so long a succession of ages,
without ever being controlled or overruled, is absolutely inconsist-
ent with the belief of a wise and good presiding Providence. It
Confounds all our notions of the Deity, and introduces two supreme
independent principles, or rather it leaves no good principle at all,
but makes the God that governs the world, and presides over the
affairs of men, to be an evil being.
But if our author will not venture to say that it was an evil
spirit that appeared unto Abraham, and gave him this command, it
will be said, that his believing he had a command from God, was
wholly owing to the deception of his own imagination, and the
force of his enthusiasm. But neither can this be supported if the
circumstances of the case be considered. Abraham believed that
God had given him Isaac in an extraordinary manner, that by
96 HUMAN SACRIFICES NOT ENCOURAGED
f
him he was to have the posterity that was to inherit the land of
Canaan ; by him he was to have that seed in whom all the families
of the earth were to be blessed ; in a word, he looked upon this
child as the heir of all the promises, and of the covenant. These
being his sentiments, and which were confirmed in him by repeated
revelations from time to time, it could never have entered into his
mind, merely by the force of his own imagination, that God who
had promised all this, would require of him to put Isaac to death,
in whom alone all these promises were to receive their accomplish-
ment. However strong we suppose the force of his enthusiasm to
be, it would never have carried him to imagine a thing contrary to
all his hopes and expectations, and to all the former revelations
which he believed he had received from God. It would have pro-
duced visions more agreeable to his darling hopes which he had so
long conceived, and which were so deeply fixed in his soul. But
if we should suppose that he had conceived so strange and wild a
fancy in his circumstances, as to cause him to believe so strongly,
that God had given him such a command, how comes it that the
same heated imagination did not carry him to execute it ? Can it
be imagined that the same pang of enthusiasm that wrought in
him so strong and peremptory an assurance, that it was the com-
mand of heaven that he should sacrifice his son, and that carried
him to the very point of executing it, should in the same instant
make him believe that he heard a voice from heaven forbidding
him ? This is absolutely inconceivable. His stopping in such
circumstances, and when he was so absolutely possessed with the
belief of a divine command, could never be owing to the workings
merely of his own fancy ; and showed that neither the beginning
nor the ending of it was owing to the mere heat of his own ima-
gination.
Again, if all this from first to last was an illusion of Abraham's
own imagination, and entirely owing to the force of his enthusiasm,
then it must have been supposed that his other visions, and the
appearances of God to him, and the promises made to him were
also nothing else but workings of his own fancy. And no doubt
this author would have it understood so. But we have good evi-
dence to the contrary. Could he by the mere force of enthusiasm
foretel that his posterity should be in a state of servitude and afflic-
tion in a foreign land, and at the end of four hundred years be
brought out in a wonderful manner with great substance, and re-
turn again to the land of Canaan, and have it given them for an
inheritance ? see Gen. xv. 13 16. Could his enthusiasm enable
him certainly to know that his wife Sarah, who had been barren all
her days, and was then ninety years old, should bear him a child
when he was an hundred ? Or if he had been so wild as to have
conceived an expectation of a thing so absolutely beyond the
course of nature, could he by the mere force of enthusiasm have
effected it ?
Add to this, that Abraham was a wise and excellent person, one
of the most honoured and distinguished characters in all antiquity;
BY THE LAW OF MOSES. 97
eminent for his piety, prudence, arid probity, and therefore greatly
respected when alive, and his memory aftervvai'ds had in the highest
esteem and veneration throughout all the east : whereas according
to this representation he must have been a perfect madman, one of
the wildest and most frantic enthusiasts that ever lived. His faith
so much celebrated in Scripture was all frenzy, and he believed not
in God, but in the illusions of his own heated imagination. How is
this consistent with the account given of him both in the Old
Testament and the New ? The law, the prophets, our Saviour Jesus
Christ, and his apostles, all concur in giving testimony to Abraham
as an illustrious prophet, who had immediate communication with
the Deity, and to whom God was pleased in an extraordinary man-
ner to reveal and make known his will. The reality 01 God's ap-
pearances to Abraham, oft he covenant made with him, and the pro-
mises given him is every where supposed, and continually referred to.
It lies at the foundation of all succeeding revelations. He is ho-
noured both in the Old Testament and in the New, with the glo-
rious title of the 'friend of God,' Isa. xli. 8 ; James ii. 23. Our
Saviour, whenever he mentions him, does it in such a manner as
shows the high esteem he had for him ; and he positively declares,
that 'Abraham saw his day and was glad,' which evidently relates
to the promise made to him, that in his ' seed should all the nations
of the earth be blessed ;' which was particularly renewed to him on
the occasion we have been now considering. The. apostle Paul, for
whom this writer professes a great respect, frequently takes notice
of the promises given by God to Abraham, and the covenant made
with him, as things of undoubted certainty ; he often makes men-
tion of him with the most glorious encomiums, as the most emi-
nent example of a noble and steady faith in God to all generations,
the 'father of all the faithful ;' and represents all true Christians as
his ' seed, and blessed together with him.' And lastly, with re-
spect to this particular instance of his offering to sacrifice his son,
this, instead of being represented as a mad fit of enthusiasm, only
owing to the frenzy of an over-heated imagination, is mentioned
by two inspired writers, St. Paul and St. James, as the most illus-
trious proof of the greatness of his faith and obedience. The tes-
timony of the apostle Paul to this purpose is very remarkable, Heb.
xi. 17, 18, 19 : 'By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up
Isaac : and he that had received the promises, offered up his only
begotten son : of whom it was said, that in Isaac shall thy seed be
called : accounting that God was able to raise him up even from
the dead ; from whence also he received him in a figure.' To which
m ay be added that of St. James., which is no less full and express,
James ii. 21, 22, 23 : ' Was not Abraham our father justified by works
when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar ? Seest thou how
faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made per-
fect ? And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham be-
lieved God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, and he
was called the friend of God.'
By this time this writer may see upon what grounds it is credible
H
98 HUMAN SACRIFICES NOT ENCOURAGED
and probable to us, that Abraham had not merely a belief or con-
ceit of such a thing, that is, that he was not merely a frantic vision-
ary or enthusiast, but that he really had such a command from
God, which he imagines none of our present clergy will undertake
to prove.
But our author has fairly let us know, that whatever proof could
be produced for it, he would have no regard to it, since he roundly
pronounces that it is impossible to be proved. 'That God in this
or any other case should dissolve the law of nature, and make it a
man's duty as a thing morally reasonable and fit, to act contrary
to all the natural principles and passions of the human constitu-
tion, is absolutely incredible, and cannot possibly be proved. And
upon such a supposition, I defy all the clergy in England to prove
that there is any such thing as a law of nature, or that any thing
can be just or unjust, morally fit or unfit, antecedent to a positive
will. For upon this principle I think it is evident that nothing
can be right or wrong, fit or unfit in the reason of things ; but
that God may command the most unfit or unrighteous things by
mere arbitrary will and pleasure. A supposition which must un-
hinge the whole frame of nature, and leave no human creature any
rule of action at all.' And in his great kindness to the clergy
he supposes this to be the reason, viz. because it unhinges the
whole frame of nature, and leaves men no rule of action at all,
this ' is the reason that the hierarchy in all ages and countries have
been infinitely fond of such a notion, and have greedily snatched
at this instance, in order to set aside the law of nature, and to
substitute their own positive laws in the room of it,' pp. 133, 134.
By the way I would observe, that the apostle Paul himself, whom
this writer calls the ' great freethinker of his age, the bold and
brave defender of reason against authority,' p. 74, must be involved
in the same accusation of designing to subvert the law of nature ;
since as I have shown, he highly extols this action of Abraham as
a glorious proof of his faith and obedience to God. So that here we
have a specimen of our author's regard for the apostle and for Chris-
tianity, of which we shall have many instances before we have done.
But let us proceed to a more particular consideration of what he
offers. I will grant him, in as strong terms as he pleases, that
there is a 'law of nature,' that is, a law that hath a real and just
foundation in the very nature of things : and that there is right
and wrong, fit and unfit in the very nature and reason of things ;
that is, there is something in the nature of things that makes it
fit and proper for reasonable creatures to act after such or such
a manner, in such or such circumstances and relations. Nay
further, I will readily own that it is a part of the law of
nature, or it is fit in the nature of things, that parents should
love their children and cherish them, and endeavour to pre-
serve their lives, and to do them good; and that it is in
the nature of things unfit that they should do them hurt, and
destroy them. But this is not to be understood in so extensive a
sense as if it admitted of no limitation, and as if in no case what-
BY THE LAW OF MOSES. 99
soever it could ever be lawful for parents to put their children to
death. I shall not insist on the laws of several nations, particu-
larly the ancient Roman laws, which gave parents a power of life
and death over their own children ; but I believe it will scarce be
denied that cases may happen where it may become the duty of a
parent, if he be at the same time a magistrate, to inflict upon his chil-
dren a capital punishment, if their crimes require it. And Brutus
was always admired by Rome when in its liberty, for causing his
sons to be scourged and put to death in his sight, for endeavouring
to betray their country. In these instances indeed the children
are supposed to be criminal. But let us put the case, that a pa-
rent by giving up his own son to death, though the best deserving
in the world, and chargeable with no crime, could deliver his coun-
try from slavery and ruin, the very law of nature in such a case
would make it his duty to control his natural affection to his own
offspring, and cause it to give way to a superior law, the good of
the public. And as the public good is a sufficient reason for a
man's controlling his private affection, and acting contrary in some
particular instances to what otherwise would be his duty in private
relations, so the command of God, when once it is sufficiently
known, in what particular way soever we come to know it, is a
good and valid reason for controlling private affections and incli-
nations.
This writer himself seems willing to own, that in case God
should require such a thing, it would be our duty to obey ; but
then he denies that God can require any such thing. He thinks
' it absolutely incredible that God should in any case dissolve the
law of nature, and make it a man's duty as a thing morally rea-
sonable and fit to act contrary to all the natural principles and pas-
sions of the human constitution.' But it is far from being true,
that God can in no case make it our duty to act contrary to the
natural principles and passions of the human constitution : or
that his requiring this would be a dissolving the law of nature ; at that
rate, where are all the noble duties of self-denial and mortification,
which our Saviour so much insists upon ? "When he urges it
as our duty to be ready to 'forsake father, and mother, and
houses, and lands, yea, and our own lives also for his sake ;' and
declares, that he that ' loveth any of these' more than him is not
worthy of him ;' is not this to oblige us in such particular instances
to contract our natural appetites and passions, and the dearest in-
clinations and interests of the flesh for the sake of truth and a
good conscience ? And this is certainly an instance of the most ex-
alted virtue that human nature is capable of. At least, I believe if
the case were put, that a man was to lose his life, his liberty, his
wife and children, and give them up to death for the sake of his
country, this would be owned to be illustrious virtue. However,
this I am sure of, that a man that would have asserted the con-
trary in Greece or Rome, when learning and virtue flourished most
there, would have been despised and abhorred as the basest and
most abject of men. And any writer that would have maintained
100 HUMAN SACRIFICES NOT ENCOURAGED
such a thing, would scarce have been thought worthy to live
among them. And our love to God ought certainly to be as strong
in us as love to our country ; yea, and superior too, since we owe
more to God than to any man, or to all men together. And if
to control and overrule our private natural affections and interests
in such cases be no breach of the law of nature, but be rather a
glorious instance of the most eminent and consummate piety and
virtue, and a fulfilling the noblest and highest part of that law,
whereby we are obliged to prefer the public to our own private
good, and to love God above all, and yield the most entire unre-
served subjection and obedience to him ; then I cannot [see how it
can be thought unworthy of God, the supreme Governor of the
world, who has an absolute dominion over his creatures, to lay in-
junctions upon them in some extraordinary instances with this very
view, to exercise and manifest this noble disposition, and give it
an opportunity of exerting itself: still taking this along with us,
which we may be sure will always be the case, that however diffi-
cult and shocking such a trial may at present appear to be, yet a
wise and good God will take care that it shall be crowned in the
issue with a proportionably higher reward, and shall upon the whole
turn to the person's own greater glory and happiness.
Of this kind was the command given to Abraham to sacrifice his
beloved son. God did not command him absolutely to hate his
son, which would have been a wrong affection of mind, and scarce
possible to be obeyed. On the contrary, the command itself went
upon the supposition of his loving him. ' Take now thy son, thine
only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and offer him up,' Gen. xxii.
2. At the same time that he loved him so tenderly he was to offer
him up to God ,- and it was because he loved him so much that
the trial was so great. It is evident that the proper design of this
command was for the trial and exercise of his faith and virtue ; for
it appears from the event that God did not give this command to
Abraham with an intention that he should actually execute it, but
to give him an opportunity of showing the excellent temper and
disposition of his mind, the strength of his faith and trust in God,
and his entire unreserved submission to his authority and will ; in
a word to discover that exalted pitch of piety and virtue to which
he had arrived ; by proposing to him one of the most difficult and
trying instances of obedience that can possibly be conceived. And
this the divine wisdom thought fit to do, in order to exhibit a most
illustrious example to all succeeding generations, of the mighty
power, and force of divine faith and love, and how far we should
carry our submission to God, and our resignation to his authority
and will : that we must be ready to exercise the most difficult acts
of self-denial, to which God shall see fit to call us, and to re-
nounce for his sake those things that are dearest to us here on
earth, and not suffer any private affections or interests to come in
competition with the duty and subjection we owe to the supreme
universal Lord : and that we must exercise an implicit dependence
on his supreme wisdom, and faithfulness and goodness, even where
BY THE LAW OF MOSES. 101
we do not at present see the reasons of things, and where all ap-
pearances seem to be contrary, and to put on a dark and discou-
raging aspect.
These are noble dispositions, and some of the most exalted acts
of homage and duty which a reasonable creature can possibly yield
to the supreme Lord of the universe, the greatest and the best of
beings. And these are some of the admirable lessons which this
example teacheth us ; and which we may suppose the divine wis-
dom had in view, in such a command as this to him who is ho-
noured with the character of ' the Father of the Faithful.' And
the answering such valuable and excellent ends is sufficient to jus-
tify the wisdom and fitness of this command ; which taken in this
view, appears plainly to have been designed for promoting the uni-
versal good, and for exhibiting a glorious and beautiful example to
the whole moral world.
But though for such wise and excellent ends God thought fit
to give such a command, yet it must still be remembered that
he did not suffer Abraham actually to accomplish it. He did not
hinder it till the moment of execution, that Abraham's obedience
might more fully appear, which was as eminent as if he had actu-
ally done it. But then he interposed to prevent it by an extraor-
dinary voice from heaven. From whence we see the great wisdom
and goodness of God; that though he would have his children
ready to do the most difficult things when he requires them, yet
he would not suffer any thing to be done, even in this most singu-
lar and extraordinary instance, that should countenance the in-
human practice of sacrificing children, and that should look like
unnatural cruelty in his worship.
And now upon the whole, the true question, and the only one
in which we are concerned, is this, Whether God might not
in an extraordinary instance take this mode of procedure, for
trying the faith and obedience of his servant ? I cannot see
any thing in this supposition as now stated, that is contrary to the
divine wisdom and goodness. Doth it follow that because God
saw fit in an extraordinary instance to give this command to try
Abraham, though he did not suffer him to accomplish it, that there-
fore there is no law of nature, no such thing as ' right or wrong,
just or unj ust, morally fit or unfit ?' It is evident there is no con-
sequence at all in this way of arguing. Indeed, if God had pub-
lished a general law, declaring that it should be henceforth lawful
for parents to hate, hurt, and destroy their offspring at pleasure,
and that they should be under no obligations to love, cherish and
pi'ovide for them ; this would be a dissolving that part of the law
of nature. And it might justly be concluded, that such a general
law as this could not possibly proceed from God, or be consistent
with his wisdom and goodness. But it does not follow that be-
cause God, who is the Sovereign Lord of the universe, and hath an
absolute power over the lives of his creatures, may in an extraor-
dinary instance, for wise ends, command a parent to take away the
"ie of his own child, that therefore all parents are allowed to hate
102 HUMAN SACRIFICES NOT ENCOURAGED
and destroy their own offspring, and are freed from any obligations
to love and take care of them. The general law is still as much in
force as before, that parents are obliged to love and cherish their
children, and to use their best endeavours to preserve their lives in
all caseSj except a particular case should happen, in which the
public good or the express command of God himself should require
the contrary. And that general law must always necessarily in
the nature of things be understood with this limitation ; and when-
ever this limitation doth take place in any particular instance, it
doth not at all vacate or dissolve the general law.
Nor does it follow, as this author suggests, that on 'this suppo-
sition God may command the most unfit or unrighteous things, by
mere arbitrary will and pleasure ;' if by unfit and unrighteous
things he means things that are unfit and unrighteous for God to
do. For the righteous God can never do a thing that is unrighte-
ous : but then that may be fit and righteous for him to do or to
require towards us, which it would not be fit and righteous for one
man to do or to require towards another. For it would be wrong
to supposoe that God is in all cases bound by our laws. His
right and dominion over us is of a peculiar and transcendent
nature, and not to be measured by our scanty rules, but by what
is much superior to them, that is, by what appears to his own
infinite mind to be, all things considered, fit and right, and best
and properest in the whole. He who has an absolute right over
our lives and properties, can whenever he pleases, without injus-
tice, deprive us of our worldly substance, or take from one and give
to another ; he can afflict us and exercise us with troubles when-
ever he sees fit for the trial of our patience, submission and resig-
nation ; yea, and can take away the lives of the most excellent
and useful persons without injustice; because in this case he only
doeth what he hath a right to do : whereas in men it would be un-
just to do so, because they have no right to do it, and no such
absolute dominion over one another. There are some things indeed
which God cannot command or require of his reasonable creatures,
because they have an inseparable and eternal malignity, and can
in no possible circumstances of things ever be fit and right ; as,
to command a reasonable creature to hate God, to blaspheme him,
or renounce him, or to prefer other things before him. There are
other things which he cannot do, not because he is tied down to the
same precise rules that bind us, but because his own wisdom and
goodness will not suffer him to do them. Thus he cannot make
an innocent creature eternally miserable. But there is nothing to
hinder but that he may make innocent creatures undergo great
hardships and afflictions, and calamities for a time, for the trial of
their virtue : though in such a case we may justly conclude from
his goodness, that he will abundantly compensate their sufferings
by a glorious reward. And if God should in an extraordinary in-
stance require a parent to offer up his own child, with an intention
that he should really execute it, which is not the present case; and
should afterwards as a reward of so difficult and trying an obedi-
BY THE LAW OI? MOSES. 103
ence raise both father and son to a higher happiness and felicity,
which we may reasonably conclude in such a case he would do ;
I can see nothing in such a procedure that could be proved to be
contraiy not only to justice but to goodness. Because on such a
supposition, as God would do nothing but what he hath a right to
do by virtue of his absolute dominion over the lives of his creatures,
so let the hardship appear never so great for the present, it is de-
signed to be recompensed by a glorious reward for transcending
the greatness of the trial ; and both father and son, instead of
having an irreparable injury done them, would have their final and
greatest happiness secured and promoted upon the whole.
Nor would it follow on this supposition, as the author alleges,
that God ' acts by mere arbitrary will and pleasure ;' if by that he
means unreasonable will. For God hath always reasons for his
own acting in every instance; wise and just reasons obvious to
his own infinite understanding, though these reasons are not al-
ways known to us. .And particularly in Abraham's case, God did
not act by mere arbitrary will, but for wise reasons, some of which
have been already represented.
As to what he adds, that it would ' unhinge the whole frame
of nature, and leave no human creature any rule of action at all,'
there is no just foundation for this reflection. It makes no alter-
ation in the general laws of nature, or in the rules of men's con-
duct towards one another, or in the fitness or unfitness of the duties
that result from such or such relations. The obligations of the
paternal and filial relation are no way altered by it, but are still
as strong as ever. All that can be concluded from it is, that
though we are to love our children or parents, we are to love God
more, and that we must yield an absolute unreserved submission
to the Supreme Being, and make all private affections and interests
give way, whenever they happen to come in competition with the
duty we owe to him. And this is no new law, but is properly an
eminent branch of the law of nature, of immutable obligation, and
which is necessarily founded in the nature and reason of things,
and the relations between God and us. It can never possibly cease
to oblige us in any one particular instance ; whereas the law of our
particular relations may in some particular extraordinary cases or
circumstances cease to oblige, or give way to higher obligations,
then and there incumbent upon us.
Thus I have largely considered the case of Abraham, because
this writer is pleased to lay so mighty a stress upon it, and be-
cause the authority and credit of the sacred writings is very nearly
concerned in it, in which Abraham's faith and obedience in this
instance is highly commended.
104 OTHER OBJtiCTIONS AGAINST
CHAPTER VI.
The Moral Philosopher's Account of the Original of Sacrifices and of the Priesthood,
. and of Joseph's first establishing an independent priesthood in Egypt. The Repre-
sentation he makes of the Mosaical Priesthood, considered. The Priests had not the
Government of the Nation vested in them hy that Constitution, nor were they ex-
empted from the jurisdiction of the Law, nor had an Interest separate from and incon-
sistent with the State. Concerning the Church Revenues established by the Law of
Moses. The particular Manner of providing for the Maintenance of the Priests and
Levites accounted for. The Author's Pretence, that it was an insufferable Burden
. and Impoverishment to the People, and the Cause of their frequent Revolting^
to Idolatry, examined. Some Observations concerning the sacrifices prescribed under
the Mcsaical Economy. The Author's Objections against them considered. No Sa-
crifices were to be offered in Cases where civil Penalties were expressly appointed by
Law, and why. The atoning Virtue of the Sacrifices supposed to consist in the spriuk-
ling of the Blood. This shown not to be a priestly Cheat, but appointed for wise
I NOW return to our author's objections against the law of
Moses. He frequently shows how angry he is with the constitu-
tions there made about the priesthood. And this seems to be one
principal reason of the strange virulence he every where expresses
against that law.
It is scarce worth while to take notice of the account he pretends
to give of the original of the priesthood and sacrifices. He repre-
sents sacrifices as having been originally nothing but feasts of good
fellowship, p. 237. Though how this will agree to holocausts or
whole burnt offerings, which seem to have been the most ancient
oblations, see Gen. viii. 20; xv. 9, 10, &c. ; Job i. 5; xlii. 8, in
which the whole was burnt and consumed to the honour of God,
and no part of it left to the offerer, is hard to see. But our au-
thor's design in this seems purely to be to bring in the priests for
the honour of being ' the chief butlers, bakers, butchers, and cooks,'
in these feasts, for so he represents them. And I suppose he will
allow the same honour to the princes, patriarchs, and great men,
whilst they continued to manage the sacrifices ' in person/ as he
owns they at first did. His account of the Egyptian priesthood,
and of Joseph's erecting them into an independency on the crown,
though he pretends to give it us for history, is purely of his own
imagination. He would have it thought, that Joseph having mar-
ried the high priest's daughter, by his interest obtained a grant
from the king to render their lands unalienable ; because it is said
their ' land became not Pharaoh's,' when the [rest of the land of
Egypt became his, p. 239. But it is evident from the story he
himself refers to, that this was owing to their not being under a ne-
cessity to sell their lands to him as the other Egyptians did, to
procure corn for themselves and their families, as having their por-
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 105
tion of meat assigned them from Pharaoh. And the sending them
this allowance is represented as the act not of Joseph, but of Pha-
raoh himself ; who in this probably followed an ancient custom,
see Gen. xlvii. 22 26. As to Joseph's marrying the high priest's
daughter, for. so our author has it, (though Potipherah, whose
daughter he married, is not called the high priest, but the Priest of
On) : this instead of proving that the priests owed all their dignity
to Joseph, plainly shows that they were persons of great eminence
before, since when Pharaoh was doing Josepb the greatest honour,
and made him next to himself in power and dignity, and ruler over
all the land of Egypt, he gave him a priest's daughter to wife.
For this marriage was evidently of Pharaoh's own procuring, Gen.
xli. 45. And it appeareth from the most ancient accounts we have
of the Egyptians, that their priests were men of great dignity
and authority, and probably took in all the prime nobility, and
heads of the most ancient and honourable families. Concerning
which see Shuckford's Sacred and Pofane History, vol. ii. p. 120,
&c.
I shall proceed to consider the account he gives of the priest-
hood under the Mosaical constitution. He tells us, p. 26, that
' Moses constituted a priesthood, which was to govern the nation
as prime ministers, representatives, and vicegerents of God, and
to drain all the wealth and treasuries of the kingdom into the
church, as they must necessarily have done had his law been
strictly executed, p. 42, and that the tribe of Levi did not make
a sixtieth part of the whole body, and yet it would be easy to
prove that the church revenues under this government amounted
to full twenty shillings in the pound upon all the lands of Israel.'
And then he puts a question, which would be very proper if the
matterwasashe represents it ; 'How came thepeople to be reconciled
to this?' To which he answers in short, 'that they were never recon-
ciled to it all. Their national established worship was so prodigi-
ously expensive, and their clergy or priests, and Levites, such abso-
lute masters of property, that they took all occasions to revolt, and
were glad to serve any other gods that would accept them upon
easier terms/ p. 128, 129. Reaffirms ' that the Levites, though
servants in the temple were courtiers with the king's livery, and
had greater rights and immunities than any prince or first magis-
trate of another tribe. Levi was a tribe exempted from the juris-
diction of the law and protected against it, as plainly appears
from the instance of the drunken Levite and his concubine,' p. 142.
And he repeats it again in the next page, that ' this instance
plainly shows, that there was no law for priests and Levites at that
time ;' he goes on to say, p. 142; that 'under the law of Moses
the priests had an interest separate from and inconsistent with the
interest of the state or society, and that he looks upon this to be
the true state of the case under the Mosaical economy, and by the
essential constitution of that law.'
That the priesthood had the government of the nation in their
hands according to the Mosaic institution, as this author suggests,
106 OTHER OBJECTIONS AGAINST
is far from being true. Moses had the chief government in his
own hands during his lifetime, while Aaron was high priest ; and
he did not vest the government after his decease in Eleazar the
high priest, but appointed Joshua, who was not of the tribe of
Levi, to succeed him in the government of the people. Afterwards,
when the nation was governed by judges for some hundreds of
years, in whom the supreme power resided, they were taken indif-
ferently out of every tribe, as it pleased God to appoint ; but not
one of them was the high priest, nor of the priestly order, or of the
tribe of Levi, till Eli and Samuel, the last of the judges. They
were afterwards governed by kings till the Babylonish captivity,
who had it in their power to depose the high priest, as Solomon
did Abiathar. In a word, the judging and governing the people is
never once mentioned in the law, as properly belonging to the
high priest's office.
The inferior judges that were appointed by Moses to judge the
people, Exod. xviii. 20, 21, Deut. i. 13, 15, and afterwards the
seventy elders, whom God appointed to assist Moses in the greater
and more difficult causes, which the inferior judges were not able to
decide, were chosen out of all the tribes, and not that of Levi only,
Numb. xi. 16, 17, 25 ; and it is agreed by all the Jews that the
great Sanhedrim or council, the supreme court of judicature, of
whose power they say such great things, consisted not merely of
priests and Levites, but of any other persons of other tribes that
were qualified by their knowledge of the Law ; and Maimonides
saith, ' that even if there were not one priest or Levite there, it
was a lawful judicatory ; and that the high priest did not sit there
merely by virtue of his place or birth, except his knowledge in the
law was such as fitted him for it.' Concerning this, see Selden de
Synedr., lib. ii. cap. 18, . 1.
And whereas this writer pretends, that e even the Levites, though
servants in the temple, had greater rights and immunities than any
prince or first magistrate of another tribe ; and that Levi was a
tribe exempted from the jurisdiction of the law and protected
against it ;' this is entirely false ; there are no such immunities or
exemptions from the jurisdiction of the law allowed to priests and
Levites by the Mosaical constitution. The judges are commanded
to judge all persons and causes without respect of persons, and to
take criminals even from the altar. Exod. xxi. 14 : ' If a man
come presumptuously upon his neighbour to slay him with guile,
thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die ;' that is, as
the most eminent Jewish authors interpret it, though he were a
priest and were then ministering at the altar, ready to sacrifice, he
was to be taken thence : and the Jerusalem Targum expressly saith,
although it were the high priest that was then ministering, they
were to take him from the altar and put him to death. And so far
is it from being true, that the whole tribe of Levi was exempted
from the jurisdiction of the law, that it is agreed amongst the Jews,
that even the high priest himself as well as others was subject to
the jurisdiction even of the lesser courts ; yea, to the least of them
all, the tribunal of three, in causes that came before those courts ;
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 107
and that whether he committed any thing against the affirmative
or negative precepts of the law, he was accounted as one of the
common people, and that in every cause belonging to him. So the
Gemara Babylon. Tit. Sanhedr. See all this fully shown by the
most learned author above cited, de Synedr., lib. ii. cap. 8, . 1, 3,
and cap. x. . 6. The proof this writer pretends to bring from the
case of the Levite and his concubine is ridiculous. What the
Levite had done contrary to law, or wherein he was protected
against the jurisdiction of the law is hard to know. But I suppose
because he was a Levite, our author thinks that not only his wife
should be abused and murdered with impunity, but he ought to
have been punished for complaining of it. Not those that did the
outrage were to be called to an account for it, but the poor Levite
that suffered it. This is the immunity he seems willing to give the
Levites, an immunity from having common justice done them, and
the privilege of being injured and outraged with impunity.
It is in the same strain of misrepresentation he concludes, that
under the law of Moses the priest ' had an interest separate from
ahd inconsistent with the interest of the state or society ;' and that
he looks upon this to be the ' true state of the case under the
Mosaic economy, and by the essential constitution of that law.'
Under that economy, as I have already observed, there were no
proper ecclesiastical immunities, if by these be meant the priests
being exempted from the jurisdiction of the law, and from being
judged in the common courts in all causes equally with others.
Nor were there any such things strictly speaking as purely eccle-
siastical j udicatories under that constitution. Those of other tribes
joined with the Levites in the j udicatories, and even in the greatest
of all, the Sanhedrim itself, to which the ultimate appeal lay in all
causes ecclesiastical as well as civil ; as Selden shows in the place
above quoted. So that the priests were not a body separate from
and independent of the state, but incorporated with it ; except that
the peculiar duties of their office, as the offering up of sacrifices,
officiating at the tabernacle or temple, &c., was to be done by none
hut themselves. Upon the whole, there was by the essential con-
stitution of that law a harmony between the civil and ecclesiastical
powers ; and accordingly under their best kings and governors,
when their law was most strictly observed, and in the most flourish-
ing times of their state, we find them contributing mutual assist-
ance and support to one another.
As to their Church revenues, if he could prove, as he says he
easily could, that they ' had full twenty shillings in the pound
upon all the lands of Israel, he might justly say that they 'drained
all the treasures of the kingdom into the church.' But such a
wild assertion as this deserves no answer, and only shows that this
writer throws out any thing at random, by which he may vent his
spleen against the priests, without being at all solicitous whether it
be agreeable to truth or decency.
He remarks, that the tribe ' of Levi was but a sixtieth part of
the people ;' and it will be easily granted that when they were first
108 OTHER OBJECTIONS AGAINST
numbered in the wilderness they were but few in proportion to the
rest of the people ; but as the nation was divided into a certain
number of tribes, and the Levites were one whole tribe, it was but
just that in the general division they should be considered and
provided for as such ; and that when the method of their subsistence
and maintenance was settled for all succeeding generations, regard
should be had not only to their present number, which then hap-
pened to be far smaller than that of any other tribe, but to what it
might prove afterwards ; for the numbers of persons in the same
tribe often differed mightily at different times ; and particularly in
the tribe of Levi, we find it sometimes bearing a much greater pro-
portion to the number of the people, than it did at their being first
numbered in the wilderness.
But methinks this writer, who seems to have such frightful no-
tions of ' a landed clergy,' and who makes their having a large
share of unalienable lands vested in them, the chief source of the
great ascendant they obtained both over kings and people, should
have more favourable thoughts of the priesthood established by the
Mosaic constitution, since they were so far from having a third
part of the lands of Canaan in their possession, as Diodorus tells
us*, the priests ' had a third of the whole land of Egypt,' that they
had not, properly speaking, any lands settled upon them at all by
the original constitution of that law, except that there were cities
assigned them in the several tribes to dwell in with lands round
them, which were not to extend to above a thousand cubits, for
their accommodation in their dwellings. But the tribe of Levi had
no inheritance in the land assigned them, when the rest of the
tribes had theirs. This is often repeated in the law, and that it
should be a ' statute for ever throughout their generations,' Numb,
xviii. 20, 23, 24, Deut. x. 9. If, therefore, there had not been a
liberal provision made for them otherwise, their condition would
have been much worse than any of the other tribes, which God
did not think fit to suffer, as they were more immediately to attend
his service in the tabernacle or temple, .and were designed to teach
and instruct the people. For that this whole tribe was particularly
designed to instruct the people in the law, is evident from many
passages, particularly Lev. x. 2; Deut. xxxiii. 10; 2 Chron. xvii.
7,8; xxx. 22; Neh. viii. 7, 9 ; Mai. ii. 4 7. And to engage
them to be more diligent and careful in instructing the people in
the right knowledge of the law, may be probably supposed to have
been one reason of the particular manner of their maintenance pre-
scribed under that constitution. For it is evident, that the subsist-
ence of the Levites, but especially of the priests, very much de-
pended on the people's close observance of the law of Moses, with-
out a pretty good acquaintance with which they could not be so
exact in bringing the oblations in the several cases and occasions
there prescribed. So that this made it to be the interest of the
priests and Levites themselves, that the people should not be igno-
* Diod. Sicul., lib. i.
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 109
rant of that law. It also tended to make them more diligent in
their own offices, and in observing the laws and constitutions of the
public worship at the tabernacle or temple, from which their sub-
sistence in a great measure arose. And besides, in this method of
providing for them, the people had a better opportunity given them,
of showing their readiness and good will, than if they had had
large independent settlements in land : and indeed, Philo tells us,*
concerning many of the Jews in his time, speaking of the first
fruits, 2tc., belonging to the priests, that ' they prevented the de-
manding of them, and paid them even before they were due, and as
if they had rather been receiving a benefit than giving any ; and
that both sexes brought them in with such a readiness and alacrity,
and studious zeal, as is beyond expression.'
It comes in very properly to be observed here, that several things
which are looked upon as mightily contributing to promote the
power and wealth of the priests, had no place at all in the Mosaic
constitution. This writer observes that when once the Egyptian
priests had obtained such an ascendant in that country, ' Egypt
became the parent and patronage of new gods ; for every new god
brought a new revenue to the priests.' And it is observed, by a
noble writer, that in ' the early days of this ancient priestly nation,
it was thought expedient, for the increase of devotion, to enlarge
their systems of deity, and to multiply their revealed objects of
worship, and raise new personages of divinity in their religion.' And
he supposes the vast number of their gods and of their temples in
Egypt to be the contrivance of their priests for the increase of their
own power and riches. And among the many methods for ad-
vancing the interests of the priesthood, he particularly reckons the
having ' new modes of worship, new heroes, saints, divinities, which
serve as new occasions for sacred donatives.f Now it is unde-
niably evident that there was no place for any of these things in
the law of Moses : no ' new modes of worship,' no ' new divinities'
allowed, no worship of ' saints'- and ' heroes,' no variety of tem-
ples.' As there was but one God to be worshipped, the only
living and true God, so there was but one sanctuary or temple
allowed at which all their sacrifices were to be offered. So that
many of these things, which are represented as mighty sources of
priestly wealth and power, were not at all admitted under that con-
stitution.
But yet as it pleased God for wise ends to choose out a nation
to himself to be erected into a peculiar polity, whose very consti-
tution was founded in the acknowledgment and worship of that
one -' true God,' at the same time that the whole world about them
was overspread with idolatry ; and as it pleased him that there
should be a great deal of pompous ceremony in his worship, with-
out which, as the temper of the world was, it would probably have
been neglected and disregarded, and the people apt to revolt to the
pompous and splendid idolatries of their neighbouring countries;
* Cited by Selden, History of Tithes. Review, chap. ii.
t Characteristics, vol. iii. pp. 43, 44, 49, 50.
110 OTHER OBJECTIONS AGAINST
so he saw it fit that those that were to be employed as priests and
ministers in his immediate worship and service, should be hand-
somely provided for ; without which, in those circumstances of
things, they would have been hi danger of falling into contempt,
and have lain under a greater temptation to set about inventing
new modes of worship, new temples, deities, and altars. It is cer-
tain, that in all other countries in those early ages, the persons
officiating in the sacred rites and ceremonies were of considerable
rank and figure ; and it did not seem fit that among that people
which above all others peculiarly made profession of worshipping
the one true God, those that were set apart to the immediate ser-
vice and worship of the God of heaven and earth, should be in a
mean and indigent condition.
But though the provision made for the priests and Levites by
' tithes, first-fruits, oblations,' and other dues settled on them by
that law, was sufficient to give them a handsome subsistence, sup-
posing them regularly paid*; yet it has been greatly magnified
by some, though never so unreasonably by any as by this author ;
and to swell the account, they have thrown in the second tithe, as
if this also belonged peculiarly to the Levites ; and yet by the ex-
press direction of the law it was to be spent by the owners in en-
tertaining themseves and their households, their men-servants and
maid-servants, that they might all rejoice together in the place
which the Lord should choose. Therefore it is usually called by
the Jews the ' owner's tithe ;' and the Levites were admitted to
partake of these entertainments. And every third year it was to
be spent at their own places of abode, and more peculiarly designed
for the entertainment and benefit of the poor, the stranger, the
widow, and the fatherless. And therefore it is usually called by
the Jews the ' poor man's tithe.' These things were designed,
under that constitution, for maintaining and enlarging mutual
benevolence, and brotherly love and charity. And notwithstanding
the complaints this writer makes of the impoverishment and in-
sufferable burdens laid upon that people, yet in fact it appears
from the whole history of their nation, that they were never so
happy and flourishing at home, and so much respected abroad, as
when they kept close to the observance of their law. Their cheerful
obedience was fully compensated by blessings poured forth upon
them in great abundance, as it had been expressly promised them
in that covenant. It is certain their greatest and best men
always looked upon the law of Moses as their special privilege and
advantage, whereby they were gloriously distinguished above other
nations, which they would never have done if they had looked
* Yet it must be owned, that this method of maintenance, though chosen, as I have
already hinted, for wise ends, was much more precarious than if they had had rich in-
dependent revenues in land settled on them. And though many of the people, and
the best of them, rendered those dues cheerfully, yet no doubt they often suffered through
the ill-will or avarice of others; and to make amends for what they must unavoidably
suffer in this way, we may well suppose to be one reason why their allowance was made
large, and to arise from, various things.
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. Ill
upon it to have been such a miserable, enslaving, impoverishing
constitution, as this author represents it. Nor do I find they made
any grievous complaints about the maintenance provided for the
priests and Levites. Solomon, who was a very wise man, and a
great king, gives it as his advice, Prov. iii. 9, 10, ' Honour the
Lord with thy substance, and with the first-fruits of thine increase'
(which were appointed by the law to be given to the priests), ' so
shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst
with new wine.' From whence it appears, that he was far from
being of opinion that they would be impoverished and ruined, by
what they liberally and cheerfully expended in obedience to the
law. And the author of Ecclesiasticus, of whose wisdom this
writer seems to express a good opinion, p. 218, adviseth to ' honour
the priest, and give him his portion, as it is commanded, the first-
fruits, and the trespass-offering,' See., chap. vii. 31.
Our author, indeed, takes upon him to pronounce that the Jews
were never reconciled to this at all ; and he is pleased to charge all
their idolatries to the account of it. ' Their national established
worship was so prodigiously expensive, and their clergy or priests
and Levites, such absolute masters of their property' (one would
think by his representation, that they had all the lands of Israel in
their possession), ' that they took all occasions to revolt, and were
glad to serve any ocher gods, that would accept them upon easier
terms.' Thus he hath found out a good excuse for the frequent
idolatries of the Jews. At other times he charges this conduct on
the gross stupidity, and ' constitutional national blindness of that
wretched Egyptianized people :' but here he is pleased to pity the
poor people, and lays the blame of all upon their law, which laid
such a burden upon them, that it was impossible for them to live
under it. There is as much foundation for this as for many others
of this author's reflections. But how comes it that the Jews them-
selves never pretended this as a reason, or at least an excuse
for their revolts? The truth is, if this was the reason of their
going over to the idolatrous worship of the neighbouring nations,
they would not have gained much by the change. The priests in
other countries were of great power and influence; and it appears,
by the most ancient accounts, that the public worship and cere-
monies of religion were vastly expensive, and their sacrifices such
as could not be maintained and performed but at a very great
charge.* And besides, we find the Jews, in their most degenerate
times, were often willing enough to offer multitudes of sacrifices to
the Lord, and to other gods too ; which one should think would
rather have added to their expenses than diminished them. The
truth of the matter is, it was not their being oppressed by the
priests, and reduced to poverty by the expensiveness of their public
worship that drove them into idolatry ; but it was usually in a
time of peace and plenty, and when they began to grow rich that
they forgot the Lord, see Deut. xxxi. 20, 21, xxxii. 15. This
* Sae Shuckford's Sacred and Profane History, vol. ii. p. 209.
112 OTHER OBJECTIONS AGAINST
brought on a corruption and dissoluteness of manners, which pro-
duced a neglect of religion, and a conformity to the idolatrous cus-
toms of the. neighbouring nations. Nor need we go any farther to
account for this, than the corruption of the human nature, and
that strange proneness that hath appeared in mankind in all ages
(the wisest nations not excepted) to superstition and false worship,
and to imitate the ill customs of others, especially when they were
such as tended to the gratification of vicious inclinations and appe-
tites. And of this kind were many of the rites performed to the
heathen deities. But with regard to the Jews, this is certain, that
their revolting from the religion and worship prescribed in their
law, was usually followed with great calamities. And when they
were reduced to affliction and distress, this brought them to serious
reflections upon their guilt and folly. They then sought unto the
Lord, and were glad to return to the observance of his law, sen-
sible not only that it was their duty, but that their happiness de-
pended upon it.
Here it may not be improper to take notice of the objections
raised by this writer against the law of Moses, on the account of
the constitutions there made concerning expiatory sacrifices, which
he represents as most absurd and unreasonable, and as a gross
fallacy and imposition upon the common sense and understanding
of men. But before I enter on a particular consideration of his
objections, it is proper to observe, that sacrifices were not first ori-
ginally appointed in the law of Moses ; they had been in use long
before. The first act of religion that we read of after the fall was
the offering of sacrifice. And it is probable that it was originally
of divine appointment, and communicated to our first parents, toge-
ther with the original promise, both to keep alive upon the minds
of men, a sense of the evil of sin, and God's just displeasure against
it, and to be a visible pledge of his pardoning mercy. It was an
act of religion that soon spread universally among all nations, and
scarce any other account can be given of his having so early and
universally obtained, but that it was derived by a tradition from
the first parents and progenitors of the human race, who recom-
mended it to their posterity as a rite of religion acceptable to God,
and which be himself had appointed. Afterwards, when men fell
off from the worship of the only true God to idols, they offered
sacrifices to them as well as prayers and other acts of divine wor-
ship. This was the state of things when the law of Moses was
given. Sacrifices were every where offered, though for the most
part to idols. In that law God prescribed sacrifices to be offered
to his divine majesty, as they had been by good men before, pro-
bably by his own appointment, and strictly prohibited the offering
them to any other. Many particular regulations were made, and
orders given relating to those sacrifices. And in order to prevent
their falling into the idolatrous usages of the neighbouring nations,
they were forbidden to offer any other sacrifices, or with any other
rites than were there expressly prescribed : some of which rites
probably had been derived from the ancient Patriarchs, others were
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 113
then first instituted in opposition to the rites of the idolatrous na-
tions, and to preserve the Israelites from a conformity to them.
These rites and ordinances relating to sacrifices were wrought into
the Mosaic constitution, and so ordered by divine wisdom as among
other ends and uses to be the types and shadows of good things to
come, under a more perfect dispensation to which that was designed
to be subservient, and in which all these sacrifices were to be en-
tirely superseded by an oblation of a far superior nature, and of in-
finitely greater virtue.
But let us now consider the attempt our author makes to expose
the ordinances of the law of Moses relating to expiatory sacrifices.
He observes, ' that there could be no commutation or exchange of
punishment under the law as a favour or matter of grace from any
of those sacrifices. The penalty, whatever it was, supposing the
offence proved, must be executed as the law enjoined, and there
could be no such thing as any pardon under that constitution. In
all capital cases, the offender, upon legal proof or conviction, must
die the death, and no sacrifice could exempt him. And in all
cases where the law had not provided death, but some pecuniary
mulct or personal labour and servitude upon non-payment, this
penalty was to be strictly executed, and none coiild plead any pri-
vilege or exemption by sacrifice. And he thinks he may venture
to say universally, that no other penalty, of what nature or kind so-
ever, was ever taken off, or mitigated on the account of sacrifice.
He observes farther, that the persons entitled to this atonement
were supposed to be guilty of no fault after they had satisfied the
law in making their offering, or paying their fine, which if they
had not done, no atonement could be accepted. And therefore he
concludes, that the making the atonement or virtue of these sa-
crifices, to consist only and absolutely in the priest's sprinkling the
sacrificial blood, as was done under that amazing constitution, as
he calls it, was nothing else but a priestly cheat, and gross impo-
sition.'* pp. 126 128.
To clear this matter I shall offer some observations that may
give some light into the Mosaical constitutions about sacrifices, and
may serve to obviate our author's exceptions.
First, Under that constitution there were no sacrifices prescribed
at all for those crimes against which death was denounced, or any
particular penalties appointed by law. And there is very good
reason for this. If the offering sacrifices had in such cases ex-
empted persons that were legally convicted of those crimes from
the legal obligation to punishment, it would have had a very bad
effect on the public. And if persons could have escaped punish-
ments for the greatest crimes merely on their offering sacrifices,
this constitution would have been much more inveighed against,
and with much more reason, as inconsistent with the preservation
* As to the use he makes of some of these assertions against the doctrine of Christ's
satisfaction, the proper place for considering this, will be when we examine his excep-
tions against that doctrine.
114 OTHER OBJECTIONS AGAINST
of civil order, and the good of society, and as a dispensing with
and vacating all the laws of the commonwealth. Where, therefore,
it was judged necessary for the good of the community, that the
penalties should be actually inflicted on persons guilty of such
crimes, in these cases no sacrifices were appointed. Because as
sacrifices were supposed to obtain pardon, and to avert the punish,
ment that was due for the crime on the account of \vhich they
were offered, it was not proper to appoint sacrifices by law for
crimes which it was thought necessary for the public good to
punish.
Another remark I would make with regard to these expiatory
sacrifices is, that in cases where sacrifices were appointed to be of-
fered, they were never supposed to be of any avail, or to entitle a
person to pardon without repentance, which if they had been sup-
posed to have done, this constitution would have had a very bad in-
fluence on religion : hence in the sacrifices that were to be offered
for any sin or fault, the person that had offended was obliged to
lay ' his hand upon the head of the victim, and to confess his sins, '
especially that particular sin on the account of which the sacrifice
was offered, and to declare his repentance for it, as appears from
Lev. v. 5. And in cases where persons had done any damage to
their neighbour, they were not only to confess it, but to make res-
titution of what they had wrongfully taken. And it is a general
rule, that sacrifices were never ordered but in cases where the offen-
der was supposed to be penitent. When a person had sinned through
ignorance, and came afterwards to be sensible of it ; or if he had
sinned knowingly and wilfully, and afterwards was brought to a
true repentance, and of his own accord acknowledged it, when it
could not be proved against him ; in such cases as these sacrifices
were to be offered, as may be seen in the laws about the sin-offer-
ing and the trespass-offering, Lev. iv. 5, 6. But in case of obsti-
nate impenitency and presumptuous sinning with a high hand, no
sacrifices were admitted. From whence it appears, that the legal
sacrifices were not designed to draw men off from real substantial
piety and righteousness, or to serve instead of it, but rather sup-
posed the absolute necessity of repentance in order to forgiveness,
and that no pardon could be expected without it.
Another thing that it is proper to observe with regard to the ex-
piatory sacrifices under the law, is, that the atoning virtue of those
sacrifices was supposed principally to consist in the blood of the vic-
tim, which was ' shed and sprinkled ' on or towards the altar. And
this is what our author cries out against as a priestly cheat and
gross imposition : he would fain know what ' atonements or propi-
tiation could signify under a law that admitted no pardon ?' If by
saying that the law admitted no pardon, he means, that where the
Jaw denounced any particular penalty against a particular crime,
the law itself did not appoint that penalty to be remitted, which it
appointed to be inflicted for that crime, it is very true. And to
suppose the contrary would be very absurd. For no law dispenses
with the penalty which that law expressly enjoins : and therefore it
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 115
.was, that in cases where the Mosaical law expressly appointed par-
ticular penalties for particular crimes no sacrifice was admitted, be-
cause the law did not intend the penalties should be dispensed with
in these cases, but if by saying ' that law admitted no pardon ' he
intends that there was no such, thing as pardon or remission of sins
at all under that constitution, it is a great mistake, for the very ap-
pointment of expiatory sacrifices shows, there was pardon under
that constitution, and necessarily supposes it. For in cases where
sacrifices were appointed to be offered, it is expressly declared, that
upon a man's confessing his fault, and offering the sacrifice, ' the
.sin which he had committed should be forgiven him.'
But still it is urged, that this was only a priestly cheat, since
really nothing was forgiven, and he was freed from no penalty on
the account of the sacrifice. But how doth this writer prove that
he was freed from no penalty on the account of the sacrifice ? It
is certain that in cases where sacrifices were appointed to be offer-
ed for any crime, the man that offended was not subjected by law
to any penalty for that crime, as he was with regard to crimes for
which sacrifices were not appointed to be offered. For which this
reason is to be given, that the sacrifice was supposed to avert the
penalty, and therefore sacrifices were not suffered to be offered in
cases where it was necessary for the good of the community, that
the penalty should be actually inflicted. Thus, e. g. in cases of
stealing or defrauding, if the thief was taken and legally convicted,
he was to 'restore double ' if the ox, or ass, or sheep which he had
taken was found alive with him ; but if he had killed or sold it, he
was to ' restore four or five fold ; ' and if he could not do
.this he was to be sold, Exod. xxii. 1, 2, 3. And in such cases no
sacrifice was appointed at all : because it was intended, and was
judged necessary for the good or' the public, that the penalty should
be actually executed. But if a man bad taken any thing wrong-
fully from his neighbour, and had even sworn falsely concerning it,
and could not be legally convicted, or the crime proved upon him,
if afterwards he sincerely repented of his crime, and came of him-
self and acknowledged his guilt, in that case he was appointed to
hring a sacrifice, and then the penalty which was appointed in the
other case was not to be inflicted on him. He was obliged only to
restore the principal, and add a fifth part thereto, which was no
more than was proper to make amends to the owner for the damage
he might have sustained in being for some time without the use of
what had been taken from him, see Lev. vi. 2. And this was not
properly a mulct or penalty, but a just restitution, which was neces-
sary to shew the sincerity of the repentance he professed for his
crime. So that we see that in cases where the mulct or penalty was
actually insisted on by law, sacrifices were not appointed to be of-
fered ; and where the sacrifices were appointed to be offered, the
mulct or penalty, which would have been otherwise due, was to be
remitted. And by this we may see how true it is which he ventures
to pronounce universally, that ' no other penalty of what nature or
kind soever was ever taken off or mitigated on the account of sacrifice.'
i 2
116 OTHER OBJECTIONS AGAINST
But perhaps it will be said, that in these cases the sacrifices them-
selves were the penalty required by law. He tells us ' that in innu-
merable cases of accident or inadvertency, which was made penal
by the law, the sacrifice as a deodand or fine to the church was the
whole penalty. And where a sacrifice was ordered with a pecuniary
mulct, one part of the fine was due to the state, and the other
to the church. ' But sacrifices were offered in many cases that were
not owing- merely to inadvertency, but where the sin had been deli-
berate and wilful, though afterwards sincerely repented of, as is evi-
dent from the instances mentioned, Lev. vi. 2, 3. And in these
cases it is manifest that the sacrifice was not regarded or pre-
scribed as a punishment, but as a means to free the offender from
punishment; and the reason why no punishment was enjoined where
sacrifices were ordered, was not because the sacrifice itself was a
punishment, but because the sacrifice was supposed to free the per-
son in the eye of the law from the guilt he had contracted, and
thereby avert the punishment to which otherwise he must have been
obnoxious. As to his insinuation that the sacrifice was only a fine
to the church, one should think, if this had been the case, they
would have been allowed to commute the sacrifice for money, which
yet was never admitted. And whereas he adds, that 'where a sa-
crifice was ordered with a pecuniary mulct one part of the fine was
due to the state, and the other to the church. ; ' he would have done
well to have told us what sacrifices were ordered with pecuniary
mulcts. In cases where mulcts were ordered by law, which was
only where a real damage had been done by any man to his neigh-
bour, the mulct or fine if he will call it so, was to be paid to the in-
jured person himself, and not either to the state or to the church :
nor was the priest to have any share in it at all, except in cases where
the priest himself happened to be the person that had suffered the
damage. Instances of this we have with regard to the thief that
was obliged to restore double to the person whom he had in-
jured, and if the thing he had stolen was sold or destroyed, four or
five fold ; and if he could not do this, he was to be sold by him
whom he had wronged. And in case of a man's accusing a virgin
wrongfully, or in case of deflowering a virgin unbetrothed, the law
appointed a fine or sum of money to be paid to her father, besides
the satisfaction that was to be made to the damsel herself, Deut.
xxii. 18, 19, 29. And in these cases, where there were penal mulcts
appointed by law, there were no sacrifices admitted : and on the
other hand, in cases where sacrifices were prescribed, there was no
mulct appointed.
But he farther urges, to show that the making the atonement to
consist in the priest's sprinkling the sacrificial blood was ' a gross
fallacy and imposition; that the persons entitled to this atonement,
were supposed to be guilty of no fault after they had satisfied the
law in making their offering, or paying of their fine, which if they
had not done no atonement could be accepted. And that this there-
fore was taking out a pardon after the debt had been paid, and the
law satisfied, and owning an infinite obligation to the priests, for
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. 117
cheating them out of their money, and their substance.' p. 128.
The sting of this sneer lies here. That before the blood was sprin-
kled the law was satisfied, and the person supposed to be guilty of no
fault, and therefore it was an imposition to pretend that the sprin-
kling of the blood made an atonement for him. But this is misre-
presented : for the law was not satisfied, nor was the offering pro-
perly made or completed, till the blood was sprinkled. Till that
was done the person was still supposed to lie under his guilt, and
was not clear in the eye of the law. And as the sacrifice could not
be of any avail without confession and restitution, which was sup-
posed to be a necessary qualification for forgiveness, so in cases
where sacrifices were prescribed, though a man had made restitu-
tion, he was not regarded as free from his guilt till the sacrifice was
offered, and the atonement made by the blood. Restitution did in-
deed repair the injury offered to his neighbour, but still there was
a guilt cleaving to him on account of the transgression he had been
guilty of against God. Expiation therefore was to be made for the of-
fence committed against the divine majesty. And in order to this,
the blood of the sacrifice was required to be offered unto God. And
the reason that is given why the blood was supposed to make atone-
ment for the soul, is this, that the ' life of the flesh is in the blood,'
Lev. xvii. 2. So that the atonement consisted in this, that the life
of the victim was given for the offender ; and the sprinkling of the
blood upon the altar was an offering or rendering the blood or life
of the victim untp God. This was to put them in mind, that in
strictness they had deserved death at the hand of God, if he should
deal with them in a way of rigorous justice ; since every transgres-
sion and disobedience exposed them to the curse that was denoun-
ced in the law against ' every one that continued not in all things
that are written in the book of the law to do them : ' but yet that
he would graciously pardon them, and accept an atonement for
them ; and accordingly when this was offered, the person that had
offended was legally clean and free from the guilt and curse he had
contracted and not before.
As to the general reasons of this constitution, it was a visible
pledge of God's pardoning mercy to penitent sinners, and at the
same time it tended to preserve in their mind a lively sense of his
justice and purity, and of the evil of sin, and to make them sensi-
ble what it deserved if God should enter into strict judgment with
them : since besides repentance and amendment the shedding of the
blood of the sacrifice for them was required in order to the expia-
tion of their guilt. And sacrifices were insisted on even with re-
gard to sins of ignorance and inadvertency, that they might be afraid
of all sin when they found that the least sin was not to be passed
by without some marks of God's displeasure against it, and might
be rendered cautious and vigilant over themselves and their own
conduct, since even ignorance and inadvertency or rashness, which
is the cause of. many faults, should not totally excuse for a viola-
tion of the law : but when once it came to be known, they were to
confess it before God, to humble themselves on the account of it,
118 OTHER OBJECTIONS AGAINST
and to seek expiation for it by the blood of the sacrifice. Lastly,
supposing that God had from the beginning formed the wise and
gracious design to send his own Son into the world in the fulness
of time to take upon him our nature, and to shed his blood as a
propitiation for the sins of the world ; and that this was the way in
which he had appointed to confer salvation on guilty mankind; that
so he might declare his righteousness in the remission of sins, and
vindicate the authority of his government and laws even in the very
methods of reconciliation : taking in this view of things, it was very
proper to institute and appoint sacrifices, the better to prepare the
world for receiving that method of redemption through the blood
and sacrifice of his Son, and to typify and prefigure the true atone-
ment. And upon this state of the case, the propriety of this con-
stitution of sacrifices, and the comprehensive views the divine wis-
dom had in it, do more fully appear.
Thus it appears, that there were great and wise ends in this insti-
tution of sacrifices, and at the same time care was taken that they
should be managed so as not at all to interfere with the civil laws,
or to be any way detrimental to the society, by derogating from
the justice and public order necessary for the preservation of the
commonwealth.
CHAPTER. VII.
His pretence that the law of Moses made no distinction between morals and rituals, and
never urged things as in themselves fit and reasonable ; and that the stories of the
miracles recorded there were the cause of the Jews' obduracy and impenitency through-
out all their generations. His bitter invectives against the Jews, aud the strange re-
presentation he makes of that people, with a view to cast a reproach upon their law.
It is shown that by the advantage of their law, they far exceeded a!l other nations in
the knowledge of religion, and that they were famed for wisdom even among the Hea-
thens. The proper use that should be made of the accounts given us of their faults, and
of the punishments inflicted on them.
WE have not yet done with this writer's objections against the
law of Moses, with a view to expose that law and the Jews. He
tells us, p. 271, that ' Moses gave them a law, not as a law or re-
ligion of nature, but as the immediate voice and positive will of God,
the grounds or reasons of which they were never to examine or in-
quire into, nor to look upon it either as founded in the eternal im-
mutable fitness of things, or the result of any human reason or pru-
dence ; and having this opinion of their law in general, they made
no distinction between morals and rituals, between eternal and im-
mutable, and temporary and mutable obligations, or between the
laws of nature, and the perfect reverse of them.' And he had ob-
THE LAW OF MOSES CONSIDERED. H9
served before, that ' they would believe nothing as necessarily and
eternally true in nature and reason, but depended for the proof of
every thing upon miracles, prodigies, &c. And that they had really
no such thing among them as a notion of what is right and wrong
in morality,' p. 256.
It will be easily granted that Moses represents the law he gives
as enjoined by the immediate authority and will of God himself.
And I suppose none will deny but that this must give a mighty
force and efficacy to laws however fit or reasonable in themselves.
And I believe every considerate person will allow that in a divine law
it is not necessary to enter into the particular reasons of all the
commands that are given, or to deduce them by a chain of philoso-
phical reasonings from what this writer calls the eternal fitness of
things. But if he means to insinuate, as seems plainly to be his in-
tention, that in the law of Moses things are never urged upon the
people as in themselves fit and reasonable, nor the grounds and
reasons of the law ever set before them, nothing can be more false,
as is evident to any one that is in the least acquainted with that law.
They are not urged to obedience from a mere regard to the autho-
rity of God who gave them those laws, but they are frequently
urged to it from a consideration of his goodness ; and the reasonable-
ness and fitness of the thing required of them is often signified in
the most expressive and comprehensive manner, with admirable ful-
ness as well as brevity. It were easy to produce a considerable
number of instances out of the books of Moses, in which the reasons
of the law are clearly set forth along with the laws themselves, and
that both with regard to moral and ritual precepts. It is true, that
Moses never talks of the ' eternal reason and immutable fitness of
things ; ' nor does the gospel, though it so evidently tends to give
us good and excellent notions of pure and refined morality, ever ex-
press itself after this manner. And I apprehend this way of expres-
sion will scarce be thought necessary for enlightening the under-
standings of the people in the knowledge of morals ; especially in
the crude and confused manner in which this author and some
others use it. But it is evident that Moses often teaches the peo-
ple to regard his laws as founded in reason, and righteousness, and
equity, and commendable for their wisdom and excellency. Thus
Deut. iv. 6, 7, 8. ' What nation is there so great which hath sta-
tutes and judgments so righteous, as all this law which I set before
you this day ? Keep and do them, for this is your wisdom and un-
derstanding.' And he there supposes the excellency of their laws
to be so manifest, that other nations that should hear and observe
them would be ready to say, ' surely this great nation is a wise and
understanding people. ' He frequently tells them that the statutes
and commandments which God required them to obey, were for
their own good, Deut. xxvi. 24. x. 13. And it is certain in fact, that
the greatest and wisest men among the Jews, and indeed the peo-
ple in general, had a very high opinion of the wisdom, the goodness,
the equity, and reasonableness of their laws. So far is it from being
true, which this author confidently alleges, that they did not regard
120 OTHER OBJECTIONS AGAINST
the ' moral law or statutes and judgments delivered by Moses in the
name of God, as true and right, in nature and reason. ' The noble
account given of the law, Psal. xix. 7 12, to which might easily
be added many other passages celebrating the righteousness, the
purity, the loveliness of the laws enjoined them, sufficiently shows
what were the sentiments of all wise and good men among the Jews
on this head.
And indeed, this writer himself elsewhere thinks fit to own, that
' the lawgiver himself (Moses) directed the people to the right
motive and principle of action, i.e. to the inward love of God and
their neighbour, as the principal thing that would be regarded in
the sight of God,' p. 34.- And that ' this was along understood
and insisted on during the legal economy as necessary to a state of
true religion and virtue, as might be proved by innumerable tes-
timonies out of the law and the prophets. And that even in our
Saviour's time, the Jews, from the highest to the lowest, owned
the obligation of it, and could not stifle their convictions of it, how
much soever they had lost or neglected the practice. Their most
learned men, and Christ's greatest enemies, allowed* that to love
God above all, and our neighbour as ourselves, was the sum and
substance, the end and design of the whole law/ p. 34. And how
this is consistent with his asserting that the Jews made no distinc-
tion between morals and rituals, and between the ' laws of nature,
and the perfect reverse of them ;' and that they had no such thing
among them as a f notion of what is right or wrong in morality,' is
hard to conceive.
It is with equal justice and consistency that he represents ' the
old stories they had among them of their miraculous deliverances
and successes at the first institution of their covenant,' as having
' been the chief occasion of their natural blindness, obduracy, and
impenitency in all their succeeding generations, and of their de-
pending on continual miracles,' which he calls ' the most dangerous
presumption,' and ' the strongest hold of ignorance and error,'
pp. 263, 264. At other times he is pleased to ascribe this to what
4ie calls the ' incurable Egyptian temper of that people,' which
they at fiist contracted in Egypt, and could never afterwards shake
off"; but here he directly charges their impenitency and obstinacy
in all succeeding generations on the miraculous things that were
done for them to deliver them out of Egypt ; so that as he there ex-
presseth it, ' they had no great reason to boast of their deliverance.'
But how those ' old stories/ as he calls them, should have an influ-
ence to render them ever afterwards obdurate and impenitent, is hard
to conceive. The natural tendency of them, when firmly believed,
was to fill them with adoring thoughts of the divine power and
majesty, and with a thankful sense of their obligations to his good-
ness, and to engage them to a more diligent and careful obedience
to those laws which came to them confirmed with such illustrious
attestations. And it is for such purposes as these that they are
frequently mentioned by good men of old in their admirable psalms
and hymns of praise. But there is nothing in them to encourage
THE LAW OF MOSES. 121
them to expect any extraordinary interpositions in their favour,
whilst they continued an impenitent and disobedient people. On
the contrary, those ' old stories' of the miracles wrought at the first
establishment of their law were also accompanied with an account
of God's righteous severity against their ancestors, and the signal
punishments he inflicted upon them for their obduracy and im-
penitency. There was nothing in their whole law that gave them
ground to hope for prosperity and happiness, or any marks of the
divine favour towards them, but in a way of righteousness and obe-
dience. And on the other hand, it taught them to expect to be
distinguished from other nations, with the most remarkable judg-
ments and tokens of the divine displeasure, in case of their per-
sisting in an obstinate course of wickedness and disobedience. Nor
was there any thing, in their belief of the extraordinary things that
were done at their deliverance out of Egypt, that could reasonably
induce them, in ordinary cases, ' to neglect natural human means,
which God has ordained and established in the course of his pro-
vidence ;' and to depend on all occasions upon ' miracles, imme-
diate interposition, and uninstrumental divine agency ;' which is
another charge he advances against them. One would think, by
his representation, that the whole nation of the Jews in all ages
lived in a continual expectation of nothing else but miracles, that
they thought not of using any rational human means at all, but ex-
pected at all times to have plenty of food though they never ploughed
or sowed, and to be victorious over their enemies without taking
arms or fighting. But it does not appear from the history of their
nation in the Old Testament, that this was all along their temper
and expectation. They are often blamed for making flesh their
arm, and placing too much of their dependence on the aids of
human power, or the methods of a worldly policy, even to the ne-
glect and disobedience of God's commands and law. In their
prosperity, when they were in a state of wealth and power, they
were too apt to be overconfident and secure ; and in their adversity,
when they did not see probable human means for their deliverance,
they were apt to despond, such is the weakness of our nature, and
it was a difficult thing to get their minds raised to a steady con-
fidence in the divine power and goodness for restoring and deliver-
ing them. Arid if at any time they were brought by any gracious
promise or assurance that was given them in the name of God, to
hope that he would deliver them, they did not generally expect it
in a way of ' uninstrumental divine agency,' as this writer phraseth
it ; it did not make their great men and heroes sit still and neglect
rational human means, but rather animated and encouraged them
to use the best means they could for their own deliverance, in hope
that God would bless and give success to their endeavours ; as is
evident to any one that is at all acquainted with the history of the
Old Testament.
We are now got into the author's invectives against the Jews, in
which he seems to take an ill-natured satisfaction. It appears
from the passages already produced, that he makes a very disad-
122 THE AUTHOR'S INVECTIVES
vantageous repi-esentation of them, as having no notion of right or
wrong in morality, and making no distinction between the laws of
nature, and the perfect reverse of them. He frequently talks of
' their constitutional natural blindness which they had contracted
in Egypt among their fellow-slaves : that this blindness, bigotry,
and enthusiasm was the incurable distemper of this wretched
people ; and that they continued throughout all their generations
under the same Egyptian darkness and mental vassalage, and still
retained the gross ignorance, strong prejudices, and constitutional
character of that priestly enslaved nation. He represents them as
having ' lost all inward sincerity and integrity of heart, and all
true notions of God, of his natural and moral attributes and per-
fections, and of his providential government of the world. That
they could not distinguish between the effective and permissive
will of God, but ascribed every thing equally to God, as ordering,
directing, and appointing the greatest moral as well as natural evils.
That their superstition was such, that neither the law of nature, nor
the common methods of God's providential government could at all
affect them. That it is certain that after their going out of Egypt,
notwithstanding their extraordinary deliverance, they could scarcely
be paralleled by any other nation upon earth, for their gross igno-
rance, superstition, and moral wickedness, which ran through all
their successive generations, till their final dissolution and destruc-
tion.' He often talks of their national blindness, obduracy, and
impenitency ; and finally pronounces that ' the people of Israel at
first, and their remains afterwards called Jews, were a most un^
toward, grossly ignorant, amazing, superstitious, and desperately
wicked generation of men;' see pp. 248, 256, &c., 263, 271.
This is some part of the reproach which he pours forth upon that
unhappy nation, and which may give us a specimen of the spirit
and rhetoric of this writer. Whatever censures have been at any
time passed upon the worst of the Jews in their most degenerate
times, he applies without distinction to the whole nation at all
times from first to last. The sacred writers often reprove the Jews
for their faults, and if other nations were to be dealt with as freely
and impartially, they would not appear so fair as they now do in
the writings of partial and flattering historians. But though this
writer, and others, take advantage of the censures passed upon the
Jews in Scripture, I do not see how they can consistently blame
that people for those faults for which they are there principally, re-
proved. If this author be in the right, their unbelief ought to be
condemned as a noble instance of free-thinking ; and their frequent
revoltings from their law were glorious efforts to shake off an in-
tolerable yoke of tyranny and vassalage that was imposed upon
them, and to resume their natural liberties. He is pleased highly
to commend their idolatrous princes, as acting upon principles of
toleration and liberty of conscience, and seems to approve their
joining with the neighbouring nations in their idolatrous rites and
usages. So that it is not the Jews as idolatrous, and imitating
the heathens, that he really designs to find fault with, but the
AGAINST THE JEWS CONSIDERED. 123
Jews as adhering to their law, and to the commands there given,
and the worship there established ; though the better to cover it,
he takes advantage of the reproofs given them in Scripture for
those things which he himself must think to be no crimes at all.
It is their law itself, and their best and greatest men, those that
most religiously adhered to that law, that he principally intends to
strike at by his slanderous invectives, which he throws about with-
out distinction.
He affects frequently, as some others have done before him, to
speak of the Jews as if they had something naturally gross and
stupid in them below the rest of the human species, and were, by
their natural constitution, or by a kind of fatal necessity doomed to
perpetual blindness, superstition, and slavery. He often talks of
their natural and constitutional blindness, stupidity, obduracy, &c.
And is pleased to represent them as having ' contracted this con-
stitutional natural blindness in Egypt among their fellow-slaves,'
p. 248. It was ' natural' and ' constitutional ' to them through all
their generations, and yet was ' contracted in Egypt.' How this
will agree I cannot tell, except it be said that in Egypt they con-
tracted some odd kind of nature and constitution, which, like a dis-
temper, ran in their blood, and was conveyed from father to son
through all their successive generations. And then it must be
owned they were a ' wretched people' indeed ' from first to last/
but at the same time they were to be pitied more than blamed, and
it was rather their calamity than their crime. And this being, as.
he calls it, the ' incurable distemper of this wretched people,' no
wonder he asks, ' What could Moses and the prophets do with
them ?' for as he wisely observes, ' they could not new-make them,'
p. 271. And therefore it was impossible to govern and influence
them in their own way. And he tells us, that ' God gave them
up to that wickedness and tyranny, under such a dispensation of
blindness and slavery, because there was no other way to be taken
with them,' p. 248. Where he speaks as if he thought God himself
could not help them, or do any thing else with them, but give them
up to wickedness and tyranny, blindness and slavery. Though at
another time he seems to think, that the people might have been
better, if they had been better instructed ; and after having ob-
served, that the ' prophets and priests were equally Egyptianized,'
he affects to pity the people, who ' had no better means of infor-
mation,'' p. 265.
But when this writer and others have said the worst against the
Jews that their malice can suggest; and though he represents them
as a nation ' scarce to be paralleled by any other nation upon
earth for their gross ignorance,' and as having ' lost all true no-
tions of God, and of his natural and moral attributes and perfec- 1
tions,' yet it is certain that in their knowledge of God and true
religion, they vastly exceeded all other nations, even those that were
most celebrated for their wisdom and learning, and were the only
people that worshipped the one living and true God, when the rest
of the world was overrun with idolatry and false worship. And
THE
there is reason to think, that there were numbers among them,
even of the common people, that by their acquaintance with their
law, which they were all commanded diligently to read and to con-
sider, and in which they were to instruct their children, were brought
to form juster and nobler notions of God and of his providence, of
the duty they owed him, and the worship that was to be rendered
to him, than even the wise men and philosophers among the pagans.
And what rendered this more remarkable was, that they came out
of Egypt, which, according to this writer, was the ' mistress of
idolatry' to other nations. Egypt was a country illustrious among
the ancients for riches, arts, and learning. From thence Greece
principally derived her knowledge, and thither her most renowned
philosophers and wise men travelled for improvement. And yet
Sir John Marsham, who is not partial to the Hebrews, justly ob-
serves, that it is beyond all doubt, that the Hebrews entertained
most just and reverent sentiments of the one true God that governs
the world, whereas the opinions of the Egyptians in that respect
were very wrong : ' Certe nulla est controversia, quin -jrepl
'
de um'us regimine, sive de Deo unico, reverens fuerit et rectissima
Hebrseorum, non item recta .ZEgyptiorum existimatio,' Can. Chron.
Saecul. 9. And surely this was no sign of an extraordinary blind-
ness and ignorance in the Hebrews above other nations.
Their laws, in spite of this author's representation of them, to all
candid and impartial judges, discover an admirable wisdom, piety,
justice, and purity. Their historians show an unparalleled impar-
tiality, and seem only to have in view the relating plain truth with-
out disguise, and observing the happy effects of righteousness,
piety, and virtue upon kings and people, and the great evils and
calamities that befel them, when they fell into idolatry and vice.
Their writers of religion and morality are admirable and unequalled
for the noblest conceptions of the Supreme Being, of his glorious
perfections and governing providence ; for exhibiting precepts of
pure morals, arid maxims of the truest wisdom; for the most moving
and pathetical exhortations to repentance, and to the practice of
piety and righteousness, and the most earnest and impartial repre-
hensions of vice and sin. Their heroes and great men, whose
actions are not blazoned out by the pens of flattering historians,
but related with a wonderful brevity and simplicity, were equal to
the most renowned heroes and great men of any other nation, for
the greatness of their exploits, their wisdom and prudence, their
bravery and magnanimity, their love to their country, and zeal for
its liberties ; but beyond comparison superior to them all for their
true piety and profound veneration towards God, and zeal for his
pure worship, in opposition to idolatry and superstition. I cannot
conceive, therefore, with what justice or decency those gentlemen
that so much admire the ancient Greeks and Romans, and can
scarce ever speak of the people in general, or of their great men
and philosophers in particular without rapture, should on all occa-
sions express such contempt of the Jews, as the most stupid, blind,
despicable race of men that ever lived upon the earth : when their
AGAINST THE JEWS CONSIDERED. 125
greatest fault for many ages was their falling into the vices and
idolatries of the neighbouring nations, and imitating their corrupt
customs and manners. And yet we have reason to think, that
even in the times of their greatest degeneracy, and their most cor-
rupt state under the Old Testament, there were incomparably more
truly religious men, and devout adorers of the Deity among them,
than in any other nation under heaven. We find that even in the
days of Ahnb, when Israel was in its most degenerate state, and
the public idolatry at its greatest height among them, there were
several thousands who, by the testimony of God himself, persevered
in his true worship and obedience, free from idolatry ; and no
doubt there was a much greater number at that time in Judah.
And I believe the most extensive charity can scarce suppose, that
there was such a number of true worshippers of God in Greece or
Rome in thair best times. And the truth is, we have no account
of any such ; and their best and wisest men did all of them coun-
tenance and encourage the public idolatry, by their maxims, and
by their practice.
Notwithstanding that the great difference of their customs, and
of their religion from the rest of mankind, rendered the Jews very
unpopular, yet the heathens themselves could not help sometimes
professing their esteem and admiration for them and for their laws,
in a manner that showed they were far from looking upon them as
such a stupid, senseless, contemptible generation of men as this
writer represents them. The judicious Strabo gives a handsome
testimony concerning them in his sixteenth book, where he makes
the cause of Moses's forsaking Egypt to his being dissatisfied with
the false notion and worship of God that had obtained among the
Egyptians, and supposes him to have entertained nobler notions
of the divinity than the Egyptians, or Lybians, or Greeks. That
therefore he went out from Egypt, and along with him many that
' honoured the Deity, iroXXot rtjuwvrec TO Saov.' That he ' per-
suaded many good men,' and brought them into the country where
Jerusalem is built ; and that there his successors continued for
some time ' practising justice or righteousness,' and being ' truly re-
ligious, or sincere worshippers of God : StKaioTrpayovvrsQ KOI Stoat&tic
we aXrjS'oH' ovrte.' So Justin, out of Trogus Pompeius praises the
ancient Jews for their 'justice joined with piety, justitia religione
pennixta,' Just. lib. 36. Porphyry, cited by Eusebius, Prsep. Evang.
lib. ix. c. 1 ; after having observed that the Barbarians had j usler
notions of religion than the Greeks, produces an oracle from Apollo,
which reckons the Hebrews among the nations that found out and
knew the way to happiness ; and another in which it is pronounced
that the ' Chaldeans and Hebrews alone obtained wisdom, purely
worshipping God the (eternal) king. And in another oracle there
produced the Hebrews are called ' api%rj\r)TOL, illustrious,' or
' worthy to be emulated.' I do not mention these as if any stress
was to be laid upon the testimony of Apollo's oracles, but only to
show the opinion that had then obtained among the heathens them-
selves, of the wisdom and religion of the Hebrews : for if their fame
1261 THE AUTHOR'S INVECTIVES
had not been far spread on this account, the oracle would scarce
have described them under that character.
There is one part of our author's invectives against the Jews
which I cannot pass by without a particular notice. He charges
them, among other things, with not being able ' to distinguish
between the effective and permissive will of God;' and with 'as-
cribing every thing equally to God as ordering, directing, and ap-
proving the greatest moral as well as natural evils, though brought
about by the power and malice of tyrants and wicked men.' I
might observe here that the Sadducees, whom he elsewhere repre-
sents as ' the true remains of the ancient Jews,' were so far from
being of this sentiment, that, according to Josephus's account of
them, they scarce allowed providence any thing to do about any
human actions, and nothing at all about evil ones. But undoubt-
edly this writer designs this as a reflection upon the sacred writings,
which, though they every where declare God's detestation against
sin in the strongest terms, yet represent his most wise and just
providence as directing and over-ruling all events ; and teach us to
regard his sovereign hand in all the evils and calamities that befal
us, though immediately inflicted by the agency and influence of
wicked men and tyrants; of whose wickedness and injustice he is
not the author or cause, but most wisely over-rules it for carrying
on the important designs of his government. And must not every
one that hath just notions of providence, or of God's presiding over
human affairs, acknowledge the same thing ? Even this author,
who, from a desire of bespattering the Scriptures, would fain cavil
at this doctrine, yet frequently expresseth himself in a manner that
cannot be vindicated on any other principles. Thus he tells us,
p. 244, that the ' Egyptian priests, by an incidency of providence,
gained an independency both of the crown and people.' And after
having censured the Jews for ascribing those things to the pro-
vidence of God which were ' brought about by wicked men,' he
himself, in the very next sentence, ascribes what, according to
his account of it, was a very ill thing to an extraordinary interpo-
sition of divine providence. For he tells us, p. 257, that the ' Is-
raelites were delivered from Egypt by an extraordinary providence,
and brought off with all their plunder, after having been the plagues
of the country for above two hundred years.' And again, p. 260,
he represents God as having < in the course of his providence given
the kingdom to David,' though, according to the representation he
makes of that matter, p. 299, he came to it by a series of ' false-
hoods, perjuries, treason, and rebellion.'
Here it may not be improper to observe the absurdity of this
writer when undertaking to give an account of the ' false prin-
ciples and gross errors which occasioned the wickedness and ob-
stinacy of the Jews,' and in which principles and errors he saith
the Egyptian priests and sorcerers had confirmed them,' p. 255, et
seq.: he makes the second of those principles and errors to be this:
that after having been delivered from Egypt by an ' extraordinary
providence,' they from thence took ' it in their heads that they were
AGAINST THE JEWS CONSIDERED. 127
the peculiar favourites of heaven by an absolute irreversible decree;
that they should from thenceforth succeed in all their enterprises,
and make themselves masters of the whole world,' &c. And the
third principle or error he makes to be their ' gross mistake of the
nature and design of the Abrahamic covenant, which they took in
an absolute sense ; though it was only conditional. Every one
sees how absurd it is to suppose that these were among the prin-
ciples in ' which the Egyptian priests and sorcerers' had confirmed
the Israelites. And yet this is what he affirms concerning all these
principles and errors in general.
Not to follow him farther in his spiteful reflections upon the
Jews, I shall only observe that in his great desire to expose them,
he seems willing to allow for a while the miracles of Moses to have
been true and real facts, though at other times he represents them
all as mere fiction and romance. He observes that ' within three
months after their most wonderful deliverance from Egypt, they
fell into the Egyptian idolatry. And notwithstanding all the
miracles they had seen there, and their miraculous passage through
the Red Sea, they made a calf, &c. : and after all the miracles of
Egypt, and the awful manner of giving the law, &c., they were
just upon the point of making themselves a captain to return
thither,' pp. 268, 269. Thus he can own these things to be real facts,
or make them all fiction and flourish, just as it suits his present con-
venience. And whereas he tells us, that ' before they were brought
out of Egypt they had been the most grievous and insupportable
plagues of an inslaved and ruined country, i.e. of Egypt, for above
two hundred years,' p. 257. And again, p. 265, that ' Egypt was a
country, which, by divine permission, in the course of his providence,
they, i.e. the Israelites had enslaved and ruined :' this plainly lets
us see how little justice we are to expect from this writer ; since
the very contrary is true, that the Israelites had for a succession of
years in Egypt before their miraculous deliverance, undergone a
series of cruelty and oppression, scarce to be paralleled in history.
Hence they are often afterwards put in mind that they had been
bondmen in the land of Egypt. And it is called a ' furnace of
iron,' and the ' house of bondage.' But our pretended moral phi-
losopher, who would be thought such a friend and advocate for
liberty, can stand up for tyranny and oppression, when it is upon
the Jews that they are exercised.
I shall conclude my remarks on this writer's invectives against
the Jews, with observing that it were greatly to be wished that
those that are most forward to reproach that unhappy people, would
be careful not to imitate them in some of the worst parts of their
conduct and character : such as their sinning against great advan-
tages put into their hands for knowing and practising their duty;
the general corruption of manners they fell into in the last times of
their state ; their rejecting the many calls and warnings that were
given them from time to time ; and lastly, which completed their
guilt, their obstinate unbelief in rejecting the Saviour Jesus Christ,
and the revelation he brought to them, though attended with the
128 A VINDICATION OF
most convincing and illustrious attestations. These things at
length brought a terrible destruction upon them. And it becomes
us ' not to be high-minded but fear,' as the apostle Paul advises on
this occasion. A conduct like theirs, when once it becomes general
among any people, is the surest way to expose them to God's heavy
displeasure, and to the most grievous calamities. I cannot but
think the natural tendency of the attempts made by this writer,
and others of his spirit, is to bring us into this condition ; but I
hope God will, in his infinite mercy, make their endeavours as
vain and ineffectual, as they are wicked and unreasonable.
CHAPTER VIII.
A transition to the author's objections against other parts of the Old Testament. Con-
cerning the two different turns or distinct popular appearances which he pretends the
Spirit of Prophecy took in Israel. And first concerning the Urim and Thummim. His
account of the original and design of that oracle considered. The attempt he makes
to destroy the credit of it, hecause of the part it had in the war against the Benjamites
for the injury done to the Levite and his concubine at Gibeah. That whole trans-
action particularly considered. His account of the ceasing of that oracle, and the
reasons he assigns for it examined. The order of prophets, by his own confession a
wise and excellent institution. The strange inconsistent representation he gives of
their character and conduct. The way he takes to account for their foretelling future
events, shown to be insufficient. Their predictions not merely general and ambiguous,
but clear, express, and circumstantial. The difference between the false prophets
and the true, considered. No argument to be drawn from the former to the disad-
vantage of the latter.
HAVING considered this writer's objections against the law of
Moses, our way is clear to proceed to what /he hath advanced in
his book against other parts of the Old Testament. He sets him-
self with all his might to ridicule and expose the spirit of prophecy
under that dispensation. He undertakes to prove, pp. 265, 267,
that ' the prophets were not infallible, and that they never believed
themselves to be so, but were under a necessity to talk as they
did,' that is, as he had expressed it just before, ' to talk in the
miraculous supernatural way, and make themselves the infallible
oracles of God to the people :' though they knew well enough, that
they were not immediately inspired by God, and that he had not
sent them at all. And he thinks, or pretends to think, they were
not blameable for this. It was only the effect of human prudence.
They might ' falsify and deceive without injury, and secure their
own private interest for the public good.' And he intimates that
THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY. 129
' a wise and good man' may do so, and that ' till a man knows
the secret of doing this, he knows nothing of human nature, or
human life,' pp. 266, 267. Thus 1 find it is a maxim with our
moral philosopher, si popiiltts vult decipi, dedpiatur ; and that upon
occasion, he could himself act the prophet, and pretend immediate
inspiration and revelations from God, if he thought it would answer
his end with the people. But the ancient prophets were of a very
different spirit, and governed themselves hy quite different maxims
and principles.
But let us see what proof he brings to show that they were neither
extraordinarily inspired by God, nor believed themselves to be so.
And first he begins with observing, that ' the spirit of prophecy in
Israel, or the spirit of infallibly declaring the mind and will of God,
took two different turns or distinct popular appearances.' From
the days of Moses to Samuel, the oracle of Urim and Thummim
was established as the last resort in judgment, and then it fell into
disgrace, and Samuel instituted the order of prophets.
And first he begs leave to give a ' brief history of the first and
grand device,' as he calls it, ' the oracle of Urim and Thummim,'
p. 267, &c. He insinuates, that the original of it is to be ascribed
to the people's having been ' much amused and surprised with the
infallible declarations and decisions of Jupiter Hammon ; and then
after running out for three or four pages together into his common
place of invectives against the Jews, he observes, p. 272, that ' it
is absolutely necessary to the ends of government, that in every so-
ciety there shall be some dernier resort, or ultimate appeal in judg-
ment. And this last and ultimate appeal in Israel, by the estab-
lishment of Moses, was to the oracle of Urim and Thummin. And
this last decision was made by the high-priest as by a living oracle,
who gave his answer, viva voce, while he sat with the Urim and
Thummin in judgment. And while he wore this sitting in judg-
ment, it was presumed that he was both infallible and impeccable,
or that his voice and decision was the undoubted organized voice
of God. But the voice of this oracle was soon found to be the
voice of the priest,' p. 268. And then he proceeds to what he
calls a ' remarkable proof that this oracle was neither infallible nor
impeccable,' p. 273.
As to his insinuation about the oracle of Jupiter Hammon, he
shows his inclination to draw a parallel between the pagan oracles
and the spirit of prophecy under the Old Testament dispensation ;
but he offers no proof for it, and we shall hardly think his own
word a sufficient authority. And what he there observes concern-
ing the ' doubtfulness and ambiguity of the oracular declarations,
which always gave them room enough for an evasion ; and that
the oracle was never particular enough to be tied down to time and
circumstance/ p. 268, is no way applicable to the many particular
express and circumstantial predictions under the Old Testament.
Particularly with regard to the oracle of Urim and Thummin it is
a just observation of the learned Dr. Prideaux, that 'the name of
Urim and Thummin, that is, light and perfection (though this
K
130 A VINDICATION OF
author shows his skill in the original by rendering it truth and
righteousness) were given only to denote the clearness and perfec-
tion which these oracular answers always carried with them ; for
these answers were not like the heathen oracles, enigmatical and
ambiguous ; but always clear and manifest , not such as did ever
fall short of perfection, either of fulness in the answer, or certainty
in the truth of it.' See Prid. Connect, part I. book 3. And it is
certain that the answers of this oracle recorded in Scripture are
clear, explicit, and direct to the questions propounded to it.
When our author represents the oracle of Urirn and Thummim,
as appointed to be ' the last resort in judgment,' to which, by
Moses's establishment, the ' ultimate appeal in Israel was to be
made ; and describes the high priest as sitting with the Urim and
Thummin in judgment,' and making ' the last decision j' as if in
judicial causes the last resort or appeal lay to this oracle ; this is a
gross misrepresentation, either through ignorance or design. The
Urim and Thummin was not established for deciding causes in
judgment, which were decided in another method ; but for asking
counsel of God, and that not in private affairs, but in affairs re-
lating to the public, to the king, or some chief governor, or the
whole people of Israel. Thus Moses saith concerning Joshua (and
the Jews very justly interpret it as extending to the succeeding
governors) that ' he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall
ask counsel for him, after the judgment of Urim before the Lord :
at his word shall they go out, and at his word shall they come in,
both he and all the children of Israel with him, even all the con-
gregation,' Numb, xxxvii. 21. Where by their ' going out,' and
' coming in,' the Jews understand particularly, the making war ac-
cording to the import of that phrase in the Scripture language.
And this was well suited to the nature of their government as a
theocracy. As God had condescended to enter into a special re-
lation to them, as in a peculiar sense their king and governor, so
he not only from time to time raised up extraordinary persons to j udge
and govern them, the appointing of which he reserved to himself out
of what tribe he pleased ; but by the oracle of Urim and Thummim,
he directed how they were to proceed in their most important public
affairs. This was an act of great goodness and condescension in
God, and an inestimable privilege to the Israelites, the advantage
of which they would have enjoyed if they had persisted in their
obedience, and kept the covenant.* They would, in that case,
never have wanted his gracious direction as far as was necessary
to their security and support. Thus it pleased God to indulge
that advantage to his chosen people in reality, to which the heathens
vainly pretended by their oracles. As to the particular manner in
* It did not depend on the high-priest to give answers by the Urim and Tbummim
xvhenever he pleased ; it depended wholly on the will of God, who might, in token of
his just displeasure against them for their sins, see fit to withhold bis direction by this
oracle, either from the chief rulers or the people, though they applied to him for that
purpose. An instance of which we have in Saul, who could obtain no answer from Goo
by Urim, though he earnestly desired it.
THE 'SPIRIT OF PROPHECY.
131
which this oracle was delivered, I shall not enter into a disquisition,
which hath sufficiently employed the learned : the reader may see
a short and judicious account of it in Dr. Prideaux in the place
above cited.
But however that be, this writer pronounces, * that it is certain,
this oracle was neither infallible nor impeccable :' of which he tells
us a 'remarkable proof happened under the high priesthood of
Phineas, the grandson of Aaron.' And then he goes on to tell
the story after his own way concerning the injury done to the Le-
vite and his concubine at Gibeah ; upon which ' the whole tribe
of Benjamin, by the decision of the oracle, was doomed to destruc-
tion :' and 'that this was done without the least truth, natural
honour, or common justice, is evident from the story itself.' And
after having represented the fact in such a manner as he thought
would best answer his design, he observes, that ' nothing was done
in this whole affair but under the counsel and direction of Phineas,
the high priest, who was then the living oracle of God in Israel.'
And that this makes it e evident that the oracle was neither infal-
lible nor impeccable : so far from it, that he encouraged and
prompted the people to the most bloody and cruel outrage, that had
ever been known or heard of : and an inj ury done to a single Le-
vite was thought fit to be revenged by cutting off a whole tribe,
root and branch, without any regard to natural justice, or th'e least
bowels of mercy and compassion. And that from this time the
oracle fell into disgrace, and we hear no more of it for above three
hundred years,' see pp. 273 281. This story serves the author for
more purposes than one. As he produces it here to destroy the
credit of the oracle of Urim and Thummim ; so he had mentioned
it before, pp. 140, 141, as containing a plain proof that ' Levi was
a tribe exempted from the jurisdiction of the law, and protected
against it : and that there was no law for priests and Levites at
that time.' Where also he represents that ' whole transaction as a
scene of wickedness, inj ustice, and priestcraft.'
I shall particularly examine the author's account of this matter,
by which it will appear how little he is to be trusted in his accounts
of things, who can allow himself such a scope in misrepresentation
in a story so well known. He discovers from first to last not a dis-
position to find out the truth, or represent the fact fairly as it was,
but a most violent inclination, first, to make it look as black as pos-
possible, and then to lay the whole blame of it upon the oracle. And
where he does not find the story for his purpose, to make it so.
The poor injured Levite has incurred his displeasure; for what
reason I know not, except because he was a Levite. He calls him
once and again the ' drunken Levite,' p. 141, and p. 280, though
there is not word of his drunkenness in the whole story. He insi-
nuates indeed, that the Levite got drunk at his father-in-law's,
particularly the day he came away. His father-in-law desired him
to stay and ' comfort his heart :' but it happens that the text only
tells that they ' tarried till noon, and did eat both of them,' Judg.
xix. 8. If it had been said, they drank both of them, it might
K 2
132 A VINDICATION OF
have passed with this author for a strong proof, though I believe
it will be allowed that people may drink together without being
drunk. He observes also that we are told, that the Levite and the
old Ephraimite that entertained him at his house, ' cheered their
hearts, and made merry together,' as if he thought it impossible
for persons to cheer their hearts, and to refresh and entertain them-
selves and their friends without being drunk. But these things are
easily distinguishable in themselves, whatever they are to this au-
thor. Another proof of his good will to the Levite, is his calling
his concubine ' his whore ;' though every body that is at all versed
in these matters, knows that a concubine was a real wife, but
without a dowry. And in the present case, the Levite is several
times called her husband, and her father is called his father-in-
law : and this the author very well knew, for in relating the stoiy
he calls them so himself. And yet he has it over and over again,
' a certain Levite with his eloped concubine or whore ; the Levite's
concubine or rather whore ; a drunken Levite and his whore,' pp.
273, 276, 278, 280.
As to the Levite's wife or concubine, he saith, p. 275, that it ' is
plain from the story itself, that before her elopement she had been
a common whore.' It appears indeed from the story according to
our translation, Judg. xix. 2, that she had proved unfaithful to his
bed, but nothing is said to fix upon her the character of a ' common
whore.' This is supplied by the author's own imagination. But
the word which our translators render ' she played the whore against
him,' is in the Septuagint rendered, ITTOPEU&J? cur' avrov, ' she went
away from him, or forsook him ; and some copies have it, wpyiS'r?
avT<, she was angiy at him. And Grotius observes that the Hebrew
word there made use of, which properly signifies to play the whore,
may also be used to signify an alienation of mind or affection. Jona-
than cited by Vafablus has it, cum sprevisset eum; and to the same
purpose Kimchi cited by Lud. De Dieu, despexit eum ; she de-
spised him. And some judicious commentators conclude from the
readiness he showed to be reconciled, and his ' speaking soft com-
fortable words to her,' or as the Hebrew phrase is, ' speaking to
her heart,' ver. 3, that she was not guilty of adultery. For then
it is probable he would not have so solicitously sought for a recon-
ciliation, nor would it have been lawful for him to do so. And
indeed, her going to her father's house (for it does not appear that
she was turned out, but that she went away of herself)- and con-
tinuing there four months, looks more like a family quarrel upon
some other account, than like the act of a common whore, who in
all probability would have shunned her father's house as well as
her husband's; and. could not well have expected a refuge or enter-
tainment there. Another attempt our author makes to disguise the
story is, that he would fain insinuate, tli'at the Levite and his con-
cubine had raised the mob of Gibeah against them by their ill and
lewd behaviour. ' How this drunken Levite and his whore be-
haved themselves, with what decency and civility on their coming
into the city, is not said : but this is plain, that they had raised a
THE SPIRIT OP PROPHECY. 133
mob about them, which had like to have done more mischief,'
p. 280. And he had said the same thing before, p. 275, and again,
p. 281, that 'the historian knew very well that this affair would not
bear a particular relation, as to the occasion, and circumstances
which made such an uproar in Gibeah ; though from what he hath
said, one may easily guess at the true grounds of this popular out-
rage.' What the author has particularly in view in these insinu-
ations I will not pretend to guess, but one thing is plain, that he
has a strong inclination to lay the blame rather on the Levite that
suffered the injury, than on those that inflicted it. Of any ill be-
haviour of the Levite upon his coming into Gibeah, there is not
the least hint in the whole story. The good old Ephraimite return-
ing from the field at even found the Levite and his concubine in
the street alone, no mob about them, and nobody taking notice of
them, and therefore in compassion took these strangers to his own
house, being not willing that they should continue in the street all
night, as knowing no doubt the wickedness of the place. Our
author next is pleased to observe that a 'violent outraging mob in
the middle of the night beset the house,' 8cc. He will have it to
be done ' in the middle of the night, with -an intent, I suppose to
insinuate, that the Levite and his host, who were then refreshing
themselves, sat up drinking and carousing till midnight : but of
this there is not one word in the story. It may rather be con-
cluded from it, that this happened not long after the Levite had
got into the old man's house, which was in the evening. When
they had ' given provender to their asses,' and had ' washed their
feet,' and were 'eating, and drinking and cheering their hearts, be-
hold the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house
round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the
house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into
thine house, that we may know him,' Judg. xix. 21, 22. The very
same words that the men of Sodom used to signify their detestable
design to abuse the angels whom they took to be men, Gen. xix.
5. Here it is plain that they did not want to have the Levite
brought out to them for any rudeness or uncivil behaviour he had
been guilty of, but to gratify their horrid and unnatural lusts.
And indeed, Gibeah seems to have been then like Sodom, both in
mhospitableness and unnatural impurities. It was with difficulty
the Levite himself escaped, and probably upon his withstanding
them it was that they threatened to kill him, as he informs the Is-
raelites, Judg. xx. 5. But he was forced to give up his concubine
to their lusts, whom by this author's own acknowledgment * they
forced and ravished to death.' But instead of showing a just de-
testation of so execrable a crime, he expresses himself on this occa-
sion in a manner that cannot but be shocking to a chaste ear, and
which 1 shall not repeat.
There was then no judge or supreme magistrate in Israel to
whom the Levite might apply for redress, and for the punishment
of so enormous an outrage. And therefore he took an extraordi-
nary method to raise an indignation in the people, and engage
134 A VINDICATION OF
them to do him justice. He divided the dead body of his:<3on;cui
bine into twelve parts, and sent them to the twelve tribes of Israel,
and consequently to the tribe of Benjamin among the rest ; which
he concluded would make a deeper impression upon them, than^the
bare relation of the story would have done. The resentment the
people generally showed of so horrid a wickedness, and their beha-
viour on this occasion, seems to me to furnish a plain proof that
there was still among them a great deal of national virtue. We
are told, that all that saw it saia, ' there was no such deed done .
nor seen from the days that the children of Israel came up out of
the land of Egypt unto this day : consider of it, take advice, and
speak your minds.' Their being so strangely shocked at the enor-
mousness of the crime, and declaring that no such thing had been
heard of among them before, showed that they had been hitherto
generally strangers to such horrid acts of wickedness, violence, and
impurity ; for which the Canaanites that had lived in the country
before them had been particularly remarkable. It may be gathered
from the account that is given us, that they first considered it in
their several tribes, the chief men of each tribe among themselves,
and^then there was a general assembly of all the people at Mizpeh.
How long it was after the fact before this assembly was held, we
are not told, or how, and by what methods it was convened ; but
undoubtedly by a common concert among the several tribes it was
agreed that the whole body of the people should meet on this oc-
casion. And then it was that a solemn curse was denounced, de-
voting those to death by a general consent that should not come.
For though each tribe had a government in itself, yet all the tribes
made up one body, and they were all subject to the authority of
the whole, or general assembly of the nation. When they were all
met together, they were far from acting with such precipitation as
this writer represents it. They proceeded in the [most orderly me-
thod. They first inquired into the fact itself. ' Tell us,' say they,
{ how was this wickedness ?' The word in the original Y"l3"^ tell ye
us, shows that they directed their speech to more than one. Pro-
bably the Levite and his servant whom he had with him at
Gibeah, and the old Ephraimite .that entertained him were present
at the assembly. And though the Levite only is mentioned as re-
lating the fact, which no doubt he did at large in all its circum-
stances, they were there to confirm and attest the truth of it. This
writer indeed takes upon him to affirm, that the ' Levite's account
was taken without any farther inquiry. What farther inquiry
could be made ? The tribe of Benjamin had notice given them of
the fact in the same way that all the other tribes knew it, and were
summoned to come as well as the other tribes, to the general as-
sembly of the nation. If the story had been false, why did they
not appear to confront it, and to justify themselves, or excuse their
countrymen ? For we are expressly told, that ' the children of
Benjamin heard, that the children of Israel were gone up to Miz-
peh,' chap. xx. 3. They knew it and yet would not come ; which
showed little love to justice, or disposition to peace, and was a high
THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY. " 135
contempt of the national authority, and a breaking off from that
body of which they were a part. But the assembly though they
had great reason to be offended at such a conduct, did not as this
author represents it, ' immediately resolve itpon the destruction of
the whole tribe.' After they had a full information of the fact
which they carefully inquired into, all the resolution they took upon
it was to punish the inhabitants of Gibeah, i. e. the immediate au-
thors of this execrable wickedness, 'according to the folly of wick-
edness they had wrought in Israel,' ver. 9, 10, 11. And then
again, after this, we are told, ' that the tribes of Israel, (i. e. the
whole assembly of the nation which were then gathered and knit
together as one man, as it is there expressed) sent men through all
the tribe of Benjamin, saying, What wickedness is this that is done
among you ? now therefore deliver us the men, the children of Be-
lial which are in Gibeah, that we may put them to death, and put
away evil from Israel,' ver. 12, 13. All that they desired was,
that they would give up those persons to justice that had perpe-
trated this horrid wickedness. And could any message be more
reasonable, or more conformable to the rules of justice and equity
than this ? With this message ' they sent men,' and no doubt
persons of note, through all the tribe of Benjamin, to all their
cities, and to the chief heads of families amongst them, as some
very justly understand it, who were to expostulate with them, and
use their utmost persuasions to engage them to comply with so
reasonable a demand. But what reception they met with appears
from ver. 13. 'But the children of Benjamin would not hearken
to the voice of their brethren the children of Israel.' This writer
indeed is pleased to tell us, what the Benjamites said to justify or
excuse themselves, of which there is not one word in the whole
story. * They refused to deliver up any of their citizens, as nothing
could be charged upon any particular persons.' p. 277. And again,
p. 280. ' When the whole mob of a town was up in the middle of
the night' (though as I have already shown it is probable they first
beset the house, and began the outrage in the evening) it must
have been impossible to have charged any mischief done upon par-
ticular persons, or that the magistrates of Gibeah should give up
the rioters demanded by- the other tribes, and by the high priest :'
though of the high priest's demanding; them there is not the least
account. But why then did not the Benjamites come as well as
the rest of the tribes to the general assembly of the nation to re-
present this, who they knew where met together to inquire into it?
Why did not they show a disposition to give them up if they could
be found, and to use their best diligence to find them out and pu-
nish them ? This no doubt, would have satisfied their brethren,
who sufficiently showed -how willing they were to accept satisfac-
tion in a fair way, and how loth to break with them. But the
truth is, there is reason to think they knew well enough who the
guilty persons were : in such a town as Gibeah, that was not very
large, it was no hard' matter to discover who were the principal
persons concerned in this .outrage, and the old Ephraimite who
136 A VINDICATION OF
lived there, and was well acquainted with the town, and who went
out to them, and spoke with them, must be supposed to have
known several of them ; and therefore was well able to give inform-
ation about this. It was not therefore that they did not know
who they were ; but though they knew them well enough, they re-
fused to deliver them up to justice ; and thereby became accessaries
to their crime, and involved themselves in the guilt and punish-
ment of it. For the refusal of so just a demand, was a sufficient
ground for war against them ; concerning which see Grot, de Jure
belli & pacis, lib. 2, cap. 21. sec. 1, 2, 3, 4. But this was not all ;
it doth not appear that the Israelites still had any thing farther in
view than to punish the inhabitants of Gibeah. We only find that
they encamped against Gibeah to fight against it, but not that they
had determined to destroy the rest of the tribe of Benjamin. All
that they did, when provoked by their evil conduct, was to take a
solemn oath, that ' none of them would give their daughters to
Benjamin to wife,' see chap. xxi. 1, 7. Which plainly shows that
they had then no intention of utterly destroying that tribe, but only
to show their abhorrence of their wickedness, by breaking off cor-
respondence with them, and regarding them as not of their society,
or belonging to their body , from which indeed they had cut them-
selves off by their conduct. But what brought destruction upon
the Benjamites was this, that they not only refused to 'hearken to
the voice of their brethren the children of Israel,' in giving up the
criminals when justly demanded, but as it follows, ' they gathered
themselves together out of the cities ; unto Gibeah, to go out to
battle against the children of Israel/ ver. 14. Thus in a base and
scandalous cause for the sake of some wicked criminals they entered
into a most unjust war against the body of their own nation, which
in the event brought upon them a severe vengeance. Hitherto we
hear nothing of the oracle's being consulted. But now the war
being resolved upon, the ' Israelites asked counsel of God,' not
whether they should go to war at all, for they seem to have thought
the justice of the war so clear, that they had not the least doubt
concerning it, but which of the f tribes should go up first,' or have
the chief command in the war, they being upon an equality, and no
judge or general with a supreme authority over the whole. Nor
did they inquire whether they were to have success in it, for upon
this it is likely they confidently presumed, both because of their
numbers and power, and because of the justice of their cause. But
when the event did not answer their expectations they consulted
the oracle again, which the third time promised them success,
which it had not done before. And this is all the concern the
oracle had in this war. Nor is there the least hint of their con-
sulting it any more" in the whole story. As to the slaughter that
followed upon it, after the Israelites had been twice defeated, no
doubt their passions were raised to the height, partly by their in-
dignation against the wickedness that had been committed, and
against the Benjamites for rejecting all the. friendly offers that
had been made to them, and partly by the great loss and
THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY. 137
slaughter they had sustained in the two first engagements; and
then they gave too great a loose to their rage and resentment, in
utterly destroying all the cities of Benjamin with the men, women,
&c. The author takes upon him to affirm, p. 273, ' that the whole
tribe of Benjamin was by the decision of the oracle doomed to de-
struction.' But this is his own fiction without any thing in the
story to support it. There seems to have been no resolution of this
kind taken before. And the oath which they took with regard to
Benjamin, and which they mentioned before, plainly implies the
contrary. It all appears to have been done at once in the heat of
blood and passion, without consulting the oracle, or giving them-
selves time to cool and to consider things. x^.nd accordingly, they
were sensible of it themselves, and deeply concerned for it when the
rage was over. This writer would fain insinuate, that they laid the
blame of what they had done upon the oracle itself; nothing of
which appears, but rather that they repented of their own rashness,
chap, xxi. 6. .And we find ' the elders of the congregation' as they
are called, ver. 16, who are the same that are called, chap. xx. 2,
' The chief of all the people, even of all the tribes of Israel,' plainly
charged it upon themselves, when they said to the parents of the
virgins of Shiloh, whom the Benjamites were suffered to take
away, ' be favourable unto them for our sakes ; because we reserved
not to every man his wife in the war,' ver. 20, that is, because we
rashly carried the slaughter so far, as not to leave the women of
the tribe to be wives to the men that should remain.
As to the slaughter of the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead, this is
expressly ascribed, not to the advice of the oracle, but to the con-
gregation, or to the people themselves, probably the heads of them,
who sent twelve thousand men to destroy it, chap. xxi. 5, 8, 10.
This writer seems to think the inhabitants of Jabesh were much to
be commended for not ' having involved themselves in the same
difficulties' with the rest of the Israelites, or been any ways con-
cerned in this most unrighteous effusion of blood/ But since they
had received the summons that was sent through all Israel, and
undoubtedly knew of the oath or curse that had been made in the
general assembly of the nation, devoting those to death that should
not come, their refusing to come to the general consult, and to sub-
mit to the appointment, especially in a just cause, was a very great
crime, and a rebellion against the authority of the whole commu-
nity ; and they thereby were the authors of their own destruction,
which in that case they had reason to expect. But if the punishment
inflicted upon them was carried too far, as undoubtedly it was,
whatever there was wrong or cruel in this proceeding, could not be
charged upon the oracle, which was not consulted at all about
it. Nor had the oracle any thing to do in the contrivance of suf-
fering the Benjamite young men to take the virgins at Shiloh.
This is expressly ascribed to the ' elders of the congregation,' or
chief of the people, chap. xxi. 16, 19, 20, who having a great reve-
rence for an oath, thought of this expedient to provide wives for
the Benjamites.; and yet not. violate the oath they had taken,
138 A VINDICATION OF
though it was a rash one. I shall not undertake to vindicate
their casuistry in this, though a very great man, Grotius, thinks their
conduct in it was very justifiable, and that thereby they saved
themselves from the guilt of perjury. See Grot, de Jure belli et
pacis, lib. 2, cap. 13, sec. 5.
Our author observes, ' that the Hebrew historian was so con-
scious of the moral iniquity and wickedness of all this that he
concludes the story with these remarkable words, ' in those days
there was no king in Israel but every man did that which was
right in his own eyes.' The design of these words is to signify,
that there was then no chief governor that had a supreme autho-
rity over the people. And therefore it is usually and justly thought
to have happened in the interval between the death of Joshua, and
the elders that survived him, and the appointment of judges, the
first of whom was Othniel. And therefore no wonder that there
were great crimes committed, and great irregularities in the ma-
nagement of their affairs, and particularly of this affair, since
there was no one that had sufficient power to punish delinquents,
or to govern the people and restrain their fury, or to guide and
conduct them with a proper authority. But then this writer adds,
that 'he [the historian] seems to have forgotten what he had just
before told us, that there was a high priest in Israel at that time,
as the living oracle of God, &c., and that nothing had been done
in this whole affair, but under his council and direction.' But this
is not to be charged on the historian's forgetfulness or design.
Though there was a high priest, yet he was not a king or judge
with supreme authority to govern the nation, nor had he the power
of the sword, to punish delinquents, or correct abuses. Nor doth
it appear by any one thing in the whole course of the story, that
the high priest then had, or exercised any authority or sovereign
power over the people. This is expressly attributed to ' the chief
of the people,' or ' heads of the tribes, and elders of the congrega-
tion.' And all that the high priest had to do in it, was only to
give them answers when they consulted the oracle of God, which
it doth not appear they did after the last battle. And therefore
none of the wrong things they did after this are chargeable upon
the oracle. Nor is there any evidence to show, that they consulted
it with regard to any one part of their conduct, which was really cul-
pable. So far is it from being true', e that nothing had been done in
this whole affair, without the high priest's direction and advice.'
Thus have I particularly considered this affair, on which this writer
lays so mighty a stress, and which is the only thing he produces to
destroy the ' credit of the oracle of Urirn and Thummim.' As to what
he adds, p. 281, that ' from that time the oracle fell into disgrace,
since we hear no more of it for above three hundred years, or till
the days of David : it does not follow that it was not consulted,
because we have no particular account of it in the short history
that is given us of the judges. And David's consulting it, which
our author owns he did * three or four times, while he was under
his difficulties and distresses, (and he jnight have mentioned Saul
THE SPIBIT OF PROPHECY. 139
too, who consulted it, as appears from 1 Sam. xiv. 18, 19, 36, 37 ;
xxviii. 6) plainly shows, that the reputation of it was not then
sunk ; and makes it very prqbahle that it had not lain neglected
for above three hundred years. And whereas he tells us, that ' when
David came to be settled in the kingdom, we hear no more of it,
nor do we find it ever mentioned, consulted, or regarded after,' we
are expressly told twice in one chapter, that after David was fully
settled in his kingdom, he inquired of the Lord when he was at
war with the Philistines, 2 Sam. v. 19, 23, 24. See another in-
stance of it, 2 Sam. xxi. 1.
Our author, after having put the disgrace of the oracle upon the
business at Jabesh, afterwards tells us, ' that it is plain from the
history itself, that the credit of this oracle sunk and declined with
the reputation of the priests, who had fallen into a state of the
grossest ignorance and vice ; and by their scandalous behaviour in
the days of Eli and Samuel, were perfectly scorned and despised
by the meanest of the people.' The history indeed informs us of
the scandalous behaviour of Eli's sons, but gives us no account of
the corruption of the priests in general, or if it were so, this did
not affect the reputation of the ' oracle of Urim and Thummim,'
since it is certain from the instances already mentioned, that after
the time he assigns for that general corruption of the priesthood,
this oracle was still held in great esteem, and was consulted by
David, both before he came to the throne and afterwards. Nor is
there any proof that the priests were, from the time he mentions,
more sunk in their reputation than before : on the contrary, it might
be shown from several instances, that both in the reign of David,
and under some of the best succeeding kings, that order was as
much esteemed as ever it had been. So that if the oracle ceased
at that time, it could not be owing to the cause he assigns for it.
Some, as the learned Dr. Spencer, who suppose it to have ceased
from the time of Solomon, assign very different reasons for it.*
But it seems to me more probable, that it continued till the time
of the Babylonish captivity. It is true, we have no particular ac-
count of its being consulted under the kings, any more than that
it was consulted under the judges ; but very probably it was
consulted under both : though in the time of the kings, there being
a constant succession of inspired prophets made applications to
it less frequent, and less necessary. That passage, Ezra ii. 63,
and Neh. vii. 65, where the Tirshatha or Governor, determined that
the priests that had lost the register of their genealogies, ' should
not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with
Urim and Thummim ; as it shows, that at the time of their return
from the Babylonish captivity there was no Urim and Thummim,
so it seems plainly to intimate that before that captivity under the
first temple, there had been a priest with Urim and Thummim,
and that they were in hopes it would be so again. But we never
hear of it afterwards, though it is certain the priesthood was never
* See Spencer. Dissert, de Urim et Thum. cap. T.
140 A VINDICATION OF
in greater power and reputation than under the second temple-
which shows that that oracle did not rise or fall, with the reputa-
tion of the priesthood, nor had any dependence upon it.
Our author, after making this representation of the oracle of
TJrim and Thummim, proceeds to give an account of the institution
of the order of prophets, which he makes to be the ' second differ-
ent turn, or distinct popular appearance,' which the spirit of pro-
phecy took in Israel. And he represents this as a new institution
set up by Samuel. If he intends by this to insinuate that there
were no prophets before, it is a great mistake, as appears from
several instances mentioned in Scripture, see Gen. xx. 7 ; Numb,
xi. 25, 26 ; Judg. vi. 8 ; 1 Sam. ii. 27 36. And Moses, the most
eminent of all the prophets, Numb. xii. 6, 7, 8 ; Deut. xxxiv. 10,
was long before that time. But I will grant that from the time of
Samuel there seems to have been a more constant succession of
prophets than there was before. At what time there were colleges,
as this author calls them, of prophets first erected, we are not in-
formed in the sacred writings ; but have reason to think that there
were some such things in the days of Samuel, and under his
special inspection. Thus we read of a ' company of prophets
prophesying together,' and e Samuel standing as appointed over
them, 1 1 Sam. xix. 20, and of another company of prophets before
this, 2 Sam. x. 5. It is very probable that there were places where
they lived together in society, and devoted themselves to religious
exercises ; and that these were in the nature of seminaries, where
persons were trained up under the direction of one or more eminent
prophet or prophets strictly so called, in the knowledge of the law,
and in just and worthy notions of religion and of the Supreme Be-
ing ; such as every where appear in the prophetical writings ; and
were employed in solemn acts of adoration to God, particularly in
prayer and praise ; or composing and singing sacred hymns to his
honour. This was so usual and constant a part of their exercise,
that praising God is often honoured with the name of prophesying,
even where no special inspiration is intended. Thus we read of
the Levites being appointed by David to 'prophesy with the harp,
with psalteries and cymbals,' 1 Chron. xxv. 1 6. It is probable
that the persons who were educated, and who lived together in
those prophetical colleges, were usually called prophets, even
though they were not immediately and extraordinarily inspired ;
and because Jezebel was for utterly exterminating these schools
of the prophets, which helped to keep up and spread the know-
ledge of religion, and the true worship of God,* and endeavoured
to destroy all that were to be found in those sacred seminaries,
she is represented as destroying the 'prophets of the Lord,' of whom
Obadiah concealed a hundred. These are probably the same per-
* That the people were wont at stated times to have recourse to the prophets for in-
struction in religion, especially on the Sabbaths and new moons, may be probably ga-
thered from what the Shunamite's husband said to her, when she wanted to go to the ' man
of God ; wherefore wilt thou go to him to day 1 it is neither new moon, nor Sabbath.' 2
Kings iv. 23.
THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY. 141
sons that at other times are called the ' sons of the prophets,' and
thereby distinguished from the prophets eminently so called, to
whom they ministered, and under whose discipline and instructions
they were educated. And though many of these never became
prophets in the most strict and eminent sense., yet as they addicted
themselves to meditation and prayer, to a devout singing praises to
God, and to the study of the law under the prophets' direction, so
they were thereby well qualified to be useful to the people. And
it may very justly be supposed that out of souls thus prepared and
disposed God often chose persons whom it pleased him to honour
with his sacred immediate inspiration. Thus 1 Kings xx. we read
of one who is called a prophet, ver. 38, and one of the prophets,
ver. 41, and in ver. 35, the same person is called a ' certain man of
the sons of the prophets,' to show that he belonged to one of the
prophetical colleges, and had his education there. But that it
might not be thought that the prophetical spirit was merely the ef-
fect of their being educated in those seminaries, it pleased God to call
some to the office of prophets, and to grant them his extraordinary
inspiration, who never were educated in those schools at all. Such
was the prophet Amos ; Amos vii. 14, 15, and probably that eminent
prophet Elisha ; as may be gathered from 1 Kings xix. 20,
21, and perhaps Elijah himself, and several others of the prophets.
God's raising up such prophets among the Jews from time to
time, is frequently mentioned as an extraordinary instance of his
goodness and condescension towards that people. See 2 Kings xvii.
18. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 15, 16, Jer. vii. 25. xxv. 4, 5, 6. From which
passages it appeareth that they were sent in the name of God to in-
struct the people in true religion, to warn them against idolatry
and other wickedness, and to call them to repentance, and give them
the most warm and lively exhortations to the practice of universal
righteousness ; and how well they performed this, we have a mani-
fest proof from their admirable writings still extant. They were
also frequently inspired to foretel future events, and this was or-
dered for wise and valuable ends. The heathens boasted of their
oracles ; they had many arts of divination among them, and per-
sons that pretended to the knowledge of future events by commu-
nication with their gods, which not a little contribute to keep up
the reputation of the spreading idolatry. All these arts of divina-
tion were expressly forbidden to the Jews in their law, Deut. xvii.
10, ll, 12. But it pleased God in his great goodness and conde-
scension to raise up prophets among them, who were enabled to
foretel future events which it was impossible for any human saga-
city to foresee, and that in such a manner as exhibited a glorious
triumph over all the heathen idols and their worshippers in that
which they vainly pretended to ; and thereby manifestly contribu-
ted to the main design of the law, which was to preserve the peo-
ple from idolatry, and from running after the vanities of the hea-
thens. Some of the prophetical predictions related to things which
were to happen in their own time, whether of a private or of a more
public nature : the exact accomplishment of which tended to engage
14S A VINDICATION OF
the people to pay a greater regard to their pure and excellent in-
structions and exhortations. Others of their predictions related to
things that were to happen in future ages at a considerable distance
of time, and the fulfilling of these from time to time in their proper
season, gave a still farther proof that they were extraordinarily in-
spired of God. But especially many of their predictions looked
forward to the great Messiah or Saviour of mankind, and to the
dispensation he was to introduce. For the prophets themselves
were not sent to bring in any new dispensation, or to teach and
publish any new doctrines or laws ; but their mission was evident-
ly appointed with a double view ; the one towards the law of Moses
which had been already given, and the authority of which the pro-
phets did farther confirm and establish, and endeavoured to keep
the people to the observation of it whilst it continued in force ;- the
other view was towards the future dispensation of the Messiah,
whose coming kingdom, covenant, offices, and character they point-
ed out and foretold at sundry times and in divers manners, with
great variety and a wonderful harmony : and thereby kept up the
people's expectation towards it, which otherwise would have lan-
fuished, and probably have been lost, and prepared them for it.
'hus the spirit of prophecy in the ancient prophets, was appointed
and ordered for very valuable ends. It was not only useful to the
age and nation in which they lived, but the advantage arising from
it is of extensive influence to other nations, and to succeeding gene-
rations. Their pathetical exhortations to the practice of righteous-
ness, their lively warnings and reproofs for sin, and the just and no-
ble ideas they give of God and religion arie of signal use in all ages,
and the reviewing their predictions, and comparing them with the
events, furnishes a glorious proof of the extent of the divine fore-
knowledge, and the comprehensive views of the divine providence :
it tends to strengthen our belief of a most wise presiding mind go-
verning the world, and the affairs of mankind ; as well as gives a
glorious attestation to the divine mission of our lord Jesus Christ,
and to the evangelical dispensation, as I shall have occasion to
show more fully afterwards.
The account our author at first gives of the institution of the pro-
phetic order seems to be very much to their honour, p. 282, &c.
For though he will not allow that they were extraordinarily inspired
of God, yet if his own account of their institution be just, it
was one of the noblest and best designed in the world, and is scarce
to be paralleled among the wisest and most celebrated institutions
of antiquity, and redounds very much to the honour of Samuel,
whom he makes the author it. He tells us, that when the priest-
hood was fallen into great degeneracy, Samuel's design in institu-
ting the prophetical order, was 'to restore learning and virtue, and
to restrain the vices both of priests and people.' He represents the
prophets as devoted to learning, study, and retirement, as studying
history, rhetoric, poetry, and the knowledge of nature, but above all,
moral philosophy, or the knowledge of God's providence, and hu-
man nature : that the moral rules to be observed in this society were
THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY. 143
very strict and severe ; they were to live in a low abstemious way,
retired from the world, without ambition or avarice, and to exem-
plify as well as preach the most perfect righteousness and rigid vir-
tue ; and to rebuke and correct vice wherever they found it without
the least respect of persons. ' This being so, no wonder that he ex-
pressly calls it ' a most wise and excellent institution, especially
since he affirms, p. 284, that ' the proper business of the prophets,
and the design of their institution and order, was to preach moral
truth and righteousness, to keep the people to the moral law, and
bring them to repentance as the necessary means of their happiness
and safety, and the only condition of the divine favour. ' And he
repeats it, p. 285, that ' this was undoubtedly the nature and de-
sign of the prophetic order and office. And he seems to pity their
hard lot in being cast among such an ignorant superstitious people,
who often used them very ill, ' p. 290. Hitherto one would think
he entertained a very good opinion of the prophets, especially since
he thinks fit to honour them with that title for which he professeth
so great a veneration, that of ' philosophers and moralists, ' p. 287;
and represents them as opposing the priests, and endeavouring to
' take the people from their superstitious dependence on sacrifices
and absolutions. ' p. 304.
But who would think it, that, after making this representation of
the prophets, he bends his whole force to prove, that they were the
most dangerous incendiaries, the greatest plagues to their country,
that ever any nation was troubled with ; and the cause of all the
miseries and calamities that befel it for above three hundred years,
and which at length terminated in its ruin. That they ' marked
out every king and royal family for destruction, that would not
come into their measures, and raised the most formidable and bloody
rebellions against them ; ' that they were continually engaged in fo-
menting ' religious wars, massacres, outrages, and persecutions ; till
at length both kings and prophets were exterminated, and the whole
nation perfectly enslaved, pp. 299, 304, 320, &c. In a word, so great
is his zeal against them, that for a while he seems to forget his ani-
mosity against the priests, and lays all the calamities of Israel, not
upon the priests, but upon these prophets and moral philosophers.
There is no accounting for so extraordinary a rage against them, but
that some of them happened to be the penmen of several parts of
the holy Scripture, and are represented -both in the Old Testament,
and in the New, as divinely inspired, and therefore he is determined
to do all that in him lies to represent them as the worst of the hu-
man race ; though at the expense of all that can be called candour,
truth, and decency.
That I may observe some order in my remarks, though he ob-
serves none in his invectives, I shall first consider what he offers
against the divine inspiration of the prophets, and their having the
knowledge of things future communicated to them in a supernatural
way ; and then shall proceed to the reflections he casts upon their
moral character, and the attempts he makes to show that they were
the enemies and disturbers of their country : after which I shall con-
'144 A VINDICATION OF
sider some scattered insinuations against them, which cannot so
well be reduced to either of the foregoing heads.
Our author, as I have already hinted, even when he seems to give
the most advantageous account of the prophets, plainly denies them
to have heen divinely inspired. But that ' by their retirement and
study they had acquired such high degrees of knowledge, that the
common people looked upon them as wholly miraculous and super-
natural, and believed they had immediate and free conversation
Avith God, angels, and departed souls, and that they knew the hearts
of men, and future events, ' &c. p. 284. And he tells us that ' the
prophets themselves in time degenerated from the strictness and
purity of their first institution, and particularly that they pretended
too much to the knowledge of futurity ; and by this means some-
times prophesied lies in the name of the Lord, as four hundred of
them did at once in the case of Ahab. That they vied with one
another in their predictions, and carried their pretensions too high
as a means to get money. ' pp. 304, 305. And whereas they often
foretold future events, he endeavours to account for it several ways.
He tells us that ' they had not in any case the knowledge of things
future communicated to them in a supernatural way ; but that as
they were men of study and retirement, who nicely observed the
conduct of providence, and the various revolutions of kingdoms and
states in their very beginnings and first occasions, this might ena-
ble them upon rational principles, to give a very near guess at what
would happen, especially as to the great turns and changes of na-
tions and governments. ' He instances in the predictions of the As-
syrian and Babylonish captivity, which he thinks every man that
had eyes in his head might have, foreseen as unavoidable. But be-
ing sensible that all this will hardly account for particular, express,
circumstantial predictions of future events, he thinks fit to add, that
' the prophets when they struck at future events were not very par-
ticular and circumstantial as to time, place, persons, &c. They ge-
nerally deliver their presages in dark and obscure terms, and only
relate for the most part their dreams and visions of the night, the
interpretation of which is extremely difficult, and may be applied
to a thousand different events from that time to this, and so on to
the end of the Avorld. And that by this means the ancient prophets
in great measure saved themselves, and were not answerable for
particulars in futurity, whilst they were soothing the superstitious
people with an imaginary knowledge of what was to come, 'p. p. 288,
289. And lastly, he tells us, that ' there are likewise several instances
to be given, in which the prophets brought about their own pre-
dictions by accomplishing in a natural way, what they had resolved
upon before. He instances in the method taken by Samuel to
set aside Saul and his family, and in the management of the pro-
phet Elisha with Hazael the chief captain of the king of Syria,
p. 305.
I have laid these several passages together, that the authors sen-
timents may appear in their just light, and in their full strength.
That the prophets, strictly and properly so called, were not only
THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY. 145
regarded by the vulgar as divinely inspired, but that they them-
selves pretended to be so, and that they delivered messages to the
people as what they had received by immediate revelation from
God, is incontestable. And not only did they in the name of God
deliver solemn warnings and exhortations to the people to engage
them to repentance, and the practice of true religion and righteous-
ness, but they frequently professed to foretel future events, and that
not merely by probable conjecture, but in a way of certain predic-
tion, as having the knowledge of them extraordinarily communica-
ted to them by God himself. It will be easily allowed that some
of the prophecies have a considerable obscurity in them, for which
several reasons might be assigned ; but it is also certain that many
of their predictions are clear and express, particular and circum-
stantial, as to time, place, persons, and that with regard to events
which no human sagacity could foresee, and which none of the
ways mentioned by this author can possibly account for.
Thus, e. g. what could be more plain or circumstantial than that
prediction of a prophet to king Jeroboam, that a child should be
born unto the house of David, Josiah by name, who should destroy
the altar at Bethel, and burn dead men's bones tipon it to pollute
it ; and this foretold three hundred and fifty years before it hap-
pened ? 1 Kings xiii. 2 6. Could any thing be more distinct or
more wonderful than Isaiah's foretelling the victories and conquests
of Cyrus by name, and his letting go the captives of Judah, not for
price or reward, and this near two hundred years before it came to
pass, see Isa. xlv. 1 5, 13. Our author thinks it was easy to fore-
see the conquest and captivity of Israel by the Assyrians, who were
then in the height of their power ; but was it possible for any hu-
man sagacity to foresee that, when Sennacherib at the head of a
mighty army was on the point of besieging Jerusalem, and gave out
such terrible threatenings against it, and there was no human. force
to oppose him ; he should not besiege it at all, nor so much as
shoot an arrow against it, but be obliged to return with disgrace to
his own land, and there be slain with the sword ? and yet this the
prophet Isaiah clearly and expressly foretold, and it was accom-
plished in every circumstance ; see the xxxvii. chapter of Isaiah,
and 2 Kings xix. The same prophet, when Babylon was at peace
with Judea, and all the danger of the Jews seemed to., be from As-
syria, which was then in its greatest power ; and none from Baby-
lon at all; foretold to Hezekiah the destruction of Jerusalem by the
king of Babylon, and the carrying the royal family captive thither,
above a hundred years before that destruction happened, Isa. xxxix.
8, 7. He also expressly foretold the dreadful destruction of Baby-
lon itself, and the utter desolation that should come upon it. Isa.
xiv. 22, 23. The prophet Jeremiah foretels the same destruction
and ruin of Babylon, and that with many remarkable circumstances
relating to the taking of the city by. the Medes and Persians,
all which were literally accomplished. And this was foretold at a
time when Babylon was the most powerful empire in the world, and
J n the height of all its prosperity and grandeur. This writer thinks
146 A VINDICATION OF
there is nothing in Jeremiah's foretelling that Jerusalem should be
taken and destroyed by the Chaldeans at a time when they were so
powerful, and the Jews so weak, though considering the alliance
the Jews had with Egypt a very potent kingdom, and whose interest
it was to oppose the Chaldeans, it might not be so easy to foresee
it as he imagines ; but how came that prophet to foretel that the
captivity of the Jews should last seventy years, and that at the end
of that fixed time they should be restored to their own country again;
Jer. xxv. 12. xxix. 10. Hosea and Amos both foretold the destruc-
tion of Israel by the Assyrians in the days of Jeroboam the second,
when that kingdom was in the most flourishing circumstances it had
ever been in, Hos. x. 5, 6. Amos vii. 10 17. The same prophet
Amos also foretold the entire destruction of Damascus and Syria,
with this circumstance, that the people should be ' carried captive
to Kir ;' as they actually were by Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria,
near threescore years after the prediction, according to archbishop
Usher's computation, compare Amos i. 4, 5. with 1 Kings xvi; 9.
In the days of king Ahaz, when Israel was in confederacy with
Syria against Judah, and threatened to destroy it, the prophet Isaiah
foretold, that ' before the child ' he then had by the prophetess
should be able to say ' my father, or my mother, the riches of Da-
mascus, and the spoil of Samaria, should be taken away by the
king of Assyria. ' Isa. viii. 3, 4. And he had before that expressly
foretold, that ' within threescore and five years Ephraim should be
so destroyed as to be no more a people, Isa. vii. 8, and how literally
that was accomplished, see Usher's Annales vet. Testam. p. 108.
There are many other most express and circumstantial predictions
in the prophecies of Isaiah. After having given a most lively de-
scription of the destruction of Moab and its chief cities, he fixes
the precise time for it: 'The Lord hath spoken, saying, Within three
years as the years of an hireling, and the glory of Moab shall be
contemned.' Isa. xvi. 14. So also chap. xxi. 16: 'Thus hath the
Lord said unto me, Within a year, according to the years of an hire-
ling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail,' &c. He expressly fore-
told, not only that Hezekiah should recover of his dangerous sick-
ness, but that God would add ' fifteen years to his life,' Isa. xxxviii.
5, 6. The desolate state of Tyre is precisely determined to seventy
years, Isa. xxii. 15. The prophet Ezekiel not only foretels in the
strongest terms the desolation of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, but
expressly declares that * at the end of forty years God would bring
again the captivity of Egypt; and it should again become a king-
dom ; but he adds that it should be a base one, and that it should
' no longer exalt itself above the nations ;' which was exactly ac-
complished, see Ezek. chap. xxix.
It were easy to produce more instances of this kind out of the
prophetical writings, to which might be added several other won-
derful and express predictions, of which we have an account in the
sacred history. Thus, e. g. was it possible for any human wisdom
to foresee that the huge host of Moabites, Ammonites, and Edom-
ites, that threatened to swallow up Judah, should on a sudden be
THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY. 147
destroyed, without the Jews fighting in their own defence ; and that
they needed only to 'stand still, and see the salvation ot God?'
And yet this was expressly foretold by a prophet in the name of God
to Jehoshaphat and the men of Judah, when they were overwhelmed
with terror; and it was immediately and wonderfully accomplished,
2 Chron. xx. 14, &c. By what human means could the pro-
phet Elisha reveal to the king of Israel the king of -Syria's most
secret projects and counsels ; or assure him, when Samaria was
reduced to the extremity of distress by famine and the host of the
Syrians, and no human succour near, that in one day's time there
should be such a plenty of all things, as if provisions had come
pouring down upon them from heaven ? These and many other
predictions that might be mentioned are not delivered merely in
' general ambiguous terms,' as this writer tells us was usually done
' to save the prophet's credit ;' but are clear, express, and determi-
nate, applied to particular circumstances of time, place, and per-
sons, which it was impossible for any man on earth by any merely
human sagacity to foresee; many of them contrary to all appear-
ances, and to all the rules of human probability, and which it was
absolutely out of the power of the prophets themselves to bring
about by any natural means, by which he pretends they often took
care to fulfil their own predictions. In a word, they were things
which could only be known to Him whose providence governs all
events, and who hath the times and seasons, the events of nations
and particular persons in his own hands.
But especially the prophecies of Daniel are highly remarkable,
which take in the fates of so many different nations for so long a
series of years, the succession of four mighty empires, and the
principal revolutions that were to befal them, in the very order in
which they were to happen. Our author indeed would fain have
it believed that Daniel nourished in the reign of Artaxerxes Mne-
mon, i. e. one hundred and forty years after the time in which he
really lived.* But even on that supposition his prophecy of the
* If we inquire what it is that our author offers to support so extraordinary a conjec-
ture, which is entirely contrary to the whole history of the book of Daniel, and to the
express testimony of the prophet Ezekiel who liveil in the time of the Babylonish cap-
tivity, and speaks of Daniel as at that time famous for his wisdom and piety, Ezek. xiv.
14; xxviii. 3 ; it is no more than this; he affirms, x that it is evident, and the text ex-
pressly tells us, that the decree or commandment for the building of the city and
restoration of the people, from which the seventy weeks are to begin, came out at the
very time when Daniel was offering up his prayers and supplications for the liberty of
his nation. And this decree or commandment for building the city, &c. came forth in
the seventh year of Artaxerxes Mnemon, at which time therefore Daniel must have had
his vision, see pp. 337, 339. But not to urge that the Artaxerxes in whose reign this
decree came forth was not Artaxerxes Mnemon, but Artaxerxes Longimanus, who
lived sixty years before, as is proved among others by Dr. Prideaux; I shall
only observe, that what this writer saith is evident from the text, doth not appear
from the text at all. The commandment mentioned, ver. 25, from which the
seventy weeks are to begin, is expressly said to be ' the commandment to restore and to
build Jerusalem.' But the commandment mentioned in the 23d verse, that came forth
at the beginning of Daniel's supplication, is not said to be the commandment to restore
and to_build Jerusalem, though our author tells us the text, and the angel expressly de-
clares it to be so ; but is manifestly to be understood of the commandment that was given
by God to the angel Gabriel, to go and make known to Daniel those future events con-
i. 2
148 A VINDICATION OT
seventy weeks, according to our author's own computation would he
true : and all his wonderful predictions concerning the overturning
the Persian empire by Alexander the Great, and the division of his
empire into four kingdoms, and the wars, alliances, and principal
transactions between the kings of Syria and Egypt, which are re-
lated with so amazing a particularity ; and concerning the profan-
ing the temple, and the miseries brought upon the Jews by Antio-
chus Epiphanes ; as well as concerning the vast power of the
Roman empire, and the utter destruction of the Jewish state, the
city, and the sanctuary, soon after the Messiah's coming. These
things show the certainty of prophecy : and are instances of an
exact and certain knowledge of future events that can only be sup-
posed to proceed from God himself, whose eye penetrateth through
all ages, who 'ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to
whomsoever he will.'
From these and many other instances that might be pro-
duced, it manifestly appears how vainly this writer would insi-
nuate, that the prophecies were nothing more than general
conditional declarations of God's favour to the good, and denun-
ciations of his judgments against the wicked, see pp. 284, 285.
And whereas he pretends that ' to humour the people, they
were often obliged to deliver many promises and declarations of
good to the nation, in absolute terms, which were plainly intended
as conditional ; and therefore as often as they pronounced any
tained in the prophecy of the seventy weeks. It is ohserved, ver. 20, that while Daniel
was speaking in prayer, ' Gabriel being caused to fly swiftly, touched him, and said,
O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding; at the beginning
of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to show thee : there-
fore understand the matter, and consider the vision,' that is, at the beginning of thy
supplications the commandment came from God to me, ordering me to show thf-e
what is to come to pass, and accordingly, I am come to make thee understand the vision.
We have an instance of such a commandment given to Gabriel before in a former vision,
chap. viii. 16, where a voice came to Gabriel, ' Make this man, i. e. Daniel, to under-
stand the vision.' If the author who pretends to urge the express declaration of the text,
will be governed by what is there expressly declared ; this prayer and supplication of
Daniel was made in the first year of Darius the Mede, chap. ix. 1,2, that is, 141 years
before the seventh year of Artaxerxes Mneruon, in which according to him the decree,
for building and restoring Jerusalem came forth. And this is farther confirmed by the
occasion of Daniel's prayer, which is there said to be this, that he understood that the
seventy years spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah for the continuance of the desolations
of Jerusalem were on the point of being accomplished. But to this our author hath a
short answer, viz. that ' the book of Daniel, as we now have it, has been in this case
greatly interpolated and corrupted, as he could demonstrate were this a proper time and
place for it,' p. 333. But upon his supposition as he puts it, the book of Daniel mustnot
have been merely interpolated. All the historical part of it which wholly relates to things
dene in the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius the Mede, must be one
entire forgery. This our author, no doubt, ' could demonstrate, if this were a proper
time and place for it.' And I believe the reader is convinced, thathe would have thought
anytime and place proper to have done it, if it bad been in his power. I shall not
meddle with his computation of the seventy weeks ; because though he gives a very
wrong account of it, yet according to his own computation, the prophecy was literally
accomplished. I shall only observe, that in order to bring his account the better to bear,
he tells us that Daniel fixes the time when the Messiah was to be cut off, to be sixty-
two weeks after the coming forth of the commandment, &c., p. 337, whereas it is plain
from the text, that he reckons seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, that is, sixty-nine
weeks of years after the coming forth of the commandment.
THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY. 149
judgments from God, or impending calamities for the sins of the
nation, they always promised a future deliverance/ &c. It is evi-
dent from the whole of the prophetical writings, that the pleasing
or humouring the people was not what they had in view. They
delivered the message they received from God with a noble bold-
ness, whether it pleased the princes and people or not. They often
foretold the most dismal calamities, not merely as things which they
were afraid might happen, but as what would most certainly befal
them. And when they foretold a national deliverance, or a better
state of things, it was not because they thought this necessary to
humour the people, but because they knew by the spirit of prophecy
that such a deliverance would certainly be. Thus it was in the
case of the return from the Babylonish captivity, and of Cyrus's
letting the captives go free, both which were most clearly and ex-
pressly foretold, though they were events which as thus circum-
stanced no man could foresee. And with regard to other nations
as well as the Jews, the prophets sometimes after foretelling the
calamities that should befal them, expressly foretel their restoration
and deliverance; and surely it cannot be pretended that this also
was to humour the Jews. The only reason for it was, that they
knew by the spirit of prophecy, that the fact would be so. Thus
Jeremiah foretels the captivity and restoration of Elain, Jer. xlix.
34 39, and of Moab. chap, xlviii. 47, as Isaiah doth concerning
Cyrus, Isa. xxii. 1 7, 18, and Ezekiel concerning Egypt, Ezek,
xxix. 1 13, 14.
With regard to the prophecies relating to the Messiah, he pre-
tends that the Messiah spoken of by the prophets was to be no
more than a temporal prince, and his kingdom of a worldly nature ;
and that he was only to be a king of the Jews, and a national De-
liverer and Saviour of them only, and not of the Gentiles. And he
farther intimates, that this promise of the Messiah was only condi-
tional, and suspended upon the Jews' good behaviour, as the pro-
mise of the uninterrupted succession of the crown in David's family
was conditional. The proper place for considering this will be
when I come more particularly to examine the objections he raises
against the New Testament; when I propose to show, that the
kingdom attributed to the Messiah by the prophets is not -merely
like the kingdoms of this world, of a secular nature, but erected
for spiritual ends and purposes, and that it is represented by the
prophets as an universal benefit, not confined to the Jews, but ex-
tending to all nations. From whence it follows, that the promise
of the Messiah was not merely conditional, to depend upon, the re-
pentance and obedience of the Jews ; for why should a benefit de-
signed for mankind in general, be suspended upon the good beha-
viour of the Jews only ? nor is this condition ever once mentioned.
On the contrary, it is foretold in the prophecies, that when he ac-
tually came, the Jews would reject him, and use him ill ; and that
soon after his coming and being cut off, their city and sanctuary
should be destroyed, though it is intimated, that afterwards they
should seek to him in the latter days, and be restored to a happy
150 A VINDICATION OF
state. This future conversion of the Jews, and a more glorious
state of the universal church than hath hitherto appeared, many
of the prophecies seem to point to : and I doubt not these pro-
phecies will in their due season be accomplished, though I am sen-
sible that by this, I incur the author's heavy censure, who severely
inveighs against those that understand the prophecies in this sense,
as upholding the Jews in their vanity and presumption.
But to proceed to the farther reflections he makes upon the pro-
phets, he observes, that by ' pretending too much to the knowledge
of future events, the prophets sometimes told lies in the name of
the Lord, as four hundred of them did at once in the case of Ahab.'
Thus in order to expose the true prophets of God he confounds
them with the false ones, as if they were to be accountable for all
the falsehoods that were ever uttered by any that took upon them
the name of prophet. It will be easily'granted, that there were at
that time false prophets as well as true ones. Some of these might
perhaps have been educated in the prophetic schools under the dis-
cipline of the true prophets, and under that pretence took upon
them the character of prophets, though, they never had any extra-
ordinary inspiration, merely for serving their own ends of ambition
or avarice. Or there might be schools of prophets set up under the
countenance of the kings in opposition to the true ones, whom
they hated for their divine zeal and impartiality in reproving their
faults and vices. But these prophets, concerning whom, it is often
declared, that God did not send them, and that they prophesied 'a
false vision, and the deceit of their own' heart/ were of a very differ-
ent character from the true prophets of the Lord. They were too
complaisant to contradict the court religion, or the prevailing
fashionable vices and humours of the prince or people. They are
represented as very wicked themselves, and encouraging the people
in their wickedness, see Jer. xxiii. 11, 14 17; xxviii. 7. Instead
of denouncing judgments against them for their crimes, they pro-
phesied of nothing but peace and prosperity, and soothed and flat-
tered them in their vices, Jer. vi. 14; xiv. 13 ; Ezek. xiii. 10, 16.
And they were so far from joining with the true prophets, that they
were their greatest enemies and persecutors,* and joined interests
with the corrupt part of the priesthood against them, and had the
people on their side too, because they pleased and flattered them,
Jer. v. 31. These false prophets were ready as occasion served,
and as they saw it would please the king or people, to prophesy in the
name of the Lord, or in the name of Baal, Jer. ii. 8; xxiii. 13.
Of this kind were the four hundred prophets that prophesied
falsely to Ahab in the name of the Lord. Hence Micaiah, the true
prophet of God, represents them as Ahab's prophets, and not God's.
They were such as he himself chose and approved, because ,they
always took care to prophesy what they knew would be acceptable
to him. Whereas he hated Micaiah, because he dealt impartially
* See Jer. xx. 2, 6 ; xxvii. 9, 16; xxviii. 2, 10, 11, 1C: xxix. 21, 23, 32 ; 1 Kiags
xxii. 24.
THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY. 151
with him, and told him the plain truth. This author indeed would
have it thought, that these four hundred prophets hade him go up to
Ramoth-Gilead, with a design that he should be killed by the Sy-
rians in revenge for the prophets of the Lord whom he had caused
to be slain before. Whereas the truth is, they only said so, be-
cause they knew it would please the king, which was all these
court prophets had in view, who were always for prophesying
smooth and acceptable things. Besides they probably flattered
themselves that the king would prove victorious, which seemed far
more likely than the contrary, as he had defeated the Syrians in
the two last battles he had fought with them, and now had the
king of Judah to assist him. But Micaiah, who was a true prophet
of the Lord, conducted himself after a quite different manner. He
discovers his own character, and that of all the true prophets of God,
in the answer he made to the king's messenger, who was for per-
suading him to speak ' that which was good unto the king, as the
other prophets had done ; as the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith
unto me, that will I speak,' 1 Kings xxii. 13, 14. And accord-
ingly he plainly told Ahab, that if he went up to Ramoth-Gilead
he should die. It was impossible for him in a human way to fore-
see that a Syrian drawing his bow at a venture, should smite the
king of Israel between the 'joints of the harness.' No event
could be seemingly more contingent. And Ahab took all the
precautions in his power to prevent it by disguising himself,
and getting Jehoshaphat to put on his robes. And yet Micaiah
speaks of his death with an absolute assurance, and pawns his
liberty and life upon it, ver. 27, 28, he was sure of it, because he
was supernaturally inspired with the knowledge of it by God him-
self. No consequence, therefore, can be drawn from the false pro-
phets to the true ones ; that because there were some that falsely
pretended to divine inspiration, therefore there were none that were
really thus inspired. Since in the instance produced by this wri-
ter, though there was a number of persons that falsely pretended
to the name of prophets, yet there was a true prophet of
the Lord, who had the knowledge of a future contingency
revealed to him in an extraordinary manner by God himself.
The characters of the false prophets and the true were en-
tirely different, and it was no hard matter to distinguish them ; not
only because of the different tendency of their doctrines and predic-
tions, which in the one was to flatter the kings and people for their
own interest, and to encourage them in their vices ; in the other to
reprove them impartially even at the hazard of their own lives for
their sins, and to turn them from their evil ways to real repentance,
and the practice of righteousness. But especially because the one
were enabled clearly and certainly to foretel future events which
no human knowledge could foresee, and which were exactly ac-
complished ; but the other either spoke only in general ambiguous
terms, or if they undertook to foretel things future clearly and ex-
pressly, were confuted by the event, as Ahab's prophets were. And
whenever they pretended to come in competition with the true pro-
152 A FARTHER VINDICATION O'F
phets to God, and to contradict their predictions, God gave his own
prophets a visible superiority, sufficient to convince all that ob-
served of the great difference between them. This appears in the in-
stance now mentioned, and in the remarkable contest between Han-
aniah and Jeremiah, of which we have an account in chap;xxviii.
of Jeremiah ; where Jeremiah not only tells him, that the Lord
had not sent him ; but expressly declares, ' Thus saith the Lord,
This year thou shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against
the Lord.' And accordingly he died that year in the seventh
month, see ver. 16, 17. So in the case of Ahab and Zedekiah,
who prophesied lies in the name of the Lord, Jeremiah foretold the
dreadful punishment that should be' inflicted on them, and even
the particular death they should die ; that the king of Babylon
should cause ' them to be roasted in the fire.' Jer. xxix. 21 23.
Thus I have considered the attempts this writer makes against
the prophets with respect to their foretelling things to come. There
is no accounting for their many clear, express, and circumstantial
predictions of future events in any of those ways which he men-
tions, or indeed in any other way than by supposing them to have
the knowledge of those things communicated to them in an extra-
ordinary way by God himself; for it is the peculiar prerogative of
the Supreme Being, the most wise Governor of the world and of
mankind, to know the things which shall be hereafter. And
this is what he challenges to himself, as that whereby he is
eminently distinguished above all other beings, Isa. xli. 22, 23;
xlvi. 9, 10.
CHAPTER IX.
Some general reflections on the attempt the author mates to show, that the prophets were
the great disturhers of their country, and that they were of persecuting principles,
enemies to toleration and liherty of conscience. It is shown that they were the tru-
est friends to their country, and that if their counsels had been hearkened to, its ruin
would have been prevented. His invective against the prophet Samuel, whom he re-
presents as the founder of the prophetic order. His pretence that he kept Saul twenty
years out of the exercise of the royal power, after he was chosen king. The account
he gives of Samuel's quarrel against Saul for deposing him from the high-priest-
hood, and of the several plots laid by him for the destruction of that prince, especi-
ally in the affair of the Amalekites, considered. In what sense it is said that it re-:
pented God that he had made Saul king. That this was not a pretence of Samuel to
cast his own follies and want of foresight upon the Almighty. David's character con-
sidered and vindicated. His behaviour towards Saul shown to be noble and generous.
Notwithstanding the faults he was guilty of, in his general conduct he was an excellent
- person. Concerning his dancing before the ark. The author's base representation of it.
. JLord S y's account of it,- and of the Saltant naked spirit of prophecv, considered.
OF THE ANCIENT PROPHETS. 153
LET us now proceed to what our author offers against the moral
character of the prophets, and particularly the attempt he makes
to show, that they were the great incendiaries and disturbers of
their country for above three hundred years, and at length proved
its ruin. This is the substance of his long invective for above thirty
pages together from p. 291 to p. 323. It is evident he intends all
this merely against those that are represented in Scripture as the
true prophets of the Lord. For the false ones, who always took
care for their own interest to be of the king's religion, and never
reproved them or the people for their vices and idolatries, do not
come under his accusation. And he speaks of Baal's prophets
with great complacency, as men of benevolent dispositions, and
friends to toleration, and liberty of conscience.
But before I enter on a distinct consideration of this writer's in-
vective, I cannot but make this one general remark- upon it ; how
inconsistent he is with himself in the account he gives of the pro-
phets and their conduct. He represents them as persons that by
their original institution were to ' live in a low abstemious way, re-
tired from the world without ambition or avarice, and wholly de-
voted to contemplation and study. That they were never to in-
volve themselves in secular affairs, to push at fortune, or to make
any great figure or splendid appearance in the world.' And again
he talks of ' their absolute retirement and recess from the business
and pleasures of the world.' And yet the same author that gives
this account of them, represents them as continually engaged in all
the disturbances and revolutions of the state, raising numberless
rebellions and commotions, able to turn out one royal family, and
place another upon the throne at pleasure. And what makes this
still more extraordinary is, that by his own account, these prophets
must have had very little interest. He represents the kings as en-
gaged in a perpetual struggle and contest with them ; and that
'the priests generally hated them, for declaiming against them, and
endeavouring to keep the people to the moral law, and take them
off from their superstitious dependence upon sacrifices and absolu-
tions ;' and that ' herein the people were generally in the interests
of the priests,' p. 304. And to this it may be added, that the false
prophets who were countenanced by the kings, and who joined in-
terests with the priests, and flattered and pleased the people, op-
posed and hated the true prophets of the Lord. Now this being
the case ; that a few men bred up in colleges and places of retire-
ment, without ambition or avarice, retired from the noise of the
world, and devoted to study and contemplation, and who had the
kings, the priests, the pretended prophets and body of the people
against them, should yet have it in their power to overturn king-
doms, to raise perpetual insurrections and commotions, and to
transfer the crown, when they pleased from one royal family to
another, without money, without interest, without force, yea all
these engaged in an opposition to them, is a supposition so wild
and extravagant, that one would think scarce any man in his senses
-was capable of admitting it. But there is nothing that has a wider
154< A FARTHER VINDICATION
swallow than infidelity, which though it makes the slightest diffi-
culty on the side of revelation an insuperable objection, can admit
the most absurd and unaccountable suppositions in the world in
favour of a darling scheme.
The general charge he advances against the prophets, and which
he supposes to lie at the foundation of all the commotions and in-
surrections, the religious wars and massacres of which he accuses
them, is their zeal against idolatry, which he represents as if they
were utter enemies to all toleration and religious liberty. And on
the other hand he commends the kings that are branded in Scrip-
ture for their wickedness and idolatry, as only maintaining indul-
gence, toleration, and liberty of conscience.
That by the law of Moses there was to be no toleration of idolatry
in the commonwealth of Israel, is very true, and has been already
accounted for. They were not, indeed, brought under an obligation
to endeavour to extirpate idolatry in all other countries by fire and
sword, as this writer represents it, but they were not to suffer it in
their own. Idolatry was the most express breach of the original
contract or covenant between God and them, by which they held
the land of Canaan, and all their privileges as a peculiar people,
and was a subverting the whole constitution. The kings, therefore,
whom this author honours with the glorious title of friends of
toleration and liberty of conscience (though I shall show they were
far from proceeding upon this principle, except by toleration be
meant a liberty for idolatry, but not for the true worship of God)
were really guilty of subverting the fundamental laws, and were
the greatest enemies to their country, and took the readiest way to
expose it to the greatest miseries and calamities, which had in that
case been expressly threatened in the original covenant. And those
that at the hazard of all that was dear to them stood up for the
ancient constitution, established by the express command and au-
thority of God himself, and bore testimony against that prevailing
idolatry and wickedness which they knew tended to dissolve and
ruin the state, and bring captivity and desolation upon princes and
people, showed themselves the truest patriots, and discovered a
noble zeal for the welfare, the glory, and prosperity of their country.
But when we farther consider them as extraordinarily sent and
commissioned by God himself for that purpose, this surely doth
fully justify them. When with a noble and impartial zeal they
reproved kings, and the greatest men, for their idolatry and other
vices, and foretold the dreadful judgments and calamities that
would be inflicted on them without reformation and repentance, in
all this they only executed the commission which God intrusted
them with, and delivered the messages which he sent them upon.
And if this author will undertake to prove, that it was unjust in
God to inflict those judgments on wicked and idolatrous kings,
and on a sinful and rebellious people, he will do something ; but if
it was not wrong in God to inflict them, it was not wrong in the
prophets to denounce them, when he sent them to do it in his
name. And indeed his raising up a succession of prophets to give
OF THE ANCIENT PHOPHETS. 155
them such solemn warnings, and exhort them to repentance, and
enabling them clearly and expressly to foretel the calamities that
should befal them and their kings, whereby, when they came to
pass, they might know that they were sent upon them in a way of
judgment for their sins. This was a signal instance of the divine
mercy towards a guilty people, and showed what proper methods
he took to prevent that destruction which they were bringing upon
themselves. And if the body of the people and their kings still
continued incorrigible under all the methods made use of by divine
providence to reclaim them, both by the judgments inflicted on
them, and the many signal mercies and deliverances he vouchsafed
them from time to time, and which were also expressly foretold by
the prophets he sent to warn them in his name, this only showed
how just it was at length to inflict upon them that utter ruin and
captivity which had been so long threatened, and which they had
so well deserved. But to lay this their ruin to the charge of the
prophets, and to represent them as the cause of all their miseries is
the most unjust thing in the world, when the very contrary to this
is manifestly true, that if their faithful counsels, their solemn warn-
ings, and earnest exhortations had been hearkened unto, and com-
plied with, the destruction of that people had been prevented.
And it was the rejecting their wholesome and excellent admonitions
that brought misery and ruin on ' that ancient and famous nation,'
as our author calls them, p. 320, which is the only place in his
book where he seems to speak honourably of the Jews, with a
view to lay the greater load upon the prophets for causing their
ruin.
But let us now proceed to the instance he brings to make good
his general charge.
He first falls into a furious invective against the prophet Samuel,
whom he represents as the founder of the prophetical order. By
his own account, his design in instituting that order was to ' re-
store learning and virtue, to keep the people to the moral law, and
to restrain the vices both of priests and people :' he represents him
as endeavouring to retrieve as much ' wisdom and knowledge' as
he could ' from its ancient ruins,' and taking care that the pro-
phets should be instructed and educated in it ; and tells us that
the ' proper business and design of their institution and order was
to preach up moral truth and righteousness.' One would think
the author of this ' most wise and excellent constitution,' as he
himself calls it, must have been a wise and excellent person. It is
true that after giving this account of the institution of the prophetic
order, he pretends, p. 292, to let us into a farther view of Samuel's
design in that institution. He tells us, that upon the people's de-
siring a king, Samuel, who saw * the revolution that must soon
happen in the state, instituted this academic order of prophets,
who by their weight and influence with the people, were to moderate
and restrain the power of the kings, and at the same time keep the
princes and people too within the boundaries of the moral law.'
Thus those prophets who, according to our author, were no more
156 A FARTHER VINDICATION
than moralists and philosophers, or preachers of ' moral 'truth and
righteousness,' and who by their institution ' were wholly devoted
to contemplation and study,' and ' never to involve themselves in
secular affairs : these men were at the same time instituted and de-
signed to hold the balance in the state, and to govern kings and
people as they pleased. One would think by this representation
that they were invested with a power like that of the Ephori,
among the Lacedemonians. But then he should have supposed
them like those Ephori, the first men in the state, at the head of
all affairs, and not a mere order of academics, men devoted to study
and philosophy, and that were never to concern themselves in state
affairs at all. This may give the reader a specimen of our author's
profound skill in politics, and how well qualified he is for forming
plans for republics, and schemes of government. However one
should think that it was an excellent design if it could be effected,
and what all the states in the world should wish for, to have an
order of persons among them that might ' keep the princes and
people too within the boundaries of the moral law ;' still Samuel's
design even upon this representation of it was very good. But the
author who has hitherto observed some measures with regard to
Samuel, soon throws off all disguise, and represents him as engaged
in restless attempts to destroy his king, and ruin his country ; as
carrying on a series of wicked frauds, treasons, and conspiracies for
gratifying his own ambition and resentment, and sanctifying all
with the pretence of religion, and the holy name of God. It is thus
that this spiteful writer abuses and calumniates one of the brightest
characters in Scripture, and one of the most excellent governors we
read of in. history. As a prophet he was so eminent, that we are
told that even while he was yet young, the ' Lord was yet with
him, and did not let one of his words fall to the ground : so that
all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba, knew that Samuel was es-
tablished to be a prophet of the Lord/ 1 Sam. iii. 19 21. As a
governor he not only delivered his country from their most danger-
ous enemies and oppressors; but after he had governed them many
years to his old age, was able to appeal to the whole nation, whether
he had in any one single instance defrauded or oppressed any of
them, or been guilty of the least corruption or wrong. And no-
thing could be more glorious than the testimony that was given by
the united suffrage of all the people, joined with a solemn appeal
to God himself, concerning the untainted integrity, justice, and
clemency he had shown, in the whole course of his administration ;
see 1 Sam. xii. 1 5. And accordingly not only was he respected by
the whole nation when alive, and lamented when dead, 1 Sam. xxv.
1 , but his memory was always had in great veneration among them.
Nor is he ever spoken of by any writer of that nation, but with the
highest esteem and admiration for his piety and virtue. And yet
our author does his utmost to traduce him as a monster of pride,
ambition, falsehood, and revenge. He represents this excellent
man, who on all occasions showed such a love to his country and a
zeal for his welfare, as ' having little conipassion for his country,'
OF THE ANCIENT PROPHETS. 157
in its greatest calamity, and ' beholding the devastation of it by the
Philistines, not only with indifference but with pleasure,' in hopes
that the king whom he himself had recommended to the people
should be destroyed. And when he speaks of the victories Saul
obtained over the enemies of his country, and his ' settling the
nation in peace,' he represents this as done to the ' great mor-
tification of this prophet,' and in spite of all the opposition of-
Samuel and the prophets, see pp. 295, 296, 298. Yea, he descends
so low in his invectives, as to insinuate that Samuel caused the
asses of Saul's father to be stolen, and so was able to ' tell Saul
what had betided them,' p. 305. It would be honouring such
mean and spiteful reflections too much to give them a particular
answer, which have not the least pretence from history to support
them, and only show the determined hatred and malice of this
writer against the man whom he supposes to have been the father
and founder of the prophets.
I shall only take notice of those reflections which he pretends to
support from the account given us in the history itself. Thus he
most absurdly pretends, that after Saul was chosen king at Mizpah,
Samuel presently sent him home again, where he lived a private life,
for at least twenty years, whilst Samuel really exercised the regal
power. And that it was upon the occasion of the Ammonites be-
sieging Jabesh Gilead, and the success Saul obtained against them,
that he was invested with ' the real state, power, and grandeur of
a king,' because the people would have it so ; and Samuel, against
his own inclination, was under a necessity to comply with it. And
' tbat this must not have been less than twenty years after Saul
had been first anointed, he says is plain, because Saul, when first
anointed, was but a young man, as the text tells us, and Josephus
saith he was then thirty, and therefore Jonathan then could be but
a childj but now Jonathan was grown up an expert soldier, and the
chief captain under the king,' p. 294. But if this writer will govern
himself by the chronology of Josephus, the besieging of Jabesh
Gilead by the Ammonites was but a month after Saul's inauguration
at Mizpah, though our author makes it to be no less than twenty
years. And that this was in some ancient copies of the books of
Samuel, or at least was an ancient tradition among the Jews, may
well be supposed, since the Septuagint have it in their translation
of 1 Sam. xi. 1. Then Nahash the Ammonite ' came up about a
month after,' &c., dc fju'iva, and that it could be but a short time, is
evident because it appears from what Samuel saith to the people of
Israel, 1 Sam. xii. 12, that the war which ' Nahash the Ammonite
threatened them with,' was the immediate occasion of their desiring
a king to reign over them. And accordingly the first action we
read of after Saul's being chosen kine, is that ' Nahash the Am-
monite came up and encamped against Jabesh Gilead, the inhabit-
ants of which thereupon sent to Saul for assistance and relief. The
solemn renewal and confirmation of the kingdom to Saul at Gilgal,
which followed immediately on the victory he obtained on that oc-
casion, appears plainly to have been done at Samuel's own motion,
158 A FARTHER VINDICATION
though our author thinks proper to represent it as if it was very
much against his inclination, and because the people forced him to
it; see 1 Sam. xi. 14. If, therefore, this writer's observation was
right, that at the time of renewing the kingdom to Saul at Gilgal
with the universal consent of the people, which was immediately
after the affair at Jabesh Gilead, Jonathan was grown up and be-
come an expert soldier, it would only follow that Saul, at the time
of his being first anointed king by Samuel, at Raman, was several
years above thirty, which is the age that Josephus assigns him ac-
cording to our author, though I have not found it so in Josephus
himself. But he objects, that the text tells us that Saul was then
but a ' young man.' But the word in the original which our
translators there render a ' choice young man,' "Ifn2 properly sig-
nifies no more than a ' choice man,' and so is sometimes rendered
by our translators, as in 2 Sam. vi. 2, where it is made to signify
the ' chosen men of Israel/ The words which are more peculiarly
used in Scripture to signify young men, are not applied to Saul at
all. Or if they were, he might have been forty years old for all that ;
as is plain from the instance of Rehoboam, who is called a ' young
man HVJ. And yet it is certain that he was then one and forty
years old. Compare 2 Chron. xii. 13, with chap. xiii. 7. But we
need not suppose Saul so old. The first time that Jonathan is men-
tioned is 1 Sam. xiii. 2, where Saul is represented as giving him the
command of a ' thousand men.' And it appears from the first verse of
that chapter that this was two years at least, probably three (if we
take the 'one year' and ' the two years' there mentioned as dis-
tinct from one another) after his solemn confirmation at Gilgal. So
that if we suppose Saul to have been no more than thirty-four
when he was first anointed by Samuel at Ramah, which was some
time before his inauguration at Mizpah, as that was some time
before the renewal and confirmation of his kingdom at Gilgal, he
must be at the time when Jonathan is first mentioned near thirty-
eight: and supposing Saul to have had Jonathan when he was
eighteen, which is far from being an absurd supposition, then Jona-
than, at the time referred to, might be twenty years old, an age
sufficient for martial exploits. The great Alexander was but twenty
when he came to the throne, and showed himself, to our author's
phrase, ' an expert soldier' in many wars in which he was imme-
diately engaged ; and he had distinguished himself jn an extra-
ordinary manner before this at the battle of Chaevonea, when he
was but a little above eighteen years old; and when he was but
sixteen he was left by his father his lieutenant in Macedonia, and
signalized himself by glorious military exploits at the head of an
army, as Plutarch informs us. And if we suppose Jonathan to
have been as forward as Alexander was, then we need not suppose
Saul, at his being first anointed, to have been much above the age
assigned to him, as this author tells us by Josephus, and which he
himself seems to approve, and so his mighty chronological com-
putation with all he builds upon it, falls to the ground.
This writer next pretends to give us the true reason of the quarrel
OF THE ANCIENT PROPHETS. 159
between Samuel and Saul. It was ' because after the kingdom
was confirmed to him, he deposed Samuel from the high priesthood
which he had usurped, and put in Ahia, who was the right heir
from Eli, which so highly exasperated the prophet, that from that
time he projected the ruin of Saul and his family, and was resolved
to convince the king, that no king of Israel must ever pretend to
reign independent of the prophetic order.' Now all this which he
gives us for history is purely a fiction of his own. He says it is
' plain from the history that Samuel had taken upon him the high-
priesthood ;' and yet there is not one word of this in the whole
history of Samuel. It is plain indeed from the history that Samuel
was a prophet, and that he judged the people. But the office of
judge was entirely distinct from the high priesthood, nor had
there been any one of the judges that was an high priest except
Eli. The first time that mention is made of Ahia is 1 Sam. xiv. 3,
where he is mentioned as the high priest, and is plainly supposed
to have been so before ; but of his being made high priest by Saul,
or of Samuel's being deposed from that office, there is not the least
hint given. So that all this which lies at the foundation of his
invective against Samuel is his own invention, and only shows
how ready he is to forge history when he cannot find it for his
purpose.
The account he gives, pp. 296, 297, is written in the same spirit.
After mentioning a ' battle and a complete victory gained by the
Philistines/ of which the history saith nothing at all, he proceeds
to tell us, that ' Saul waited seven days for Samuel, who had pro-
mised to come to him ; and the seven days being out, he ordered
sacrifices to implore the divine protection against so formidable an
enemy, See., and that as soon as Saul had done this, Samuel, who
had lain by as unconcerned before, came and charged the king
with a great act of wickedness and disobedience, as having invaded
the priestly office, for which he declared, in the name of the Lord,
that the king had forfeited his crown and kingdom.' But it is no
way probable that Saul stayed till the seven days were out, or quite
expired, but rather that through rashness or impatience on the
seventh day he began to offer sacrifices. If he had staid but a little
longer, Samuel would have come according to his promise, who was
then upon the way, and came when Saul had just offered the buvut-
pfferings, before he had time to offer the peace-offerings, as he had
intended to do. Nor doth it appear from the text that Samuel
charged Saul with wickedness in invading the priestly office, or
that this was the crime by which he had forfeited his crown and
kingdom. For it is not improbable there were priests with him by
whom he might offer sacrifices. But the fault he is charged with
is this, that he had disobeyed the express command of God him-
self, see 1 Sam. xiii. 13. Samuel said to him, ' Thou hast done
foolishly, thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy
God which he commanded thee.' And he repeats this charge again
m the next verse. There had been an express command delivered
to him by Samuel in the name of God, enjoining him to go to
160 A FARTHER VINDICATION"
Gilgal, and not to offer burnt-offerings or peace-offerings till Samuel
came with directions to him from God himself, to show him what
he was to do. This command had been laid upon him when he was
first anointed king, see 1 Sam. x. 8, and undoubtedly it had been
renewed to him on this occasion ; and he had been told that now
was the time come for his obeying what had been enjoined him so
long before. And this showed that the command was of import-
ance, and that there were some particular reasons for it, though we
cannot pretend at this distance to say distinctly what those reasons
were, as the text doth not inform us of them. However, supposing
it to have been an express command from God delivered to Saul
by a true prophet of the Lord sent and inspired by him, and that
Saul himself knew and believed it to be so, then his not fulfilling
it was evidently a fault, if disobedience to God be so. Now this
was really the case. All Israel knew that Samuel was a true
prophet of the Lord, and that God ' did not let any of his words
fall to the ground,' 1 Sam. iii. 19, 20. And Saul had particular
reason to know it, both from the several convincing proofs he him-
self had of Samuel's divine inspiration when he anointed him to be
king over Israel at Raniah, and from what had since happened
when the kingdom was confirmed to him at Gilgal, at which time
God gave testimony to Samuel from heaven in a most extraordinary
manner before Saul and the whole people of Israel, 1 Sam. xii.
16 19. Saul had hitherto had the highest proofs of Samuel's
own particular good-will and friendship to him (the author's in-
sinuations to the contrary are perfectly vain and groundless) ; nor
does it appear that he had the least doubt concerning Samuel's
being a true prophet, and that what he enjoined him in this matter
as from God was the command of God himself. Accordingly, when
charged with not keeping the commandment which ' God had
commanded him,' though he lays hold on all the pretences he can
to excuse himself, he doth not so much as once insinuate that he
did not know or was not sure that God had commanded it. And
this being the case, he ought not on any pretence whatsoever to
have violated what he knew to be God's express command to him,
and a command given to him at the very time when he was first
anointed king, and since repeated in the name of God. And if the
circumstances were trying and difficult, which was all that he had
to allege for himself by way of excuse, this was the time for show-
ing his obedience, and waiting patiently with a steady trust and
dependence upon God according to his appointment, in which case
the prophet assures him his kingdom would have been established.
Whereas now he lets him know his kingdom should not continue,
but another should be appointed in his stead, because he had not
kept that which the Lord commanded him. But the sentence pro-
nounced against him seems not to have been as yet absolute and
peremptory. It was not till his disobedience in the affair of Amalek
that he was absolutely rejected. Nor is it true, as this writer
tells us, that Samuel now left him ' with a resolution never to see
his face more,' of which the text saith nothing at all. On the con-
OF THE ANCIENT PROPHETS. 161
trary, we are informed that Samuel went from Gilgal to Gibeah,
the place of Saul's usual residence. And there we. find Saul and
Jonathan, and the rest of the people got together immediately after.
Nor is there any likelihood that Samuel would have gone to that
place if he had intended utterly to abandon Saul, and never to see
him more.
With regard to the expedition against Amalek, our author goes
on in his wonted strain of misrepresentation and calumny. He re-
presents it as evident that the sending Saul against the Amalekites,
was ' a plot laid by the prophet for the king's destruction ;' and
that therefore he ordered that the soldiers should have no part of
the booty or plunder, with an intention that the king should ' fall
a sacrifice to the enraged soldiery ;' and that, being disappointed in
this, he ' went off in a rage, and privately anointed David,' pp.
298, 289. Here our author very wisely takes it for granted, that
Samuel had no command from God at all to bid Saul go and de-
stroy Amalek : but that he only feigned or pretended it. And if
you will but grant him the veiy thing in question, viz. that what
Samuel and the other prophets delivered in the name of God, as
by immediate inspiration from him, was not from God at all, but
purely a fiction or their own, to colour over their own designs, and
gratify their own passions, then this sagacious author will prove,
what will be easily granted him on such a supposition, that he and
they were false, wicked, and designing men. But if Samuel had
an express revelation from God, enjoining hind to order Saul to go
and extirpate the Amalekites, and if Saul himself believed it to be
so, then the case is quite altered. And thus it is represented in
the history given us of this matter. Indeed, the command, with
regard to the extirpation of Amalek, was no new thing ; it was as
old as the law. The sentence had been pronounced against them
with the greatest solemnity long ago. They had attacked the
Israelites immediately after their coming out of Egypt, without the
least provocation, in the most barbarous and cruel manner, and in
open defiance of the power and majesty of God himself, which had
been so illustriously displayed in bringing them out of Egypt, with
signs and wonders, and an out-stretched arm. For this, and no
doubt for other iniquities, which, like those of the Canaanites, were
very great, though not particularly mentioned on this occasion,
judgment was then pronounced against them, Exod. xvii. 14, Deut.
xxv. 17, 18. But God had foreborne the execution of it for a long
time, about four hundred years. And we may justly suppose that
it was not till the measure of their iniquities was full, and the great
wickedness of the present generation of Amalekites, joined to that
of their ancestors*, had rendered them ripe for an exemplary ven-
geance, that he saw fit that the sentence that had been pronounced
against them so long before, should be actually executed upon them-
And it was his will that it should be executed by that people whom
Hence they are called, in the command given to Saul, ' the sinners the Amalekites,
to signify,that they were sinners above the. common rate, 1 Sam. xv. 17,
M
162 A FARTHER. VINDICATION
they had at first so grievously injured, and whom they had often
since invaded. See Judg. iii. 13, vi. 3, 33, vii. 12, x. 22. And
that it might appear, that this war was undertaken, not from a
desire of spoil, but purely in obedience to God's command, and
in execution of his just sentence, they were not to take any of the
Amalekites' goods to themselves, and to their own use, but utterly
to destroy all that belonged to them, as had been done in the case
of Jericho.
Saul and the people do not appear to have had the least doubt
of its being a divine command ; they knew the sentence that had
been pronounced against Amalek in the law itself, and which there-
fore came to them confirmed by the same glorious attestation which
confirmed Moses's divine mission, and the divine original of the
laws he gave ; besides which they had a fresh command given them
to this purpose, from God himself, by the mouth of one whom they
all believed and knew to be a true prophet of the Lord. And ac-
cordingly, Saul, when endeavouring afterwards to justify or excuse
himself, expressly calls it ' the commandment of the Lord,' 1 Sam.
xv. 13. This then is the true state of the case : Saul believed that
God had expressly commanded him to extirpate the Amalekites, in
execution of his just sentence against that wicked people, and to
destroy all that belonged to them, without sparing or reserving any
part of the spoil. Accordingly he undertook to execute the sen-
.teuce, and yet in plain opposition to it, not only out of pride and
ostentation, as it should seem, spared Agag, the king of the Ama-
lekites, who by what is said of him, ver. 35, appears to have been
a merciless tyrant, and probably deserved death as much or more
than any of the people, but reserved all that was good among the
spoil ; and at the same time, that he might seem to obey the divine
command, took care ' to destroy utterly every thing that was vile and
refuse,' that is, that was not worth keeping, and could be of no profit,
ver. 9. This was base hypocrisy, and a presumptuous evading an
express command of God, not from any scruple he had of its being
a divine command ; for this he believed ; nor from a principle of
mercy and compassion, for this would have carried him to have
spared not so much the sheep and oxen as the people, all of whom
he destroyed that he could meet with, except Agag, who was pro-
bably one of the worst among them ; but from a base avaricious
principle. And when his disobedience was charged upon him, he
first stood upon it that he had exactly obeyed the divine command,
though he knew he had not done it ; and afterwards pretended
that he had reserved those spoils, that out of them he might offer
sacrifices to God ; and lastly, when he was driven out of his other
excuses, meanly laid it upon the fear he stood in of the people, ver.
15, 21, 24. When the truth is, he had authority enough to have
restrained the people if he had pleased. And this prince, who
pretended to be afraid to destroy the spoil belonging to the Ama-
lekites for fear of offending the people, though he had an express
command of God for it, was not afraid utterly to destroy Nob, the
city of the priests, with all the inhabitants, of every sex and age,
OF THE ANCIENT PROPHETS. 163
and even the oxen, asses, and sheep, merely to satisfy his own
cruel jealousy and revenge, though it was a thing so displeasing to
the people, that his own guards and servants refused to execute it ;
and he was obliged to get Doeg the Edomite to do it ; see ch. xxii.
18, 19. This may let us into this prince's character, who seems to
be a great favourite of our author ; probably in opposition to the
Sacred Writings, because he is there represented as an ill man.
And Saul himself was so conscious of his guilt and base conduct in
the affair of the Amalekites,-that after finding that all his excuses
and fair pretences were detected, he at length confesses, without
disguise, that he had sinned, and in effect acknowledges, that he
had deserved the sentence then pronounced against him by Samuel,
in the name of God ; and only desires that ' Samuel would honour
him before the elders of the people, and before Israel, and would
turn again with him to worship the Lord his God/ ver. 30, which
upon this his. ingenious acknowledgment he consented to do.
And this seems to show that all this had passed between Samuel
and Saul privately ; and that it is not true, as this writer represents
it, that ' Samuel denounced the ruin of Saul and his family before
all the people.'
It is on this occasion that we are told, that 'it repented God
that he had made Saul king over Israel.' But our author tells us,
that it was ' Samuel only that repented it,' whom he therefore
charges with ' bringing God himself to repentance, and charging
his own follies, and want of foresight upon the Almighty.' And
the proof he brings for it is, ' that it would be most absurd and
senseless to imagine, that God did not know, when Saul was made
king, what would happen, but it is plain that Samuel did not
know/ pp. 295, 297. This sneer is not so much designed against
Samuel, as against the Scriptures in general, in which this phrase
of God's repenting is sometimes used, though never with a design
to insinuate, that God was ignorant of the event before. But after
all this author's bluster, I do not see but that, upon his own prin-
ciples, God may be said literally to repent. For if nothing can be cer-
tainly foreknown but what is necessary, and depends upon necessary
causes, as he seems plainly to assert, p. 332, which manifestly im-
plies .a denial of God's prescience of future contingencies, then sup-
posing that Saul's actions were free, and depended upon his own
free choice, God himself might not be able. certainly to foresee how
Saul would act after he was made king. Except this author will
say, that Saul was under a necessity of doing as he did, and that
his actions were necessary, and depended on necessary causes ; and
how this is consistent with that human liberty and free agency for
which he professes so great a zeal, I cannot see. But this is not
an absurdity chargeable on the sacred writings, which every where
go upon the supposition of God's foreknowing future events, yea
even those that are most contingent, and in which the liberty of
man is as much exercised and concerned, as in any events or ac-
tions whatsoever. When therefore God is represented as repenting
of a thing in Scripture, it cannot be the intention of this phrase,
M 2
164 A FARTHER VINDICATION
as there used, to insinuate that God was ignorant of the event be-
fore. But because when men repent of a thing they alter their
course of acting, therefore God's changing his method of proce-
dure or course of acting, with regard to nations, or particular per^-
sons, from showing them favour to 'punishing them, or the contrary,
is in accommodation to human infirmity represented under the
notion of repenting ; though this very change was what he perfectly
knew from the beginning, but did not take effect till the proper
time came for manifesting bis purpose. So in the present case,
when God is represented as saying to ' Samuel, it repentetb me
that I have set up Saul to be king; for he is turned back from
following me, and hath not performed my commandments,' chap,
xv. 11, the meaning is no more than this, to signify that God was
determined to change his conduct towards Saul, and as he had
raised him to be king, so now he would reject him from being king
for his disobedience : which disobedience God had foreseen from
the beginning, as he foresees all the iniquities men will be guilty
of; yet he does not change his conduct towards them till they are
actually guilty of those sins that deserve the punishment. But
certainly it would be absurd to suppose that Samuel intended by
this phrase to insinuate, that God did not foreknow what was to
.happen, which would be utterly to destroy all prophecy, and con-
sequently his own reputation as a prophet. Accordingly this phrase
of God's repenting that he had made Saul to be king, is explained
by his rejecting him from being king, compare chap. xv. J \, 23,
26, 35 ; xvi. 1 . But to cut short this writer's pretences, that it
was Samuel himself that repented, and put his own repentance upon
God, I would observe, that whereas God is twice represented as
repenting of having made Saul king, chap. xv. 11, 35, in both those
passages we are expressly told how grievous Saul's rejection was to
Samuel, and the great trouble and sorrow it gave him. In the
first of those passages it is said, that ' it grieved Samuel, and he
cried unto the Lord all night.' And in the second, that ' Samuel
mourned for Saul.' The sentence he pronounced against that
prince, was far from being the effect of any personal enmity or
resentment he had against him ; on the contraiy he loved Saul, and
would have done any thing in his power to have obtained a reversal
of the sentence against him. He offered up his prayers and cries
and tears, but all in vain. And whereas this writer represents it
as if immediately, as soon as the affair of the Amalekites was over,
he went off in a rage for being disappointed of the design he had
formed for Saul's ruin, and ' privately anointed David ;' the his-
tory plainly intimates, that he continued to mourn for Saul a con-
siderable time, and even carried his grief so far as to incur a
reproof from God on the account of it. And it was not till he had
an express command from God himself to do it, that he anointed
David, chap. xvi. 1. What our author adds concerning ' Samuel's
managing matters so as to bring David into Saul's family, where
he married the king's daughter, is, like many other things, entirely
his own invention : since in the history, the first. introducing David
OF" THE ANCIENT PROPHETS. 165
into Saul's family, is expressly attributed to Saul's own servants,
who recommended David to him, as one well skilled in music, and
otherwise an accomplished person, to divert his melancholy, chap,
xvi. 17, 18. Nor is there the least hint given that Samuel had
ever any thing to do in David's following advancement by Saul.
Nor can it reasonably be supposed, since he never concerned him-
self with Saul, or his family afterwards to the day of his death,
chap. xv. 35. It is well that Samuel died before Saul, or else our
author would certainly have found some way to have charged his
death upon that prophet, and would have contrived that Samuel
should send him into the field of battle to be killed by the Phi-
listines.
Our moral philosopher next falls upon David j and there is no
person in his whole book that he seems to have a more peculiar
spite and malice against than that great and heroic prince. I sup-
pose, because he was an eminent prophet as well as king, and the
penman of a very valuable part of the sacred writings, which hath
been always had in great esteem.
He tells us, that-' The crown was cut off from Israel, and en-
tailed upon Judah, by a long train of falsehoods, perjuries, dissi-
mulations, ingratitude, treason, and at last open rebellion ; and
that David acted in opposition to all his former vows and protesta-
tions of loyalty, p. 299. And after having mentioned several sins
and vices, such as open profane swearing, execrable curses, and
most abominable lies, lusts, and whoredoms, breach of the most
solemn oaths and alliances, cruelty, and blood-thirstiness, con-
trary to all the laws of nature and nations, he saith, that all these
David himself had been most remarkable for. And that yet he is
represented by the prophets, as a ' man after God's own heart,' and
as having ' walked uprightly with the Lord, saving only in the case
of Uriah the Hittite,' And he affirms, that ' the Jews, .even in
their most degenerate times, could not be charged with any vice, or
moral wickedness, which had not been approved and justified in
-David, their great patron and exemplar,' pp. 323, 324. And again,
that ' the prophets justify and extol David's character, and set
up his example as worthy to be imitated by all future princes,
though he had been the most bloody persecutor that ever had
been known, and his whole life had been one continued scene of
dissimulations, falsehood, lust, and cruelty. But his rooting out
idolatry, and destroying idolaters by fire and sword wherever he
came, made atonement for all, and canonized him as the great
saint and idol both of the prophets and priests,' p. 334. Another
-reason for which he makes to be, that ' he at least doubled the
revenues of the priests, to what they had been settled by Moses,
and obliged the people to bring their sacrifices to Jerusalem ; which
was a servitude the other tribes could not bear, who only waited for
a fair opportunity to break the yoke of Judah/ p, 300.
Such is the fate of this great prince. He complains in many of
Jus psalms of false and calumnious tongues, that persecuted him
whilst he was alive, with unjust and cruel reproache: and now at
the distance of- so many ages, the same spirit of envenomed malice
166 A FARTHER VINDICATION
and bitterness appears against his memory, and shoots arrows
against him, even bitter words. One would think by this author's
representation of him, that he was one of the worst men that ever
lived upon the earth, and hardly to be equalled by a Nero or a Do-
mitian.
He first charges him with having obtained the crown, ' by a
long train of falsehoods, perjuries, dissimulation, ingratitude, trea-
son, and at last open rebellion,' p. 299. But the contrary of all
this is so true, that nothing can possibly give us a higher idea of
David's eminent and heroic virtues than his conduct towards Saul,
under all the undeserved persecutions, the base and perfidious, the
cruel and injurious treatment he received from that prince. He had
done nothing to give Saul just offence; but had all along served
him and his country with the utmost zeal and fidelity. All his
fault was, that the glorious and heroic actions he performed, pro-
cured him the applause and admiration of the people. This raised
Saul's envy and jealousy : and without any other provocation, he
resolved upon his ruin, and took all the ways he could think of to
effect it. And at last proceeded so far that he attempted to kill him
with his own hand, even whilst he was attending upon him in his
court, in obedience to his commands. And after seeming to be
reconciled to him, when David had done him new and noble ser-
vices, he sent messengers to his house to seize and slay him. See
the 18th and 19th chapters of the first book of Samuel. Thus
was this great and good man, that had done such eminent services
to his king and country, forced to fly for his life, banished not only
from the court, but, which affected him more, and of which he often
makes the most pathetical complaints, the proofs of the excellent
disposition of his mind, from the sanctuary of God, and the public
solemnities of his worship; And when he had got a band of men
about him for his defence, he never made the least attempt against
Saul, nor did any act of violence to his countrymen. Jonathan,
Saul's eldest son, though heir to the crown, and likely to be most
prejudiced by David's succession, was s.o sensible of his innocence,
that he pleaded for him with his father, ' Let not the king sin
against his servant, against David, because he hath not sinned
against thee, and because his work hath been to thee-ward very
good.' And all along he continued to have a most exemplary
friendship. ' He loved him as his own soul,' from an esteem and
admiration of his virtues, and the harmony between great and
noble minds. Twice David had it in his power to have slain Saul,
when he came with an army to destroy him. But when earnestly
solicited to it by those about him, rejected the motion with abhor-
rence. Saul himself was so affected with David's generosity and
fidelity, that he acknowledged with tears that he had sinned, and
that David had rewarded him good, whereas he had rewarded him
evil. See the 24th and 26th chapters of the first book of Samuel.
There cannot be a more illustrious proof than this is, of the noble
and generous disposition of David's mind, and the eminent de-
gree of heroic virtue to which he had arrived. He knew that he
himself had been anointed king of Israel, according to the special
OF THE ANCIENT PROPHETS. 167
designation and appointment of God, by the hand of his propbi,
Samuel. A man less eminent for virtue and true greatness of mind
than David was, would have, been apt to think as those about him
did, that this was an opportunity which Providence, had put into
his hands, for getting rid of a man whom God had rejected, and
who most unjustly persecuted him, and sought his life, and for
investing him in the kingdom, to which he had been by divine
appointment designed. But he was resolved to use no sinister
means for obtaining the crown. He would wait till Providence
should bring it about in its own way ; but was determined to do
nothing himself that was criminal to accomplish it. Upon the
whole, David's conduct all along towards Saul, was incomparably
noble, loyal, and virtuous ; and yet our pretended moral philoso-
pher, who would be thought an admirer of virtue, makes the worst
representation of it imaginable ; whilst at the same time he does
not find the least fault with Saul, whose treatment of David was
the most treacherous, unjust, and cruel in the world.*
When he came to the throne he had a long and glorious reign,
and delivered his country from all its enemies and oppressors.
Yet it doth not appear that any of his wars were undertaken,
merely for the sake of dominion and conquest. With regard to
most of them it is evident from the account given us concerning
them, that he was not the aggressor, and there is reason, to think
so of all the rest. And although he had a great aversion to idol-
atry, yet, that 'he rooted out idolatry, and destroyed idolaters by
fire and sword in all the nations round about him,' as this writer
affirms, there is not the least hint given us in the whole history of
his reign ; nor, as far as appears, was any one of his wars under-
taken on that account. Yea. it is plain, he did maintain peace
with some of his idolatrous neighbours, and was willing to have
done so with others of them, if it had not been their own faults.-f-
Nor is there any thing to support the malicious charge this writer
brings against him, that he ' was the bloodiest persecutor that ever
was known.'
He all along showed a true zeal for God, and for his pure wor-
ship, and a hearty concern for the interest of religion. He made
very wise regulations, with regard to the various offices and em-
ployments of priests and Levites, for rendering them more useful,
and that they might perform the work assigned them with greater
order. But that he ' doubled their revenues as they had been set-
tled by Moses' (as this writer supposes) there is not one word in
the whole account that is given us of his reign-. And indeed it
would have been a hard thing for him to have doubled their reve-
nues, if they had 'full twenty shillings in the pound, on all the
lands of Israel before.' But it may not be amiss to observe on
this occasion, that this reign, in which, according to our author,
* See a vindication of David, against some other charges brought against him, ' An-
swer to Christianity as old as the Creation, vol. ii. p. 542, 543.
t See concerning this above, p. 138. and p. 14-1.
168 A FARTHER VINDICATION '
both the prophets and priests met with great encouragement, was
one of the most glorious that ever was in Israel. Never were the
people in a more flourishing condition. Nor do we find that ever
they were oppressed in the reign of David, as afterwards they
were un'der that of Solomon. The justice and equity with which
David governed is signified when we are told, that ' he executed
judgment and justice unto all his people,' 2 Sam. viii. 15, or as it
is expressed, Psal. Ixxviii. 72, ' He fed them according to the in-
tegrity of his heart, and guided them by the skilfulness of his
hands.' This writer represents it as a great hardship and servi-
tude, that he ' obliged all the people to bring their sacrifices to
Jerusalem, and to offer no where else.' But we read of no such
constitution made by David, the temple at Jerusalem not being as
yet built. The constitution obliging them to sacrifice at the place
which the Lord should choose was as old as Moses, and what good
men among the Israelites had always practised. Nor was this as
he insinuates the yoke of servitude which the Israelites wanted to
shake off, and which was the cause of their revolting from the
house of David : but the heavy yoke of taxes and impositions
which Solomon laid on them, and of which we find no complaint
at all in the reign of David, under whom the people were very
happy and flourishing.
The adultery and murder David was guilty of in the matter of
Uriah was the greatest stain of his life and reign, and was indeed
a most heinous crime and wickedness. And therefore there is a
particular brand set upon it even where he is otherwise commended,
1 Kings xv. 5, it is said that * David did that which was right in
the sight of the Lord, and turned not aside from anything that
he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter
of Uriah the Hittite.' The design of which passage is not to sig-
nify, that it was the only fault he was ever guilty of, but that in
no other instance did he presumptuously and ' wickedly depart
from God,' to use his own expressions, Psal. xviii. 21. This was
a crime of so heinous a nature, that it was in effect a revolting
from God and from his law. And if he had not been recovered
from it by a sincere and most exemplary repentance, he must have
been regarded as one utterly abandoned and forsaken of God and
all goodness. But so far is it from being true, that there was
'no kind of vice and moral wickedness, but what the prophets
had approved and justified in David,' that it was the prophet
Nathan that first came and charged him with this crime, with a
noble boldness and freedom, and denounced the judgments of God
against him on the account of it, and foretold the evils that should
happen, in his own family as a just punishment upon him for this
his great wickedness. But then the exemplary repentance David
expressed must always be remembered to his honour. His great
sorrow and contrition of heart, and bitter remorse for his sins,
and his deep humiliation before God (of which he hath left a last-
ing monument to all ages in the fifty-first psalm) and especially
liis unparalleled resignation to the divine will and exemplary sub-
mission to the afflicting hand of God under the calamities inflicted
OF THE ANCIENT PROPHECIES. 169
upon him for his sin (of which, we have wonderful instances, 2 Sam.
xv. 25, 26; xvi. 10,11,) these things show the great difference
between him, and many other princes that have been guilty of the
like crimes.
It is generally supposed, and very probable reasons might be
brought to support that supposition, that it was in the interval be-
tween David's great sin in the matter of Uriah, and his being
awakened to repentance by the lively reproofs of Nathan the pro-
phet, whilst his heart was yet hardened in his sin, and stupified
with sensual pleasure, that he took Kabbah, and treated the Am-
monites with that great severity of which we have an account, 2
Sam. xii. 2931. It must be owned that they had given him
the utmost provocation. This war on their part was base and
unjust in the highest degree. They had begun it with a notori-
ous infraction of the law of nations, and had carried it on by
hiring and stirring up all the neighbouring nations against him,
which had brought him into great dangers and difficulties. When
therefore their chief city was taken by assault, this justified a very
severe vengeance. And it was probably only those that had been
the principal agents and forerunners of the war in the several
cities that he treated with this severity. For we afterwards read
that Shobi the son of. Nahash of Kabbah of the children of Am-
mon, and who is probably supposed to have been the brother of
Hanun the Ammonitish king that had so villainously treated his
ambassadors, and began the war against him, came to assist him
in his great distress, when fleeing from his son Absalom. From
whence it may reasonably be concluded, that he had treated him
and probably others of the Ammonites with great kindness, whilst
he so severely punished the most guilty among them, and perhaps
had made him king in his brother Hanun's stead. ;
That David sinned against God in numbering the people is plain
from Scripture, though in what the precise nature of his sin con-
sisted, we cannot well determine at this- distance. But his ingenu-
ous and humble confessing his sin before the Lord, and especially
the great love and tender concern he showed for his country, in
begging that the punishment might rather be inflicted upon him-
self and his family than upon the people, showed the excellent disposi-
tion of his mind as became a good king, and a father of his people.
, Upon the whole with regard to the main course of his life, and
the prevailing disposition of his mind, he appears to have been an
excellent person. What his habitual temper and character was we
may learn from his admirable Psalms, where we see his whole soul
laid open, the workings of his heart without disguise. From
thence it appears how much his mind was possessed with just
and worthy sentiments of the Supreme Being, and under the influ-
ence of proper affections and dispositions towards him : how often
he was employed in the affecting contemplations of God's glorious
excellencies and perfections, and of his wonderful works of crea-
tion and providence : what delight he took in his. worship, in prais-
ing, blessing, adoring him, and in meditating on his la'w, and ou
170 A FARTHER VINDICATION
bis most pure and excellent precepts. No where can we observe
nobler ardours of love to God, a more profound reverence of the
Divine Majesty, a more entire submission to his authority and re-
signation to his will, and a more steady confidence in him under
the greatest difficulties and adversities, joined with the most hum-
bling sense of his own guilt and un worthiness. We may there
see how much he was grieved for his sins ; what just notions he
had of morality and the necessity of an inward purity of soul ;
what a love of truth and goodness, and a hatred of falsehood and
injustice ; and how much it was the desire and endeavour of his
soul to make a continual proficiency in goodness, piety, and virtue.
These seem to have been the habitual governing dispositions of his
mind. And accordingly we find him frequently appealing with the
greatest solemnity to the heart-searching God concerning the inte-
grity of his heart, and the purity of his intentions. And it is with
regard to these excellent parts of his character that he is repre-
sented as a ' man after God's own heart,' as well as his fitness to
serve the purposes of his providence. Common candour will oblige
us not to give the worst turn to the actions of such a man ; but
rather to judge the most favourably concerning any actions of his
that appear to us suspicious, being ready to suppose that they
would appear to us in a different view, if we were acquainted with
all the circumstances of the case. And where it was evident that
he was guilty of great and real faults, the proper use to be made of
them is to reflect on the weakness of human nature, and to put us
upon a constant watchfulness over ourselves, and to make us sen-
sible what need we stand in of being continually upon our guard
against temptations, that had like to have proved the utter ruin of
so excellent a man, and which cost him such bitter sorrow and re-
pentance.
On this occasion I cannot pass by a remarkable passage which
our author has in the beginning of his book, and which gives us a
true taste of his spirit. After having observed that David was the
great master of poetry and politeness in Israel, he tells us, that he
' made a jest of himself by dancing naked before the Lord among
the daughters of Israel, and uncovering that which his modesty
ought to have concealed. This was doubtless a merry action which
he as merrily excused to his wife by ascribing it to his. zeal for the
Lord, and in the same humour resolved never to lie with her more,
because she could not approve of his warm zeal for the Lord among
the women. ' 2 Sam. vi. 2023. see p. 22.
But our pretended moral philosopher, who affects here to show
his wit, only shows his own absurdity, and the immodesty and levity
of his mind, as well as his virulent malice against a person of great
merit. David, whom he calls the great master of politeness in Israel,
had too much sense to be guilty of acting such a part as this on a
most solemn religious occasion, and before all the heads of the
tribes of Israel that were then convened, a part which, according to
his representation of it, would scarce be borne, in a drunken frolic,
and in the lewdest company.
OF THE ANCIENT PROPHETS. 171
Our author himself was so sensible of the injustice of this reflec-
tion, that though, he puts it into the mouth of Philalethes his
moral philosopher, whom he would pass upon us for a lover of truth
and virtue, yet he makes his other dialogist Theophanes, whom he
introduces to act the part of the Christian Jew, tell him that ' this
censure is extremely severe if not unjust, and that the place referred
to might as ' well bear a more candid interpretation. ' And yet so
loth is he to part with it that he makes him at the same time say, that it
' may possibly bear that construction. ' But it is evident from the chap-
ter he refers to, 2 Sam. vi., that this passage cannot possibly bear the
construction the moral philosopher puts upon it. Since in the 14th
verse of that chapter, when we are told that * David danced before
the Lord, ' it is at the same time expressly declared, that lie ' was
girded with a linen ephod.' And this is still more clearly and fully
explained, 1 Chron. xv. 27. which relates to the same transaction.
We are there informed that ' David was clothed with a robe of fine
linen, and all the Levites that bare the ark, and the singers, &c.
David had also upon him "an ephod of linen.' Where it is evident
that David had on him a linen robe, and over that an ephod which
was a shorter garment girded over the other to keep it from flowing
loose. After this manner the Levites were clothed on solemn occa-
sions, as appears from this passage, and from 2 Chron. v. 12, 13.
David on this occasion put off his kingly robes, and was clothed
like one of the Levites. This with his dancing before the ark,
though done purely from a religious motive and principle, was what
disobliged Michal. She thought that David greatly demeaned
himself, and acted much below the majesty of a king in what he
did ; and in her fret and pride used the most aggravating expressions
she could think of, the more to expose the action, and represent it
as unseemly and unworthy of him. David in answer to her was far
from excusing himself in a merry way as this writer has it; but
very seriously and with a just indignation at the unworthy repre-
sentation she had made of his conduct, he put her in mind that God
had chosen him before her father and all his house, to appoint him
to be ruler over his people : that therefore he would ' play before
the Lord,' that is, would rejoice and testify his thankfulness to
God ; and that if this were to be vile or to demean himself, he
would do it yet more. For what she reproached him for, he account-
ed his honour. And then the text lets us know that ' Michal had
no child to the day of her death : ' her irreligious pride met with a
just rebuke from God. She was from that day forward struck with
barrenness, which in those days especially was accounted a very
severe judgment.
This is more than sufficient to show the falsehood and injustice
of our author's representation of this matter. But it may not be
amiss to consider what a writer of quality has offered, from whose
superior sense and politeness, much better things might be expected
than from our pretended moral philosopher. He has thought fit to
make a representation of this transaction, which though not so base
and smutty as this writer's account of it, yet sets it in a very unfair
and dishonourable light.
172 .'A FARTHER VINDICATION
- After having represented David as a hearty espouser of the merry
devotion, he tells us, that 'the famous entry or high dance per-
formed by him, after so conspicuous a manner, in. the procession of
the sacred coffer, shows that he was not ashamed of expressing any
ecstasy of joy, or playsome humour, which was practised by the
meanest of the priests or people on such an occasion. ' See Charac-
terist. vol. 3. p. 1 17. It is plain what ideas he intends to raise of
this whole affair in the minds of the reader. ' Merry devotion, higli
dance, playsome humour, practised by the meanest of the people.'
And in his notes at the bottom of the page he tells us, that ' though
this dance was not performed quite naked (in which he is juster
than our author) the dancers, it seems, were so slightly clothed,
that in respect of modesty, they might as well have worn nothing:
their nakedness appearing still by means of their high caperings,
leaps, and violent attitudes, which were proper to that dance.' This
noble writer gives us as particular a description of it as if he himself
had been present, and had seen it performed, and was acquainted
with the particular measures proper to that dance. And I think he
would have done well to have informed us in what authentic me-
moirs we may find an account of it, or of the clothing they wore on
such occasions ; which he tells us was so slight, that in respect of
modesty they might as well have wore nothing. But certain it is,
that David was not so slightly clothed. He had on, as I have al-
ready shown, a linen robe, which in those countries was long,
reaching to the feet; and over it had an ephod of linen girded about
him, which were very decent garments, worn by the Levites in their
ministrations on the most solemn occasions, especially when singing
the praises of God. See 2 Chron. v. 12, 13.
But let us a little particularly consider the account that is given
us of this famous entiy, as he calls it, which we have described to
us in chapters xv. and xvi. of the first book of Chronicles,
that we may see whether it deserves to have such ridiculous ideas
affixed to it. It appears that it was a very august assembly that
was then convened. All the chief men of the nation were called
and gathered together; the 'elders of Israel, and the captains over
.thousands. ' The design was to bring up the ark of God to the
place which David had prepared for it in Jerusalem. And though
they had too just and worthy notions of the Deity to suppose that
his presence was confined there, yet they regarded it with the ut-
most reverence as a sacred symbol of his more immediate presence.
It is manifest from the account given us 1 Chron. xv. from the
-15th to the 25th verse, that every thing was done in great order.
Some of the Levites bare the ark as Moses had commanded; others
:of them were appointed to be singers, being divided into several
classes under their proper masters, and had their several parts as-
signed them, some upon one musical instrument, some upon another,
to sing sacred songs or hymns to the praise of God. And that noble
form of thanksgiving and praise which we have, 1 Chron. xvi. from
the 7th to the 37th verse, was given by David on this occasion.
The Levites sung it, ' and all the people said, Amen, and praised the
OF THE ANCIENT PROPHETS. 173
Lord. 3 In that admirable hymn David excites the people to give
thanks unto the Lord, to glory and rejoice in his holy name, and to
remember and speak of his wonderful works. He first puts the
people of Israel in mind of the particular obligations they were un-
der to bless the Lord on the account of the great things he had
done for them. And then with a noble ardour and enlargement of
soul, calls upon all the nations in the world to form as it were one
universal delightful concert in singing praises to God, and giving
him the glory that is due to his great and most excellent name,
whose unequalled majesty and perfections he extols as infinitely su-
perior to all the idol-deities. And lastly, he calls upon the whole
creation, the heavens, the earth, the sea, the woods, the fields, to
break forth into a transport of divine joy and praise. And the
whole concludes with again calling upon the people of Israel to
' give thanks unto the Lord for he is good, for his mercy endureth
for ever ; ' and to pray to him to save and to deliver them ; and to
' bless his holy name for ever ' to which the whole assembly said,
Amen.
This was the assembly, and this the occasion which is represented
in so ridiculous a light, as if it were only a ludicrous gamesome mob.
Immediately before the ark which was carried in solemn procession,
king David walked with the Levites all around him ranked in their
several orders, singing praises to God to solemn airs of divine mu-
sic: whilst he himself ' danced with all his might,' i. e. with his
best ability, or with all his heart, (as that phrase is sometimes used*)
to show the joy and exultation of his soul. And though I will not
pretend, like this honourable writer, to tell particularly what kind
of dance it was ; yet this I dare be sure of, both from the solemnity
of the occasion, and from David's own character, that there was
nothing in it light or immodest. He certainly was a man of excel-
lent sense, as appears from his admirable writings, which show the
exalted notions he had of what was just and pure, and lovely and
praise-worthy ; he was a great and wise king, and too good a poli-
tician to expose himself by any light immodest behaviour on this
occasion in the beginning of his reign, when the whole nation were
assembled and witnesses of his conduct ; and especially before the
ark of God, whose presence inspired a profound reverence as well
as joy, and more so at this time, considering what had so lately
happened in the case of Uzzah. His soul was then filled with joy,
but it was with a divine joy and exultation in the goodness of God;
and the admirable hymn he composed on that occasion shows what
noble and divine sentiments then possessed his mind, how far from
any thing so mean, low, indecent, and trivial as they would put
upon him.
Indeed, any one that considers the peculiar modesty and decency
prescribed in the law of Moses to be observed in the divine worship;
and what care was taken to shun whatsoever had the least ap-
pearance of any thing indecent or impure;* will see how incredibly
* See Exod. xx. 26. xxviii. 42, 43, to which may be added, Deut, sxiii. 12 14. . ,
174 A FARTHER VINDICATION
absurd it is to suppose, that David who was so well acquainted
with the law, would before the ark of God dance naked, or so
' slightly clothed, that in respect of modesty he might as well have
wore nothing ; ' or that the sacred dances used on such occasions,
should be of such a nature as if they were contrived on purpose to
uncover their nakedness. We find that in the latter times of the
Jewish" state a Roman soldier's exposing himself naked before the
people at one of their sacred festivals, raised such a violent commo-
tion among the Jews, that occasioned the death of thousands, and
could hardly be appeased. Such an abhorrence had the whole na-
tion of any thing that had the appearance of indecency and impu-
rity in their worship, even at a time when they were sufficiently
loose in their morals, see Josephus's Antiq. lib. 20.
This noble writer is pleased to represent David as ' a hearty en-
courager of the merry devotion.' And he had observed a little
before, that under that constitution ' not only music, but even play
and dance were of holy appointment and divine right.'* All the
ridicule here arises from the idea now affixed to the words play and
dance in our language. But it is unworthy of a man of learning to
take advantage from modern customs and expressions to expose a
custom among the ancients, that carried nothing of that idea of
unseemliness and levity in divine worship which it doth at present.
It appears that on the most solemn occasions some kind of dance
as well as musid was then made use of in their sacred exercises :
* Let them praise his name in the dance ; let them sing praises
unto him with the timbrel and harp,' Psal. cxlix. 3 ; and again,
Psal. cl. 4 : ' Praise him with the timbrel and dance, praise him
with stringed instruments and organs.' What the measure of their
dance, or what their music on such occasions, we cannot now pretend
to explain. But if we may judge of the one or the other by the
majesty, the dignity, the great and sublime sentiments contained
in their divine songs, it had nothing in it light, effeminate, and
vain, or that bordered -on wantonness and impurity. All was
noble, grand, manly, and divine.
What the last mentioned author farther adds, hath such a ten-
.dency to expose the spirit of prophecy, which is what we have been
considering and vindicating, that I hope it will not be thought an
useless digression to consider it. He leaves the curious reader ' to
examine what relation this religious ecstasy and naked dance (viz.
of David at the bringing in of the ark) had to the naked and pro-
cessional prophecy,' 1 Sam. xix. 23, 24, where prince, priest, and
people prophesied in conjunction ; the prince himself being both of
the itinerant and naked party. It appears that even before he was
yet advanced to the throne, he had been seized with this prophesy-
ing spirit, errant, processional, and saltant, attended, as we find,
with a sort of martial dance, performed in troops or companies,
* If this representation which this noble writer here gives of the Jewish religion he
just, I do not see with what consistency he could say as he does, p. 116, ' That they
had certainly in. religion as in every thing else, the least good humour of any people in
the world, is very apparent.' .
OF THE ANCIENT PROPHETS. 175
with pipe and tabret accompanying the march, together with
psaltery, harp, cornets, timbrels, and other variety of music ;' see
1 Sam. x. 5 ; xix. 23, 24 ; 2 Sam. vi. 5.
It happens that in none of the passages here referred to, there is
the least mention of their dancing ; though they are produced to
prove the * saltant spirit of prophecy.' But his own fruitful ima-
gination or prejudices have enabled this ingenious author not only
to discover that they danced, but to tell us what kind of dance it
.-was. He has found that it was ' a sort of martial dance, performed
in troops,' &c. I see nothing to prove this except their having in-
struments of music with them must pass for a proof. And yet
these were no other than were afterwards used in the temple in the
solemn acts of divine worship and praise. It is very probable, that
if trumpets had been mentioned on this occasion, this would have
been looked upon as a demonstration, and yet every body knows
that a trumpet was often used among the Jews where nothing of a
martial nature was intended ; see Psal. Ixxxi. 3, cl. 3. All that
appears from that passage, 1 Sam. x. 5, is that there was a com-
pany of prophets coming down from the high place, where probably
they had been offering sacrifice ; and that they were singing praises
to God at the sound of musical instruments ; and that Saul sud-
denly transported us with a divine rapture joined with them in the
sacred exercise, and broke forth into hymns of praise. For this
seems to be the meaning of his prophesying with them, which is not
there to be understood properly of foretelling things to come, but
as it sometimes is in Scripture, of singing sacred hymns and songs
with exultation and devotion. So we read, 1 Chron. xxv. 1 6, of
persons who, according to the order of the king, were appointed to
' prophesy with harps, with psalteries and cymbals, to give thanks
and to praise the Lord.' Where to ' prophesy, and to give thanks,
and to praise the Lord,' are represented as the same thing. The
prophesying mentioned, 1 Sam. xix. 20, 23, 24, which is the other
passage referred to, is probably to be understood the same way.
Saul had sent messengers to seize David upon hearing that he was
at Naioth in Ram ah with the prophet Samuel. When they came
there they ' saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and
Samuel standing as appointed over them.' They were probably all
employed in celebrating the praises of God in noble elevated hymns
and acts of devotion. And the messengers Saul sent by a special
influence of divine providence caught the sacred transport. They
were hereupon ravished as with a divine ecstasy, and joined with
the prophets in solemn acts of adoration and praise. And so did
the second and third party of messengers he sent after them. Then
went Saul himself, probably full of rage, and with a resolutioa per-
haps to destroy not only David but Samuel too, and the whole
company of the prophets that were with him. For his destroying
the town of Nob with the high-priest and all the priests that fived
there, upon a very slight suspicion of their favouring David ; and
the attempt he made against the life of his own son, showed what
m the rage of his fury and jealousy he was capable of. But it
FARTHER VINDICATION OF THE ANCIENT PROPHETS.
pleased God so to order it, that he himself, before he came to
Naioth, was seized by the way as with a prophetical .transport.
And he went on prophesying in the sense already explained till he
came to the place where Samuel was. Thus he was disarmed of
his bloody intention, and his rage and fury turned into praise and
sacred ecstasy by a wonderful influence of God's Spirit upon him.
And we" are told that when he came to Naioth, ' he stripped off his
clothes also,'* that is, he laid by his royal robes or military habili-
ments, and ' prophesied before Samuel.' He became himself, like
one of the prophets he came to destroy, wholly taken up in praising
and adoring God. And after he had done thus prophesying, ' he
lay down naked all that day, and all that night ;' not that he was
without any thing at all to cover him, but he lay down divested of
his robes or upper garments, and thus continued in a trance, or in
a kind of ecstasy, all the remainder of that day and the night fol-
lowing. A manifest and remarkable proof, how much the greatest
-princes and all their purposes are in the hand of God. He that
was so jealous of his royalty, which put him upon doing so many
unjust and unwarrantable things, was now made as it were to un-
king himself, and lay aside the ensigns of his dignity and power,
and was constrained by a higher hand to lie down without power,
Without royalty, unable to execute the purpose for which he came.
In the mean time David had an opportunity given him to get far
enough out of his reach. And if Saul, as is very probable, came
with any bloody intentions against Samuel and the other prophets
that were with him, and perhaps against his own messengers, this
wonderful incident made such an impression upon him as caused
him for that time to lay aside his cruel resolutions. Considered in
this view this whole affair, though wonderful, and of an extraor-
dinary nature, had nothing in it that can be proved to be unworthy
of the wisdom of God. The ridicule here lies not in the thing
itself considered in all its circumstances, but in the expressions this
noble author, in his great command of words, is pleased to throw in
upon this occasion, concerning the ' prophesying spirit, itinerant,
errant, processional, and saltant,' and in the insinuations he gives
that the prince, prophets, and people all danced naked without any
thing to cover them. And it is as true that they all danced and
prophesied naked on this occasion as that David did so in his
' famous entry.'
* The ' stripping of the clothes,' or ' laying aside the garments,' is often to be un-
derstood, not of throwing of all their vestments, but only the ' upper garment.' Thus
we are told, that our Saviour, when he washed his disciples' feet, ' laid aside his gar-
ments,' or put off his clothes, not that he was absolutely naked, for it is added, that he
' girded himself,' John xiii. 4. And the word naked is sometimes used both in Scrip-
ture and other authors, where absolute nakedness is not intended, but only a person's
being slightly clothed, or being without his upper garment, or his proper usual habit.
So Michal represents David as having ' uncovered himself because he had laid aside
his royal robes, though he was far from being absolutely naked, as hath been shown.
177
CHAPTER X.
The author's farther invective against the prophets considered. His account of their
pretended conspiracy against Solomon. The rending the kingdom of the ten tribes
from the house of David, not owing to the intrigues of the prophets, hut to the just
judgment of God. The prophets, not the authors of the several civil wars and revo-
lutions in the kingdom of Israel. The favourable account he gives of Ahab and
Jezebel, and the other idolatrous princes as friends to toleration and liberty of con-
science. The falsehood of this shown. His attempt to vindicate the persecution
raised against the true prophets of the Lord. Concerning- Elijah's character and
conduct, and particularly concerning his causing Baal's prophets to be put to death
at Mount Carmel. The case of Elisha's anointing Jehu to be king of Israel, with a
commission to destroy the royal house of Ahnb considered : as also his management
with Hazael. The charge this writer brings against the prophets fomenting the wars
between the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and at length occasioning the ruin
of both, shown to be false and inconsistent.
OUR Moral Philosopher, after having represented the prophets as
quiet and satisfied in the reign of David, proceeds to inform us of
a conspiracy they formed against Solomon and his family on the
account of his granting a general indulgence and toleration to all
religions. It is under this idea that he thinks fit to represent his
defection to idolatry in the latter part of his reign. He built high
places himself to Moloch, and Chemosh, and other idol deities, not
so much out of policy as this writer would make us believe, as in
compliance with his wives, swayed by effeminacy and a love of
pleasure, which debases and corrupts the best understandings.
This he did in express violation, not only of the fundamental laws
of his country, as hath been already shown, but of the particular
covenant or promise whereby David and his posterity held the
crown ; which was upon condition of their continuing to walk in
God's commandments and judgments, and adhering to his pure
worship as David himself had done. Our author, indeed, affirms
once and again that David took it to be an absolute promise to
him and his posterity of an uninterrupted succession to the throne
without any condition at all, see pp. 261, 286. But that David
himself % understood it otherwise is evident from his own express ac-
count of it, 1 Kings ii. 3, 4, and 1 Chron. xxviii. 6, 7, 9. And that
Solomon had the same notion of it, appears from what he saith in,
his prayer at the dedication of the temple : ' Now, therefore, O
Lord God of Israel, keep with thy servant David my father that
which thou hast promised him, saying, There shall not fail thee a
man in my sight to sit upon the throne of Israel ; yet so that thy
children take heed in their way, to walk in my law as thou hast
walked before me,' 2 Chron. vi. 16. Add to this, that God himself
appeared unto Solomon, and promised him to establish the throne
of his kingdom if he ' observed his statutes and judgments,' as David
178 VINDICATION OF THE
his father had done; and on the other hand, threatened to destroy both
kings and people, if they ' forsook his statutes and judgments, and
served other gods, and worshipped them ; and that he would ' root
them out of that land, and destroy that house which was called by his
name, and make them a bye-word, and an astonishment to all na-
tions,' see 1 Kings ix. 4 10. It is therefore justly observed as an
aggravation of Solomon's guilt, that his ' heart was turned from
the Lord God of Israel which had appeared unto him twice, and
had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go
after other gods ; but that he kept not that which the Lord com-
manded,' 1 Kings xi. 9, 10. This being the true state of the case,
if God had absolutely deprived Solomon himself and all his pos-
terity of the kingdom, he could not justly have complained of any
thing but his own conduct, who had broken the conditions on which
he knew it was originally granted to David and his family. But it
pleased God to deal more tenderly with him. We are told that
the Lord declared unto him, probably by some prophet who was
sent to deliver that message, that because he had not kept his co-
venant and his statutes, the kingdom should be ' rent from his
son,' and given to his servant, yet not entirely, but so that a part
of it should still be reserved to his family, and that he himself
should enjoy the whole of it during his own life-time ;* see 1 Kings
xi. 11 14. And accordingly the prophet Ahijah was sent in the
name of God to promise to Jeroboam Solomon's servant the kingdom
of the ten tribes ; at the same time letting him know that it was
the will of God that Solomon should possess the kingdom during
his own life-time, and that his son also should have the kingdom
of Judah continued to him. And this promise to Jeroboam was
also conditional ; that if he would ' hearken unto all that God
commanded,' and would ' walk in his ways to keep his statutes and
commandments as David had done, God would build him a sure
house, as he did for David, and would give Israel unto him ;' see
1 Kings xi. 29 38. This message, which the prophet Ahijah de-
livered by the divine command to Jeroboam, when they two were
alone in the field, is what our author hath improved into a con-
spiracy of the prophets, whom he represents as very profound poli-
ticians, that had laid their projects deep for bringing about a new
revolution in the state, though how they were to effect it, or how
the prophets came to have such an interest among the tribes, as to
be able to give ten tribes to one, and reserve two to another, he
doth not inform us. However, he assures us, that 'Ahijah let
Jeroboam into those secrets and deep designs of state ;' and laid
before him what was ' intended and projected' by the prophets
* Our author ascribes Solomon's being preserved in tbe possession of the kingdom
during his life-time to his being strengthened by foreign alliances, among which he par-
ticularly mentions his alliance with Egypt ; when it appears ou the contrary, that Egypt,
instead of giving solemn alliance, rather gave encouragement to his 'enemies, and was a
harbour for disaffected persons, probably through envy or jealousy of Solomon's great-
ness. Thither fled Jeroboam when Solomon sought to shy him, and thither fled Hadad
the Edomite, and both met with great countenance and assistance there.
PROPHETS CONTINUED. 179
against Solomon and his family; and that if he would be governed
by them, and ' destroy all idolaters,' they would order matters so
that he should have the crown. According to this account Jero-
boam must have known that the whole was merely a contrivance of
those politicians the prophets, and that there was nothing of extra-
ordinary prediction or divine inspiration in the case. But it is
certain Jeroboam himself was of another mind. He knew nothing
of those prophetical secrets and ' deep designs of state ' which our
author is the first that has discovered to the world. For when his
son Ahijah was sick, he desired his wife to disguise herself, and go
to Shiloh to inquire about him, giving this reason for it : ' Behold
there is Ahijah the prophet which told me that I should be king
over this people, go to him, and he shall tell thee what shall become
of the child,' 1 Kings xiv. 2, 3. Where it is evident that he looked
upon Ahijah as a true prophet of God, extraordinarily inspired to
foretel future events ; and he mentions his having foretold that be
should be king over Israel as a proof of it. And indeed his fore-
telling so clearly and expressly this extraordinary revolution in the
days of Solomon, when there was so little likelihood of effecting it,
and his foretelling with so much particularity that Jeroboam should
reign over ten of the tribes and no more ; and the exact accom-
plishment of it, contrary to all appearance, and which would have
been prevented if Rehoboarn had but behaved with common
prudence, and had hearkened to the advice which the wise coun-
sellors gave him ; this showed that the prophet Ahijah was indeed
sent of God, and that that whole affair, which it was impossible for
any human sagacity to foresee, was ordered and over-ruled by his
all-disposing providence, for accomplishing his own just and
righteous judgments.
This ought to have engaged Jeroboam, who was convinced that
Ahijah was sent of God, to have conformed himself strictly to the
commands that were given him by that prophet, in the name of
God, when he foretold his coming to the throne of Israel. But
though Jeroboam knew that the kingdom was rent from Solomon,
as a punishment for his idolatry, and that when it pleased God to
promise the kingdom of Israel to himself, and to his posterity, it
was on condition of ' walking in his ways,' and ' keeping his
statutes and commandments,' yet in express contradiction to the
divine law, he set up the calves at Dan and Bethel ; not as this
author represents it, from the friendly regard he had to toleration
and liberty of conscience, but merely from a motive of worldly carnal
policy ; for fear that if the people had continued to go up to wor-
ship at Jerusalem, they should revolt to the family of David again,
1 Kings xii. 26 28. But this irreligious policy of his, through
the just judgment of God, only served to hasten the ruin of his
house, which it was designed to establish. The same prophet
Ahijah, that had foretold his advancement to the throne of Israel,
did also by divine appointment declare that Jeroboam's whole race
and family should be cut off and destroyed ; and at the same time
he expressly foretold, that God ' would root up Israel out of the
180 VINDICATION OF THE
good land which he gave to their fathers, and scatter them beyond
the river,' 1 Kings xiv. 4. A clear evidence that he spake by
divine inspiration, since he so clearly foretold an event which did not
happen till some ages after. Jeroboam's son Nadab, and all his
family was destroyed (as Ahijah had foretold, though it can hardly
be supposed that that prophet, who was then blind and decrepid
with age, could be capable of forming projects to effect it) by
Baasha ; and afterwards Baasha's son Elah, and all his house, were
destroyed by Zimri ; which event was also exactly foretold by the
prophet Jehu, whilst Baasha was in all his prosperity. And then
Zimri, within seven days after his usurping the throne, was de-
stroyed by Omri, who after a civil war for some years, between him
and Tibni, was established on the throne. Our author would fain
lay all these commotions and revolutions to the charge of the pro-
phets. He calls them ' revolutions in favour of religion,' and saith,
that 'all this slaughter and bloodshed was for religion;' see pp.
310, 311. Though there is not the least proof that religion was so
much as pretended by Baasha or Zimri, as the cause of their con-
spiracies. Nor indeed can it be supposed that they would pretend
the setting up and worshipping the calves at Dan and Bethel to be
the cause of their conspiracies, which they found no fault with, and
practised themselves, both before and after their coming to the
crown. There is not the least mention of the prophets in all these
revolutions, any farther than that they had foretold them a con-
siderable time before they happened. And if this must be allowed
to be a proof of their having effected them, then the prophets may,
with equal reason, be charged with being the authors of all the
wonderful revolutions in the successive monarchies and empires of
the world, which they distinctly foretold ; which would be to at-
tribute to them a kind of divinity, and sovereign dominion over the
world and mankind. And at that rate also our Saviour must be
charged with being the cause of Judas's treason, because he clearly
foretold it.
Our author observes, that when an account is given of Zimri's
violent death, within seven days after his mounting the throne, it is
represented as a punishment upon him, not for the murder and
treason he was guilty of, in murdering Elah and all his house, but
only for ' his doing evil in the sight of the Lord, in walking in the
way of Jeroboam, and in his sin, whereby he made Israel to sin,'
1 Kings xvi. 19. But had not the sacred historian mentioned his
murder and treason just before, ver. 16 18, as the reason why all
the people rose up against him, and besieged him in Tirzah, whereby
he was compelled to burn himself in his palace ? Is not this suf-
ficiently declaring, that his murder and treason brought his de-
struction upon him? And though his treason is not again par-
ticularly mentioned in the nineteenth verse, among his evil doings,
that brought upon him the divine judgments, but ' his walking in
the ways of Jeroboam ;' this is not designed to signify, that his
imitating Jeroboam's idolatry was his only crime ; for his ' treason
that he wrought' is again taken notice of, in, the verse immediately
PROPHETS CONTINUED. 181
following. But according to the stated order observed by the
sacred historian, it is observed of him, as well as of the other kings
of Israel, that he was engaged in the same course of political idolatry
with his predecessors. And this was particularly proper to show,
that it was not for any aversion he had to the sins and idolatry
that Baasha's house was guilty of, that he rose up against them, but
merely to gratify his own ambition and cruelty and lust of reigning.
Thus it is observed, ver. 13 of that chapter where an account is
given of the destruction of Baasha's family, that it was because of
' their sins, by which they made Israel to sin, in provoking the
Lord God of Israel to anger with their vanities, or idols ;' where
their idolatry is mentioned as' the cause of the ruin that befel them
in God's righteous judgment. And yet that it was not the design
of the sacred writer to insinuate that this was the only wickedness
that exposed them to the .divine vengeance is evident, since in the
seventh verse of the same chapter Baasha's destroying the house of
Jeroboam, which, however just as from God, was unjust in him,
and wholly owing to his own cruelty and ambition, is charged upon
him as a crime, for which judgment was denounced against him
and his family.
This writer proceeds next to the reign of Ahab, of whom and his
queen Jezebel he speaks with great complacency, for no other reason
that I can see, but because they are stigmatized in the Sacred
Writings for their wickedness and idolatry, and because they killed
the Lord's prophets. For it seems to be a constant rule with him,
to do all he possibly can to vilify and blacken the best and brightest
characters there spoken of: and if any one be there represented as
wicked and idolatrous, this is sufficient to recommend him to the
esteem of our pretended moral philosopher, who seems as solicitous
to blanch over the crimes and vices of the one, as to sully and
calumniate the virtues of the other.
Ahab and Jezebel not only built a house or temple to Baal, and
maintained 450 prophets of Baal, and 400 prophets of the groves,
in express breach and defiance of the fundamental laws and con-
stitutions of Israel ; but they barbarously persecuted the true wor-
shippers of God, ' threw down his altars, and slew his prophets
with the sword ;' see 1 Kings xviii. 4, 13, xix. 10. Yet this writer,
who all along would be thought such an enemy to persecution, and
seems to maEe the whole of religion to consist in ' liberty of con-
science,' and will scarce allow that God himself hath a right to
punish idolatry, is not ashamed to stand up in defence of Ahab and
Jezebel, for murdering the Lord's prophets ; and even whilst he is
giving an account of this, has the confidence to praise the ido-
latrous kings of Israel, for maintaining toleration and liberty of
conscience, pp. 313, 314. AH that I can make of this is, that in
.this author's opinion it was persecution not to tolerate the public
worship of Baal, or to destroy his priests and altars, but it was no
persecution to throw down God's altars, and to put his prophets to
death. He seems highly to approve the scheme that ' Ahab laid
to root out the prophets, and to establish some other religion more
182 VINDICATION OF THE
friendly and beneficent to mankind,' by which I suppose he means
the ' Baalitish idolatry/ p. 312. And after giving a very favour-
able account of that idolatry, and of the priests of Baal, whom he
represents as friends to liberty and toleration, he affirms that ' No
instance can be given throughout the whole history, where any of
the kings charged with idolatry used any force or violence, to oblige
any body to worship the calves, Baal, Ashteroth, &c., and that they
never hindered any of their people that had a mind to go up to
Jerusalem to worship God in the legal way, of which Tobit was
one.' * And he denies that they are charged with enforcing ' idol-
atry by law,' pp. 313, 314. But are we not expressly told concern-
ing Jehoram king of Judah, that ' he made high places in the
mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to
commit fornication (by which is evidently there meant idolatry),
and compelled Judah thereto,' 2 Chron. xxi. 11 ? Can any thing
be a more direct proof of what this writer with so much confidence
denies ? And this Jehoram probably did, in imitation of the kings
of Israel, and particularly of the house of Ahab. For it is observed
a little before, that ' he walked in the way of the kings of Israel,
like as did the house of Ahab ; for he had the daughter of Ahab to
wife,' ver. 6. And the ' statutes of Omri,' who was Ahab's father,
mentioned Micah vi. 16, cannot well be understood of any thing
else than some laws for enforcing idolatry by the public authority.
But need we go farther for a proof of the persecuting rage of some
at least of the idolatrous kings, than the reign of Ahab, the very
time this author fixes upon for extolling their lenity and indul-
gence ? The persecution was so severe, that all public worship of
the true God was entirely prohibited. And as many of his prophets
as could be found, whose business it was to instruct the people in
the true religion, were slain with the sword ; so that Elijah thought
he was left alone ; and that there were no true worshippers of God
left in Israel but himself: though God informs him that there were
some thousands that had not fallen into the common idolatry, but
still worshipped the true God in private, though they were not suf-
fered to do it in a public way.
But our moral philosopher, in order to justify, as far as in him
lies, the violence used by Ahab and Jezebel, tells us, ' that expe-
rience had evinced that it was impossible for the regal power and
prophetic office to subsist together, and therefore Ahab ought to
have put an end to this holy order, and thereby have cut off the
occasion of more religious wars. And that Jezebel seemed to have
had some appearance of natural justice in the scheme she laid for
the destruction of the Lord's prophets ; since it is certain that they
* That many pious persons of the ten tribes went up from time to time to worship
at Jerusalem, we may well suppose ; but this was not with the allowance of their kings,
who set up the calves at Dan and Bethel on purpose to prevent it. Thus particularly
we find that great numbers went from Israel to worship at Jerusalem in the days of
Asa, but Baasha king of Israel was so far from allowing it, that he built Ramah '
the intent that none might go out or come in to Asa king of Judah;' .see 2 Chron.
xv. 9, xvi. 1.
PROPHETS CONTINUED. 183
had greatly inflamed and excited the people to rebellion, and cut
off one royal family after another for above two hundred years past
on account of religion. And that she designed to exterminate
them as enemies, not only to their own country, but to the common
peace and tranquillity of the world,' pp. 312 314.
But it doth not appear that Jezebel had any inducement to do
what she did but her zeal for Baal and his worship ; or that either
she or Ahab ever so much as pretended to charge the prophets with
having been the authors-of rebellions and insurrections among the
people. This is entirely the fiction of this candid and righteous
author, without any thing but his own malice against the prophets
to support the accusation. And this is the way he hath found out
to reconcile the practice of persecution with a pretended zeal against
it. It is but charging persons with treason and rebellion against
the state, and interpreting their faithful warnings against the public
vices and idolatry, to be a design to stir up insurrections among the
people, and then it is right to destroy them without being guilty of
persecution at all. Thus he takes the methods that the worst of
persecutors have always done : first; to blacken the characters of
the good men they had a mind to destroy, and fix odious brands
upon them as rebels and incendiaries, and then to use them cruelly,
and massacre them ; which is a double murder committed, upon
their persons and reputations. Thus the apostles, the design of
whose preaching was to ' turn men from darkness unto light,' from
idolatry and vice to the pure worship of God, and the practice of
righteousness, were represented as persons that ' turned the world
upside down ;' and the apostle Paul in particular was charged as a
' pestilent fellow,' and a ' mover of sedition.'
Our author seems to mention it with regret, that Ahab could
not ' put an end to this holy order,' as he hoped to have done,
' because the prophets had still more interest -and influence with the
people than the kings,' p. 312. And that Jezebel, though she had
cut off many of the prophets, found it ' impossible to root them
out^ whilst they had so much interest, and the people were resolved
to protect them,' p. 314. This is said with a view to insinuate
what power they had to raise insurrections and commotions among
the people. But how absurd is it to talk of the mighty influence
the prophets had over the people, at a time when the whole nation
had generally fallen into idolatry in opposition to their instructions
and admonitions, and the few that had kept themselves pure from
it were scarce to be discerned, and durst not publicly show them-
selves. If the prophets ' had so much interest' with the people,
and they were ' resolved to protect them,' how came Jezebel to
have it in her power to destroy as many of them as she could find ?
For if any escaped, it was only owing to their being concealed in
secret places, like those whom Obadiah fed with bread and water
in a cave, or to their flying out of the country. It appears from
the account we have of Elijah himself, the most eminent prophet
of that time, that he lived for the most part during that reign in
obscurity and retirement, in constant hazard of his life, persecuted
184< VINDICATION OF THE '
from place to place ; nor do we find him coming into places' of
public resort, but when he was sent upon extraordinary messages
from God, which he delivered and discharged with an undaunted
fortitude. The only instance that can be produced to show his
power and influence over the people, is what this writer mentions,
his procuring Baal's prophets to be slain when they were assembled
together to Mount Carmel. But this was only the effect of a sudden
strong impression that was then made upon the people, upon their
seeing the signal miracle which was wrought before them all, and
which gave them an illustrious proof upon a solemn contest, that he
was a true prophet of God, and that the Lord Jehovah whose pro-
phet he was, was the only true God. Under the influence of this
present conviction they obeyed the directions he gave them to de-
stroy those prophets who were then engaged in the very act of
idolatry. This, though an extraordinary action, was very just, both
as a retaliation for the destruction of the Lord's prophets who had
been causelessly put to death by Jezebel, and probably at the in-
stigation of these false prophets ; and because these persons were
all of them notorious criminals, devoted to death by the fundamental
laws of their constitution, which was of divine original and appoint-
ment.* To which was added at that time the special command
and authority of God himself, who upon Elijah's prayer and solemn
appeal to him before all the people, gave an illustrious attestation
from heaven that Elijah was his servant, and that what he then
did was ' according to his word,' that is, by commission from him ;
see 1 Kings xviii. 36, &c. Ahab himself, who seems to have been
present at this contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal>
was probably struck at that time with what he . saw as much as
the people, and therefore made no opposition to the slaying of
Baal's prophets. And it plainly appears from the account there
given us, that he believed what Elijah then assured him of, that
God would immediately put an end to the grievous drought that
had so long afflicted the whole country, and send a great quantity
of rain, which accordingly upon Elijah's earnest prayer to God
was accomplished that very day.
One would think that Elijah's interest "with the people was now
at the height, and that now, if ever, they should be 'resolved to
protect him.' And yet so little was Jezebel apprehensive of this
pretended influence of the prophets to raise insurrections and com-
motions, that as soon as she heard of what Elijah had done, she
sent a peremptory message to him that she would have his life the
very next day; and he had" no way of escaping her rage but by
flying first into Judah, and then into the wilderness, alone and
destitute of all human succour and protection.
Afterwards, indeed, we find him coming to Ahab again with a
special message from God, and denouncing the most dreadful ven-
geance against him and his family for the murder of Naboth. An
* Besides the general law for punishing those with death that seduced the people to
idolatry, there was a particular law which appointed that the prophet that should ' speak
in the name of other gods,' should be put to death, Deut. xviii. 20.
PROPHETS CONTINUED; 185
execrable wickedness, contrived by Jezebel, and approved byAhab,
and which may let us into the true character of both. For what
could be a more flagrant and deliberate wickedness, than first to
suborn false witnesses against a good and innocent man, and to
get him condemned for blasphemy against God, and treason against
the king (which charge was as true as that which this writer ad-
vances against the prophets), and then destroy and murder him
under that pretence, and probably his children with him, as may
he gathered from 2 Kings ix. 26, and so seize his inheritance ? It
was on this occasion that Ahab, meeting Elijah, said to him, ' Hast
thou found me, O mine enemy ?' see 1 Kings xxi. 17 20. And
he had once before called him ' the troubler of Israel,' chap, xviii.
17. Not that he intended to charge him with raising insurrections
and commotions against the government, but he hated him for his
faithful reproofs, and dreaded the judgments he denounced with an
impartial zeal against him for his sins. The answer that Elijah
returned to him on both those occasions is remarkable : he lets him
know that it was he, by his own wickedness, that brought those
evils both upon himself and upon the people. Compare 1 Kings
xviii. 18, and chap. xxi. 20, &c., in which latter passage he plainly
and expressly foretels the ruin that should befal Ahab and his
family, and the principal circumstances of it, with a wonderful par-
ticularity, all which received an exact accomplishment. The eifect
this had upon Ahab, in the outward signs of repentance and humi-
liation it produced, though it did not effect a true repentance and
amendment, but was a transient remorse that soon went off, showed
the inward conviction he had that Elijah was a true prophet of the
Lord extraordinarily sent and inspired by him, and the reverence
he had for his piety, and inflexible righteousness and integrity.
And indeed from the account that is given us in the history of
Ahab, it seems very probable that at the latter end of his reign,
though he did not cast off the worship of Baal which he continued
in to the end of his life, yet he was also willing to keep up some
outward form of worshipping the true God, and of showing a
regard to his prophets, and did not so openly persecute them as he
had done before. And accordingly, it is not improbable that he
suffered some of the prophetical schools to be again opened ; and
was willing to have some about him under the character of the
Lord's prophets, who yet should not prove troublesome to him by
their reproofs. And accordingly, as some true prophets were suf-
fered in the latter end of Ahab's reign, as we may gather from the
instances of such prophets, 1 Kings xx. 13, 28, 35 ; so there were
numbers of pretended ones that assumed that character^ to pay
their court to the king, and who took care to please and flatter him,
and to prophesy as he would have them. Such were the four hun-
dred that encouraged him to go up to Ramoth Gilead, and pro-
mised him victory and success. These were the prophets he
caressed, whilst he hated Micaiah the true prophet of the Lord,
fr-nd counted him his enemy, merely because he reproved him for
his faults, and told him the plain truth, and did not flatter him us
186 VINDICATION OF THE
the others did. Our author, indeed, would have those four hundred
pass for true prophets of God, that he may the better charge them
with conspiring Ahab's destruction. But this hath been already
sufficiently exposed.
The next instance this writer mentions is the affair of Jehu's
being anointed king of Israel, and destroying the whole house of
Ahab. And this is the only instance that can be produced, of a
prophet's expressly anointing a person to be king with a commis-
sion to destroy the king that then reigned and his family. The
history represents this as done by the special command of God
himself; but he will have it to be only a conspiracy of the prophets
against the house of Ahab, merely to gratify their own spite and
revenge without any divine commission at all, though they feigned
it the better to execute their designs. This makes a vast difference
in the cases. The true question therefore is, first, whether God
himself had a right to transfer the crown from the house of Ahab,
and to order that whole royal family to be extirpated. And next,
what proof there is that the prophet had such a command or com-
mission from God.
The first question admits of an easy decision. For not to urge
that God, by virtue of his supreme and absolute dominion hath a
sovereign right to transfer kingdoms from one famity to another,
and to dispose of men's lives, and can put an end to them when he
pleases without injustice, even supposing them innocent: not to
urge this, it is incontestable, that he hath a right to punish his
creatures for their sins, in that way that seemeth most fit to his
infinite wisdom and righteousness. And when particular persons
or families have been remarkably wicked, all that own a providence
must acknowledge that it is no unrighteous thing in God to inflict
remarkable judgments or calamities upon them as a punishment
for their crimes, even to their utter extirpation. Now the case we
are considering is that of a very wicked family, in which there had
been a succession of kings that had been guilty of many and great
vices and crimes, and particularly of an open revolting from the
worship of the true God to the worship of idols; and that in a nation
that was peculiarly set apart and chosen above all other nations to
maintain the worship of the Deity in a world overrun with poly-
theism and idolatry, and whose constitution and polity, which was
of divine appointment, was established on the principle of wor-
shipping the one only living and true God. These princes bad
not only broken through and endeavoured to subvert these fun-
damental laws of the state, and the original contract and covenant
on which that community was founded, and by which their right to
their country and all their privileges was suspendedj but they had
with the utmost cruelty persecuted and endeavoured to destroy
those that stood up for the ancient laws and constitutions, and had
compelled the people to violate them ; and thus had shown them-
selves the greatest enemies to God, to the laws, and to their country,
upon which they had brought many calamities by their wickedness.
Now upon this view, will any say that it was unjust in God to de-
PROPHETS CONTINUED. 187
prive such a -family of the royal power of which they had made so
ill an use, and even utterly to destroy them ? If he had cut them
off by diseases, by pestilence, by thunder, or an immediate stroke
from heaven, few would have pretended to dispute the justice of it.
And if God hath a right to cut them off, he may do it in that way
that seemeth to him most fit, and therefore may do it by the sword
of others commissioned by him to destroy them, if this appears to
him to be most proper to answer the ends intended in the punish-
ment. If he had cut them off by an extraordinary disease or im-
mediate stroke, this might have been attributed to chance, it would
not have been so evident on what account this was inflicted. But
his appointing one of another family to be king, with an express
commission to extirpate that wicked race in a declared execution
of the sentence that had been pronounced against them long before
for their wickedness, tended to show both the new king and the
people the great heinousness of those crimes, and what ruin it
would bring upon them, if they should imitate that unhappy family
in that idolatry and wickedness which had exposed them to such
an exemplary vengeance. And if the succeeding kings and the
people of Israel had made a just and wise improvement of this
event, it might have prevented the ruin of both, and all the cala-
mities that afterwards befel them in their final desolation and cap-
tivity. In which case it would have been apparent that this ex-
emplary punishment on Ahab's wicked race was designed for the
benefit of the whole : as the just punishment of wicked malefactors
is fitted and designed to promote the general good of the com-
munity. And if it actually had not that effect, it was their own
fault, who did not/ make that use of it they might and ought to
have done. And if upon such a view it appears that the destruction
of Ahab's family was entirely just as from God, then on supposition
that he sent and commanded his prophet by his divine authority to
anoint Jehu king with a commission to execute his righteous ven-
geance on that wicked family, there was nothing wrong in the pro-
phet's conduct in delivering the message God sent him upon : on
the contrary, it would have been wrong, and an act of rebellion and
disobedience against God to have declined it.
But the question remains, what proof is there that God did
indeed send the prophet to anoint Jehu, and that all this was done
by the divine order and appointment? And of this, taking the
whole account as it lies before us in the sacred history, there is
clear and convincing evidence. As God had been pleased, in his
gi'eat mercy, to raise up eminent prophets to Israel in the time of
this their great degeneracy, in order to preserve the knowledge of
the true religion among them, when they were in the utmost danger
of utterly losing and forsaking it : so he gave those prophets the
most convincing illustrious attestations of their divine mission, suf-
ficient to have convinced kings and people that they were indeed
extraordinarily sent and inspired of God. More and greater mi-
racles were wrought by Elijah and Elisha in a few years, than had
been done for several hundred years before, from the days of Moses
188 VINDICATION OF THE
to that time^ Thus it pleased God to order it in his great wisdom
and goodness, because then there was greater need of them.
With regard to Elijah, to give the greater weight to his prophetic
mission, God having determined to punish that guilty people with
a most grievous dearth and famine for their wickedness and
idolatry, a punishment which had heen threatened in that case
in the law itself, Deut. xxviii. 23, so ordered it that it should be
brought on at Elijah's word, and removed at his prayer. Upon
a solemn appeal to heaven he gave a most illustrious testimony
to him as his faithful prophet and servant, in the sight of the
king and all the people at Mount Carmel. Two companies of
men that were sent one after another to seize him, were at
his word consumed by ' fire from heaven.' ' He raised the
dead,' and was himself at length taken bodily in an extraordinary
manner into heaven. Elisha, that succeeded him in the prophetical
office, had his divine mission confirmed by no less extraordinary
attestations. At his word the unwholesome waters and barren soil
had new qualities given them. At his word the Syrian Naaman
was healed of his leprosy, and his own servant, Gehazi, struck with
it in a moment, as a punishment for bis baseness and falsehood.
He was enabled, as well as Elijah, ' to raise the dead,' which seems
to be an act of dominion and power peculiar to God himself, the
Lord of nature and governor of the world. He gave the most ex-
traordinary proofs of a divine inspiration and supernatural know-
ledge, in his disclosing to the king of Israel the councils which the
king of Syria took in his bed-chamber. At a time when the armies
of three kings were ready to perish, he foretold both that imme-
diately they should have abundance of water, of which they stood
in the utmost need, and that they should obtain victory over their
enemies, when there was no human appearance of either. When
Samaria was besieged by a vast host of Syrians, and reduced to
the extremity of distress by famine, and no human succour near,
he expressly declared, in the name of God, that the next day there
should be such a plenty of all things, that a lord that stood by
thought it scarce possible to be effected, even if God should open
the heavens, and pour down provisions upon them from thence.
And he also foretold that that lord himself should see it, but should
not eat of it. And both these things were literally fulfilled, which
it was impossible for any human knowledge to foresee. With regard
to the destruction of Ahab's family, Elijah had by divine inspi-
ration expressly denounced it to Ahab himself many years before it
happened, and had foretold Ahab's own death with this particular
circumstance, that the ' dogs should lick his blood where that of
Naboth had been shed.' It was also revealed to him that Jehu
should be king over Israel near twenty years before it happened,
and he was commanded to anoint him, that is, to cause him to be
anointed ; for he was not to do it immediately himself, since the
time appointed for it in the divine providence was not yet come ;
but he was to appoint Elisha to do it, who was to succeed him in
the prophetical office. Accordingly, when the season came which
PROPHETS CONTINUED. 189
God saw fit for executing the just sentence that had been denounced
so long before, the prophet Elisha was put upon it by the same ex-
traordinary divine impulse and authority by which he was enabled
to work such astonishing miracles above all human power to per-
form, and to foretel things above the reach of man to foresee. And
indeed, the circumstances of the affair itself, and the manner of
bringing it about, showed that there was an extraordinary hand of
God in it. Elisha only sent a person to call out Jehu on a sudden
from the company where he was sitting, and anoint him king, and
then the man that did it fled. Upon this Jehu was immediately,
and as it were in a moment, acknowledged by all the captains and
the whole army, though there does not appear to have been any
previous concert, nor any steps taken to prepare matters for such a
revolution. This is a most surprising event, and which must be
ascribed to an extraordinary influence of divine providence. It
was scarce possible to foresee in a human way that this would have
had such an effect. It rather might have been thought that it
would have exposed the prophet himself, and perhaps, to use our
author's expressions, ' have endangered the whole order.' But the
prophet Elisha, who was assured that it was from God, was not at
all solicitous about the issue of it, since he very well knew what the
event would be, without taking any of the measures or precautions
that would have been necessary, if the affair had depended merely
on the management of human policy. As to this writer's sneer,
that the ' king, queen, and all the house of Ahab were most re-
ligiously murdered in the name of the Lord ;' if Jehu had executed
the sentence denounced against the house of Ahab, merely in obe-
dience to the command of God, and not from a principle of private
ambition or cruelty, it would have been no more a crime, nor to be
accounted murder, than it is for a person commissioned by a just
king or magistrate to put malefactors to death in execution of the
righteous sentence pronounced against them.
Our author before this had represented the prophet Elisha's ma-
nagement with Hazael the chief captain of the king of Syria, as a
remarkable proof that the prophets brought about their own predic-
tions, by accomplishing in a natural way what they had resolved
upon before, see pp. 306, 307. The account he gives of this mat-
ter is from the beginning to the end one entire misrepresentation,
as any one will find that will compare it with the account given us
in the place he himself refers to, 2 Kings viii. 7, &c. He supposes
the present which Benhadad the king of Syria ordered Hazael to
give to the prophet (the magnificence of which was such as be-
came a king) to have been a bribe from Hazael himself, though he
does not tell us what the bribe was given him for, or what could
be Hazael's view in it. Was it in Elisha's power to set whomso-
ever he would on the throne of Syria too, as he would persuade us
it was in the power of the prophets, by their interest and influence,
to make whom they pleased kings of Israel ? He represents it as
if Elisha's telling Hazael that he should be king of Syria, was ' to
show himself not ungrateful for what he had taken of the captain.'
190 VINDICATION OF THE
But if the present had an influence upon him, it should rather have
bribed him to declare in favour of the king, who had ordered that
present to be given him, than of the captain who only delivered it
to him from the king. The prophet showed the exactness of his
foreknowledge and divine inspiration by the answer he gave to
Hazael, whereby he let him know, that the king should not die
of the disease, and yet that he should certainly die some other way :
as accordingly he did by the band of Hazael, who in all proba-
bility had already concerted measures for securing the crown to
himself upon Benhadad's death, and had resolved to hasten his
death. And the prophet here gives him to understand, that he
was not ignorant of the design he had formed ; and then proceeds
to tell him what execrable cruelties he knew he would be guilty of
against the people of Israel, when he should be king of Syria.
This writer indeed thinks proper to represent it as if Hazael had
at that time no design against his master's life or crown at all, but
was put upon it by the prophet, who ' sent him away after having
given him sufficient instructions what he was to do,' that is, that
he was to murder his master, and seize the crown. And in order
to account for the prophet's putting Hazael upon this murder and
treason, he tells us, that it ' is plain that Elisha here put Hazael
jnto a most effectual way to obtain the kingdom, in hopes that, hav-
ing been indebted to him for the crown, he would favour his coun-
try, and put an end to the war against Israel.' And accordingly
he represents him as having ' taken his vows and protestations, that
if he should happen (i. e., if he should be king of Syria) he would
favour Israel.' Thus he is willing for once to allow the prophet to
have been a patriot, and a friend to his country, that he may bring
him in for having a hand in the death of the king of Syria. But
this is a piece of history entirely of the author's own making. For
there is not a word of it in the account given us of this matter
in the sacred records. Nor can any thing be more absurd than
to suppose that the prophet 'put Hazael into the most effec-
tual way to obtain the kingdom, in hopes that he would favour his
country, and put an end to the war against Israel,' when he very
well knew that Hazael would prove a greater plague to Israel than
all the kings that had been before him. How far the prophet
was from contributing to Hazael's advancement to the throne, is
evident from the great sorrow and concern the prospect of it gave
him. He wept to think of the cruel devastations that Hazael
would make in Israel, and the calamities he would bring upon
that people. ' I know,' says he, ' the evil thou wilt do unto the
children of Israel,' 8cc. Our author here gives us a cast of his art,
which may let us see what fair dealing we are to expect from him ;
for whereas the prophet saith. ' I know,' he represents it as if he
had only said, ' I fear,' and had spoken of it as a thing of which he
was uncertain. ' But he plainly speaks of it as of a thing which he
was absolutely assured of by revelation from God himself: and this
drew tears from the eyes of that good man and worthy patriot. All
that can be concluded from the whole story is on the one hand, the
PROPHETS CONTINUED. 191
exactness of the prophet's foreknowledge, and his having the cer-
tain knowledge of future events extraordinarily communicated to
liim from God himself; and on the other hand, his great huma-
nity and love to his country. And this is a manifest proof among
many others that might be produced that the things predicted hy
the prophets were not of their own procuring, and that they did
not merely foretel things with a view to take measures to accom-
plish what they had resolved upon before; though this writer most
absurdly produces this very instance as a proof of it : but they
foretold them, because they knew by divine inspiration they would
certainly come to pass. Many of the things they foretold were
things which were disagreeable to themselves, and which they
would gladly have prevented, if it had depended upon their own
choice, as no doubt Elisha would have done Hazael's advancement
to the throne of Syria.
The same prophet Elisha gave a farther proof of his divine in-
spiration, in that, when his country was reduced to the extremest
misery and distress, and seemed ruined beyond redress through the
conquests and devastations made by Hazael and his successors,
he expressly foretold when he was upon his death-bed, the wonder-
ful change that would soon happen in affairs by the glorious vic-
tories of Joash king of Israel over the Syrians, and foretold pre-
cisely the number of victories he should obtain, viz., that he should
vanquish the Syrians thrice. And I suppose this writer will scarce
pretend, that in this case too the prophet took care to accomplish
his own predictions in a natural way, and enabled the Israelites to
beat the Syrians thrice after his own death. And here by the
way I would observe, how far that brave prince Joash was from
looking upon the prophets as the great enemies and disturbers of
their country, and the authors of all the mischiefs and calamities
that befel the state. He rather regarded them as the greatest de-
fence and protection of the country by their excellent counsels, and
by their prayers and prevalency with God, as appears from the
lamentation he made over the dying prophet Elisha, the father
and head of the prophets at that time. He wept over his face,
and said, ' O my father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the
horsemen thereof,' 2 Kings xiii. 14 19. The very word that
Elisha himself had used concerning the prophet Elijah when he
was taken up into heaven.
The reign of Jeroboam that followed was a successful and glo-
rious one. Our author takes notice of this, and after having ob-
served that ' this king was as great an encourager of idolatry as
any that had been before him,' (which is not true, for he only fol-
lowed the sin of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which consisted in
worshipping the true God after a wrong manner, whereas the house
of Ahab had introduced the worship of Baal, and the heathen
deities, which was an express and open revolting from the God of
Israel) he adds, that 'this makes it evident, that the toleration
(he should have said the establishment, for this was really the case)
of idolatry, had not been the real cause of the ruin and devasta-
192 VINDICATION OF THE
tion of this country for above two hundred years back :' as if Jerobo-
am's idolatry was the cause of his success. But all that can be ga-
thered from Jeroboam's prosperity and success, which had been plainly
foretold by the prophet Jonah, 2 Kings xiv. 25, is, that as the Isra-
elites had been afflicted for their sins through the just judgment
of God, so now it pleased him in his great mercy to give them a
respite from their calamities, and to try what influence his good-
ness and indulgence would have upon them ; to which it is ex-
pressly ascribed, ver. 26, 27. But they made a wrong use of
their prosperity : and it appears from the lively admonitions of the
prophets, who lived at that time, that all manner of vice and wick-
edness abounded among them. And this their abusing the divine
goodness, and being neither reclaimed by his mercies nor judg-
ments to repentance, at last ended in their utter ruin. As to what
this author remarks, that ' Jeroboam had restored the observation
of all the sacrifices and festivals of Egypt;' there is nothing of this
in the account given us of his reign. It is probable indeed that
he continued the feasts which the first Jeroboam had appointed.
But these seem only in imitation of those instituted in the law of
Moses with a small variation. See 1 Kings xii. 32, 33. Accord-
ingly it appears from the prophet Hosea, who prophesied in the
days of Jeroboam the Second, that in Israel at that time they
had their new moons and sabbath, and solemn feasts. He speaks
of their wine-offerings and sacrifices to the Lord Jehovah ; and of
the feast of the Lord, and solemn day as celebrated . among them,
Hos. ii. 4, 5, 11. And Arnos, who prophesied at .the same time,
talks of their tithes and free-will offerings, their feast days, and
solemn assemblies, Amos iv. 4, 5. I shall not examine the way
our author takes to account for Jeroboam's victories over the Sy-
rians : nor his chronology that within five or six years after this
king's death, the Assyrians destroyed Damascus, whereas it might
be plainly shown that it was above forty years after his death that
this happened. The confusions and civil wars that followed the
death of Jeroboam, he would gladly attribute to the intrigues of
the prophets, though there is not one word or circumstance in the
history that can afford the least pretence for such a suspicion.
After having laid the ruin and captivity of Israel to the charge of
the prophets, though if the Israelites had complied with their advice
and exhortations their ruin had been prevented ; he next takes notice
of the bloody war between Israel and Judah, which he tells us
lasted two hundred and sixty years, that is, during the whole time
that the kingdom of Israel subsisted. And this also he represents
as he had done all the rest, as a war carried on upon the account
of religion, and endeavours to interest the prophets in it, whom he
represents as doing all they could to restore the kingdom to the
house of David, pp. 320, 321. But all that he here offereth is one
continued misrepresentation. The war between Israel and Judah
was so far from being perpetual and uninterrupted as he would have
us to believe, that we have no account of any war between them
from the davs of Baasha and Asa to the time of Amaziah and
. PIIOPHETS CONTINUED. 193
Joash, which was the space of above an hundred years. Nor was
there any war again between them from that time till the reign of
Ahaz, which was above fourscore years more. And whereas he
represents the kings of Judah, or the house of David, as all along
aggressors in the war, and as ' taking a merciless and outrageous
niethod with Israel after the revolt,' the very contrary is true.
For though Rehoboam at first levied a great army with a design
to reduce Israel to his obedience, he desisted from it upon the re-
presentation made to him by the prophet Shemaiah, 2 CLron.
xi. 4. And it is therefore probable that the war which was after-
wards carried on between Jeroboam and him, and his son Abijah
after him, was owing to Jeroboam's own ambition, who thought,
as being much more powerful, to have wrested Judah out of the
hands of the house of David. Baasha was the aggressor in the
war between him and Asa, out of the jealousy he conceived against
him, because many of the Israelites went up to Jerusalem to wor-
ship. The same maybe observed concerning; the war carried on
between Israel and Judah in the days of Ahaz. Pekab king of
Israel was the aggressor, and joined forces with the king of Syria.
Vast numbers of the people of Judah were then taken captive, and
used in the most merciless manner, till upon the lively represen-
tations made to the chief men of Israel by the prophet Oded,
they dismissed them, and treated them with great humanity. See
2 Chron. xxviii. 9 15. From whence it appears how falsely he
represents the prophets as all along fomenting the war between
Israel and Judah. For as the prophets declared against Reho-
hoam's warring against Israel, so afterwards they equally declared
against the cruelty the Israelites used against their brethren in
Judah : and thus showed themselves true friends to both. And
whereas he represents the kings of Judah at the instigation of the
prophets as entering ' into an alliance first with the Syrians or Ara-
mites, and then with the Assyrians in order to bring back the re-
volted tribes, and force them to a compliance, or else to root them
out of the land ;' it happens, that in both those cases the kings of
Judah made those alliances, not to obtain dominion over Israel,
but to defend themselves when invaded by Israel ; as appears from
the account given of Asa's alliance with the Syrians, 1 Kings xv.
17 19. And of Ahaz's alliance with the Assyrians, 2 Kings xvi.
59. And if those alliances, as he tells us, ended in the ruin both
of Israel and Judah, the prophets are not chargeable with this,
since they did not approve those alliances. And here, by the way,
we may observe the great consistency of this writer, who p. 303,
brings it as a charge against the prophets, that they weakened and
destroyed their country by causing the kings that hearkened to
their counsels to break all their alliances with the neighbouring
nations, as not thinking it lawful to maintain any peace or
friendship with idolaters : and yet pp. 321, 322, represents it as
owing to the counsels of the prophets that the kings of Judah en-
tered into alliances with the Syrians and Assyrians ; and that these
politics of the prophets occasioned the destruction of Israel and
o
'194 VINDICATION OP THE PROPHETS
Judah ; when the truth is, neither of these is fairly represented.
For on the one hand, the prophets never advised or approved the
alliances he speaks of with the Syrians and Assyrians; and on
the other hand, they never absolutely condemned all alliances with
foreign nations,* nor urged them to break their alliances with them
under pretence that they were idolaters. See in what strong terms
the prophet Ezekiel represents the great guilt of king Zedekiah in
breaking the oath and covenant he had made with the king of Ba-
bylon, and the judgments he denounces against him for it, Ezek.
xvii. 12 ; see also 2 Chron. xxxvi. 13.
Thus have I gone through the author's long invective, the design
of which is to represent the prophets as the great disturbers of
their country, and the principal authors of all its miseries, and of
its final ruin ; and which for a mixture of false history, and mali-
cious calumny, can hardly be paralleled.
CHAPTER XL
His charge against the prophets that lived before the Assyrian captivity, that they de-
claimed only against idolatry, and not against the other vices and immoralities of tbe
people. The falsehood of this shown. The excellent scheme of religion and morals
taught by the ancient prophets. His pretence that the whole nation of the Jews from
the time of Moses to Ezra were Sadducees or Deistical Materialists ; and that they
received the first notions of a future state from the Persian magi, examined. His ac-
count of the change introduced into the Jewish religion at that time shown to lie
groundless and absurd. A future state implied in the law, and all along believed
among the people, and clearly intimated in the writings of the prophets. This proved
from several passages.
THE remaining charges our pretended moral philosopher brings
against the prophets will admit of an easy discussion. Though he re-
presents it as the design of the prophetical institution to ' preach
up moral righteousness/ and ' keep the people to the moral law,'
.yet he saith, that 'from David's rebellions,' as he calls it, ' to the
Assyrian captivity, for the space of above three hundred and fifty
years, it is wonderful to observe how little these ancient prophets
declaimed against the vices and immoralities of the people.' And
after having mentioned several heinous crimes and vices, he ob-
serves, that these are scarce taken notice of, and in the mean while,
nothing in a manner is declared against but idolatry, and the ne-
cessity of fire and sword [urged] as the most proper and only effec-
* See concerning this what hath been observed above, p. 84.
BEFORE THE CAPTIVITY. 195
tual means of rooting it out.' He is pleased indeed to add, that
'- after the Assyrian captivity the few prophets that were left talked
in another strain ; and urged the necessity of not only abstaining
from idolatry, but of a true national repentance and a strict regard,
to the moral law, and no reliance upon sacrifices and priestly abso-
lutions. See pp. 323, 324.
One would wonder with what front this writer could pretend to
advance such an assertion as this: since it is impossible to look
iuto the prophetical writings, and not be convinced that the same
spirit every where appears in all the prophets that lived before and
after the Assyrian captivity, the same zeal against vice and wick^
edness, the same concern for the honour of God, and the interest
of true religion and moral goodness. Hosea, Amos, and Micah
jncontestably lived and prophesied before the destruction of Samaria,
and the carrying away Israel captive by the Assyrians ; and they all
expressly foretold that destruction, and captivity, and that as a
punishment, not only for their idolatry, but for their other immo-
ralities and wickedness. They particularly mention swearing, lying,
injustice, cruelty, bribery, covetousness, oppression of the poor,
luxury, drunkenness, whoredom, adultery, &c. for which they re-
prove them with a noble zeal and impartial freedom, without respect
of persons, or flattering the great men more than the meanest of the
people. And it is observable that they inveigh more frequently
-against their other vices and crimes than against their idolatry
itself, particularly the prophets Amos and Micah do so. And they
urge them in the most pathetical manner to the practice of uni-
versal righteousness, justice, mercy, &c. and let them know that
without this their sacrifices would be of no avail, and expressly
declare the preference of moral duties to mere ritual observances.*
Nor do they once insist upon that which he represents as the only
thing they urged, viz. the necessity of fire and sword as the only
proper and effectual means of rooting out idolatry. That eminent
prophet Isaiah prophesied many years before the Assyrian captivity,
though he also continued to prophesy after it, and the same spirit
every where appears in all his prophecies. Every where doth he
strongly reprove sins and vices of all kinds, and exhorteth to real
repentance, and universal righteousness and true holiness in the most
noble, and solemn, and pathetical manner. This sufficiently shows
with how little regard to truth or decency this writer ventures to
charge the prophets that lived before the Assyrian captivity, as de-
claring against nothing but idolatry. I shall not mention the pro-
phets that lived after that time, particularly Jeremiah and Ezekiel,
because the author himself owns, that they urged the necessity
of a true national repentance, and a strict regard to the moral law.
And indeed it is impossible there should be stronger declarations
to this purpose, than are to be frequently met with in those pro-
* See for all this, Hos. iv. 1 S, 11 ; vi. 6, 8 ; yii. 1, 4, 5 ; x. 12 ; xii. 6. Amos ii.
6 ; iii. 10 ; iv. 1 , 10 12 ; v. 14, 15, 2124 i vi. 36 : viii. 48. Micah ii. 1 , 2 ;
ui. 24, 912 ; vi. 6-8, 1013; vii. 26.
o 2
196 VINDICATION OF THE PROPHETS
phetical writings. And yet afterwards, in the very same page where
he seems to acquit the latter prophets of the charge he had ad-
vanced against the former, he really involves all the prophets in
general in the same accusation. For he hath the confidence to
tell us, that the principal cause of the great corruption of manners
among the Jews after their return from the Babylonish captivity
was owing to this, that ' they had never been told before of any
thing but idolatry, as the cause of all their miseries and calamities
hitherto ; and that all manner of vices and moral wickedness had
been approved and justified in David their great pattern and ex-
emplar,' p. 328. An assertion as false as any thing in his whole
book, and I think I need say no worse of it.
It is in the same spirit of calumny that he represents the pro-
phets as requiring only ' an external obedience to the moral law,
without regarding the principle from which it proceeded, or whether
it was free or forced,' p. 334. To this I need only oppose what
he himself acknowledgeth, that ' it may be proved from innumer-
able testimonies out of the law and the prophets, -that an inward
spiritual principle of obedience as necessary to a state of true reli-
gion and virtue, was all along understood and insisted on during
the legal economy,' p. 34. And whereas in the passage above
cited he goes on to tell us, that ' mortification and self-denial, and
a faith which can support men under adversity and above the
world, an inward purity of the heart and affections, and the prac-
tice of universal benevolence and charity, moral truth, righteous-
ness and peace with all men, from the prospect of immortality and
a future state of spiritual happiness to be enjoyed with God and
the angels ; tins is a religion which those holy men the Naioth
prophets never understood or taught :' it is certain that no where
is the necessity of an inward purity of the heart and affections, or
of moral truth and righteousness more strongly inculcated than in
those admirable writings, no where can be found nobler expressions
of a lively faith and trust in God, even under the greatest afflictions
and adversities, and of holy love to him, and zeal for his glory. A
merciful, a kind and charitable "disposition of mind towards our
neighbour, is there also frequently urged as absolutely necessary to
the character of a good man, and as an essential part of true re-
ligion.* And when all people and nations are so often called
upon to bless and praise the Lord, and to rejoice in him: when
so earnest a desire is frequently expressed, that God's way might
be known upon earth, and his salvation unto all nations ; when
the happiness of the Messiah's kingdom is so often described by
its being a state of universal benevolence and peace, and mutual
good will among mankind, and Gentiles as well as Jews are repre-
sented as sharing in the glorious benefits of it ; I cannot but think
this discovers in the prophets, a spirit of extensive benevolence,
* See the whole Iviii. chapter of Isaiah, Psal. xxxvii. 21, 26 ; cxii. 4 ; Hos. vi. 6 ;
Mic. vi. 8 : Dan. iv. 27; Zech. vii. 9.
BEFORE THE CAPTIVITY. 197
having in view the universal happiness and good of all mankind,
and not merely confined to that of their own nation.
What he mentions concerning the prospect of immortality, and
a future state of happiness, as a thing which the prophets never
understood or taught, deserves a more particular consideration, as
it is a charge he frequently brings against the whole Old Testa-
ment dispensation. He expressly declares, that before the time
of Esdras, which was after the return from the Babylonish capti-
vity, no Jewish writer, priest, or prophet, had ever mentioned a
word of a ' general resurrection and a judgment of good and bad
men, and a consequent future state of rewards and punishments,'
p. 46. And that ' from the days of Moses till the time of Ezra,
which was a period of about eleven hundred years, the whole na-
tion of the Jews had been deistical materialists or Sadducees, and
had been never known to suffer any thing for religion, because
they had no future expectation that could make them amends for
it. And that it might be easily proved that the Sadducees in the
days of Christ and the apostles, were not a new or modern sect
lately sprung up among them, but the true remains of the ancient
Jews.' And he had observed a little before, that ' it was in the
time of the Persian empire that a great change of religion was in-
troduced among the Jews, by which they quitted their idolatry, and
embraced the doctrines of the immortality of the soul, and the re-
surrection of the body, a final judgment, and a future state of
rewards and punishments for good and bad men. And that after
the Jews had received these doctrines from the Persian magians,
they never relapsed into idolatry more, but suffered martyrdom for
their religion with the same constancy, zeal, and firmness, that the
Christians have done since.' pp. 440, 441.
This pretended account of the great change of religion among
the Jews after the time of Ezra, and which was owing to their
conversation with the Persian magi, only shows that some persons
are willing to take up with any scheme, how absurd soever,
that seems to favour the prejudices they have received against
the holy Scriptures. It is true indeed that the body of the Jewish
nation showed a more general aversion to idolatry in the times
after their return from the Babylonish captivity, in which they had
suffered so much for this and their other crimes than ever they had
done before. But can any thing be more absurd than to suppose,
that they learned this aversion to idolatry from the idolatrous
Chaldeans, or from the Persian magi, the adorers of the sun and
. of fire ? and whereas he takes upon him to affirm, that from the
days of Moses till the time of Ezra, none of the Jews had ever
been known to suffer any thing for their religion ; not to mention
several of the prophets, who in defence of the true religion and the
law of God, exposed themselves to the bitterest persecutions, and
even to death itself; the instances of Shadrach, Meshech, and
Abednego, and of Daniel, are illustrious examples of constancy in
religion in opposition to all the terrors of this world, at the same
time that the wise men of Babylon complied with the idolatrous
198 VINDICATION OF THE PROPHETS
injunctions.* As 'to his insinuations concerning the Jews learning
religion from the Persian magi, if a change of religion must be ad-
mitted ainong the Jews, it ought with much greater probability be
supposed that they learned it from the Babylonians than from the
Persians; since during their long captivity in Babylon, the body
of the people had almost forgotten their ancient language, and had
accustomed themselves to that of the Chaldeans. But it is certain
that they did not adopt their religion, which was idolatry, on the
account of which, as well as for injustice, cruelty, and tyranny,
judgment is denounced against Babylon by the prophets. When
the Jews returned from Babylon, in the first year of Cyrus, under
the conduct of Zerubbabel and Joshua, which was before they
could be supposed to have much commerce with the Persians,
who had but just conquered the Babylonish empire, they immedi-
ately upon their return set up their old religion, according to the
law of Moses, And afterwards Ezra and Nehemiah, who came
by the allowance of the Persian emperors, did not reform the Jew-
ish religion and polity, by bringing it to the model of other coun-
tries, but by bringing all things as near as possible to the original
constitution as appointed in that law, and they vigorously opposed
and censured every deviation from it. And as to those of the Jews
that did not return to Judea, but continued still dispersed through-
out the several provinces of the Persian empire, it appears, that
far from adopting the Persian religion as their own, they strictly
adhered to their. own particular laws and customs : and from hence
it was that Haman took occasion to expose them to the public ha-
tred, and procured a decree for their extirpation. Esth. iii. 8.
Any one that considers the most remarkable and distinguishing
principles of the Persian magi, will soon observe a vast difference
between ;them and the Jews. The main principle of the magian
religion was the acknowledgment of two principles, the one good
and the other evil, both of which they acknowledged to be gods,
.and to both they paid their adorations : which was entirely con-
trary to the very fundamental principle of the Jewish religion.
According to Dr. Hyde's own account of the ancient Persians,
which this writer refers to, they fell veiy early into Sabiism, or
worshipping the host of heaven, and though he supposes Abraham
to have reformed this, he owns that after a time they relapsed
.into it again. Though '^they did not entirely lose the knowledge of
the true God, yet they paid their adorations to the heavenly lumi-
naries. And how expressly this is prohibited in the law of Moses
and in the prophetical writings, none that ever read the Scriptures
needs to be informed. And when Magism was introduced among
the Persians, still they worshipped the sun and the fire. And
something like this we read of among the Jews before the Baby-
lonish captivity. Some of their idolatrous kings had .'priests that
burnt incense to the sun ;' and we read of horses which they had
given or dedicated to the sun, which that great reforming king
Josiah destroyed. 2 Kings xxiii. 5, 11. And the prophet Ezekiel,
;among other abominations, represented to him in the prophetical
BEFOUE THE CAPTIVITY. 199.
vision as practised at Jerusalem, even by the elders of the people,
a little before the utter destruction of the city and temple by the
' Chaldeans, "saw some with their backs towards the temple of the
Lord, and their faces towards the east, worshipping the sun toward
the east.' Ezek. viii. 16. But this as well as all other kinds of
idolatrous worship after their return from the captivity, was held
in abomination by the Jews ; though one should think, if they
had learned their religion from the Persian magi, they should ra-
ther have been confirmed in it. Add to this, that another thing
remarkable among the Persians was, that they sacrificed on hills
and high places in the open air, and had no temples,* whereas
the Jews were not allowed to offer sacrifices on high places, or
any where but at the temple at Jerusalem, and showed a remark-
able zeal for rebuilding that temple, after their return from the
captivity notwithstanding all the opposition they met with in that
undertaking.
There is no likelihood therefore, that the Jews should have
learned their religion from the Persian magi, to some of whose
main principles of religion they had the utmost aversion. Indeed
if the account Dr. Prideaux gives of Zoroaster, and the reform-
ation wrought by him in the religion of the Magians, may be de-
pended on, it seems evident that the very reverse of our author's
supposition is true ; and that instead of the Jews learning their
religion from the Persian magi, or Zoroaster, he derived from the
Jews the reformations or alterations he wrought in the ancient
religion of the Magians, see Prid. Connect, part i. book iv. And
if it be true that the ' Persian magi had received and taught the
doctrines of the unity of God, a resurrection from the dead, and a
future state of rewards and punishments, for many hundred years
before Zoroaster (whom our author supposes to have been contem-
porary with Esdras) who did not in these cases'pretend to introduce
any new religion, but to restore the true old Abrahamic religion,
which had been in some respects corrupted ;' all which he thinks
Dr. Hyde, in his book De Religione veterum Persaram, makes very
clear, see pp. 348, 349. If this be so, it may very justly be sup-
posed that this Abrahamic religion was much better preserved
amongst the Jews, the direct descendants from Abraham, whom
they looked upon as the great founder of their nation, and for
whose memory they always had the profoundest veneration.
This writer indeed takes upon him to affirm, that the Jews
were entire strangers to the doctrines of a resurrection, the immor-
tality of the soul, and a future j udgment, till after the time of Ezra ;
that the whole nation had been till then deistical materialists or
Sadducees ; and that the Sadducees in our Saviour's time were
not a modern sect, but the true remains of the ancient Jews, who
stuck to the principles of their great lawgiver Moses. Whereas
* I-know Dr. Prideaux, in his account of Zoroaster, supposes that he caused temples :
to be built, whereas the Persians had none before ; but in this be seems to be mistaken,
since there are express authorities to show, that long after the time of Zoroaster the
Persians were without temples, as' Mr. Moyle has I think clearly proved.
200 VINDICATION OF THE PROPHETS
the very contrary to this is true, that the Sadducees were a men
dern sect never known among the Jews, till long after the days
of Ezra, till then the immortality of the soul, the existence of
spirits, and a future state of retributions, were universally believed
in that nation. They were indeed little better than a sect of Jew-
ish Epicureans, and always few in number, and of ill reputation
with the body of that nation ; and therefore they were wont to
dissemble their principles, whenever they had a mind to make an
interest with the people.
I had already occasion to observe, that the immortality of the
soul and a future state was a doctrine not denied or controverted
when the law of Moses was given, which may be supposed to be
one reason why it is not there so expressly asserted. But it is all
along supposed and implied in that law. The noble account Mo-
ses gives of man's original .formation, that he was made in the
image of God himself, and after his likeness, which tends to give
us high notions of his original dignity ; his representing the body
of man as formed out of the dust of the ground, but giving a dif-
ferent account of the soul, whose noble vital active nature he sig-
nifies by calling it the breath of life, which he represents as im-
mediately inspired by God himself into the body duly organized :
the frequent mention he makes of the apparition of angels (which
is scarce reconcileable to the doctrine of the Sadducees, who did not
acknowledge either angels or spirits, Acts xxiii. 8), and of the in-
tercourse between men and the inhabitants of the heavenly world ;
his account of Enoch's having walked Jwith God, and that he was
not for God took him ; which must be understood of his taking
him to another state, as a reward of his distinguished piety; and
is by the apostle justly interpreted of God's translating him that
he should not see death, Heb. xi. 5. Another instance of which
there afterwards was in Elijah : his representing the most eminent
patriarchs and favourites of God, as confessing themselves to be
strangers and sojourners here on earth, and calling this their pre-
sent life the ' few and evil days of their pilgrimage ;' from whence
it is natural to infer that they did not expect their recompence here,
but ' looked for a better country, that is an heavenly :' the account
he gives of the covenant God made with Abraham, whereby he
engaged to be a God unto him, his shield, and his exceeding great
reward, which must have a farther view than this present state,
since Abraham, who for the most part lived a wandering unsettled
life as a sojourner in the land of Canaan, met with no reward here
that could justly answer the import of so glorious a covenant and
promise : his representing God as describing himself under the
character of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and thus
challenging a special relation to them as their God and portion,
some ages after those patriarchs were dead, which plainly shows
that they were not utterly lost and extinguished in the grave ;
since he is 'not the God of the dead but of the living;' from
whence our Saviour draws an argument against the Sadducees, to
prove the resurrection and a future state : the account Moses gives
BEFORE THE CAPTIVITY. 201
of the hopes and expectations of dying Jacob, when just before his
death, in the midst of his prophetical benedictions to his sons, he
breaks forth into that exclamation expressive of his hope and his
desire, ' I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord.' His representing
Balaam expressing his desire, that he might ' die the death of the
righteous, and that his last end might be like his :' all these are
plain intimations of the belief of a future state ; that Moses him-
self believed it, and that it was the faith of the ancient patriarchs.
The existence of good and evil spirits separate from man, is evi-
dently implied in several passages in the books of Moses ; and that
this was a notion that then obtained generally among the people,
may be concluded from the prohibitions there made not to consult
with those that had familiar spirits, or with necromancers, i.e.
those that pretended to consult the dead, and to raise their ghosts
to inquire by ; like the woman at Endor, of whom we have an ac-
count 1 Sam. xxviii. 3, 7. And by the way I would observe, that
when Saul so earnestly desired to have the soul of Samuel raised
that he might enquire of him, this plainly showed the persuasion
he had of the existence of the souls of men in a separate state after
death, and which was no doubt the common belief in that time.
The very notion which all along obtained among the Jews of pro-
phets and inspired persons, who had intercourse with God and
angels, and were enabled to foretel future events, plainly shows the
belief they had of an invisible world of spirits. Hence the Epicu-
reans, who denied the immortality of the soul and a future state,
laughed at all these things. And doth not this writer himself tell
us, that the common people among the Jews believed the prophets
'had an immediate and free conversation with God, angels, and
departed souls, from whom they were supposed to receive all their
superior knowledge and intelligence.' p. 284. And how this is
consistent with his asserting the whole nation to have been all this
time Deistical Materialists, or Sadducees, who believed there were
no angels or departed souls, is hard to conceive.
Not to insist on that noble passage in Job, where he speaks so
clearly of the resurrection of the body; for that it relates to
the resurrection of the body, and cannot without great con-
straint upon the words be applied to any thing else, might I
think be clearly shown ; and if Job, who was of the posterity of
Abraham, and lived in Arabia, had such notions of the resurrec-
tion and a future state, we may well suppose that the Israelites
were not strangers to it : I say not to insist upon this, there are
many passages in the Psalms and other prophetical writings, which
plainly show this. David, speaking of ungodly men, represents
them as the ' men of this world who have their portion in this life,'
in opposition to whom he declares his own hope that he should
' behold the face of God in righteousness,' which is the very
expression made use of in the New Testament, to signify the
spiritual happiness of the saints in a future state ; and that
when he should awake (which may be justly understood of
rising again from the dead, 'since death is so usually repre?
seated under the notion of a sleep) he should ' be satisfied with his
202 VINDICATION OF THE PROPHETS
likeness/ Psal. xvii. 14, 15. Those words of his, 'Thou wilt not
leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see
corruption/ show David's own belief of a resurrection and a future
state, though they ultimately relate to the Messiah, in whom alone
this was properly and literally accomplished. And when it is
added, that in God's ' presence is fulness of joy,' and at ' his
right hand there are pleasures for evermore,' Psal. xvi. 10, ll.
This is an excellent and comprehensive description of the happi-
ness reserved for good men in the heavenly state. And when the
Psalmist David represents God as having * established his throne
in the heavens,' and gives that noble account of the blessed an-
fels there, that ' they excel in strength, and do his commandments,
earkening to the voice of his word,' and in a divine rapture calls
upon them to ' bless the Lord,' Psal. ciii. 19 21. This shows the
notion good men then had. of those good and holy spirits, which
is absolutely inconsistent with their being Materialists or Saddu-
cees, and what they thought of the perfection of happiness and
purity in the heavenly world :' and is no obscure intimation that
they had the same hopes, for substance, of the heavenly Jerusa-
lem, and ' an innumerable company of angels there,' which the
saints express under the New Testament. See Heb. xii. 22. In
Psalm xlix. ver. 14, 15, it is plainly signified, that how rich or
prosperous soever the wicked might be here on earth, yet they
must be laid in the grave, and the upright should have dominion
over them ; but that God would redeem his faithful servants from
the power of the grave, and would receive them to himself. The
prophet Asaph when perplexed with the thoughts of the worldly
prosperity of the wicked, declared that he was satisfied by ' enter-
ing into the sanctuary of God,' and considering the destruction
that should come upon them : and for his own part he expresseth
his desire and hope in this excellent manner, ' Thou shalt guide
me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory. Whom
have I in. heaven but thee, and there is none upon earth that I de-
sire besides thee. My flesh and my heart faileth ; but God is the
strength of my heart and my portion for ever,' see Psalm Ixxiii.
When the prophet Habbakuk makes that noble declaration, 'Al-
though the fig-tree 'shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the
vine ; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield
no meat ; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall
be no herd in the stall ; yet will I rejoice in the Lord, I will joy
in the God of my salvation ;' as it shows with what truth this
writer aifirms, that ' none of the prophets ever understood or taught
a faith which can support men under adversity, and above the
world ; so it shows that they did not look upon the reward they
expected as consisting merely in temporal prosperity, or a worldly
affluence ; that their hopes were of a higher and nobler nature,
not merely confined within the narrow limits of this present life,
which could not possibly furnish such glorious conceptions, or lay
a foundation for such eminent acts of faith and spiritual joy, under
the greatest outward difficulties and distresses. .
It is expressly declared, that 'the wicked is driven .away in his
BEFOHE THE CAPTIVITY. 203
wickedness, but the righteous hath hope in his death,' Prov. xiv.
32. And that at death the dust, that is the body, 'shall return
to earth as it was, but the spirit shall return unto God that gave
it. 3 Eccles. xii. 7. Sinners are called upon to consider amidst
their vicious pleasures and excesses, that ' for all these things God
will bring them into judgment,' Eccles. xi. 9. And it is expressly
asserted, that ' God will bring every work into judgment, with
every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil,' Ec-
cles. xii. 14. And yet this writer hath the confidence to affirm,
that no Jewish writer, before the days of Ezra, ever mentioned a
word of a future judgment. The prophet Isaiah after having ob-
served, that 'the righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to
heart ; and merciful men are taken away, none considering that
the righteous is taken away from the evil to come,' immediately
adds, He, i. e. the righteous man, whom he supposes to have per-
ished or died, and to be taken away from this world, and the evil
of it, ' shall enter into peace.' Which can only be understood of a
state of rest and happiness, which is the usual meaning of the word
peace in the sacred writings. And he there describes that future
happiness in metaphorical expressions, by saying they,- i. e. the
righteous and merciful men, whom he represents as having sepa-
rated out of this life, { shall rest in their beds, each one walking in
his uprightness,' Isa. Ivii. 1, 2. Those words of the same prophet
are justly looked upon as containing at least a manifest allusion to
the resurrection of the dead ; ' Thy dead men shall live, together
with my dead body shall they arise : Awake and sing ye that dwell
in dust : for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall
cast out her dead,' Isa. xxvi. 19* To which may be added those
words of Hosea, ' I will ransom them from the power of the
grave : I will redeem them from death. O death, I will be thy
plagues ; O grave, I will be thy destruction/ Hos. xiii. 14. But
it is still more clearly expressed in the book of Daniel, ' Many
that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting
life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,' Dan. xii. 2.
When in stating the justice and equity of the divine proceedings,
in chap, xviii. of Ezekiel, God is represented as declaring with the
greatest solemnity, as a matter of immutable and eternal certainty,
concerning every man whatsoever that should persist in a course of
sin and disobedience, that he should surely die ; and concerning
every good and righteous man, that he shall surely live, he should
not die ; it is evident this cannot be understood merely of tempo-
ral life and death, or of worldly prosperity and adversity, since it is
undeniable that both these in many instances equally befall the
righteous and the wicked ; as the wise man observes, Eccles. ix.
1, 2, and must therefore be understood to extend to a state of
happiness or misery, after this life is at an end.
This may suffice to show the falsehood and injustice of that
charge which this writer brings against Moses and the prophets,
and the whole Jewish nation, till the days' of Ezra, that they
were Deistical Materialists or Sadducees. And now 1 have gone
204 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
through the several objections scattered in different parts of his
book against the Old Testament; and perhaps I shall be thought
to have examined them more particularly than they deserve. I now
proceed to what he offers with a view to destroy the authority of
the New Testament.
CHAPTER XII.
A transition to the Moral Philosopher's objections against the New Testament. Though
he pretends a very high respect for our blessed Saviour, yet he insinuates several
reflections upon his conduct and character. Those reflections shown to be ground-
less and unjust. Our Lord did not comply with the prejudices of the people in any
thing contrary to truth, or to the honour of God. He was far from assuming to be a
temporal prince, yet he all along claimed to be the Messiah promised and foretold
by the prophets. The author's pretence that he renounced that character at his
death, shown to be false. The Messiah spoken of by the prophets, was not merely
to be a national Deliverer of the Jews, nor were the benefits of his kingdom to he
confined to that nation only, but to be extended to the Gentiles. This shown from
the prophecies themselves. The attestation given to Christ's divine mission, by the
prophecies of the Old Testament, considered and vindicated.
IN many of the objections that have been hitherto considered,
we have had plain proofs of the malice and disingenuity of this
writer ; but in what remains with regard to the New Testament,
there is still greater reason to complain of his conduct. As to the
Old Testament, he acts the part of an open enemy, though an
enemy that hath little regard to any thing that can be called fair
or honourable, and who seems to govern himself by that maxim,
' Dolus an virtus quis in hoste requirat ?' But when he speaks of
the gospel revelation, he frequently puts on the appearance of a
friend. He affects to speak honourably of Jesus Christ, and of the
religion he taught. He expressly declares himself to be a ' Chris-
tian on the foot of the New Testament,' p. 359, and talks in pretty
strong terms of the signal advantages of the gospel revelation, and
seems to blame those that do not set a due value upon it. "In the
beginning of this book I have quoted a long and remarkable pas-
sage to this purpose to which I refer the reader ; and several
other passages might be produced that are no less strong and ex-
press. See particularly pp, 358, 359, 392, 394, 411. But all this
is only the better to carry on his design against Christianity, by
seeming to speak favourably of it whilst he really uses his utmost
efforts to subvert it. This will be evident to any one that con-
siders the bare reflections he insinuates upon our blessed Lord
himself: his more open attempts against the character of the
THE NEW TESTAMENT CONSIDERED. 205
apostles, and against the proofs they brought of their divine mis-
sion ; especially those taken from the extraordinary gift and powers
of the Holy Ghost in the apostolical age : the account he gives of
the false and absurd Jewish gospel, which he pretends they all
preached except the apostle Paul, and of the great differences
among' them about points of the highest consequence and import-
ance : the endeavours he uses to destroy the credit of the whole
canon of the New Testament, and to show that it is not to be de-
pended on for a right account either of doctrines or facts : besides
the pains he takes to misrepresent and expose some particular
doctrines of Christianity. I shall take some notice of what he
offers with regard to each of these. And shall begin with consid-
ering his insinuations against the character of our blessed Saviour
himself, notwithstanding he frequently affects to speak of him with
great seeming veneration.
He commends him, p. 168, among other things for this, that he
did not like other lawgivers in ' any instance give up the cause
of virtue and the common good of mankind, to comply with the
prevailing prejudices of the people.' And yet he would have us
believe, that in compliance with the prejudices of the people,* he
'justified the gospel scheme on the foot of Moses and the pro-
phets ;' that he not only asserted the authority of those writings,
though they only falsely pretended to divine inspiration, but im-
posed a sense upon them which he knew was not their sense, and
put that false sense upon the Jews for the real original intention of
the Holy Ghost, and particularly that he pretended to be the person
that had been foretold and spoken of by the prophets, under the
character of the Messiah ; whereas according to this writer he him-
self could not but be sensible that the prophets had never spoken
of him at all ; but of some temporal prince that should sometime
or other rise up in Judea, and deliver the Jews from their enemies.
But this is not all. He represents him as suffering himself to
be ' carried about for a twelvemonth together by the Jewish mob
all over the country, and to be declared their Messiah' (i. e. their
temporal prince in opposition to Caesar, which is the only sense he
puts upon that expression), and that they ' had led him in triumph
to Jerusalem, and proclaimed him king in this sense but three days
before he was apprehended, without his opposing it. That there-
fore the Jewish chief priests and rulers were under a necessity of
doing what they did, in order to save their countiy from ruin. That
* But certainly he that on all occasions declared with so noble a zeal and freedom
against the traditions of the elders, for which the Jews Lad the highest veneration, and
detected the hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees, whom the people admired and re-
verenced as holy persons, would have declared with equal zeal against the law of Moses
itself if he had looked upon it to be as this author represents it, ' a wretched scheme of
superstition, blindness, and slavery, contrary to all reason and common sense,' imposed
upon them ' under the specious pretence of a divine institution. And he would not have
deserved the name of a true reformer in religion, if he had not endeavoured to undeceive
the people, and to detect and expose so pernicious an imposture. And his not doing so,
hut all along representing that law as divine, and never once in the whole course of his
Ministry, dropping an insinuation to the contrary, is a manifest proof that he himself
looked upon it to be divine original and authority.
206 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
' though they could not prove that he had made any pretensions to
the crowii against Caesar, yet they presumed he must have given
the people some encouragement that way, or else so strong and
general an expectation could never have been raised and kept up.'
And our author himself observes, that 'had he renounced any such
pretensions sooner, as he did at last, the people would all have
forsook him, as they did as soon as they found he was not for
their turn, and that he had as they thought, betrayed them.' Thus
it is'evident, that he justifies our Lord's murderers, and represents
them as only having acted as became good patriots to prevent the
ruin of their nation :* and insinuates that he brought his own
death upon himself, by having encouraged the Jewish mob to take
him for their Messiah or temporal king, and to proclaim him to be
so but three days before : and that he never renounced these pre-
tensions till he was before the Roman governor. And if so, I
know not upon what foundation he there represents him as ' a
glorious martyr and confessor for the truth.' Thus his determined
malice against our blessed -Lord plainly discovers itself from under
the disguise he endeavours to throw over it. See p. 350 353.
But it may be easily proved that these insinuations are as false
as they are malicious. Nothing is more evident than that on the
one band our Lord all along disclaimed all pretences to the being
a temporal prince in opposition to Caesar; though this writer in-
sinuates, that he never renounced these pretensions till he came
upon his trial before Pilate : and that on the other hand, he all
along claimed to be the Messiah foretold and spoken of by the pro-
phets, though he affirms that he renounced that character upon his
trial, and 'died upon that renunciation.'
As to the first, not only did he withdraw when the populace
would have 'taken him by force to have made him a king,' John
vi. 5. but to avoid all appearance of setting up for a temporal sove-
reignty, when one desired him to speak to his brother to divide the
inheritance with him, he answered ' Man, who made me a judge or
a divider over you ? ' Luke xii. 14. There was nothing he more se-
verely rebuked among his disciples than ambitious contentions who
* Whatever glosses the chief priests, the scribes and Pharisees, might think proper
to put upon it in their council, and however they might colour over their design with a
pretence of zeal *br the public good, John xi. 17, 48, &c., jet it is evident from the
whole evangelic history, that the real motive was their malice and envy ; because with
an impartial zeal he had rebuked their crimes and vices, .and detected their hypocrisy,
and opposed their authority and traditions. Hence we read so often of their being filled
with rage against him, and taking counsel to slay him. Their malice was so apparent
that Pilate himself could not but observe it. If he had believed that Jesus had set
himself up for a prince of the Jews in opposition to Caesar, it concerned him more than
it did them to prevent it. But he knew that the ' chief priests had delivered him for
envv,' Mark xv. 10, and therefore endeavoured to get him freed from punishment.
And whereas this writer, to excuse the chief priests, &c., lays his death upon the mul-
titude, who he pretends were enraged at him for at last disclaiming his being their
Messiah ; on the contrary, it is evident, that it was the chief priests and elders that
moved and persuaded the people to do what they did, Matt, xxyii. 20 ; Mark xv-. 11.
And their honesty appears in this, that they accused him to Pilate as perverting the
nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cesar, Luke, xxiii, 2, though they knew that
accusation was false, and that when the question was proposed to him, he had required
them to 'render unto Caesar the things which are Ciesar's.'
THE NEW TESTAMENT CONSIDERED. 207
should be greatest ; and he declared, that he himself 'came not to
be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for
many. ' He declared both to his own disciples and to the multitude,
that if any man would come after him, that is, would be his disciple,
' he must deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow him.'
Instead of raising them to expectations of great worldly advantages,
as he expressly foretold his own sufferings and death, so he declared
that his disciples should be ' hated and persecuted of all men for
his name sake, ' and that ' in this world they should have tribu-
lation.' And the rewards he promised to those that should believe
and obey him, were not the riches and honours of this present world ,
but the spiritual and eternal rewards of a future state.
But though he so plainly disclaimed all pretensions to worldly
dominion and sovereignty here on earth, yet it is certain that he
claimed to be the Messiah that had been promised and foretold from
the beginning. From whence it is evident, that he did not look
upon the Messiah foretold by the prophets to be as our author re-
presents him, merely a temporal prince. John the Baptist, when
he was sent to, plainly and openly declared that he was not the
Messiah or the Christ. But did our Lord Jesus ever during the
whole course of his personal ministry, make such a declaration con-
cerning himself? far from it. Whenever any gave him the title of
the Christ, the Son of David, or any of the other peculiar characters
which were made use of to signify the Messiah, he never once re-
jected it, or rebuked those who thus addressed him : on the con-
trary, when Peter in the name of the disciples made that noble
confession, ' Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God ' ; Jesus
answered him, ' Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona : for flesh and blood
hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven, '
Matt. xvi. 17. So he approves Martha's illustrious confession, 'I
believe that thou art the Christ the Son of God which should come
into the world. ' John xi.. 27. And when the High-priest upon his
trial before the Jewish council adjured him by the living God, to
tell them, whether he was ' the Christ the Son of the Blessed ? ' he
answered directly 'I am.' And then adds, ' and ye shall see the Son
of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds
of heaven.' Where he evidently applies to himself what the pro-
phet Daniel saith of the Messiah under the character of the ' Son
of man, ' and which by this writer's .own acknowledgment all the
Jews, and Jewish Christians understood of the Messiah. See Mark
xiv. 61, 62. Dan. vii. 13, 14. And this was the pretended blas-
phemy for which they condemned him. And when he was before
Pilate, though he told him that his 'kingdom was not of this world,'
yet even then so cautious was he of saying any thing that should
look like a disclaiming the character of the Messiah, that when
Pilate asked him whether he was a king, he answered that he was;
that is, that he was the person that had been promised and foretold
y the prophets under that character. See John xviii. 37. Matt,
xxvii. 11. Luke xxiii, 3. Accordingly Pilate when he brought him
out to the Jews said, ' Behold your king. ' And this was the crime
208 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
of which the chief-priests, and by their instigation the multitude,
accused him to the governor, though our author pretends that the
reason of their rage against him, was his disclaiming before Pilate
that he was their king or Messiah. So far therefore is it from being
true, that our Saviour renounced his being the 'Messiah in the
prophetical sense, and died upon that renunciation,' as this writer
with an unparalleled confidence in falsehood over and over asserts ;
that the very contrary is true ; that he declared himself to be the
Messiah upon his trial, and died upon that declaration. His as-
serting it was the cause of his condemnation by the Jewish council,
and was the crime urged by them against him before Pilate. This
was in an especial manner the glorious truth for which he died a
martyr, and which he sealed with his blood. And after his resur-
rection he opened the understandings of his disciples that they
might know the scriptures, and explained to them the passages in
the prophetical writings relating to himself as the true Christ, that
had been there promised and foretold. And this the apostles, and
the apostle Paul as much as any of them, preached under the in-
fluence of his divine Spirit. Now what idea does this writer give us
of all this? That this pretended Messiahship of Jesus was all a
fiction. The prophets had never spoken of him at all, nor of any
Messiah, but a temporal prince and national deliverer of the Jews,
and of them only. And what is this but to declare, that our Lord
Jesus Christ was a deceiver, and that the whole Gospel is one grand
imposture, and the article so much insisted upon there, and which
our author makes to be the only proper article or doctrine of religion
peculiar to the Gospel dispensation, see p. 349, is an absolute false-
hood, and gross imposition.
I shall not enter upon a distinct consideration of the prophecies
relating to the Messiah, in order to show how amply .they are ful-
filled in our Lord Jesus Christ ; this would carry me too far, and is
a subject which hath often been largely and justly handled. I shall
only briefly observe, that whereas there are two things which this
writer represents as necessarily entering into the character of the
Messiah, as foretold by the prophets : the one is, that he was to be
no more than a temporal prince, and his kingdom and dominion
was to be of a worldly nature : the other is, that he was only to be
a king of the Jews, and to be a national deliverer or saviour of them
only, and not of the Gentiles : the contrary to both these may be
manifestly proved from the prophecies themselves that relate to this
matter. It will be easily granted that the kingdom of the Messiah,
and the advantages and blessings of it are sometimes represented
by figures and emblems drawn from the glory and magnificence of
earthly kingdoms. Nor is this to be wondered at by any one that
considers the nature of the prophetical style, which delighted in
bold and pompous figures and allusions, and often represented
things of a spiritual nature under images drawn from the things of
this world ; but at the ^ame time there are many things said by
them which plainly show that the kingdom. ascribed to him, is not
like the kingdoms of this world in its nature and design, but erected
THE NEW TESTAMENT CONSIDERED. 209
for far nobler purposes. That the great and principal design of it
was to establish truth and righteousness, and spread the knowledge
of God and religion, and mutual benevolence and charity amongst
mankind. This is the manifest import of those remarkable pro-
phecies concerning the Messiah and his kingdom which we have,
Isa. xi. 1 10 and Isa. xlii. 1 7. That this is the name whereby
he should be called ' the Lord our righteousness, ' Jer. xxiii. 5, 6.
And in the ninth chapter of Daniel, where Messiah the prince is so
expressly promised, the end of his coming is signified to be to ' finish
the transgressions, to make an end of sin, to make reconciliation
for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,' Dan. ix. 24,
25, &c, The same person that is sometimes represented as a glo-
rious king, is also represented as * a priest for ever, ' not after the
order of Aaron, as it must have been if the law of Moses had con-
tinued in force under his reign, but ' after the order of Melchisedec,'
Ps. ex. 4. He is also described as a great prophet, to whom the
people were commanded to hearken, Deut. xviii. 15 18. And
this character of the Messiah was so well known, that even the Sa-
maritan woman could say, ' I know that Messiah cometh, which is
called Christ : when he is come he will tell us all things,' John iv. 25i
In that remarkable prophecy relating to the Messiah, and which
.was understood of him by the ancient Jews, from Isa. lii. 13, to the
end of the fifty-third chapter, as it is foretold concerning him, that
he should be 'exalted and be very high,' so his deep humiliation
and most grievous sufferings are strongly described in a variety of
emphatical expressions, and the reasons and ends of those sufferings
are plainly signified ; that it was ' for our transgressions ' that he
was to suffer ; that he was to ' make his soul an offering for sin, '
and to ' bear the sins of many ; ' that by his ' stripes we might be
healed ; ' and that by ' his knowledge he should justify many, ' and
should ' make intercession for the transgressors.' In the illustrious
prophecy concerning the Messiah, Mai. iii. 1, he is described under
the character of the ' messenger of the covenant, ' and what kind of
covenant that was, we are informed, Jer. xxxi. 31 35, from which
it appears that it was to be a new covenant, distinct from that made^
with the Israelites when they were brought out of Egypt, and that
the promised blessings of it were to be of a spiritual nature ; such
as that God would write bis law in their heart, and teach them to
know him, and forgive their iniquity.
And as these things plainly show that the kingdom of the Messiah
spoken of by the prophets was not merely of a secular nature, like the
kingdoms of this world, and that the princi pal benefits of it, and in which
the glory of it is described as principally consisting, are spiritual and
divine; so it is also evident, that these benefits and this salvation are
represented there as not confined to the Jews only, but extending to all
mankind. Thus in the promise made to Abraham,and which is so often
referred to in the New Testament, it is said, that ' in his seed should
all the families of the earth be blessed. ' When Jacob prophesies
of the Messiah under the name of Shiloh, it is declared that unto
him should * the gathering of the people he, ' Gen. xlix. 10. It is
210 OBJECTIONS AGAIKST
foretold that in the lime of that 'Branch that should grow out of
the root of Jesse, the 'earth should be full of the knowledge of the
Lord, as the waters cover the sea ; and that to him should the
Gentiles seek, ' or as the Seventy render it, ' in him shall the Gen-
tiles trust,' Isa. xi. 1, 9, 10. That God would 'put his Spirit upon
him, and he should bring forth j udgment unto the Gentiles, and the
Isles should "wait for his law ; ' and that God would 'give him for a
covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles, ' Isa, xlii. 1, 4, 6.
And again, that God ' would give him for a light to the Gentiles,
that he might be the salvation of God unto the ends of the earth,'
Isa. xlix. 6. He is described under the character of the 'desire of
all nations,' Hag. ii. 6 9, to show that he was promised and de-
signed to be a blessing to all nations. The general conversion of
the Gentiles to the knowledge of God and true religion is frequently
signified by the prophets in strong and noble, though figurative ex-
pressions, see Mai. i. II. Isa. ii. 2, 3. Some of those expressions
do-indeed carry a manifest allusion to the manner of worship that
was in use undeV the legal dispensation, see Isa. Ixvi. 23. Zech. xiv.
16, 17, 18 ; but the general design of those expressions is no more
than to signify that the Gentiles should be brought into the true
church of God, and should become his people, and worship him in
a pure and acceptable manner, according to his appointment ; but
not that the Mosaic law and the rites there prescribed should be
observed by the Gentiles : the contrary to which plainly appears
from some of those passages. Thus Mai. i. 11, the conversion of
the Gentiles is represented by their ' offering incense unto the Lord,
and a pure offering in every place : ' but that this cannot be tinder-
stood literally of their offering incense and oblations according to
the law is evident, because that law did not allow incense to be of-
fered in any 'place : but at the temple or taber : aac?e. So it is fore-
told, Isa. xix. 9 21, that the ' Egyptians should know the Lord;'
and that they should offer ' sacrifice and oblation ; ' and that an
' altar 'should be erected unto the Lord, in the midst of the land of
Egypt, and a pillar : at the border thereof unto the Lord. ' Where
it is manifest these -expressions are not to be taken literally as sig-
nifying the manner in which they should worship God ; for botli
these, the erecting pillars to God any whereat all, and the erecting
altars in any place but in ; the land of Canaan, at the place which
the Lord should choose there, are forbidden in that law. In that
prophecy it is also farther declared, that Egypt and Assyria, by
which are Signified the chief of the heathen nations, should as well
as Israel 'be God's people and inheritance. Whereby it is plainly
signified ; that the distinction of nations should then be taken away;
there -should be ho difference between Jews and Gentiles; and the
peculiar ! rites of : the Mosaic constitution should be abolished, see
'Isa. xix. 24, -25. With a -view to this state of things, all nations
are often called upon to praise the Lord for his mercy and truth,
and to 'serve him with gladness ; it is signified that there was a
time coming when his way 'should -be known upon fearth, and ; his
saving health unto all nations ; when all the earth should worship
THE NEW TESTAMENT CONSIDERED. 211
him? and should sing unto his name, ' and a glorious reign of God is
spoken of that should be the just cause of universal joy and rejoicing
to all people. ' *'
In a word, nothing can be more evident than it is from the pro-
phecies that the kingdom of the Messiah is represented as an uni-
versal benefit, the happy effects of which were not to be confined to
the Jews, but were to extend unto all nations. And though many
of the Jews through their selfishness and narrow prejudices would
fain have appropriated the benefits of the Messiah to their own na-
' tion; yet there were some among them that still preserved juster
notions of things in conformity to the plain declarations .of the
ancient prophecies concerning him. Thus aged Simeon, who was
one of those that ' expected the consolation of Israel, ' that is, waited
for the coming of the Messiah, when he took Jesus into his arms,
and blessed God for having caused him to live and see the promised
Messiah, calls him ' the salvation of God which he had prepared
before, the face of all people ; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and
the glory of his people Israel,' Luke ii. 30, 31, 32. And even the
Samaritans, who had the same hopes and expectations of the Mes-
siah with the Jews, looked for him under the notion of the Saviour
of the world : ' We know ' say they, ' that this is indeed the Christ
the Saviour of the world.' John iv. 42.
From the several passages that have been referred to, and others
that might be mentioned, it appears that the kingdom of the Mes-
siah, and that glorious state of things so much spoken of in the
prophets, is not to be understood merely of a worldly dominion or
empire, under the government of a mere temporal prince, that was
to be a proper king of the Jews, and of them only, but of a kingdom
of righteousness and peace, of truth and holiness; the proper de-
sign of which was to spread the knowledge and practice of true re-
ligion among men : that this Messiah to whom this kingdom be-
longed was to be the great prophet and teacher of his church, the
great high priest but not after the order of Aaron, the messenger of
a new and most gracious covenant, different from that which God
made with the Israelites when he brought them out of Egypt : that
he was to appear in a mean and humble form, and to endure the
greatest sufferings, and by those sufferings to make reconciliation
for iniquity : that he was to be cut off out of the land of the living,
and in consequence of this was to be highly exalted; that his do-
minion was to be extensive aver all nations, and to continue to the
end .of the world : that the blessings of his reign were not to be
.confined to the Jews only, but were ,to extend unto all nations ; he
was to be a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the salvation of God
unto, the ends of the earth; so that the whole world should have
reason to rejoice in his coming, and in the dispensation he intro-
duced, as an universal blessing.
When therefore the King or Messiah, of whom such glorious
things are spoken, is represented as '.sitting on the throne of David
*-See Psal. Ixvi. 1 "4. Ixvii. 1 4. xevii. xcviii. c. cxvii.
p 2
212 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
his father ;' it is evident this cannot be understood in the sense this
author puts upon that phrase, as if he were to be only a temporal
prince, and a national Deliverer and Saviour of the Jews only;
which by no means answers the idea the prophets gave us of the
Messiah. All that is intended in these expressions is, that as he
was to proceed out of the family and' race of David, so he was to
be king as David was, but in a far more sublime and glorious
sense. David's being chosen and set apart by God's own special
designation and appointment to be king over Israel, who were then
God's peculiar people and inheritance, whom he 'fed according to
the integrity of his heart, and guided by the skilfulness of his
hands,' Ps. Ixxviii. 70, 71, 72, was a type of that more glorious
kingdom and sovereignty, which the Messiah was to exercise over
the universal church. In that remarkable prophecy relating to the
Messiah, Isa. ix. 6, 7, after it is said, 'Unto us a child is born, unto
us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called Wonderful> Counsellor, The mighty
God, The everlasting Father,' or as the Seventy render it, the
'Father of the world to come,' or the 'future age,' 'The Prince of
Peace :' it is added, 'of the increase of his government and peace
there shall be no end ; upon the throne of David, and upon his
kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with
justice, from henceforth even for ever: the zeal of the Lord of
hosts will perform this.' From which passage it is evident, that
as the person there spoken of, is represented by characters that show
him to be vastly superior to David, so the kingdom ascribed to him,
though figuratively signified by the expressions of his sitting upon
David's throne, and upon his kingdom, must needs be understood
to be of a far higher and nobler nature ; even that kingdom so often
represented by the prophets as a kingdom of righteousness and
truth, charity and benevolence. That kingdom of the Son of Man
spoken of by Daniel, which is represented as of a different kind
from all former dominions and empires ; which are described under
the emblem of furious wild beasts, destructive powers ; whereas this
: is represented as an universal blessing to mankind.
If it be said, that granting-all this to be true, yet still these pro-
phecies cannot be applied to our Lord Jesus Christ, since the event
hath not answered these glorious predictions of universal peace,
righteousness, &c., that are represented as attending the Messiah's
kingdom ; I answer, that if it be considered that our Lord Jesus
Christ hath broughtdn a new and most perfect dispensation, the
manifest tendency of which is to establish righteousness, truth,
peace, and universal charity and good-will amongst mankind, with-
out distinction between Jews arid Gentiles : that in consequence of
his grievous sufferings, which were expressly foretold God hath
'highly exalted him,' and he was declared to be the 'Son of God
with power :' that notwithstanding all the opposition it met with,
the gospel of his kingdom attended with the Holy Ghost, sent
down from heaven, and with the most glorious manifestations of a
divine power, made a surprising progress, and in a few years was pub-
THE NEW TESTAMENT CONSIDERED. 213
lished throughout the vast Roman empire ; the kingdom of Satan and
pagan idolatry fell down before it; and vast numbers were every where
turned from darkness to light, from worshipping idols to serve the
living and true God, and from vice and wickedness, and the most
immoral conduct, to a life of holiness, purity and virtue. Any one
that considers this, and at the same time considers the pompous
figures of the prophetic style, will not be surprised that such a
glorious person, and such a dispensation and state of things should
be foretold and set forth by lofty figures, and in the most stroi-g
and elevated expressions. And if Christians afterwards fell off from
the purity and glory of the gospel into a great and general apostacy ;
though still in times of the greatest degeneracy there were many thou-
sands among them that faithfully adhered to the true worship, love,
and obedience of the only true God through Jesus Christ, and to the
practice of real piety and righteousness ; and if there has risen up an
exorbitant anti-christian power and spiritual tyranny, which hath
been of long continuance ; this also hath been plainly foretold, and
that a very glorious state of things shall follow, and shall continue
for a long time. And under that glorious state of the church, the
prophetical predictions relating to the Messiah's kingdom, its uni-
versal extent, peace, purity, happiness, shall receive their fullest ac-
complishment. And the remarkable completion of the other parts
of the prophecies leave us no reasonable room to doubt that what-
ever remains to be fulfilled, shall in the due season be accom-
plished also.
And whereas the Messiah's kingdom seems sometimes to be de-
scribed with a particular regard to the Jews : and it is foretold that
he should reign over them as their Prince and Shepherd, and that
in his days 'Israel and Judah should dwell safely,' and in a happy
state : there are two things that will entirely take off the advantage
our author pretends to take from these expressions. The one is,
that the terms Israel and Judah and the 'house of Jacob,' are not
always to be understood in the prophets precisely of the seed of
Jacob, literally so called, or of the Jewish people and nation ; but
are sometimes designed to signify the church in general, as it should
be vastly enlarged under the gospel dispensation, when Jew and
Gentile should be all one in Christ Jesus. It might be easily
shown that there is nothing in this but what is perfectly agreeable
to the prophetical style and manner of expression. And in con-
formity to this way of speaking, the church under the New Testa-
ment is described under the character of the 'Jerusalem which is
above,' Gal. iv. 26. Heb. xii. 23. True Christians are called Jews,
Rev. Hi. 9. 'the Israel of God,' Gal. vi. 6. The 'true circumcision,'
Phil. iii. 3. And all sincere believers are called 'Abraham's seed,'
and 'the children of Abraham.' The other thing to be observed is,
that if some of those prophecies that speak of the advantages Israel
and Judah were to enjoy under the Messiah, be understood literally
of the people of the Jews, they relate to a future restoration of the
Jews that is yet to be accomplished. As the present wonderful dis-
persion of the Jews, their being scattered through all nations of the
214 OBJECTIONS AGAINST .
earth, and their finding no rest among them, but being every where
hated and despised/ scorned and reproached ; and their still con-
tinuing in this their unexampled dispersion to be a distinct people,
is foretold and described by many remarkable characters, and which
could never be applied to any other nation,* so their recovery and
return is also foretold. And this their deliverance is sometimes ex-
pressly applied to the latter days, and is connected with the times of
the Messiah. Not as if it were to happen immediately upon the
Messiah's coming : on the contrary it is plainly signified, that the
Jews would despise and reject him when he came, Isa. liii. 1, 2, 3.
that he would be a 'stone of stumbling and a rock of offence' to
them, at which many 'should fall and be broken,' Isa. viii. 14, 15.
It is intimated that Israel should not be gathered at his coming, and
yet he should be glorified, Isa. xlix. 5. that the day of his coming
would be great and terrible to many among them, Mai. iii. 1, 2. iv.
1. 5. And most plainly and expressly it is foretold by Daniel, tbat the
coming of the Messiah would be attended with the destruetion_of their
city and sanctuary, and the subversion of their whole constitution, Dan.
ix. 26, 27. And finally, that after they had continued many days, or
for a long time, 'without a king, and without a prince, and without a
sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and with-
out Teraphim :' a most exact description of their present state, when
they are without any form of government, without the exercise of
the legal priesthood or oblations, and at the same time free from
that idolatry to which they were anciently so prone ; they should
'afterward return and seek the Lord their Gody and David their
king,' that is, the true Messiah, who is sometimes represented under
that character, arid should 'fear the Lord and his goodness in the
latter days,' Hos. iii. 4, 5. And that God would 'pour forth upon
them a spirit of grace and supplication,' and that they should
'look upon him whom they had pierced and mourn/ Zech. xii.
10 14. xiiL 1. And their state under the Messiah is described in
figurative expressions, as a state of peace and holiness, Ezek. xxxiv.
23 31, xxxvi. 21- 28. This return and conversion of the Jews>
and the happy effects of it, St. Paul clearly speaks of in the eleventh
chapter of the epistle to the Romans. And since the former part
of the prophecies relating to the Jews is so remarkably accomplished,
we may regard it as a pledge and assurance, that the other part of
the prophecies, relating to their future conversion and return, shall
also receive its proper completion. And indeed their being still pre-
served a distinct people, in such remarkable'Circumstances, seems
to show that they are reserved for some signal purposes of divine
providence.
And now, upon this brief view of the prophecies relating to the
Messiah, which were delivered not all at once, but by different per-
sons, and in diverse manners, at a vast distance of time from one
another, and which are remarkably accomplished in our Lord Jesus
See Deut-xxvJii. 63, 64. Amos ix. 8, 9, 11. Deut. xxx. 14. Jer. xxx. 11-
xxiii. 3. Isa. xi. U 16.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CONSIDEBED.
Christ, in whom the several characters given of the Messiah, though
some of them at first view seemed not very consistent with others,
do wonderfully concur ; I think it must be acknowledged that such
a series of prophecy carried on for a long succession of ages, yet all
conspiring with an admirable harmony, the like of which cannot be.
produced in any other case, yields a glorious and peculiar kind of
attestation to our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the dispensation he
hath introduced. And when joined with his wonderful miracles,
and the extraordinary effusion of the Holy Ghost, and the excellent;
tendency of that doctrine and religion which he taught and pub-
lished to the world, lays a solid foundation for our faith in him, a.nd
obedience to thedoctrines and laws which he hath given us. Our
author indeed will not allow that the prophecies furnish any proof at
all. He argues, that if the ' life or religion of the pope or Mahomet
had been prophesied of and foretold, as some think they were/ this
would have 'been no proof of the truth of doctrines, or righteous-
ness of persons, and therefore could have been no rational foundation
for true religion.' p. 332, 333. And it will be easily owned, that if
our Lord Jesus Christ had been prophesied of no otherwise than as
a tyrannous, wicked power, no man in his senses would have pro-
duced this as a proof that his mission was divine ; when it would
rather have proved, that this was that very wicked, oppressive
power that had been foretold and described, in order to warn people
against it, and to keep them from being too much discouraged on
the account of it, as well as to strengthen their hope that it should
be at length destroyed. But when there had been a person fore-
told from the beginning of the world as a blessing to mankind, and
the sending of whom is represented as the most extraordinary effect
of divine love ; when he had been described by the most glorious di-
vine characters, and many particular circumstances relating to his pej>
son, actions, offices, and the precise time of his coming plainly
pointed out ; this being the case, when he actually canje in whom
all these characters met, and to whom all these predictions pointed,
and in whom alone they received their accomplishment, this cer-
tainly tended highly to recommend him to the esteem of mankind,
and to prepare and engage them to receive that dispensation of
righteousness, truth, and charity, which he came to introduce and
establish. It tended to remove the prej udices arising from the mean-r
ness of his outward appearance, from his sufferings, &c.> since it was
manifest from the prophecies, that even these things were expressly
foretold concerning him, and made a part of the divine scheme. And
it showed the great guilt of rejecting him, and thereby counteracting
the great and noble .design and scheme of divine providence, which
had been carried on from the beginning.
I add that these prophecies, and their accomplishments, besides
that they exhibit an illustrious proof of a most wise presiding" provi-
dence that governs the whole series of events, and show the extent
of the divine knowledge, and thus are very serviceable even to
natural religion, do also show the wonderful harmony between
the Old Testament and the New ; that there is one and the same
216 OBJECTIONS &C.
spirit in both ; the same uniform design and scheme still carrying
on j and that 'prophecy came not in old time by the will of manj
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.'
2 Pet. i. 21. Our author indeed makes little of all this. If the
reader will take his word for it, these things are 'minute-
nesses, and even minutiae minutiarum,' as he expresses it. He puts
the case that the prophets 'had foretold the birth, life, miracles,
crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ, particularly and minutely,
in all the circumstances of time, place, persons/&c., and then he asks,
'what could this have proved, but only that these men had the cer-
tain knowledge of futurity in those matters ? And consequently,
that these events were necessary, as depending upon necessary
causes, which might be certainly foreknown and predicted T p. 332.
I shall not stay to expose the absurdity of this passage, which
plainly implies a denial of God's prescience of future contingencies,
and seems to suppose a fatal necessity in human actions^ and events.
For if the actions here referred to, and all the several events fore-
told by the prophets, ' were necessary, and depending on necessary
causes,' we may equally suppose that all other events, and the ac-
tions of all men, at all times, are necessary, and owing to necessary
causes, since they have not greater marks of freedom than these
had ; which would be an odd supposition in one that on all occa-
sions discovers such a mighty zeal against fatalism, and sets up as
a warm advocate for man's free-agency. But not to insist upon
this, I shall only observe that if the prophets' foretelling these
things doth prove, as the author owns, that they 'had the certain
knowledge of futurity in these matters,' it proves they foresaw
things which it was impossible for any human sagacity to foresee,
and which could only be known to him whose providence presides
over all events, and whose views extend throughout all ages. And
consequently, it proves, that those prophets were extraordinarily
inspired with the knowledge of those things by God himself; and
we may be sure, that he would not have thus inspired them but for
some valuable end. And in the present case, their being inspired
to foretel the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, was with a view to
keep up the expectation of this glorious Redeemer that was to
come, and the better to prepare the world for receiving him when he
actually came; and that by considering the predictions that went
before, concerning him, it might appear that he was the extraordi-
nary person, the sending of whom was the thing which the divine
providence had all along in view. This gives a great solemnity to
his divine mission, and is of signal use, in conjunction with the
other illustrious attestations given from heaven. And there having
been such a succession of prophets raised up among the Jews, who
showed by their wonderful prediction, that they had extraordinary
communications from God, and who all harmoniously concurred,
both in confirming the Law of Moses that had been already given,
and carrying the views of the people to another and more glorious d is-
pensation that was to succeed it, connected the Old Testament and
the New, and confirmed the divine original of both.
A VINDICATION OF THE APOSTLES. 217
CHAPTER XIII.
The author's charge against the apostles, examined. His pretence that they themselves,
were far from claiming infallibility, considered. It is shown that they did profess to
be under the unerring guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in publishing the
gospel of Jesus ; and that they gave sufficient proofs to convince the world of their
divine mission. The attestations given to Christianity, and to the doctrines taught
by the apostles, by the extraordinary gifts and powers of the Holy Ghost, considered
and vindicsted, against our author's exceptions. His pretence that those gifts of the
Holy Ghost might be used like natural faculties and talents, according to the plea-
sure of the persons who were endowed with them, either for the promoting truth or
error; and that the fulse teachers, as well as the tine, had these extraordinary gifts
and powers, and made use of them in confirmation of their false doctrines, examined
at large.
HAVING examined our author's insinuations against the Lord
Jesus Christ, let us now proceed to consider what he offers with a
view to subvert the authority of the apostles, and to show that they
are not at all to be depended on, in the account they give of the
religion of Jesus, of which they were the first authorised teachers
and publishers to the world. He affirms that they themselves
never so much as pretended to the infallible guidance of the Holy
Spirit; or if they had pretended to it, their great differences
among themselves about the most concerning points of revelation
would have been an evident demonstration to the contrary : that
they preached quite different and even contrary gospels : they re-
ported the doctrine of Christ according to their own Jewish preju-r
dices, and made a wrong representation of several facts, ascribing
to him things which he never did, and prophecies which he never
uttered, and doctrines which he never taught ; that besides this,
the New Testament was farther corrupted and interpolated after-
wards by the Christian Jews, so that, as it now stands, it is a
strange mixture of religions, of Christianity and Judaism, though
they are the most opposite things in the world.
1 shall first begin with the attempt he makes against the infal-
libility and divine inspiration of the apostles. He alleges that
' There was no pretence in those apostolical times to any Spirit
or Holy Ghost, that made men either infallible or impeccable ;
that set men above the possibility of erring or being deceived
themselves. as to the inward judgment, or of deceiving others in
the outward sentence and declaration of that judgment. This was
the wild and impudent claim of the church of Rome in after ages,
which the apostles themselves, who really had the Holy Ghost,
and the power of working miracles, never pretended to. And
though this has been liberally granted them, and supposed of them
218 A VINDICATION
by our Christian zealots and system-mongers, yet it is what they
never claimed/ pp. 80, 81.
As to what he calls their being impeccable ; an absolute impos-
sibility of ever sinning at all, or doing a wrong thing in a single
instance, in the whole course of their lives, neither the apostles
themselves, nor any for them, ever did pretend to this. Nor is it
at all necessary to suppose such an impeccability as this in order
to their being depended upon. It is sufficient if they were persons
of such honesty and integrity as to be ihcapable of contriving and
carrying on a deliberate solemn imposture in the name of God,
and of putting known falsehoods upon the world under the pre-
tence of a divine revelation. This is all the impeccability, if the
author is resolved to use this word, that we are concerned to stand
up for with regard to the apostles, and surely this is no more than
may well be supposed concerning many persons that are not abso-
lutely raised above all the passions and frailties of human nature,
in its present imperfect state. And this the apostles certainly
claimed. They affirmed that they did ' not follow cunningly de-
vised fables ; that what they heard and saw, and what their hands
had handled of the word of life, that they declared.' That they
knew that their record was true, and called God to witness to it.
They declared with a noble confidence, arising from an inward con-
sciousness of their own integrity, that their ' rejoicing was this,
the testimony of their conscience, that in simplicity and godly
sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom but by the grace of God, they had
their conversation in the world.' That they ' did not corrupt the
word of God, nor handle it deceitfully, or walk in craftiness, but
had renounced the hidden things of dishonesty ; and as of sin-
cerity, as of God, and in the sight of God spoke they in Christ.'
And could appeal to those that beheld their conversation, and 'to
God also, how holily and unblameably they behaved themselves.'
And this author himself seems to grant, that it is ' probable that
men so qualified and acting, as the apostles are supposed to have
done, could have no design to deceive us.' p. 93.
As to infallibility, it is true that in the sense in which this au-
thor seems to understand it, as signifying that absolute infallibility
which he tells us is the sole prerogative of God himself, or of an omni-
scient being, see p. 9, and p. 83, viz. an utter impossibility of ever err-
ing, or being mistaken at any time, or in any thing whatsoever, it is
certain the apostles never pretended to it : for they never pretended to
be gods, or to be omniscient. Nor have any of those whom this
writer contemptuously calls system-mongers ever ascribed it to
them. But if by infallibility is meant no more than their being
under an unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, so as to be kept
from error or mistake in teaching and delivering the doctrines and
laws of Christ, it is certain they did pretend to this. They declared
that Christ had expressly promised his Spirit to ' teach them all
things concerning him, and to bring all things to their remem-
brance whatsoever he had said unto them.' John xiv. 26. And had
assured them that when 'the Spirit of truth came, whom he would
OF THE APOSTLES. 219
send unto them from the Father, he would guide them into all
truth. For he should receive of his, and show it unto them,' John
xvi. 12, 13, 14. It is evident therefore that if this promise of our
Saviour was accomplished, and it is certain that they themselves
believed and professed that this promise was fulfilled to them, they
were guided by the Spirit of truth in the whole of the gospel doc-
trine ; and accordingly they claimed a regard to the word they
preached, ' as the word of God and not of men,' and urged the
disciples to' be mindful of the commandments of them" the apostles
of our Lord and Saviour,' 2 Pet. iii. 2 ; 1 Thess. ii. 13. The
apostle Paul, who was not one of those that attended Christ during
the course of his personal ministry, but was afterwards taken into
the number of the apostles, by the immediate call of Christ himself,
doth also in the strongest manner lay claim to this divine guidance
and inspiration. He usually begins his epistles with declaring that
he was an apostle of Jesus Christ, in order to challenge a regard
to the instructions he gave and the doctrines he taught. He affirms,
that the things which he preached unto others ' God had revealed
unto him by his Spirit, that Spirit which searcheth all things, vea
the deep things of God,' 1 Cor. ii. 4, 6, 10, 12, that he had" or
knew the mind of Christ, ver. 16, that the things which he writ
' were the commandments of the Lord,' 1 Cor. xiv. 37. He talks
of ' Christ's speaking in him/ 2 Cor. xiii. 3. He could not more
strongly assert his own divine inspiration, and the certainty and
divine authority of the doctrines he had preached, than by declar-
ing, ' though an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel
than that which he had preached, let him be accursed,' Gal. i. 8,
9. And again, ver. 11, 12, 'I certify you, brethren, that the
gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither
received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation
of Jesus Christ.' And he plainly supposes and asserts the divine
inspiration of the other apostles too, and their entire harmony in
the doctrines they preached in the name of Christ, when he repre-
sents Christians as ' built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone,' Eph.
ii. 20. And declares that the mystery of God was ' revealed unto
his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.' Eph. iii. 5.
It is plain then that the apostles did profess to be infallibly
guided by the Holy Spirit in the doctrines they taught, and the
laws they delivered in the name of Christ. If it be asked, which
this writer seems to say is the proper question in this case, whether
they were not mistaken themselves, or what proof they gave to the
contrary ? see pp. 93, 94 ; I answer : that they were not mistaken
m imagining themselves inspired by the Holy Ghost is manifest
from the extraordinary gifts and powers of the Holy Ghost con-
terred upon them, and discovering themselves by the most won-
derful effects ; whereby it plainly appeared, that the promise Christ
had made to them of sending his Spirit to guide them into all
truth, and to ' endue them with power from on high,' that they
might be his witnesses ' unto the uttermost part of the earth,'
220 A VINDICATION
Acts i/8, was fully accomplished. The evident design of all these
wonderful gifts and powers, which showed they were under an ex-
traordinary influence, and had an extraordinary assistance, and of
all the miracles they wrought, was to confirm the word they
preached, and to engage mankind to receive what they taught as
the authorized ministers and witnesses of Jesus Christ, commis-
sioned and sent by him to teach all nations in his name, and for
that purpose furnished with those extraordinary gifts and powers,
both to enable and qualify them for the right discharge of their
work, and to be the proofs and credentials of their mission. Ac-
cordingly the apostles all along appealed to these extraordinary
gifts and miraculous powers, as the great confirming evidence of
the divine authority of the doctrines they taught, and the laws
they delivered in the name of Christ. This is what the apostle
Peter insisted upon in his first discourse to the Jews on the day of
Pentecost, Acts ii. 32, 33, 36. And what he and the other apostles
appealed to before the Jewish council, Acts v. 32. The apostle
Paul often refers to those extraordinary gifts and miraculous
powers of the Holy Ghost, as a glorious confirmation of the gospel
which he preached.* His preaching and that of the other apostles
was not ' with enticing words of man's wisdom :' the demonstration
they gave of what they delivered was the ' demonstration of the
Spirit and of power :' a demonstration of a peculiar kind, but
strong and powerful and convincing, 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5. They ' preached
the gospel with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven,' 1 Pet.
i. 12. ' God bearing them witness with signs and wonders, and
divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost according to his will,'
Heb. ii. 2, 3, 4.
But though such a mighty stress is laid upon this in the New
Testament, as the great confirming evidence of the Christian reli-
gion, this writer would have it all pass for nothing. It yields no
more evidence to it, than if there had been no such extraordinary
powers given at all. This is very strange. Let us consider the
reasons he gives for it. It is because ' the extraordinary powers
and gifts in the apostolic age were never confined or annexed to
any moral character, but the false prophets and teachers had them
as well as the true ; and because those extraordinary gifts and
powers, did not make men either infallible or impeccable, as they
did not destroy natural liberty or free agency, but they who were
endued with them might make either a good or bad use of them,
as much as of any natural faculties or talents.' See Pref. p. 9.
And again he observes, that they who in apostolical times had
those extraordinary gifts and powers, were left at liberty to exer-
cise them upon the common principles of reason and human pru-
dence. And from hence we find that some made a right use of
them for edification ; and others employed them only to serve the
purposes of emulation and strife, which introduced great confu-
sions and disorders among them. And this is an evident proof
* Rom! i. 11 ; xv. 18, 19 ; 1 Cor. i. 6, 7 ; 1 Thess. i. 5 ; Gal. iii. 2, 5.
OF THE APOSTLES. 221
that the persons, vested with such extraordinary gifts and powers
were neither infallible nor impeccable, that is, they were not hereby
made incapable either of deceiving others, or of being deceived
themselves. And then he repeats what he had observed before,
that false prophets, and the most wicked seducers might and did
work miracles, which they could not have done, had miracles been
any evidence or proof of truth and sound doctrine,' pp. 80, 81.
As the main foundation of all he here offers lies in supposing it
as a thing not to be contested, that all those extraordinary gifts
or powers, when once given, were as much in men's own power
as any of their natural faculties or talents, and might be equally
made use of to promote and propagate truth and falsehood, I shall
distinctly examine this supposition with regard to the principal of
those extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, that were poured forth
in the apostolical age.
The only extraordinary gift concerning which there is any just
pretence of making that supposition is that of tongues. Those that
had this gift probably had as much command of that language or
languages which they had once communicated to them by the im-
mediate operation of the Holy Ghost, as any man hatb of any lan-
guage .that he hath learned or acquired in the common way. It
seems to have been in the nature of a permanent habit to be used
according to their discretion, and accordingly some in the church
of Corinth used it unseasonably, and are reproved for it by the
apostle Paul, who gives directions for a proper and seasonable use
of it to edification. But then it must be considered that it was
only the first conferring of the gift of tongues on any person or per-
sons that was properly miraculous ; the consequent use of it was
not so, and was not immediately and properly designed so much to
confirm the truth of the doctrine they delivered, as to enable them
to communicate that doctrine to others, which was confirmed by
other miracles. The gift of tongues conferred upon the apostles
on the day ofPentecost was signally miraculous. Thatplain, simple,
and unlearned persons should be enabled at once without any pre-
vious instruction to speak with divers kinds of tongues which they
had never known before, and which tongues they continued to use
always afterwards : this was evidently supernatural. No force or
power of a man's own enthusiastic imagination could ever produce
such an effect. For who will pretend to say, that a man can speak
any language that he pleases by only strongly imagining that he
can speak it, though he never heard it before ? And as the force
of a man's own imagination could never effect this, so neither could
the power or skill of any other man, or of all the men upon earth,
enable him in a moment, without preparation, or previous instruc-
tion to understand and speak several languages, to which he was
before an entire stranger. Such an immediate and wonderful
operation upon the human mind, in impressing so many thousand
new ideas at once upon it, is evidently supernatural, and seems pe-
culiar to the author of our beings, whose inspiration hath given us
-understanding. This therefore was a most illustrious confirming
222 A VINDICATION
.evidence of the truth of Christ's divine mission, in . whose name
it was .conferred; and was a proof of the. accomplishment
of the promise he had made to his apostles that he would send
.his Spirit upon them; and of the truth of the divine commis-
sion he gave them, to go teach all nations, for which work they
were hereby signally qualified. But their using any of those lan-
guages afterwards in the nations to which they were sent could not
.be alone a proof or miracle to those nations, because they did not
know but they might have learned those languages in the ordinary
way. But the proper use of those languages was to enable them
to preach the doctrine of Jesus to those nations to whom they were
sent, and by the other miracles they wrought they 'confirmed the
word with signs following.' In like manner, when any particular
person or persons on their being baptized into the faith of Jesus
Christ, and laying on of the apostle's hands, which was the ordi-
nary way by which the gifts of the Holy Ghost were communicated,
.received the .gift of tongues, it was at that time a most illustrious
miracle, and both to themselves who received this gift, and to
others who observed it, and knew they could not speak those lan-
fuages before, it was a glorious confirmation of the doctrine of
esus taught by the apostles, into which they were baptized. And
if we should suppose a person that had thus received the gift of
tongues afterwards to apostatize from the doctrine of the apostles
in.which he had been instructed, and to become a false teacher,
his making an ill use of that gift, supposing it to continue with
him,* would not render it the less certain, that in its original dona-
tion, it was a glorious attestation to the truth of Christianity, and
of the apostolical doctrine in the confirmation of which it was given.
And instead of being an argument in favour of such seducers as
should abuse the gift contrary to the doctrine they had received, it
might be improved against them, to show that the doctrine from
which they had swerved was true. It might be urged against
them, that they themselves had received that gift they boasted of
only in the name of Jesus Christ, and upon their believing and em-
bracing the doctrine of the apostles ; and that still none could re-
ceive those gifts in any other way : and they might be challenged
to communicate that gift to others by the laying on of their hands in
confirmation of their new scheme of doctrine, as it had been com-
municated to them in confirmation of the apostolic doctrine which
they had received along with that gift, and in which therefore they
ought to have continued.
I have been the more particular in considering the gift of tongues,
because if the supposition the author makes concerning the extra-
ordinary gifts in the apostolic age, that men might make a good or
bad use of them as much as of any of their natural faculties and
talents, if this supposition holds good concerning any of those gifts,
* I am willing to make this concession, though the instances of the abuse of the git
of tongues mentioned by the apostle Paul, I Cor. xiv. do not at all relate to the abusing
it for propagating false doctrine, but to an using it unseasonably, and with ostentation,
and not in so orderly and edifying a manner as they ought to have done.
OF THE APOSTLES. 223
it must be the gift of tongues ; and yet even in this instance it will
by no means answer the -end he proposes by. it, which is to show
that this gift could yield no attestation at all to the truth of Chris-
tianity.
The word of wisdom, and the word of knowledge, are mentioned
by the apostle Paul, among the extraordinary gifts of the Holy
Ghost, 1 Cor. xii. And as it is probable that the persons that had
those gifts had their minds extraordinarily enlightened in the
knowledge of spiritual and divine things, and the great important
doctrines and mysteries of the gospel ; so it may well be supposed
that that knowledge once communicated to the mind by the illu-
mination of the Spirit continued there in the nature of a perma-
nent light and habit : and those that had this knowledge .might
communicate it to others by speaking or writing as other know-
ledge is communicated. But it cannot be pretended that this gift
was one of those that were capable of being abused to propagate
error and falsehood. It is a contradiction to suppose that any per-
son should by the exercise of this gift of divine wisdom and know-
ledge, that .is, by the very actual exercise of the knowledge of
truth, and by declaring and imparting to others the knowledge he
himself had of the truth, promote and propagate false doctrine and
error.
The same 'observation holds with regard to the gift of prophesy-
ing, taken in the sense in which the apostle seems to understand
it, 1 Cor. xiv. for an extraordinary gift of teaching : and exhorting
in :the public assemblies for edification and instruction in doctrine
and practice. It is probable there was an abiding habit or ability
this way communicated to those spersons that had this gift, by
virtue of which they were qualified and enabled to teach .and ex-
hort the people. Besides which, it may be concluded from the ac-
count the apostles give .us, that these persons were often under an
immediate afflatus of the Holy Ghost in the actual exercise of that
gift in the public assemblies.; though it did not hurry them on by
an irresistible impulse, but left room for a prudential management.
They had it in their power to exercise it in such a way and :manner
as might be most for edification, and most agreeable to decency
and order. But if they exercised .this gift at all, if they either
taught and exhorted by virtue of the habitual knowledge and wis-
dom, which was at first : communicated to them by the Holy
Ghost, and according to the ability -then given them, or 'according
to the immediate afflatus and actual inspiration communicated to
'them occasionally afterwards ; this gift in .either case, if really
used. at all, was only capable of serving 'the cause of truth. Jf a
nian, pretending to the gift of prophesying, taught errors and false
doctrines, it could not be by the real exercise of the gift of prophe-
sying which he received fronT the Holy Ghost, but by falsely pre-
'tending to it when he had it not. In which case it could not be
said, that it was owing to his making an ill use of the gift which
he really had, as persons may make an ill use of their natural fa-
culties and talents which they have, which is the author's suppo-
224 A VINDICATION
sition ; but only that he pretended to that extraordinary gift when
he really had it not. And against such false pretenders also the
divine wisdom and goodness had provided a remedy by another
gift of an extraordinary nature, which was communicated in the
first age of Christianity, viz. that of discerning of spirits, whereby
persons were enabled to discern between false teachers and the
true, and between falsely pretended inspirations, and true inspira-
tions of the Holy Ghost. And any man that had this gift conferred
upon him, if he really exercised it at all, must exercise.it in detecting
falsehood, and false teachers, because this was essentially included
in the very nature of it. .
Another gift or power which attended the first preachers of
Christianity, -and which was more peculiarly intended for a confir-
mation of the doctrines they delivered, was the power of working
miracles; that is, doing wonderful works far transcending all hu-
man power, of which we have several remarkable instances recorded
in the Acts of the apostles. But this was not properly a perma-
nent, constant habit to be exercised like natural faculties and talents,
as this writer supposes, merely according to the pleasure or choice
of the person by whom those miracles were wrought, They could
only do those miracles when and upon what occasions it seemed
fit to the Holy Ghost that they should do them : in which case
they felt an extraordinary impulse, which is usually called the faith
of miracles, which was a kind of direction to them when to work
those miracles, and whereby they knew and were persuaded that
God would enable them to do them. Thus e. g. it was not in the
power of those that had the gift of healing, nor even of the apostles
themselves, who had these gifts in a far greater measure and de-
gree than any others, to heal the sick as often as and whenso-
ever they pleased. For then they would scarce have suffered any
of their own intimate friends to have died. But it was when God
saw it fit that this gift should be exercised ; which was usually
ordered then when it served best to the propagation and confirm-
ation of the gospel. So Paul left Trophimus at Miletum sick,
whom no doubt he would gladly have healed and restored at once,
if it had been left merely to his own choice, to have exercised his
gift of healing as he pleased. And he speaks of Epaphroditus's
sickness in such a manner as shows that it did not depend upon
him to recover him when he would, Phil. ii. 27. And yet we find
at another time, the same apostle, when he was at Ephesus preach-
ing the word of the Lord Jesus to those that dwelt in Asia, both
Jews and Greeks, and when the Jews contradicted and opposed
this doctrine, wrought the most astonishing miracles in confirma-
tion of it. We are told, that at that time, and for such valuable
ends, God ordered it so, that St. Paul fully exercised his miracu-
lous powers. The sacred historian observes, that God * wrought
special miracles by the hands of Paul.' The manner of expression
is remarkable, and shows that the miracles were God's own work,
only done by St. Paul as the instrument, ' so that from his body
were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the dis-
OF THE APOSTLES. 225
eases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them,'
Ads xix. 11, 12. Sometimes the apostles raised the dead : as
Peter raised Tabitha or Dorcas, and Paul raised Eutychus. But
it cannot be supposed, that they could exercise that power as often
as they themselves pleased, and that it depended merely on their
own will and choice ; but it was exercised upon extraordinary occa-
sions, when it seemed fit to the divine wisdom that it should be so,
who in that case directed them to it by a special impulse upon their
minds.
Thus also with regard to the gift of prophecy, if it be taken in
the strictest sense, for foretelling things to come, which was one
thing promised by our Saviour to his apostles, John xvi. 13, and
of which we. have an instance in Agabus who is called a prophet,
Acts xi. 28 ; xxi..lO : this was not like natural faculties, or acquired
abilities to be exercised at their own pleasure. It did not depend
merely upon their own will and choice, when they were to foretel
things to come, or what future things they were to foretel. This
depended wholly on the will of the Holy Ghost by whom they
were inspired. And they could then only exercise this gift, when
it seemed fit to God for wise purposes that they should exercise it.
The same may be said of the extraordinary power they had in
some instances of discerning the secrets of the heart, and the
workings of men's spirits, and what passed inwardly in their
minds, see Acts v. 3, 4 ; xiv. 9 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 25.
With regard to these and other extraordinary gifts and powers
of the Holy Ghost, it is evident, that they were not, as this writer
supposes, left merely to men's own direction and management, to
be employed to whatever purposes they thought fit, whether good
or bad, like their natural faculties and talents. But they were em-
powered to exercise those gifts, whenever it seemed fit to God they
should exercise them for some valuable ends, for doing good, or
for the confirmation of the gospel.* If therefore we should sup-
* Concerning these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost poured forth in the first
age of Christianity, I would observe, 1. That they were very various, both in their kind
and degree, and were distributed, not according to the will of man, but with great variety
in such proportions, and to such persons, as to the Holy Ghost seemed meet, who as the
apostle tells us, ' distributed to every man severally according to his will,' 1 Cor. xii.
11. And it seems to appear from the account he gives us, that the same person was not
usually partaker of several of these extraordinary gifts together, but some of these gifts
were given, to one, and some to another, see \ Cor. xii. 8, 9, 10 ; Horn. xii. 6, 7, 3, ex-
cept where persons were designed for very eminent service in the church ; especially the
apostles, who had all these gifts in conjunction. 2. The general design for which they
were all given was not for ostentation, but for edification and use. The ' manifestation
of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal,' that is, to render him useful to
others, 1 Cor. xii. 7. Hence the gift 'of tongues was usually joined with thatof prophe-
^y ln g, that the one might render the other more useful, Acts ii. 11 ; x. 46; six. 6. 3.
All these operations are ascribed to God. ' There are diversities of operations, but it is
the same God that worketh all in all/ 1 Cor. xii. 6. 4. As the communicating those
gifts at first, so the continuing of them to those persons that had received them, de-
pended on the wise and good pleasure of God. So that it doth not follow that when
fflen once had those extraordinary powers, they were always to have them, let them use
them to what purposes they would. It was still in the power of him that gave them to
continue or increase them, or to withdraw them from those that should endeavour to
abuse them to the subversion of the gospel they were designed to promote. And seve-
Q
226 A VINDICATION
pose that some who had once received some of the extraordinary
gifts of the Holy Ghost should afterwards apostatise from the true
doctrine of the gospel which they had received, and should prove
bad men and wicked seducers, it would not follow, that because
they had those gifts once, and when they preached the truth, ex-
ercised them in confirmation of it, therefore it was in their power
to exercise those gifts and miraculous powers afterwards in confirm-
ation of error and falsehood. For since the exercise of those
powers, particularly that of working miracles, depended not merely
on themselves, and on their own pleasure, but on the peculiar im-
pulse and operation of the Spirit, then on supposition that they
intended to work a miracle for the confirmation of any doctrine op-
posite to Christianity, we may be sure that the Spirit would not
give them his assistance to confirm a falsehood. Nor can this
writer prove what he confidently asserts and takes for granted, that
any false teachers in that age did, by virtue of any extraordinary
gifts or powers of the Holy Ghost communicated to them, work
miracles to confirm the false doctrines they preached. Our Saviour
indeed makes a supposition, Matt. vii. 21, 22, 23, of persons 'pro-
phesying and doing many wonderful works in his name,' who yet
should be rejected by him at the last day as evil doers. But this
is a very different case from that which the author puts. For our
Saviour doth not there speak of false teachers working miracles in
confirmation of a falsehood, but of persons that preached the true
doctrine of Christ, and wrought miracles in confirmation of it, and
were ready to plead this as a kind of merit, as if it was sufficient
to entitle them to heaven, though they did not apply themselves
to the practice of real godliness and virtue. This is the case our
Saviour supposes, and it furnisheth us with this important lesson,
that no external privileges or attainments, how splendid soever,
and no knowledge of the doctrine of the gospel, though accompa-
nied with the most extraordinary gifts, will recommend a man to
the favour of God, or entitle him to that future blessedness, with-
out real holiness of heart and life. And it is a supposition that
may be made, that persons might have their minds extraordinarily
enlightened in the knowledge of Christianity, and be inwardly con-
vinced of the knowledge of the truth of the doctrine of Jesus, and
preach that truth to others, and yet through the prevalency of
some corrupt appetite, it might not have its proper sanctifying in-
fluence upon their own hearts and lives. In which case their being,
enabled to work miracles in confirmation of the doctrine they
taught, might be a proof to others of the truth of that doctrine,
though it was not a security to themselves concerning their own
salvation, which depended entirely upon their own personal obedi-
ence and holiness.
ral passages of Scripture plainly intimate that the Spirit in his extraordinary gifts as well
as in his more ordinary gracious operations, might be quenched and provoked to with-
draw : and on the other hand, thatpersons by making a right use of those gifts theyhad, and
applying to God by prayer with faith and humility, might obtain farther degrees of them,
and excel in them more and more, See 1 Cor. xii. 31 v -dv.l ; 1 Thess. v. 19 ; 1 Tim.
iv. 14 : 2 Tim. i. 6.
OF THE APOSTLES. 227
With regard to the false apostles and judaising teachers who
opposed St. Paul, and taught the absolute necessity of circumcision,
and the observation of the Mosaical rites in order to men's being
justified and saved ; it cannot be proved that any of them wrought
miracles in confirmation of that doctrine. The contrary seems plain
from that question the apostle proposeth to the Galatians. ' Re-
ceived ye the spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of
faith ? He that ministereth the spirit to you, and worketh miracles
amongst you, doth he it by the works of the law, or by the heaiing ;
of faith ? ' Gal. iii. 2, 5. Would he have said this if miracles had
been wrought, and the gifts of the Spirit communicated in confir-
mation of the doctrine he was opposing ? He appeals to them-
selves as in a matter of fact that could not be contested, that mi-
racles were only wrought, and the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit
communicated in attestation of that true doctrine of the Gospel
which he had preached, and not of that other Gospel, as he calleth
it, which the false teachers would have imposed upon them. And
accordingly in all the accounts that are given in the New Testament,
and particularly in the writings of the apostle Paul, concerning the
false teachers and seducers in the apostolical age, it is never so
much as once intimated, that they exercised the extraordinary gifts
and powers of the Holy Ghost, particularly that of working miracles
in confirmation of their scheme of error and false doctrine. He re-
presents them as persons of great cunning, ' who by good words
and fair speeches deceived the hearts of the simple,' Rom. xvi. 8 :
as great pretenders to ' excellency of speech and wisdom ' and ma-
king an ostentation of learning and philosophy, in opposition to
whom he declareth concerning himself, that his ' preaching was not
with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the
spirit and of power, ' that is, it was accompanied with the power of
the Holy Ghost, which theirs was not. 1 Cor. xi. 1,4, 5 ; see also 1
Cor. iv. 19, 20. He represents his opposers as ' commending them-
selves,' but himself as one whom 'the Lord commended : ' that is,
by his gifts and graces vouchsafed to him, and the power attending
on his ministry. They ' gloried after the flesh, ' they boasted that
they were Hebrews, and called themselves apostles, See. 2 Cor. xi;
18, 22, 23. Phil iii. 4, 5, 6 : but as to himself he declares, that
' truly the signs of an apostle were wrought by him in all patience,
in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.' 2 Cor. xii. 12. So else-
where he represents those false teachers as endeavouring to ' beguile
tnen with enticing words, and to spoil them through philosophy
and vain deceit, through the traditions of men ; and making a show
pf wisdom, in will worship, and humility.' Col. ii. 4, 8, 18, 23. And
in his epistles to Timothy and Titus, where he particularly describes
them, they are represented as ' giving heed to Jewish fables, and
given to vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called.'
But there is not one word in all that he saith concerning them of
their working miracles, or abusing the extraordinary gifts of the
Holy Ghost to confirm their false doctrines. The same observation
be made on the account the apostle Peter gives of the false
Q 2
228 A VINDICATION
teachers mentioned in his second epistle, whom he represents "as
'.through covetousness with feigned words, making merchandise of
men, and speaking great swelling words of vanity ; and alluring
men through the lusts of the flesh, and through .much wantonness,
and by promising them liberty.' And Jude gives pretty much the
same description of them : and among other characters represents
them as ' sensual, having not the Spirit/ ' ver. 19, i. e. they wera.
destitute of the Spirit of God both in his graces and in his extra-
ordinary gifts. This author therefore has no reason for asserting
with so much confidence as he does, that the ' false prophets and
teachers had the extraordinary gifts and powers of the Holy Ghost
in the apostolic age as well as the true,' pref. p. 9. which lie there
lays down as a principle capable of being maintained against all
opposers.
I think the observations that have been made, destroy the force
of all that he advances to show that no argument can be brought
to establish the truth and divine authority of the Gospel revelation
from the extraordinary gifts and miraculous powers of the Holy
Ghost in the apostolic age. Those gifts and powers were evidently
supernatural, above all the art or power of any man, or of all the
men upon earth, and showed a very extraordinary interposition.
And as it was only in the name of a crucified and risen Jesus, and
upon their professing their faith in him, and becoming his disciples,
that any received those gifts and powers, so the imparting those
gifts of the Holy Ghost as thus circumstanced, was an illustrious
confirmation of the Christian faith and doctrine published to the
world by the apostles of our Lord. For it must be considered that
it was by the ' laying on of the hands ' of the apostles, that the
Holy Ghost was ordinarily communicated. See Acts viii. 14 18.
xix. 6. Rom. i. 11. And where it was given immediately from hea-
ven without the laying on of the apostles's hands, as in the case of
Cornelius, and those that were with him : Acts x. 44 ; yet still it
was in confirmation of the doctrine taught by the apostles. As
they were properly speaking immediately commissioned by Christ
himself to be the authorized publishers of his doctrines and laws to
the world, so they were eminently distinguished above all other
teachers in that age, and had an authority which no other teachers
had ; and that not only because they had those extraordinary gifts
of the Spirit of which others also were made partakers, in a far
greater abundance, and in a more excellent measure and degree,
see 1 Cor. xiv. 18. 2 Cor. xii. 12. But they were invested with
some extraordinary powers of a peculiar kind which no other per-
sons had, and which were especially designed to confirm their di-
vine mission and authority, and to engage men to pay an entire
submission and regard to what they delivered in the name of Christ.
Such was the power already mentioned of communicating the Holy
Ghost in his extraordinary gifts by the laying on of their hands.
"What could have a greater tendency to convince the world that
God had sent them, and that the doctrine which they published in
the name of Christ was true and of divine original, than, this, that
OF THE APOSTLES. 229
after having instructed persons in the Christian faith, they could by
laying on of their hands upon them in his name, communicate some
or other of those extraordinary gifts and powers in such measures
and degrees as seemed fit to the Holy Ghost, who distributed them
according to his will, in testimony of the truth and divinity of the
doctrine they had taught them. And a most illustrious testimony
it was, and which none of the false apostles or teachers of that age
ever did or ever could give in confirmation of their doctrines. We
may also reckon among the extraordinary powers peculiar to the
apostles, and which gave them a great superiority above false
teachers, the power of inflicting bodily punishments in some extra-
ordinary cases, such was the striking Elymas the sorcerer with
blindness, Acts xiii. 8 12. And some such thing is probably in-
tended by that ' delivering unto Satan for the destruction of the
flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus,'
which the apostle speaks of as a power committed unto him by the
Lord Jesus, 1 Cor. v. 4, 5. see also 1 Tim. i. 19, 20. which seems
,to relate, as the ancients explain it, to some pain, or disease, or
grievous correction inflicted on the flesh or body, by the sharpness
of which the guilty person might be awakened to a sense of his sin,
and brought to a true repentance for it. And perhaps something of
this kind is what the apostle means, when he threatens those amongst
the Corinthians that had not repented of the great sins they had
committed, but still persisted in them, and in an opposition to his
authority, that if he came again he ' would not spare ; ' and speaks
of his ' using sharpness according to the power which the Lord had
given him for edification and not for destruction, ' and of his ' having
in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, ' see 2 Cor. x. 6. xii. 20,
21. xiii. '2, 3, 10. Though he there intimates that he was loth to
use this power without necessity, and that he ' could not do any
thing,' he could not use this power he spoke of ' against the truth,
but for the truth,' vers. 7, 8. This power, like that of miracles, was
not to be exercised by the apostles whenever they themselves pleased,
and merely to gratify their own private passions, but was exercised
by the extraordinary impulse and direction of the Holy Ghost, when-
ever it seemed fit to God that it should be exercised to his glory,
and for promoting the interests of important truth and real religion
and godliness.
This also seems to have been the proper design of that remarkable
judgment that was inflicted upon Ananias and Sapphira, who both
fell down dead by an immediate stroke from heaven at the rebuke
of the apostle Peter for ' lying to the Holy Ghost. ' This was
wisely ordered in the beginning of the Gospel dispensation, to pro-
cure a greater regard to the apostles who were mean in their out-
ward appearance. Their being thus enabled to know the secrets of
the heart, and the signal punishment that was inflicted on those
that had formed a design to impose upon them, was a remarkable
proof that they were indeed guided by 'the Spirit that searcheth all
things, ' and tended to give a greater weight to the testimony they
gave, and the doctrine they taught in the name of Christ. Thus it
230 THE APOSTLES
appears that as it was of great importance to establish the credit
and authority of the apostles, who were the principal appointed
witnesses of Christ, and the. authorised publishers of his doctrine
to the world, so it pleased God in his great wisdom and goodness
to take care of this many ways. And to suppose that he would do
all this, and interpose in so extraordinary a manner, and by such
wonderful gifts and powers to confirm their authority, and to bear
witness to the doctrine and religion they taught, and yet not guide
and assist them in delivering that doctrine and religion, so as to
preserve them from error in teaching and publishing it to the world,
is absurd, and too inconsistent a conduct to be attributed to the wise
and good God. Accordingly the Christians in general paid a pecu-
liar regard both in that first age, and ever since, to the apostles of
our Lord ; their continuing in the Christian faith is expressed by
their ' continuing in the apostles' doctrine,' Acts ii. 42 : and believers
are represented as ' built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets,' Eph. ii. 20. And God hath so ordered it, that the laws
and doctrines they delivered and published in the name of Christ,
and which were confirmed by such glorious attestations were com-
mitted by themselves to writing for the lasting use and instruction
of the church in succeeding generations, under the guidance and
inspiration of the same divine Spirit of truth, that assisted them in
publishing the gospel, and enabled them to work such illustrious
miracles in confirmation of it.
CHAPTER XIV.
The gospel taught by the apostles was the same. The author's account of the Jewish
gospel, preached by them, false and groundless. The pretended difference between
St. Paul and the other apostles, concerning the obligation of the Law of Moses on
the Jewish converts, examined. None of the apostles urged the observation of that
law, as necessary to justification and acceptance with God, under the gospfl ; though
they all judged it lawful to observe the Mosaic rites for a season. The wisdom and
consistency of this their conduct, and the entire harmony between St. Paul and the
other apostles in this matter, shown. The pretended difference between them rela-
ting to the law of Proselytism to be urged on the Gentile converts. The decree of the
apostolical council at Jerusalem, considered ; and the reasons and grounds of that de-
cree inquired into. No proof that the apostle Paul disapproved or counter-acted tliat
decree. The conduct of that apostle at his trial, justified.
ANY one that impartially considers the New Testament will find
one and the same uniform scheme of religion going through the
whole. It appears from the writings of the apoatles, and the ac-
FARTHER VINDICATED. 231
count that is given us of their preaching, that they all published the
same doctrines concerning the attributes, perfections, and providence
of God, and the pure and spiritual worship that is to be rendered to
him, concerning the methods of our redemption and reconciliation
by Jesus Christ, concerning the design and end of his coming into
the world, and of his grievous sufferings and death, which they all
represent as a propitiation for our sins, concerning his resurrection
from the dead, his ascension and exaltation at the right hand of
God, his perpetual mediation and intercession, and his second
coming to raise the dead, and to judge the world, and concerning
the eternal retributions that shall then be dispensed unto all men
according to their behaviour in the body. They all published the
same pure and excellent laws and precepts, the same refined morals,
far exceeding, by the author's own confession, what any others have
advanced, and the same noble and powerful motives for engaging
men to the observation of these precepts. They all taught the same
gracious terms of acceptance, and made the same merciful offers in
the name of God, of pardon, and grace, and eternal life upon con-
dition of faith and repentance, and new obedience ; and denounced
the same awful threatenings of eternal misery and ruin against
those that should persist in obstinate impenitency and disobedience.
These things they all agreed in, the apostle Peter as well as the
apostle Paul ; the gospel they all preached which they professed
to have ' received from the Lord Jesus, ' and by the inspiration of
his Spirit, and which they ' confirmed with signs following, ' was
entirely the same, and perfectly harmonious and consistent in all its
parts. But this our moral philosopher will not allow. He endea-
vours to show that ' they differed among themselves about the most
concerning points of revelation. ' And he thinks ' this is an evident
demonstration that they were not infallible, insomuch that had they
pretended to any such thing, they must openly, and in the face of
the whole world, have contradicted themselves in fact. pp. 80, 81.
And indeed in one point there would be a very great and essential
difference between them if he could prove it, viz. that whereas the
apostle Paul preached Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world, both
Jews and Gentiles ; the other apostles believed in him, and pi-eached
him only as a ' temporal Messiah ' and the Saviour of the Jews
only.
/
After having observed, that the ' Jewish populace or mobility
had generally a notion of Jesus Christ as their Messiah, national
deliverer, or restorer of the kingdom, ' he expressly asserts, ' that
' his own disciples had all along adhered to him upon this vain
hope, and even after his resurrection, they never preached Jesus as
the Messiah or Christ in any other sense, ' that is, in any other
sense than that of the Jewish populace, as one that was to erect a
temporal kingdom, and was to be the national deliverer of the Jews.
He adds, that ' no Christian Jew ever believed in Jesus as the com-
mon Saviour of the world without distinction between Jew arid
Gentile. This is St. Paul's gospel which he had received, as he
declared, by immediate revelation from Christ himself; and had
232 THE APOSTLES
never advised or consulted with any of the Jewish apostles about it,
as well knowing that they would never come into it. see pp. 350
354. see also p. 361. And after having asserted, that the Jews who
adhered to Jesus as the Messiah after his resurrection, ' all expect-
ed that he would soon come again, with a sufficient power from
heaven to destroy the Roman empire, to restore the nation, and set
up his kingdom at Jerusalem ; ' he adds, that ' this was properly
the Jewish gospel which Christ's own disciples firmly adhered to
and preached. ' And therefore he declares, that he * takes this to
have been the plain truth of the matter, that Christianity was no-
thing else but a political faction among the Jews ; some of them re-
ceiving Jesus as the Messiah or restorer of the kingdom, and others
rejecting him under that character. See p. 328 and p. 354. And
again, p. 329. he tells us, that the ' Christian Jews received no-
thing new on their becoming Christians, but the single article, that
Jesus was the Messiah in the literal sense of the prophets, i. e. in
their own national sense. ' This was properly the whole of that
gospel, which according to him, Christ's own disciples that had
been all along with him in his personal ministry taught and pub-
lished to the world.
. If we were not a little used to this writer's way of saying things,
we might be surprised at his asserting with so much confidence a
thing which every one that can read the New Testament may easily
know to be false ; and it is scarce possible to suppose that he him-
self is so ignorant as not to be sensible that it is so. Not to enlarge
upon reflections which such a conduct as this would j ustify, I shall
produce a few out of many passages that will clearly show the
falsehood of what he hath advanced. When St. Peter, whom our
author represents as at the head of the Christian Jews in opposition
to St. Paul, preached up Jesus as the Messiah, the Lord and Christ,
immediately after our Lord's ascension ; and urged the Jews to be-
lieve in him ; the idea he gives of Christ as the Messiah is this,
that God ' had raised up his Son Jesus to bless them in turning
them away from their iniquities ;' and had 'exalted him to be a
prince and a Saviour, ' not a temporal prince or national deliverer,
but to ' give repentance unto Israel and remission of Sins. ' See
Acts ii. 38. iii. 19, 26. v. 31. When he was sent to preach the
gospel to Cornelius, the account he gives him of what God had
commanded the apostles to preach is this, ' he commanded us to
preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he [the Lord Jesus]
which was ordained of God to be the judge of quick and dead. To
him give all the prophets witness that through his name, whosoever
believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. ' Acts x. 42, 43.
Where it is evident that he represents the benefits that were to be
obtained through the Messiah as of a spiritual nature ; and declares,
that this was the idea the prophets gave of the Messiah that was to
be the author of a spiritual salvation. And in the first chapter of
iis first- epistle he sets forth in the most noble and 'admirable ex-
pressions the greatness of that salvation that was to.be obtained
through Jesus Christ, as consisting not in a temporal national de-
FAIITH'EK VINDICATED. 233
liverance of the Jews of which he gives not the least hint, but in ah
eternal heavenly happiness, the prospects of which filled the minds
of true Christians with a spiritual and divine joy under the greatest
present afflictions and sufferings : and he represents this ' salvation
of their souls as the end of their faith ; ' and that this was the sal-
vation of which the prophets had spoken when they * testified be-
forehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow.'
See 1 Pet. i. 2. ii. 25. v. 10. The same great apostle before the
whole council of the apostles and elders, and brethren at Jerusalem,
declareth expressly, speaking of the Gentiles, ' God which knoweth
the hearts bore them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as
he did unto us : and put no difference between us and them, puri-
fying their hearts by faith.' Acts xv. 8, 9. And he adds, ver. 21.
' We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we
shall be saved even as they. ' No words can be more decisive to
show, that Jesus Christ was regarded as the author of a spiritual
salvation ; and that in this salvation all true believers were to be
equal sharers without distinction between Jews and Gentiles ; which
is the very gospel the apostle Paul published, and as express and
full as any thing that was said by that great apostle of the Gen-
tiles. St. James, who was another of the chief apostles of the cir-
cumcision, perfectly agrees with St. Peter in this, and shows by a
passage from one of the prophets that it was foretold concerning
the Messiah, that ' the Gentiles should seek after the Lord, and be
called by his name.' yers. 14 17. The apostle John, .whom our au-
thor represents as one of the chief teachers of what he calls the
Jewish gospel, after having declared, that he ' that believeth not
God hath made him a liar, because he believeth not the record that
God hath given of his Son : ' proceeds to show what that record is :
not that God would send him to deliver the Jews only, and restore
the kingdom to them ; but he represents this as the substance of
the gospel record, that ' God hath given unto us eternal life, and
this life is in his Son.' 1 John v. 9, 10. In the same epistle he de-
clares, that ' we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous : and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours
only, ' that is, the sins of us believing Jews ' but for the sins of the
whole world.' chap. ii. 1, 2. Can any thing possibly be more ex-
press and full to show that Christ is the Saviour of all men, Jews
and Gentiles, without distinction ? The same apostle represents
'the Christ, ' and the ' Saviour of the world,' as terms of the same
signification, John iv. 42, and informs us, that Christ himself de-
clared, that ' God so loved the world, ' not the Jews only but the
world of Jews and Gentiles, ' that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish but have everlasting life. ' Where the salvation of which
Christ is the author is represented as a spiritual and eternal salva-
tion and happiness to be conferred on all those without distinction
that should sincerely believe and obey him. John iii. 16. And
again, he acquaints us that Christ declared ; ' other sheep I have
which are not of this fold ; them also I must bring, and they shall
hear my voice ; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.' chap.
234> THE APOSTLES
x. 16. Can any thing more clearly show that our Lord Jesus Christ
would bring Jews and Gentiles into one fold, and that they should
both make up one church under him as their ' common Shepherd
and Saviour ? And could he that represents this as our Lord's own
sense, look upon him as a Saviour of the Jews only ? see also chap,
xi. 51, 52. which is no less express to this purpose. And chap. i.
29. St. Matthew, who was another of the Jewish apostles, repre-
sents Christ as expressly declaring that the Jews the ' children of
the kingdom ' should be cast out, and that ' many should come
from the east, and from the west, and sit down with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God,' Matt. viii. 11, 12. And
he applies to Christ the prophecies relating to the Messiah, that he
should ' show judgment to the Gentiles : ' and that in ' his name
should the Gentiles trust. ' chap. xii. 17, 18, 22. The same apostle
and evangelist, instead of representing Christ as promising to come
and restore the kingdom to the Jewish nation, and deliver them from
their enemies, informs us, that he declared to the Jews that ' the
kingdom of God should be taken from them, and given to a nation
bringing forth the fruits thereof. ' chap. xxi. 43. And that he fore-
told the utter destruction of their city and temple, and the dreadful
calamities that should befal them, chaps, xxi. 41. xxii. 6, 7. and
xxiv. And he represents him as commissioning his apostles to ' go
teach all nations ; ' or as the evangelist Mark has it, to ' preach the
gospel to every creature.'
It appears from this brief account, that the gospel which the
apostle Paul preached concerning Christ's being the author of
a spiritual, eternal salvation, and the Saviour of all men, Jews and
Gentiles, that really believed and obeyed him, was taught clearly
and fully by the other apostles. Nor is there any one word in any
of their writings, concerning that which he pretends was the whole
of the gospel they preached, that is, concerning Christ's restoring
the kingdom to the Jews in their national sense. And when they
write to the believing Jews, they never once comfort them with the
hope of a national restoration and deliverance, which yet is the only
thing he pretends they had in view. But there are many passages
in their writings that point to the end of the Jewish polity as ap-
proaching : what our author pretends to offer from the book of the
Revelation shall be considered afterward.
This may suffice to show the absolute falsehood of the new gospel,
the author put upon the world for the gospel taught by our Sa-
viour's own apostles, and which he calls the 'Jewish Gospel' in op-
position to the gospel preached by St. Paul. A great deal of his
bitter and malicious invectives in the latter part of his book is built
upon this supposition : by which he undoubtedly intends to expose
the New Testament writers, but really exposes himself, as a writer
that has the confidence to assert any thing how false soever, which
he thinks may serve the cause he has undertaken.
Let us now proceed to some other things ; he offers to show the contra-
dictions and inconsistencies between St. Paul and the other apostles.
He saith, ' that the great concerning debate of that time was reduced to
FARTHER VINDICATED. 235
these two questions : first, whether the Jewish converts were still obliged
in point of religion, to obey the whole law : and secondly, whether
the Gentile converts, as a matter of religion and conscience, were
bound to comply with the Mosaic law of proselytism, as the neces-
sary condition upon which the Christian Jews were to hold commu-
nion with them. In both these points, the apostles, elders, and
brethren at Jerusalem in consequence of their decree stood to the
affirmative, while Paul as stiffly maintained the negative against
them, declaring he received this, not from man, or by any interme-
diate conveyance, but by immediate revelation. But the rest of the
apostles, it seems, never had any such revelation, nor could Paul
ever convince them. Nor could this point of difference be deter-
mined by miracles. For Peter wrought as many and great miracles
as St. Paul, and perhaps St. Paul, having all the rest against him,
might have been very much distanced as to any proof from mira-
cles.' And then he pretends that the controversy rose so high at
last, that it came to an absolute separation between St. Paul and the
other apostles. He labours in this point in many words, and very
confusedly from p. 54 to p. 81 and returns to it again, p. 361, &c.
With regard to the first point pretended to be in difference be-
tween St. Paul and the other apostles, viz. 'Whether the Jewish
converts were still obliged in point of religion and conscience to
obey the whole law : he represents this as the standing controversy
between St. Paul and the other apostles and teachers of the circum-
cision, who obeyed the law as a law of righteousness, or as a neces-
sary part of religion and means of justification with God ; which
Paul never would submit to, though he could comply with the law
in his political capacity as the law of his country.' That ' when he
preached in Asia and Greece, he ventured to advance a new doc-
trine of his own. Wherever he came into the Jewish synagogues,
he endeavoured to convince the Jews that the ceremonial Jaw of
Moses could be no farther- binding upon any such Jews as should
embrace Christianity, being out of the confines. of Judea ; for that the
ceremonial law, having been really typical and figurative of the
great Christian sacrifice, was done away by the sacrifice and death of
Christ the only true propitiation for sin : and consequently could
be no longer obliging to the Jews any more than to the Gentiles,
who were now both together to form a new spiritual society, not
under the jurisdiction of Moses, but of Christ alone. That herein
St. Paul had not one apostle, prophet, or teacher of that age who
heartily joined with him except Timothy ; and though Peter, Bar-
nabas, &c. joined with him in preaching the gospel for a time, yet
they all fell off from him afterward upon this very quarrel, because
they could not agree to absolve the Jewish converts from their obe-
dience to the law as the law of God, or as a matter of religion and
conscience,' see pp. 54. 71,72.
All this, in which the author pretends to keep close to the accounts
that are given us in the Acts of the Apostles, .and in St. Paul's
epistles, is strangely misrepresented. He feigneth a controversy
between the apostle Paul and the other apostles which never sub-
236 . THE APOSTLES
sisted at all. There was indeed a very great controversy, not between
St. Paul and the other apostles (for there was an entire harmony
between them in the gospel they preached) but between that great
apostle and certain Jewish teachers or false apostles, who were for
urging the observation of the ceremonial law upon the Gentile con-
verts, as absolutely necessary to justification and acceptance with
God. Against these St. Paul every where discovereth a great zeaL
And in this he had all the other apostles of our Lord evidently on
his side. When they were all met together in the Jerusalem coun-
cil they passed a very severe censure upon them as troubling the
churches, and subverting men's souls, Acts xv. 24, and at the same
time call Paul and Barnabas their 'beloved brethren,' and give
them this high encomium, that they were 'men that hazarded their
lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, ver. 25, 26.
The great doctrine which that apostle insisteth upon in opposition
to those false teachers, viz. That we are justified freely by divine
grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ; and that it is
by faith in him that we obtain remission of sins and eternal life :
this doctrine the other apostles taught as well as he, as is evident from
the passages that have been above cited. Particularly the apostle
Peter declareth this expressly in the council at Jerusalem in the
name of them all, Acts xv. 11. And when the apostle Paul re-
proved Peter at Antioch, he represents the doctrine of their being
justified 'not by the works of the law,' but by 'faith in Jesus Christ,'
as an uncontested truth in which he and Peter and all true believers
were agreed, Gal. ii. 15, 16, &c. And whereas this writer repre-
sents St. Paul as preaching in the synagogues of the Jews that
Jesus Christ was the only true propitiation for sin, with a view to
show that therefore the ceremonial law, having been only typical
and figurative of the great Christian sacrifice, was done away by the
sacrifice and death of Christ; it is certain that the other apostles
preached this doctrine of Christ's being. the only true propitiation
for sin as fully and expressly as the apostle Paul. The passages to
this purpose are well known.* Nor do they ever once direct the
views of their Christian converts to the legal sacrifices as expiations
for sin. And it ought to be observed that though Peter, James, and
John, whom this author represents as the heads of the Christian
Jews, wrote epistles to them abounding with exhortations and coun-
sels of various kinds, in which they every where animate them to a
steady adherence to the doctrines and laws of the gospel, yet they
never so much as once exhort them to adhere to the observation of the
law of Moses and of the rites there enjoined. Is it possible to account
for this on this writer's supposition, that they looked upon the Jewish
converts as obliged to obey the law of Moses, as the necessary
means of justification and acceptance with God ; and that they had
a standing controversy on this head with the apostle Paul who
taught the contrary? And if this had been the case, can it be
supposed that St. Peter in his second and last epistle, written a
* See 1 Pet. i. 19, 20. ii. 21, 24. iii. 18.. 1 John i. 7. ii. 2. iy. 10. John i. 29. .
FARTHER VINDICATED. 237
little before his death, would have called St. Paul his 'beloved bro-
ther,' or have recommended all his epistles to the Christian converts
as written with great wisdom, and have reckoned them among the
Scriptures, that is, among the writings that were divinely inspired?
See 2 Peter iii. 15, 16. After the apostle Paul had, according to
our author, been preaching throughout Asia and Greece, that the
law of Moses was no longer obligatory on the Jews, we find him
going up and ' saluting the church at Jerusalem :' and not the least
hint of any dissatisfaction, but a perfect harmony between them,
Acts xviii. 21, 22. And afterwards at his last going up to Jeru-
salem the brethren there received him, and them that were with
him, gladly. St. James and all the 'elders that were with him'
treated him with great kindness, and called him 'brother.' And
their advising him what course to take to remove the prejudices
some of the Jewish converts had entertained against him, shows
their great tenderness towards him, and how far they were from
looking upon him as an enemy : and at the same time it seemeth
plainly to show that what they advised him to do was not from any
opinion they had of the absolute obligation of the law of Moses in
point of religion and conscience, but for avoiding offence : in which
their conduct was perfectly agreeable to his own, Acts xxi. 17 25.
The same reflection may be made upon St. Peter's conduct at
Antioch. For it appeareth from what St. Paul said to him, that
before certain persons came from Jerusalem he did eat freely with
the Gentiles, and being 'a Jew lived after the manner of the Gen-
tiles, and not as do the Jews :' though he afterwards declined this,
for fear of offending some of the Jews that came from Jerusalem :
which shows the principle he went upon in observing the law, as
well as the apostle Paul, was the fear of giving offence, and not any
opinion he had of his absolute obligation in point of conscience,
Gal. ii. 12, 14. And St. Paul expressly tells us, that 'when he
communicated the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles'
to the apostles at Jerusalem, 'they saw that the gospel of the un-
circumcision was committed unto him, as the gospel of the circum-
cision was unto Peter ;' for that 'he that wrought effectually in
Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty
in him (Paul) towards the Gentiles.' And that accordingly, 'Peter,
James, and John gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fel-
lowship,' that they should 'go unto the heathen,' -and themselves
'unto the circumcision,' Gal. ii. 2 9. Where nothing is more
plain than that the other apostles approved the doctrine which
St. Paul had preached, and owned his divine mission : and that it
was the same gospel that was taught by Paul and Barnabas, and
by the other apostles, only called the 'gospel of the uncircumcision'
as preached among the Gentiles, and the 'gospel of the circumci-
sion,' as preached to the Jews. Taking all together it doth not ap-
pear that there was the least difference between St. Paul and the
other apostles with regard to the obligation of the Mosaic law.
Neither he nor they looked upon it as absolutely obligatory in
point of conscience, and as necessary to our justification and accep-
238 THE APOSTLES
tance under the gospel, though both he and they looked upon it to
be still lawful to observe the Mosaic rites in compliance with
weak consciences. So that there was a perfect harmony between
them in doctrine and practice.
This author, in order to make it appear that there was an oppo-
sition between St. Paul and the other apostle, gives a very wrong
representation of his conduct ; as if ' in all the synagogues where
he preached in Asia Minor and Greece, he absolved the Jewish
converts from all obligations to the Mosaic Law ;' and made the
absolute abrogation of that law to Jews as well as Gentiles, the
constant subject of his preaching. Whereas if we examine the ac-
count that is given us of St. Paul's preaching in the synagogues of
Asia Minor and Greece, nothing of this appears. We read that
he preached to the Jews in their synagogues that ' Jesus was the
Christ the Son of God,' that he ' died for our sins according to the
Scripture,' that he ' rose again from the dead,' that through faith
in him remission of sins was to be obtained. He preached 'repent-
ance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.'* And if
the Jews to whom he preached were brought to acknowledge that
Jesus was the Christ, and to look to him for salvation in a hearty
compliance with the self-denying terms of the gospel covenant, it
doth not appear by any one instance in the whole New Testament,
that he was at all troublesome to them about the observation of
the Mosaic rites ; he left them still to follow their old customs,
till by a farther light, and a more thorough knowledge and ac-
quaintance with the gospel, they should see that they were free.
Here it is proper to observe that the judaizing Christians in that
age who professed to believe in Christ, and yet continued to ob-
serve the law of Moses, were of two different kinds. There were
some of them that looked upon that law to be of such indispen-
sable necessity that no man could be saved but by the observation
of that law, and therefore they urged it even upon the Gentile con-
verts. They laid such a stress on circumcision, and the other
ritual precepts of the law that they would not acknowledge any for
their brethren, or look upon them as members of the church, ex-
cept they submitted to those rights. Against these the apostle
Paul all along zealously contends. And these all the other apostles
opposed and condemned no less than he : and many of them after-
wards openly apostatized from Christianity, as may be gathered
from several passages in the New Testament. But there were
other Christian Jews that were for observing the law of Moses
from a conscientious scruple that it was not yet repealed, who
yet were of a different character from the former. They knew
God had prescribed those rites, and were not satisfied that they
were as yet abrogated, and therefore, though they regarded the
believing Gentiles as their brethren in Christ, and were not for
imposing the observation of the law upon them ; yet they thought
* See for an account of the subject of St. Paul's preaching, Acts ix. 20 23 ; xiii
2345, 50 ; xvii. 2, S, 5 ; x viii. 5, 6 ; xx. 21 ; 1 Cor. i. 23 ; ii. 2 ; xv. 3, 3, 4.
FARTHER VINDICATED. 239
tliat they themselves, as Jews, were obliged by virtue of the divine
precept to observe those peculiar rites that God had prescribed to
their nation. But then at the same time they expected to be jus-
tified and saved only through the free grace of God offered in the
Redeemer ; here they laid the stress of their hopes, ' looking for
the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.' Our author
seems not able or not willing to conceive this. He thinks that if
thev observed the Mosaic rites at all as obligatory by virtue of the
Divine command, they must observe them as necessary parts of
religion, and the necessary means of justification, and must expect
to be accepted and justified on account of them. For where posi-
tive things are joined in the same divine law with moral, the posi-
tive are as necessary as the moral to our acceptance with God,
and are put on an equal foot in point of conscience as the necessaiy
terms of acceptance, because equally required. This is the sub-
stance of his arguing, pp. 52, 53. But it doth not follow that be-
cause positive and moral precepts are both required in the same
law, therefore they are equally parts of religion, and of equal ne-
cessity in point of acceptance with God. For though every, good
man that looks upon any positive precept as required by God
ought to obey it, whilst he thinks it required : yet he does not lay
the principal stress of his hopes of the Divine favour and accept-
ance on such observances, but on things of a higher nature. And
therefore it is very supposable that the Jewish Christians might
still look upon themselves to be obliged to observe the Mosaic
rites by virtue of the Divine command which they did not see to
be yet repealed ; and yet expect the pardon of their sins, and ac-
ceptance with God, and eternal life, only through the free grace
and mercy of God in Jesus Christ as the great appointed Medi-
ator and Saviour of mankind, who is the propitiation for the sins
of the world. And these were always treated with great regard
and tenderness by St. Paul and the other apostles. He speaks of
the saints at Jerusalem with an affectionate tenderness, and stirs
up the Gentiles to contribute'liberally for their supply. He forbids
the Jewish and Gentile converts to condemn or despise one another
on account of their observing or not observing the legal rites and
ceremonies : see Rom. xiv. and declares, that in ' Christ Jesus
neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but
faith which worketh by love,' Gal. v. 6 ; 1 Cor. vii. 19 : that the
'kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and
peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,' Rom. xiv. 17. He was for ' re-
ceiving those that are weak in faith,' and who still thought them-
selves obliged to observe the legal rites : and was for having them
all ' walk by the same rule' as far as they were agreed, and for
their bearing with one another till God should farther enlighten
them,' Phil, iii- 15, 16. And it is probable that many of these
came in time to see their liberty, and that by treating them with
gentleness and forbearance, they by degrees overcame their preju-
dices and scruples, till at length they entirely joined with the
Gentile converts. Such was the wise and moderate conduct of the
240 THE APOSTLES
apostle Paul and the other apostles in this matter. And accord-
ingly it is 1 evident that though this great apostle was fully satisfied
and persuaded by revelation from Christ himself, that the law of
Moses was no longer obligatory in point of conscience since the
death of Christ, yet he looked upon those legal rites as things which
he himself might still lawfully observe for a while in order to pro-
mote the main interests of Christianity. He declares concerning
himself that to ' the Jews he became as a Jew that he might gain
the Jews,' 1 Cor. ix. 20. And it appears how careful he was not
to offend them, in that ' he circumcised Timothy because of the
Jews which were in those parts, because they all knew that his
father was a Greek,' Acts xvi. 3, And is it likely that he who
was so cautious of offending them, should, as this author repre-
sents it, make it the constant subject of his preaching in all their
synagogues, that the law of Moses was entirely abrogated, and
that the Jews themselves were absolved from all obligations to
observe it ? We find him afterwards ' shaving his head in Cen-
chrea, for he had a vow,' Acts xviii. 18, and ' keeping the feast at
Jerusalem,' ver. 21. It was therefore a false accusation that was
brought against him, though this writer saith that it was a matter
of fact that could not be denied, that 'he had taught all the Jews
which were among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying, that
they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk accord-
ing to their customs,' Acts xxi. 21. They accused Paul as if he
had every where taught that it was absolutely unlawful for the Jews
to circumcise their children, or observe any of the legal rites.
This was the charge : and this charge was not true; He had never
urged it as absolutely unlawful for the Jews to observe the Mosa-
ical law, or their ancient customs. And though he had declared
strongly against urging circumcision upon the Gentiles, yet instead
of forbidding the Jews to circumcise their children, he himself had
circumcised Timothy because his mother was a Jewess, though
his father was a Greek. And taking the accusation in this view
the advice they give is very reasonable, that he should go and
purify himself that 'all may know that those things whereof they
were informed concerning thee are nothing, but that thou thyself
walkest orderly, and keepest the law,' ver. 24. They urged him
to do no more than what he himself had done on former occasions.
For he had shaved his head at Cenchrea, and- had a vow upon
him. And both his own former practice, and what he now did at
Jerusalem was a full vindication of him against the charge ad-
vanced against him, that he had absolutely forbidden the Jews to
observe the law, and had declared it utterly unlawful for them to
observe the Mosaic rites and customs.
To account for this conduct of the apostle Paul and the other
apostles, two things are to be considered. The one is, that they
knew it was the will of God that the law of Moses with its pecu-
liar rites should be no longer strictly obligatory in point of consci-
ence on the disciples of Jesus : and that Christ by his coming, and
by his death, had really superseded that law, and set them free
PAIITHEK VINDICATED. 24-1
from the obligation of its ceremonies and ordinances. The other
is, that they also knew by the Spirit of God that it was his will
that the observation of that law and its peculiar rites should be
indulged and tolerated for a while: and that the abrogation of it
should not be. urged upon the Jews all at once, but by degrees.
And the wisdom and reasonableness of this method is very mani-
fest to. any one. that duly considers the circumstances of the case,
and of that time. The whole Jewish nation had the highest vene-'
ration for the law of Moses. Nor could it be wondered at, if they
did not easily part with a law which they were assured was of
divine original, and had been confirmed by such illustrious attesta-
tions from heaven, as well as had been the law of their nation for
so long a succession of ages. God could indeed have commanded
them all at once immediately after Christ's resurrection to lay aside
all the Mosaic ceremonies, to which they had been so long accus-
tomed, and could have absolutely forbidden the observation of it ;
in which case no Christian could with a safe conscience, or con-
sistently with the Christian profession, have observed any of the
ceremonies of that law. But this would have been too great a
shock, and, joined to their other prejudices arising from Christ's
sufferings and crucifixion, and the meanness of his external ap-
pearance here on earth, would have proved such an obstacle to their
embracing Christianity, as they could scarce have overcome. It
seemed therefore but reasonable to indulge them a little as the
case was circumstanced, and to remove their prej udices by degrees ;
which were of such a kind as might well raise scruples in men of
sincere and honest minds. And accordingly it pleased God in
his great wisdom and goodness so to order it, that that abrogation
and repeal of the law of Moses was gradually hinted and signified
to them, and they were prepared for it by degrees. The apostles
first preached to the Jews, and to them only salvation through
Jesus Christ and him crucified, agreeably to our Saviour's own
directions who had commanded them to begin at Jerusalem.
Afterwards they preached the gospel to the Samaritans, whom the
Jews despised as much as they did the Gentiles, Acts viii., and to
them was the Holy Ghost given upon their believing in Christ by
the imposition of the apostles' hands. This prepared them for
what next happened ; and that was, that Peter by express revela-
tion was ordered to preach to the devout Gentiles or proselytes of
the gate, that is, to those among the Gentiles that worshipped the
true God, though they did not observe the rites of the ceremonial
law ; as in the famous instance of Cornelius. Peter was at the
same time taught by a vision from heaven, that the legal distinc-
tion between clean and unclean meats was now no longer obliga-
tory ; and that the difference of Jews and Gentiles was now to be
taken away. And it pleased God to pour forth the Holy Ghost
in his extraordinary gifts and operations upon Cornelius, and those
that were with him, and that in an immediate manner without the
laying on of Peter's hands, as he had done upon the apostles
themselves at the beginning. This tended to remove a strong pre-
11
242 THE APOSTLES
judice the Jews had entertained, and to convince them that the
Gentiles were now to be taken into the same church with them-
selves, and were to form one sacred society under Jesus Christ.
Afterward when the gospel had been preached for some time to
the devout Gentiles or proselytes of the gate, it was at last
preached to the idolatrous Gentiles : and the apostle Paul was in
a more especial manner set apart to that work. And in the
mean time the doctrines which he and the other apostles unani-
mously preached concerning remission of sins, and justification
through faith in Christ, concerning his being the only true propi-
tiation for our sins, and his being the Saviour of all men without
distinction, whether Jews or Gentiles, that should sincerely believe
and obey him, tended to prepare the Jews for the entire abroga-
tion of the Mosaical economy, which followed from the principles
they laid down.* And lastly this apostle wrote a whole epistle di-
rected particularly to the Hebrews, the proper design of which is
to prove that the legal dispensation is abolished by Jesus Christ.
And soon after this the Jewish temple and nolity were entirely de-
stroyed, as Jesus had foretold, whereby the exercise of the legal
priesthood, and the observation of the Mosaic rites, particularly
those relating to sacrifices, was rendered impracticable. Thus it
appears in how j ust and wise a progression the gospel of Jesus
was published, and successive degrees of light communicated, and
the glorious scheme and design of God gradually unfolded, till the
Christian Jews were prepared for receiving it in its full glory and
entire harmony. And whilst this design was carrying on, it was
agreeable to the will of God, and the designs the divine wisdom
had in view, that the apostles should observe the Mosaic rites, lest
the throwing them off at once should have created too great a pre-
judice against them and their doctrine in the minds of the Jews,
until the time came, which the apostles knew by special revelation,
and by Christ's own express predictions, was near at hand, when
that polity was to be destroyed.
Let us now consider the second main point in difference, as this
author states it, between St. Paul and the other apostles, which he
pretends relates to the law of proselytism ; viz. ' Whether the Gen-
tile converts, as a matter "of religion and conscience, were bound to
comply with the Mosaic law of Proselytism, as the necessary con-
dition upon which the Jews were to maintain communion with them.'
see p. 79. And here also he supposes ' a great and very material
* The accounts that were then published by the apostles and apostolical men of the
life and discourse of our blessed Saviour, showed that he himself had declared that no-
thing ' that entereth into the mouth defileth a man/ which was a plain intimation that
the Mosaical injunctions concerning the distinction of meats, and by which the differ-
ence between Jews and Gentiles was very much kept up, were now to be no longer ob-
ligatory. And finally the apostle John, whom, this author represents as one of the
principal Jewish apostles, and at the head of the Christian Jews, published it to the
world that our Lord Jesus had declared, that ' the hour was coming when neither in
this mountain, viz. at Mount Gerizim, nor yet at Jerusalem should men worship the Fa-
ther, but the true worshippers should worship him in spirit and in truth,' John iv. 21,
23, whereby it appeared that the distinction of places, and the typical ritual service
established in the law of Moses, were to be abolished under the gospel.
FARTHER VINDICATED. 243
difference between St. Paul and the other apostles, particularly St.
Peter. ' He asserts, that ' the Jerusalem council enjoined this law
of proselytism upon the Gentile converts as necessary, or as a mat-
ter of religion and conscience, without which the Christian Jews
could not be j ustified in communicating with them, or receiving them
as brethren. That this soon occasioned fresh troubles and disturb-
ances in the church. For St. Paul could never submit to the im-
position of this law of proselytism upon his Gentile converts, at
least not in the sense of the council as necessary, as a matter of
religion, or as the law of God upon the authority of Moses ; though
yet he allowed them to comply with it occasionally, as a matter of
liberty, and for the sake of peace, to prevent an open rupture with
the Christian Jews, pp. 72, 77. He represents St. Paul as not sa-
tisfied with the decree of the Jerusalem council ; that he looked upon
it as a joining two contrary and inconsistent religions ; and that he
laboured under the disadvantage of being opposed in all his ministry
by the whole Jewish nation, and of having a decree of council, stand-
ing out against him, passed at Jerusalem by a large assembly of
apostolical Christian Jews.,' p. 71, and he resumes this subject again,
p. 361, and p. 376, &c.
Here the author positively asserts several things for which there
is no foundation in the sacred history ; though he pretends to great
accuracy, and to deliver nothing but what is perfectly agreeable to
the memoirs of that great apostle in the Acts, and in his own
genuine epistles.
With regard to the Jerusalem council he positively, asserts over
and over, that they prescribed the things mentioned in their decree,
viz. the abstaining from things offered to idols, from things strangled,
from blood, and from fornication, as necessary, because it was the
law of proselytism enjoined by Moses; and asserts, that it was
certainly the sense of that council that the law of proselytism was
the law of God given by Moses, and not yet abrogated and repeal-
ed, and therefore must be binding in point of religion and conscience,
pp. 77, 78. But it is plain that the Jerusalem council could not
urge their decree precisely as the law of proselytism enjoined by
Moses, because Moses did not give any law of proselytism precisely
answering to that decree. For with regard to those proselytes that
were to be incorporated with the Jews, and entered into their national
inclosure, as our author expresseth it, and who were usually called
the proselytes of righteousness, they were according to the Mosaic
constitution to be circumcised, and to observe the whole law of
Moses, and its peculiar rites : and hence the strictest among' the
judaizing Christians, such as those mentioned, Acts xv. 1, 5, were
for having this law of proselytism observed with regard to those of
the Gentiles that were to be taken into the church. They would
have them circumcised in order to their acknowledging them as
brethren, and as belonging to the same body. But in the council
that was convened to judge of this matter St. Peter declared, with
whom the other apostles agreed, that as God had put no difference
between the Gentiles and Jews, but had given them the Holy Ghost
244' THE APOSTLES
without their being circumcised, so they ought, without "being cir-
cumcised or obliged to observe the law, to be regarded by the Chris-
tian Jews as their brethren, and as making up one body or sacred
society with them in Jesus Christ. So that it is so far from being-
true, as this writer asserts, p. 361, that they would not allow the
Gentiles the privileges of Christ's kingdom except they were prose-
lyted or naturalized, and thereby entered into their national inclosure
and separation from the rest of the world : and that therefore Peter,
who had the keys, shut the gates, of the kingdom against the whole
Gentile world that would not submit to the law of proselytism or
Jewish naturalization ; and that this point was carried in the first
council at Jerusalem, by all the Jewish apostles, elders, and
brethren, against all St. Paul's remonstrances and earnest endea-
vours to the contrary: I say, this is so far from being true, that the
very contrary to this is manifestly true ; that St. Peter and the
whole council carried it, that the Gentiles should not be obliged to
submit to the law of proselytism or Jewish naturalization, which
necessarily included their being circumcised and obliged to observe
the law.
With regard to the proselytes of the gate, as they are usually
called, that is, those among the Gentiles that worshipped the true
God but were not circumcised, though they were allowed to live
among them, they were never regarded as naturalized or entered into
their national inclosure : nor doth it appear that the law of Moses
required that they should abstain from things strangled and from
blood : on the contrary, that law allowed them to eat that which
died of itself, and which therefore had the blood in it, Deut. xiv.
21, which was not allowed either to the natural Jews, or to the pro-
selytes of righteousness. It is plain, therefore, that if the Jerusalem
council required these things of the Gentile converts, it was not be-
cause this was the very law of proselytism enjoined by Moses. For
the things required in the apostolical decree were not the things pre-
cisely required and insisted upon in that law, either with regard to
the proselytes of righteousness, or the proselytes of the gate. Of
the former more was required than is urged in that decree ; of the
latter, not so much. They did not therefore in that prohibition go
merely upon the authority and law of Moses. They only declare
that it seemed fit to the Holy Ghost, and to them, to lay upon the
brethren no .greater burden than the things urged in that decree.
So that it was they under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and by
his authority, that laid these injunctions upon the Gentile converts,
and they did not put them upon them, aswhat they were bound to by
the law of Moses, which they were under no obligation to observe.
If it be inquired, upon what reason they proceeded in this mat-
ter, and why it seemed fit to the Holy Ghost, and to them, to lay
these injunctions upon the Gentile converts : the circumstances and
true state of the case must be considered. Though the Jews were
wont to regard the proselytes of the gate, who worshipped the true
God without being circumcised, as the pious among the Gentiles,
yet they still looked upon them as Gentiles, though not idolaters ;.
FATITHER VINDICATED. 245
and were so far from regarding them as brethren, or belonging to"
the same body or church with themselves (as they did the proselytes
of righteousness who were circumcised, and observed the whole law),
that they would not converse familiarly or eat with them ;* see Acts
x. 28. xi. 3. But now by the Christian institution the Jews were
to regard all those among the Gentiles that believed in Christ and
embraced his gospel, as members of the same church, and forming
one body with themselves under Christ the Head, without their being
circumcised, or obliged to observe the law of Moses at all. This
Avas a new doctrine to the Jews, and was in effect a destroying the
peculium of the Jews, and establishing a new constitution, or erect-
ing a new church consisting of Jews and Gentiles, into which it
was not necessary to be initiated by circumcision. But though the
Gentiles were thus to be admitted to the full enjoyment of all church
privileges under the Gospel without being obliged to the Mosaic
law, yet it seemed fit to lay some injunctions upon them, without
which, as the case then stood, such a near and intimate communion
between Jews and Gentiles, as all belonging to one church and
sacred society, would have been impracticable. To this end they
were to abstain from every thing that had the appearance of coun-
tenancing the heathen idolatry; and Dr. Spencer hath taken great
pains to show, that the several .things prohibited in this decree
were regarded as signs of idolatry or ethnicism, and were used
among the heathen in their idol-worship, f Of this kind was
not only the eating things offered unto idols, but the eating blood and
things strangled, both which were things to which the Jews had the
highest aversion and abhorrence; and the allowing the Gentile
converts to eat those things as the case. was then circumstanced,
would have absolutely prevented the Jews eating with their Gentile
brethren, or having that intimate society and communion with them
which was proper to lay the foundation of a true harmony as became
members of the same church. And as all manner of impurity was
extremely common among the Gentiles, and even an attendant of
their idol-worship, it was thought proper to mention this particular-
ly, that as a holy people to the Lord they should abstain from all
impurity and uncleanness and unlawful mixtures. For that the word
TopvEia, fornication, is often used as a general word for all impurity,
is very well known.
These are the things expressly mentioned in the apostolical
decree. They are all there called necessary things. But it is not
declared or explained in what sense they were so. If they were ne-
cessary at all upon any account, whether at that time or perpetually,
it is sufficient to answer the import of the word. And though they
are all comprised in one word ' necessary,' it doth not follow that they
are all equally and absolutely necessary. The abstaining from for-
nication appeared, both from the reason of the thing, and from many
express passages of the New Testament, to be of moral and perpetual
* la this the latter constitutions of the Jews had carried it to a greater strictness than
tiie original law of Moses. See Selclen tie jure nat. & Gent. lib. ii. cap. s>.
t See Spenoer. dc Legib. Hebr. Lib.'ii. dissert, in Actsxv. 20. - - '
246 THE APOSTLES
obligation. But if other things mentioned in that decree were only
forbidden, because they were looked upon at that time as outward
signs of communion with the heathen idolaters in their superstition
and false worship, and because they would have proved matter of
great scandal and offence to the Jews, and would have absolutely
cut off brotherly correspondence between them and the Gentiles, as
brethren and of the same body with themselves, this was a valuable
end, and sufficient to justify that prohibition, and show the season-
ableness and necessity of it at that time. And on this supposition,
when the situation of things was altered, the reason of the injunc-
tion, and the necessity arising from it, might cease.
But in whatever way we understand that decree, there is not the
least proof that ever the apostle Paul counteracted it; or that ever
there was the least difference between him and the other apostles
on that head. As to fornication, which is forbidden in that decree,
it is evident that it is frequently expressly forbidden in St. Paul's
epistles, and that prohibition is enforced with arguments that show
it to be of perpetual obligation. With regard to meats offered to
idols, St. Paul doth not allow the Gentile converts to eat things
offered to idols in the idol temple, because that was plainly to
countenance idolatry ; and he represents it as a being partaker of
the table of devils, and as having fellowship with devils. And
as to meats in private houses, if they were told that they had been
offered unto idols, they were not to eat of them for fear of giving
scandal. So that in this sense he thought it necessary to abstain
from these things. As to blood and things strangled, the apostle
nowhere mentions them in any of his epistles, and therefore it
cannot be proved that he ever taught the Gentiles to eat them, nor
consequently can it be proved, that in this he contradicted that
decree. If his general declarations, that nothing is unclean of itself,
that eveiy creature of God is good, and to be received with thanks-
giving, and that they were to eat whatsoever was sold in the sham-
bles, asking no question for conscience' sake, be j udged an allowance
to eat blood, &c. then our Saviour's declaration which St. Matthew
and Mark take notice of, that nothing that entereth into the mouth,
and passeth into the draught defileth a man, may be equally thought
an allowance to eat things strangled and blood. And it may be ar-
gued, that the apostles, who knew of this declaration of our . Lord,
and particularly the apostle Peter, who had been taught by a vision
from heaven not to call any thing common or unclean, did not by
things necessary in that decree intend to signify that all these things
were perpetually necessary in the nature of the thing, but necessary
at that time, and in that circumstance of things. And any one that
knows any thing of the apostle Paul's doctrine, cannot but be sensi-
ble that he thought it necessary in case of giving offence to weak
consciences, to abstain from things which, otherwise and in them-
selves considered, he judged lawful. So that upon the whole it
doth not appear but that he entirely approved of that decree, and
of the principles upon which it proceeded. This writer himself ob-
serveth ' that it was resolved in the Jerusalem council to lay no
FARTHER VINDICATED. 247
farther burden upon the Gentile converts than a few things which
were thought necessary by the Holy Ghost, and them, to avoid the
appearance of idolatry, and that the Gentile proselytes might not
seem to countenance the temple-worship of the heathens, ' p. 59.
And if this was the necessity intended, it was perfectly agreeable to
the sentiments of the apostle Paul. This writer indeed pretends
that St. Paul, not submitting to that decree, raised fresh troubles and
disturbances in the church. But there is not the least hint of this
kind either in the Acts or the Epistles, nor was there ever any ac-
cusation brought against him on this account. On the contrary we
are expressly told that Paul and Silas, in their progress to visit the
churches, as they passed through the cities delivered them the de-
crees to keep that were ordained of the apostles and elders which,
were at Jerusalem, Acts xvi. 4. And at his last coming to Jerusalem,
when he returned from his great progress in preaching to the idol-
atrous Gentiles, though St. James and the elders that were with him
mention the apostolical decree, they do not say one word of St. Paul's
having acted against it, but glorified God for what he had done a-
mongst the Gentiles, Acts xxi. 19 25. And whereas he talks of a
very material difference between St. Peter and St. Paul about the
law of proselytism, there is not the least account of any difference
they ever had on this head. For the difference referred to Gal. ii.
doth not properly relate to that matter, nor indeed to any difference
of sentiment between those two great apostles. On the contrary,
St. Paul blames Peter for having acted in a manner not very agree-
able to that doctrine in which they were both agreed, and not very
consistent with the design of the apostolical decree, which manifestly
was to engage Jews and Gentiles to cultivate a brotherly communion
with one another.
Thus after all the stir this author makes about the mighty differ-
ences between St. Paul and the other apostles, it appears there was
a harmony between them in their doctrines : and that therefore there
is no need of considering the pretended difficulty of deciding the
controversies between them by miracles. The miracles they, wrought
all concurred to give an illustrious attestation to the same gospel
which was uniformly preached by them all. And whereas he tells
us that Timothy was the only teacher in that age that heartily join-
ed with St. Paul, and that St. Peter, John Mark, and Barnabas,
and all the other apostles and apostolical teachers, thought themselves
obliged atlast to separate from St. Paul, because they could not agree
to absolve the Jewish converts from their obligation to the Mosaical
Law, and left him to preach his own gospel his own way : this is
asserted without any foundation in the inspired writings to support it.
What was the cause of John Mark's leaving Paul, of which we have
an account, Acts xiii. 13, we are not told. But there is not the least
tint that it was for any such reason as this writer pretends. And
if Barnabas was, as he insinuates, as much offended as Mark, and
for the same reason, why did he not then leave him too? instead of
which we find him after this joining with Paul in preaching the
Gospel throughout the lesser Asia, and suffering persecutions on the
248 THE APOSTLES
account of it as well as he. And he was ready to" have gone with
him another progress, and would have taken Mark with him too,
which Paul would not suffer, because he had left them abruptly in
their former progress. And this, and not any difference between
them in doctrine, was the cause of the contention that then arose
between Paul and Barnabas. But it is plain from St. Paul's own
epistles, that this Mark, whom our author supposes to have entirely
separated from him upon the difference between them in doctrines,
was, after that separation mentioned Acts xiii. 13, signally helpful
to him ; and especially in the latter part of St. Paul's life, when his
opposition to the law must have been much better known than it
eould have been at the time that Mark first left him, which was iu
the beginning of his first progress. In some of his last epistles he
calls him one of his fellow-labourers, and fellow-workers unto the
kingdom of God ; and saith that he had been a comfort to him,
and was profitable to him for the ministry, Philem. 24. Col. iv. 10,
11. 2 Tim. iv. 11. And the same Mark is also mentioned by St.
Peter with great regard, 1 Pet. v. 13, where he calls him his son.
Silas or Silvanus was also a person of eminent note among the
Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, as appears from Acts xv. 22, 32.
And he went along with St. Paul in his second progress, who joins
him and Timothy with himself in the inscriptions of his two Epistles
to the Thessalonians ; and assures the Corinthians that the gospel
preached by all three was entirely the same, and that they perfectly
harmonised in it, 2 Cor. i. 19. This is that Silvanus whom St.
Peter calls a faithful brother, and whom he sent to confirm the
churches, 1 Pet. v. 12. And this is another proof of the great
harmony there was between those two great apostles St. Peter and
St. Paul. The same persons were assistant to them both, sometimes
to one, sometimes to the other, in preaching the same gospel. To
which may be added what commendation I mentioned before the
great St. Peter gives of St. Paul, and of his writings a little before
his own death, 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16. It is evident therefore that
when St. Paul sometimes calls the gospel he preached his gospel,
it could not be his intention to insinuate that it was a gospel differ-
ent from what the other apostles preached and taught. For he
represents Christians as built upon the foundation of the apostles
and prophets, Eph. ii. 20; and speaking of the mystery of calling
the Gentiles to be fellow-heirs and of the same body with the Jews,
which he represents as made known to him by special immediate
revelation, he expressly declares that this mystery was then also re-
vealed unto the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, Eph. iii.
2,3,5.
There needs nothing more to be said concerning the pretended
difference between St. Paul and the other apostles.
But I cannot pass it by without some notice that, notwithstanding
the veneration he professes for that great apostle, the representation
he makes of his conduct at his trial is such as under pretence of vin-
dicating him insinuates several reflections upon his character. He
observes, that the apostle does not own that which was the chief
FARTHER VINDICATED. 249
matter of complaint against him, and the ground of all his persecu-
tions by the Jews, namely that in all their synagogues in Greece and
Asia Minor he had maintained that the law was abrogated by Christ's
death and resurrection, and that in Christ there was no difference
between Jew and Gentile, pp. 67, 68. To which it is sufficient to
answer, that it was not the apostle's business to accuse himself.
He put's his adversaries upon the proof, and it is evident they were
not able to prove the charge they brought against him. Nor was
it true in fact, as I have shown, that he had preached in all the
synagogues that the Jews were absolved from the obligation of the
Mosaic Law. :
Th'e Asiatic Jews * were not capable of making good their accusa-
tion against him ; and thought therefore to have run him down by
general clamours, concerning his raising tumults, and profaning the
temple. The defence Paul makes for himself is just and noble, and
hath a becoming freedom and boldness in it as well as caution. He
denies the charge of sedition and tumult, of profaning the temple,
or of having offended against the law, but at the same time never
in the least disguised his being a Christian : he freely owns that after
the way which they called heresy so worshipped he the God of his
fathers, and at the same time declares, what was literally true, that
he believed all things which were written in the law and the prophets.
He with a noble zeal bore an illustrious testimony to our Lord that
he was the Christ, and that he had risen from the dead, and had
sent him to preach to the Gentiles ; which was the principal thing
that provoked the Jews in the first apology he made for himself be-
fore them, Acts xxii. 21, 22. And whereas this writer insinuates
that till his last defence before Agrippa and Festus, Paul had not
owned the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, which was the main
point that had raised the malice of the Jews against him, but
only asserted the resurrection of the dead, in general ; which they
believed as well as he, p. 67. This is far from being a true represen-
tation : for it appears, from the account Festus himself gives Agrippa,
that before the apology Paul made in the presence of that prince
he had affirmed, not merely the resurrection in general, but the re-
surrection of Jesus, and that this was the great question between
* The Asian Jews mentioned Actsxxi. 27 were not, as this writer pretends, Christian
Jews that believed in Jesus, but they were unbelieving Jews who were enraged at him
for preaching up Jesus as the Messiah, and for preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,
which they interpreted as an endeavour to draw the people from Moses. And on the
same account they also persecuted the other apostles and Christians, as is plain in the
case of Stephen, and the apostles James and Peter. It was the unbelieving Jews that
were the authors of all the tumults and persecutions that were raised against St. Paul,
and not, as this writer asserts, the Jews that professed to believe in Christ. Nor can
any thing be more false than that which he concludes bis whole account of this matter
with, pp. 80, 81, that it is evident from all the memoirs of this great apostle's life in
the history of the Acts, and his own genuine epistles, that all his sufferings and perse-
cutions all along arose from his struggling against the superstition of the Christian Jews,
and their pretended religious obligations to the law of Moses, which they thought them-
seives still as much obliged by as before. Whereas not one of the persecutions there
Mentioned we're raised against him by the Christian Jews that denied that Jesus wastbe
Plmst.
250 THE APOSTLES
him and the Jews. Festus tells Agrippa that the Jews had certain
questions against Paul of their own superstition, and of one Jesus
which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. Acts xxv. 19.
And the connexion there was between the resurrection of Jesus and
the general resurrection, both in the truth of the thing, and in St.
Paul's own scheme, was such, that the apostle might justly represent
himself as called in question about the resurrection of the dead, when
he was called in question about the resurrection of Jesus, the best
proof and pledge of it. And in fact that was the great reason why
the Sadducees, the professed enemies of the resurrection, were so
zealous against the Christian scheme. Though we do not hear much
of their opposition to Christ before, yet no sooner did the apostles
begin to preach Christ's resurrection, but they appeared to be the
mostzealous adversaries of the gospel. For they saw, that if Christ's
resurrection from the dead was believed to be true, it would be a
sensible proof of the resurrection and a future state. Thus we are
told, Acts iv. 1, 2, that the Sadducees came upon the apostles,
being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through
Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And again, v. 17, that
the sect of the Sadducees being filled with indignation laid hands
on the apostles, and put them in prison. It was not therefore with-
out reason that the apostle Paul declared, that he was called in
question concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead ; since
this was really one chief thing, though not the only one, that stirred
up the malice and spite of his enemies, especially of the Sadducees,
several of whom he saw in the council, and who were his chiefest
and most implacable adversaries, Acts xxiii. 6, 7, 8.
CHAPTER XV.
The author's pretence that the apocalypse is most properly the Christian revelation,
and that it is there that we are principally to look for the doctrines of Christianity,
considered. There is nothing in that book to countenance the worship of angels,
invocation of saints, or prayers for the dead. Salvation is not there confined to the
Jews only. His account of the fifth monarchy which he pretends is foretold in that
book, shown to be false and absurd. The attempt he makes against the whole canon
of the New Testament, under pretence that it was corrupted and interpolated by the
Jews, and that Christ's own disciples reported doctrines and facts according to their
own false notions and prejudices, examined and disproved.
NOTHING can be more evident than that our author makes use of
the term, Christian Jew, with a design to expose our Saviour and
his apostles, and the whole New Testament. And the more effec-
tually to answer that design he is pleased to ascribe several senti-
FARTHER VINDICATED. 251
ments to the Christian Jews, and as making up part of what he
calls the Jewish Gospel, which he thinks he can prove to be absurd
and false, and some of which really are so. And for a proof that
these were their doctrines, he refers us, not to the gospels or to the
epistles written by the apostles ofour Lord, but to the Apocalypse,
which he represents as a system of Jewish Christianity, in hopes, I
suppose, to take advantage from the obscure and figurative style of
that book. He thinks ' Sir Isaac Newton has proved it to be a
genuine work of St. John, and that it was written in Nero's time,
two or three years before the destruction of Jerusalem/ p. 364. And
he tells us, that this book is most ' properly the Christian revelation,
or the revelation of Jesus Christ, which is the very title of that book :
whereas no other book of the New Testament assumes or claims any
such character.' p. 369. But it is evident from the express declar-
ation of the book itself, that it was not so properly and immediately
designed to be a revelation of doctrines, as to be a revelation of future
events. It is called the ' revelation of Jesus Christ to show unto
his servants the things which must shortly come to pass/ chap. i. 1.
And again it is called ' this prophecy/ chap. xxii. 19. It is there-
fore a poor trifling observation, that no other book of the New
Testament has the word revelation of Jesus Christ in the title of it.
If he could prove that no other book of the New Testament was
given by inspiration of God (as the apostle Paul tells us all Scripture
is) or was designed to instruct us in the doctrine of Jesus Christ,
this would be something to the purpose. And he shows his good
will this way, by observing, that the epistles and gospels ' contain
nothing but historical accounts of facts, or practical rules and ex-
hortations/ &c. But nothing-can be more manifest to any one that
ever read those writings, than that they abound with instructions in
point of doctrine. And from these writings we should have a full
account of the doctrines of Christianity, though no such book as the
Apocalypse had ever been written at all. I am satisfied that it is a
truly inspired book, and of considerable use. But the authority of
the Christian revelation, and the discovery of its doctrines, doth not
at all peculiarly depend upon that book ; though all that is there
said occasionally concerning any of the Christian doctrines, is agree-
able to what is delivered in the other books of the New Testament.
But let us examine the account he pretends to give of the doc-
trines of that book. First he tells us, that 'the Christian Jews soon
fell into gross idolatry, and set up a great number of mediators and
intercessors with God instead of one.' And this he pretends to prove
from the Apocalypse, pp. 364,- 365, and again p. 372. That the
* mediatorial worship of saints and angels, and prayers for the dead,
are all plainly founded in this book.' To show that the angels are
there represented as mediators between God and us, he observes,
that the ' twenty-four elders, or principal angels which stood before
the throne, are represented as having golden censers in their hands
full of incense, which is the prayers of the saints.' But what if the
four and twenty elders be only the representatives of the Christian
church, and the harps and vials full of odours, be only designed to
252 THE APOSTLES
be a representation, in the figurative style of prophecy, of the worship
paid to God in the church, which is Sir Isaac Newton's interpreta-
tion ? then the author's inference from it falls to the ground. And
that the elders there mentioned are not to be understood, as he would
have it, of the principal angels, is manifest, both because the angels
are plainly distinguished from the elders, Rev. v. 11, and vii. 11,
and because those elders are represented, in their song to the Lamb,
as blessing him for having redeemed them ' unto God by his blood
out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation,' chap. v.
9, 10.
There is another passage in that book, though not mentioned by
this writer, that seems at first view much more to his purpose than
that which he produces, viz. that concerning the angel which ' stood
at the altar, having a golden censer, to whom was given much in-
cense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints;' and
that the * smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the
saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand,' Rev. viii.
3, 4. But the word angel admits of so many senses in that book,
that no argument can be drawn from it. The bishops or ministers
of the churches are called the angels of the churches. An angel is
represented as having the ' everlasting gospel to preach unto them
that dwell on the earth, to every nation, and kindred, and tongue,
and people,' chap. xiv. 6, 7. Where by the angel is meant all those
persons that were employed to preach the gospel, and to call men
to the true worship of God. And as heaven, and the temple, and
altar there often signify, in this prophecy, the visible Christian
church on earth, and the worship there performed ; so the angel
' standing at the altar, having a golden censer, and offering up the
prayers of the saints upon the golden altar, with much incense,'
may be designed to signify no more than this, that the ministers of
the Christian church offered up to God their own prayers and those
of the people in solemn acts of public worship, and that those
prayers found a gracious acceptance with God. Thus when the
Psalmist saith, Psalm cxli. 2, ' Let my prayer be set forth before
thee as incense/ it signifies no more than if he had said, Let my
prayers be favourably accepted ; there is nothing in this interpreta-
tion but what is agreeable to the style of this book. But if we
should suppose that the angel here is spoken of in allusion to the
high priest under the law on the day of expiation, then it is the
Lord Jesus Christ that is here represented by the angel, as being
the only High Priest of the Christian church in the constant lan-
guage of the New Testament. And his being here called an angel
is no objection against this, since he is represented under a variety
of images in this book. And since this author grants St. John to
have been the author of the Apocalypse, it is but reasonable that the
figurative language of this book should be understood in a con-
formity to the declared sentiments of this great apostle. Now we
find him elsewhere plainly signifying, that our Lord Jesus Christ is
the only advocate with the Father, as well as the only propitiation
for our sins. 1 John if. 1, 2. And in his gospel he represents our
PAKTHER VINDICATED. 253
Saviour as encouraging his disciples to ask the Father in his name,
as the only Mediator through whom their prayers would be accepted.
John xiv. 6 13. xvi. 23 26. To which it may be added, that
this very book of the Revelation contains as express a declaration
against the worship of angels, as any that is to be found in the whole
scripture. See Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 9, where the angel twice forbids
John to worship him. Our author endeavours to evade this, by
saying, that ' the worship of angels was then only mediatorial, and
not immediate and direct ; and therefore the angel refused St. John's
immediate direct adoration, when he was going to pay it him.' But
certainly St. John never intended to worship the angel as the su-
preme God, or as the Lamb ; it was only an inferior worship he in-
tended to render him. In the transports of his gratitude and respect
be threw himself at his feet, and was for paying him an inferior
religious homage ; and yet even this the angel would not allow, but
expressly forbade it, as St. Peter had done in a like case to Cornelius,
to show how far we should be from doing any thing that looks like
rendering a religious worship to inferior beings ; adding a reason
for it, because he was his fellow-servant, a servant of God and of
Jesus Christ as well as he.
What our author offers to prove, that this book teacheth the
' invocation of saints at their tombs,' and ' prayers for the dead,'
hath not so much as the shadow of an argument. He observes,
that ' St. John saw the souls of them that had been slain for the
word of God, crying out, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost
tliou not judge and a\ r enge our blood on them that dwell on the
earth?' chap. vi. 9, 10. From whence he argues, that 'if the de-
parted saints and martyrs are still in such a state of earnest desire
and expectation of a complete deliverance, we ought surely to pray
for them as they do for us, and even pray to them, or request their
prayers and intercessions with God for us, whenever we apprehend
them present.' p. 396. Let us grant that the saints above, or church
triumphant, do pray to God in behalf of the church militant on
earth, for putting a stop to persecuting rage and violence, and for
promoting the interests of his kingdom, of piety, righteousness, and
charity among men ; there is nothing in this but what may well be
supposed, nor did any understanding protestant ever deny it. But
says he, ' then we ought to pray for them as they do for us :' and
if by praying for them be meant no more than our praying that the
time may be hastened when their and our felicity and glory shall
be completed at the resurrection, when the whole general assembly
and church of the first-born shall be fully accomplished and glorified :
such a communion as this between that part of the church and family
of God which is yet militant on earth, and that part of it which is
triumphant above, they concerned for us, and earnestly desiring
our happiness and welfare, and we rejoicing in their present glory,
and desiring the completion of it, may justly be admitted, aad is
full of consolation. But then he adds, that ' we ought also to pray
to them, or request their prayers and intercessions with God for us,
whenever we apprehend them present.' Our author wisely adds
254 THE APOSTLES
this. For this shows the impropriety of applying ourselves to any
particular saints departed, because we cannot know that they are
present with us; and to pray to them as if they were every where
present, would be an ascribing to them the peculiar perfections of
God ; or, if they were present, it would be improper for us to bow
down before them with all the marks of religious homage and reve-
rence, as is done in the church of Rome : for this we find John was
not suffered to do to the angel when really present.
But he tells us, p. 367, that ' the great and dangerous part of
the scheme with regard to these primitive Christian Jews was, that
they confined salvation to themselves ;' that it is evident the author
of this book confined salvation to the Jews only. For when the
' saints came to be marked and entered into the book of life, there
are none marked and entered but Jews only, twelve thousand out
of every tribe; and no Gentile was to be saved,' &c. p. 372. But
no argument can be drawn from the calling those that were sealed
by the names of the tribes of Israel ; since, agreeably to the pro-
phetic style, by Israel is signified the Christian church, as in this
very book by Babylon is signified Rome ; because as Babylon was
the great persecuting power under the Old Testament, so Rome
should be the great persecutor of the church, under the New. So
the false seducers to idolatry are called by the name of Jezebel,
chap. xi. 20, and Rome is called Sodom, and Egypt the ' great city
where our Lord was crucified,' chap. ii. 8. And in the same figure
the church is called ' Jerusalem and the Holy City ;' as it is also by
St. Paul, 2 Gal. iv. 6. Heb. xii. 22. And that it could not be the
intention of St. John, in the expressions produced by this writer, to
confine salvation to the Jews only, is evident, not only because there
are as plain declarations, as any in the whole New Testament, to
be found in his writings, concerning Christ's being the Saviour of
the world, or of all mankind ; for which see the passages I had oc-
casion to cite before, John iii. 16. x. 16. xi. 52. 1 John ii. 2. But
because no expressions can be stronger than those that are used in
this very book, to signify that some of all nations should be' saved;
I shall only produce one passage to this purpose, which is very clear
and express. It is in chap. vii. 9, where, speaking of the happiness
of the saints, he represents them as a ' great multitude, which no
man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and
tongues;' and then goes on to describe their blessed state. It is
observable that this is immediately said after the account that is
given of the 144,000 that were sealed out of all the 'tribes of
Israel.' Now if we should suppose the 'great multitude' of saints
mentioned ver. 9, to be different from the 144,000 sealed ones, then
even allowing the author's own supposition, that those were to be
understood literally of Jewish converts, it would prove, that a great
number of all nations would be saved besides them. But if this
great multitude of saints of all nations, &c. mentioned ver. 9, be
supposed to be the very same persons that are represented before,
as having been sealed out of all the ' tribes of Israel,' then this
shows, that by the ' tribes of Israel we are there to understand the
FARTHER VINDICATED. 255
Christian church of all nations, mystically called Israel in the pro-
phetical style. Our author indeed pretends, that by * all nations
and kindreds/ &c. we are only to understand the Jews gathered
out of all nations. And at that rate, whatever expressions had been
used to signify that the gospel salvation should extend to all nations,
he might still have pretended that it was to be understood only of
the Jews. But whereas this phrase of ' people, and kindreds, and
tongues, and nations/ is frequently used in this book, it never once
signifies the Jews of all nations, as will appear to any one that will
consult the passages where this phrase is used- Chap. xi. 9. xii. 8.
xiii. 3 7. xiv. 6 8. xvii. 15.
The account our author pretends to give of the ' fifth monarchy'
foretold in the book of the Revelation, that 'was immediately to
succeed the destruction of the fourth or Roman monarchy/ which
was to happen in that very age, is entirely misrepresented. There
is nothing in this book that looks like erecting a monarchy or em-
pire of the Jews above all other nations, in which ' they were to glut
their revenge upon the Gentile world/ which is the idea he gives of
that fifth monarchy, as he calls it. Those that are described as
saints in this book, and that shall be partakers of the happiness and
kingdom there described, are represented to be those of all nations
that ' keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus, Rev.
xiv. 12, and that suffered ' for the word of God, and the testimony
of Jesus/ chap. xx. 4. With regard to the New Jerusalem there
chap.
be 'for the healing of the nations/ chap. xxii. 3. And no Jew
would ever have made use of such expressions to signify that the
Jews only should share in the benefits of that glorious and happy
state.
Our author would have all that is said in the Apocalypse concern-
ing the New Jerusalem, to be understood literally of a real city,
that was to come down from heaven, and to be built without hands
12,000 furlongs, or 1500 miles square, &c. and that all the Gentiles
should be forced to bring all their riches into it, as contributions and
marks of homage to the Jewish Messiah, who was to reign there a
thousand years. And he might as justly take eveiy thing that is
said in the whole book in a strict literal sense. But by such an
attempt, instead of exposing the book of the Revelation, which is un-
doubtedly his design, he would effectually expose his own absurdity.
At is manifest to every one that considers the figurative style that is
every where preserved throughout this book, that this description of
the new Jerusalem is only designed to be a figurative representation
of a very glorious and happy state, of which good men should be
partakers, and the felicity and glory of which is described by images
drawn from those things that are usually accounted the most splen-
did and magnificent here on earth ; and yet at the same time it is
intimated, that the happiness and glory of it shall be heavenly and
spiritual, chiefly consisting in God's gracious presence, and in the
256 THE APOSTLES
purity and holiness of the blessed inhabitants, and the manifestations
of the divine love and favour towards them. See Rev. xxi. 3, 4, &c.
And whereas this writer, in order to show that the prophecy of
this book is false, would have it, that all the events there foretold
are represented as things that were immediately to be accomplished
in that very age, because it is said to be a revelation of things which
were shortly to come to pass : it is evident from the book itself, that
the intention of this could not be to signify that all the events there
prophesied of were shortly to come to pass, for among other things
there prophesied of is the final judgment, when all the dead, small
and great, shall stand before God, and be judged according to their
works, Rev. xxii. 12. And tliis is represented there; as not to happen
till the thousand years of Christ's reign.on earth were past. So that
it is plain, that when it is said to be a revelation of things shortly
to come to pass, it can only be intended to signify, that the things
there prophesied of were to begin immediately to be accomplished.
These expressions show where the fulfilment of that prophecy should
begin, not where it should end. And accordingly it contains a
series of events to begin from that time, and to end with the general
judgment.
It would carry me too far, to enter into the Apocalyptic computa-
tions. Any one who would see them well handled, may, amongst
others, consult a good book lately published by Mr. Lowman.*
But whereas this writer, in order to show that the 1260 days there
mentioned are to be understood of so many natural days, pretends
that there is no foundation, in scripture for taking a day for a year,
in the interpretation of those prophecies ; and that the Jews had no
such computation as putting a day for a year, though they had an-
nual weeks. And therefore when weeks are mentioned, as in the
famous prophecy of Daniel, it may signify weeks of years, as well
as weeks of days. I would only observe, that if weeks, which in
the proper literal signification signifies seven days, may be under-
stood to signify seven years ; I see no reason in the world, why a
day may not be put for a year. For if it be said, a day in itself
signifies a natural day, and nothing; else, so a week in itself signifies
seven days, and nothing else, and is always so understood in scrip-
ture when put alone without the addition of years, except in the
style of prophecy, and if in that style, by the author's own acknow-
ledgment, a week, which properly signifies seven days, may be put
for seven years, though it is not in the prophecy itself expressly
declared to be a week of years ; then in the same style a day may
be put for a year. And that it must be understood so in the pro-
phecy of the Apocalypse is, I think, manifest by internal arguments
drawn from the prophecy itself. For any one that carefully consi-
ders what is represented as happening in that twelve hundred and
sixty days, or forty and two months, will easily be convinced, that
three years and an half is too small a period for so many and great
events, which take up near one half of the whole prophecy f. Noi 1
* Paraphrase and Notes on the Revelation, 4to. t SeeLowman on the Revelation, p. 1 03
FARTHER VINDICATED. 257
do I see, upon this supposition, where is the necessity of speaking
so often of the faith and patience of the saints, if the persecuted
state of the church were to be of such a short duration.
It is not to be wondered at, that there is a considerable obscurity
with regard to many circumstances of the prophecies in that book,
and particularly as to the precise time of the .dates of the events.
Several reasons might be offered to show that it was not proper that
they should be more distinctly marked out : but yet there is such
a plain description of an idolatrous and persecuting power that was
to arise in the church ; the seat where that power was to be fixed
is so plainly pointed out, viz. Rome, and that it was to be under a
different form of government in the Roman Empire from that which
subsisted in St. John's time, and after the rise of ten kingdoms,
into which that empire was to be divided, which did not happen till
many hundred years after this prophecy : the arts of seduction and
deceit that should be made use of, the general spreading of the
apostacy, and the grievous sufferings to which the faithful few
should be exposed, are so distinctly and strongly described : and
we have seen all this so wonderfully accomplished by a power the
most strange that ever was in the world, and in which all these
characters are to be found, that it is no small confirmation of the
divine authority of this prophecy. And it is also foretold that after
the destruction of this power, there shall be a glorious state of the
church, a state of universal purity and peace, to continue a thousand
years : our author may call this a fifth monarchy if he pleases, but
let him prove that there is any thing in this unbecoming the wisdom
and goodness of God. The prospects of it cannot but be very re-
freshing to every good man that hath any zeal for the glory of God,
or for the good of mankind, and for the interests of true religion
and righteousness in the world.
But the author objects that this fifth monarchy was to be founded
in blood and destruction as the four monarchies before had been
successively founded, p. 367, or as he expresseth it, p. 372, that not
one Gentile was to be saved : they were all to be given up to the
sword, plague, and famine ; or such judgments by which God had
determined to destroy the fourth to make way for the fifth monar-
chy, which looks very unlike converting the whole world by argu-
ment and reason, and by the motives and inducements of beneficence
and love, under a kingdom or state of government, that must depend
upon inward conviction and free choice. His insinuations that the
Jews only were to be partakers of the benefits of this kingdom have
been already sufficiently exposed : but it will be easily allowed,
that it is plainly signified in this book that God, after having long
borne with them, would inflict severe judgments on his obsti-
nate enemies, who had persecuted his faithful servants with so much
cruelty and rage, and had seduced the nations by their wicked arts,
and propagated iniquity, vice, and idolatry. This writer here seems
to think it is a breach of liberty of conscience for God himself to
inflict plague, famine, &c. upon the wicked opposers of his authority
and laws : and for aught I know, he may think it a breach of liberty,
258 THE APOSTLES
and inconsistent with God's governing his creatures by love, to
punish the wicked at all either in this world or in the next. But
though not to punish the wicked might seem to be a lenity and
indulgence to them, yet, which is far worse, it would be a cruelty
to good men. It would be a subverting the order and welfare of the
moral world, and a suffering vice and wickedness to ravage without
control, which would be absolutely inconsistent with a wise and
good government. I would fain know of this benevolent author, who
is afraid of God's punishing the obstinately wicked, because this
would be very unlike converting the world by inducements of benefi-
cence and love, under a kingdom that must depend upon inward
conviction and free choice ; I would know of him what room there
would be for men's acting in religion upon inward conviction and
free choice, if God should always suffer persecuting powers to pre-
vail, and set no bounds to their rage. How the punishing and des-
troying such powers, or which is the same thing, putting a stop to
tyranny and persecution, is the way to hinder free choice, he would
do well to explain. On the contrary it is evident that the removing
such idolatrous persecuting powers is necessary, in the nature of
things, to make way for such a happy state of government where
truth and love and benevolence must reign.
Thus I have considered our author's objections against the
Apocalypse, one of the sacred books of the New Testament. But
he is not content with this. He endeavours as far as in him lies
to destroy the authority of the whole canon of the New Testament.
He represents it as so full of corruptions and interpolations, that it is
not ' at all to be depended upon : that the Christian Jews had the
revising and publishing that canon in their own hands, and altered
it as they pleased in that very age : and that as they left it, and as
it now stands, it is a system of Christian Judaism, a jumble of two
inconsistent religions ; yea that Christ's own disciples reported
ed every thing that Jesus did or said according to their own preju-
dices, and are therefore not to be depended on for a just account
either of doctrines or facts. ' see p. 440, 441.
I shall not repeat what I have elsewhere offered to show that
never were there more unexceptionable witnesses than the apostles,
and that the New Testament writings have all the marks of genuine
purity and integrity that any writings can have, and that it was
not in the power of any persons if they had been willing, to have
introduced a general corruption into those writings* either with
regard to the doctrines or facts. I shall only observe at present,
that the supposition this writer makes of their being corrupted by
the Jews, those very Jews who he tells us would have crucified a
thousand Messiahs, rather than take in the Gentiles as partakers
in the kingdom with the primitive elect people of God ; and who
at last, being disappointed in Jesus set up another Messiah, one
Barchochab, pp. 374, 440, is the wildest, the most extravagant sup-
position in the world. For not to urge, that it was not in their
* See answer to Christianity as Old as the Creation, vol. ii. Chap. 2, and 5.
FARTHER VINDICATED. 259
power to have corrupted the original sacred writings of the New
Testament which were immediately dispersed far and wide among
the Gentile churches, we have a manifest proof in fact that they did
not interpolate and corrupt them in favour of their own Jewish no-
tions and prejudices, because none of those which this writer repre-
sents as their notions and doctrines, and as making up what he calls
a Jewish gospel, such as the doctrines concerning Christ's being only
a temporal Messiah, and national deliverer of the Jews, concerning
the observation of the law of Moses as absolutely necessary to jus-
tification and acceptance with God, concerning the worshipping of
angels, and setting up many mediators and intercessors instead of
-one, concerning the confining salvation to the Jews only, and rais-
ing them to a height of power and dominion over all nations, that
they might be thoroughly revenged on the Gentile world ; I say,-
none of those doctrines are to be found in the New Testament
writings. And to imagine that the Christian Jews, as he calls them,
should interpolate and corrupt the New Testament writings in order
to accommodate them to their own notions and prejudices, and yet
should leave the entire scheme of religion there laid down quite
contrary to those notions and prejudices, and neither alter those
passages that are most inconsistent with those notions, nor insert
any passages in favour of them, is the most absurd and unaccount-
able supposition that ever was made.
But our author is pleased to instance in some things which he
looks upon to be proofs of such interpolations and corruptions.
Such he would have those passages to be that relate to the divinity
of our Saviour ; but he would do well to tell us what inducements
the Christian Jews could have to foist in such interpolations. The
Ebionites, Cerinthians, and others who called themselves Christians,
and yet urged the necessity of the observation of the law of Moses,
would never have inserted those passages, but rather the contrary,
since they did not acknowledge our Lord's divinity. And besides,
it is evident that no part of the New Testament affords stronger
passages to this purpose than are to be found in the writings of St.
Paul. But certainly if we should suppose that the Christian Jews
had it in their power to have corrupted his epistles (which is a
most absurd supposition) it would have appeared by their altering
or corrupting some of the passages that seem to be strongest against
the obligation of the law of Moses, and that relate to the Gentiles
being taken in as fellow-heirs and members of the same body : but
the whole frame of his epistles bears the plain characters of genuine
purity and integrity. Another instance he brings is, that in favour
of their old national prejudices, Christ's own disciples made him
a false prophet, they made him prophesy of the end of the world,
and of his second coming to judgment, as a thing very shortly to
happen during that present generation, p. 440. And he observes
farther, that they expected Christ's second coming in that very age
or generation, with all the powers of heaven to restore the kingdom,
to the house of David, in an everlasting succession of power and
dominion over all nations to the end of the world, p. 441. But no
s2
260 THE APOSTLES
where do any of the apostles assign the precise time of Christ's
coming to the general j udgment ; on the contrary, they plainly let
us know that the exact time of it was not revealed to them. The
coming they speak of, as foretold by our Lord to happen in that
very age, is his coming, not to restore the kingdom to the house of
David in the Jewish sense, and to raise the Jews to a height of
power and dominion over all nations, as this writer is pleased to repre-
sent it; but to destroy Jerusalem, and to put an utter end to that
state and polity, and inflict the most dreadful punishment and de-
solation upon them that ever was inflicted in any age, or upon any
nation. And this is so far from making Christ a false prophet,
that it furnisheth a glorious proof among many others that might be
produced of his divine mission. And it is remarkable, that though
they assure us that our Lord so clearly foretold the utter destruction
of the city and temple of Jerusalem, yet when they give us an ac-
count of this, they never add the least hint of his foretelling that
the kingdom should be restored to the Jews, and that they should
be fully revenged on the Gentiles, which one should think they would
have done if they had interpolated these predictions in favour of
their own national prejudices.
Our author farther pretends that Christ's disciples ascribed several
miracles to him, in which there could have been only an exertion
of power without wisdom or goodness, but as he does not condescend
to mention them, I need not take any particular notice of this insin-
uation. I shall only observe, that the miracles they relate are things
which they themselves heard and saw, yea, which were done in open
view of multitudes, and even of their most watchful and malicious
enemies. And the accounts were published in the very age in which
those facts were said to be done, and when it would have been the
easiest thing in the world to have detected and contradicted them
if they had not been true. And indeed, never were there, all things
considered, more credible witnesses. They appeared by their
whole conduct to be men of great probity and simplicity. The
doctrine they preached, and which was confirmed by those miracles,
was contrary to all their most rooted and favoured prejudices, and
former notions of things. They themselves received that doctrine
on the credit of the facts they relate, and to which they were wit-
nesses. And they persevered in their accounts of those facts, and
in their profession of that' doctrine, with an unparalleled constancy,
and even with a wonderful satisfaction and joy of mind, under the
most grievous sufferings, and at length sealed their testimony with
their blood. Nor is it conceivable to any that impartially considers
these things, and the pure and self-denying scheme of religion they
taught, upon what other principles they could proceed in all this,
than what they themselves professed, a regard to the glory of God,
and to the good of mankind, and an earnest desire of promoting
true religion, piety, and virtue in the world, together with the hopes
of a glorious reward and happiness in a future state. And the being
acted by these principles is absolutely inconsistent with their being
imposters and deceivers; who put a deliberate solemn cheat upon
FARTHER VINDICATED. 261
mankind in the name of God, and witnessed to facts which they
themselves knew to be false. And our author himself, after putting
a case which pretty exactly answers to that of the apostles, seems
to acknowledge, that it is very probable that men qualified and
acting as is here supposed could have no design to deceive us. See
p. 9093.
CHAPTER XVI.
The Moral Philosopher sets up for rectifying the errors of Christians with regard to some
of the particular doctrines of Christianity. His objections against the doctrine of
Christ's satisfaction considered. There is nothing in it contrary to justice. The ful-
ness of the satisfaction not inconsistent with a free pardon. It doth not rob God of the
glory of his mercy, and give the whole praise to Christ. The pretence that Christ's
satisfaction is needless, because repentance alone is sufficient without it, examined.
It doth not destroy the necessity of personal repentance and obedience, but estab-
lisheth it. Christ's prayer to the Father that the cup might pass from him not incon-
sistent with the notion of his dying for the sins of the world. The author's assertion
that there was no such thing as vicarious sacrifices under the law of Moses ; and the
way he takes to account for Christ's being called a propitiation, examined. The re-
presentation he makes of the gospel doctrine of pardon upon repentance. His absurdity
and inconsistency in this shown. His attempt against the positive precepts of
Christianity, considered. The arguments he draws from the differences among
Christians, to prove that none of the doctrines of revealed religion are of any certainty
or use to mankind, shown to be vain and inconclusive. His encomium on moral
philosophy. The conclusion.
I HAVE now gone through the several objections of our pretended
moral philosopher as far as they affect the authority of the Holy
Scriptures in general, whether of the Old Testament or of the New.
It doth not properly come within my design to enter upon the con-
sideration of the particular doctrines of Christianity, especially those
that are controverted among Christians. I might therefore entirely
pass by those parts of our author's book, where he pretends to set
up for rectifying the errors and mistakes that have obtained among
Christians with regard to some of the doctrines of the gospel. He
is certainly a very unfit person to bring Christians to the true origi-
nal Christianity, and to the purity of doctrine as laid down in the
New Testament, who does all he can to subvert and destroy the
authority of those sacred writings. There is no one doctrine against
which he exerts himself with so much force and vigour, as that of
Christ's satisfaction. He is pleased on this occasion to give us a
specimen of his sermonising faculty, as ' a sample how the clergy
ought to preach, and what doctrines they are to instruct us in as
from Christ and the apostles.' And the discourse he entertaineth
262 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
us with on this subject lasts, with digressions, for about a hundred
pages together. If its confusion and tediousness were its principal
faults, I should not have endeavored to disturb the good opinion
he seems to have of his own performance ; but the peculiar air of
insolence and scorn with which he treats a doctrine that hath been
generally thought by Christians to be plainly founded in the New
Testament, and the bitter reproach he pours iforth upon it, deserves
some animadversion. He not only represents it as a most ' absurd
and irrational doctrine,' but as ' the stronghold of sin and Satan in
the Christian world,' p. 146, and thinks he has 'said enough to
subvert and destroy this hypothesis under all the appearances and
constructions of it among our several schematists and faith-mongers.'
p. 444. I shall therefore take so much notice of what he hath ad-
vanced on this head as may suffice to show that there is no occasion
for all this boasting and confidence, and that this doctrine may still
stand its ground notwithstanding the attacks of this formidable
writer.
The true notion of Christ's satisfaction, or Christ dying for our
sin, in general, is this, ' That it is a provision made by the wisdom
of God to dispense his grace and favor towards guilty creatures in
such a way as doth, at the same time, secure the majesty of his gov-
ernment with the authority of his law, and show forth his justice
and purity.' And I believe there is scarce any man but will own
that if such a way can be found out, it is better and more becoming
the wise and righteous Governor of the world, than itwould be to
pardon and restore sinners absolutely to favor in a way of mere
prerogative, without any such provision for maintaining the rights
of his government, and vindicating the honor and authority of his
laws. The gospel revelation exhibits very extraordinary displays of
the divine grace and mercy towards sinners of the human race. It
not only contains a full and free offer of the pardon of all our sins,
how great and heinous soever, upon our repentance and amendment,
but it promiseth a complete felicity of body and soul to continue to
all eternity, as the reward of our imperfect obedience in this state of
trial ; a reward transcending what we could have pretended to have
merited, if we had never sinned at all. But at the same time we
are there informed that all these inestimable blessings, pardon, and
peace, and eternal life, are only conferred upon us through Jesus
Christ, as the great appointed Mediator, who according to the
Father's will took upon him our nature, and gave himself up to the
most grievous sufferings, and to death itself, to make atonement
for our sins, and to ' obtain eternal redemption for us.' And nothing
can furnish a more awful and affecting proof of God's righteous
abhorrence of sin, and the steady regard he hath to the majesty of
his government, and the authority of his laws, than that when his
infinite grace and mercy inclined and determined him to pardon,
and restore his offending creatures, and raise them to the highest
felicity upon their repentance, and sincere though imperfect obedi-
ence, he would not do it upon any less consideration than this, that
his own Son should ' give himself for us an offering and a sacrifice
CHRIST'S SATISFACTION CONSIDERED. 263
for our sins ; and that he would not allow such guilty creatures as
we are an immediate access to him in our own names, but only through
the mediation and intercession of that great Redeemer, who suffered
and died for us, the ' just for the unjust/ that he might bring us unto
God. This gives the highest possible weight to the new covenant.
And when the blessings of it are dispensed in this method, it hath
a manifest tendency to prevent our abusing those glorious displays
of his goodness and mercy that are made to us in the gospel. For
since God would not pardon and restore even penitent sinners to
his favor without so extraordinary an expedient for vindicating the
authority of his government and laws, this shows that if we reject
the grace of the covenant, and the terms upon which the benefits
of it are now offered to us, we have no farther favor or mercy to
hope for : ' there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, (for we cannot
expect another sacrifice equal to that which we have rejected) but
a certain fearful looking for of judgment,' &c. So that God hath
taken care to manifest his rectoral justice and hatred against sin,
even in the very methods of our reconciliation. And we are taught
in the gospel still to have the blood and sacrifice of Christ in view,
whilst we are receiving the greatest mercies and benefits from God,
that we may not forget his justice and purity whilst we experience
his rich grace and mercy.
The objections of our moral philosopher against the doctrine of
Christ's satisfaction are of various kinds. I shall take notice of the
principal of them, and those upon which he seems to lay the
greatest stress.
'That God should punish the innocent for the guilty,' saith he,
' and spare the guilty for this very reason, because an innocent per-
son has suffered what they ought to have suffered, is a strange
doctrine : but stranger still that such a subversion of all moral
government, and inverting the course of all rectoral justice, should
be necessary' to satisfy that very justice,' p. 148. He has this over
again, p. 222, where he calls it, by way of ridicule, a ' most amazing
and stupendous projection, beyond the comprehension of men and
angels.'
But doth not this writer himself allow that Christ was perfectly
pure and innocent in himself; and yet that by the will of the Father
he was subjected to the most grievous sufferings, and was treated
' as if he had been sinner, and thereby as it were put himself in the
place of sinners?' p. 225, and that all this was for our benefit?
From whence it follows, that it was not unsuitable to the divine
justice, to inflict grievous sufferings on a person perfectly pure and
innocent, for the sake and benefit of guilty sinful creatures, and
with a view to promote their welfare and happiness. And if this
be allowed, I cannot see what foundation there is for the mighty
clamors that are raised against the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction
on this head, under pretence that it supposeth an innocent person to
suffer for the guilty. If it be said, that though Christ suffered for
our good, he did not suffer in the stead of sinners, or as a punish-
ment for their sins ; I cannot see why it should be thought unjust
284 . OBJECTIONS AGAINST
in God to lay sufferings upon Christ, considered as an innocent
person who had voluntarily undertaken to suffer instead of the
guilty, that they might be pardoned and saved, when it is not
thought unjust to lay the same sufferings upon him, though per-
fectly innocent without any such consideration. Our author owns
that Christ, though innocent, suffered, but he will not allow that
his sufferings were penal., as if the calling them afflictions rather
than punishments altered the nature of them, or made them to be
less grievous and painful to the suffering person. It is true that
the charging an innocent person with crimes which he was not
guilty of, and then compelling him against his own consent to suffer
for the crimes of others, would both be cruel and unjust in the per-
son inflicting that punishment ; and would render the sufferings of
the person thus punished much more grievous than if he had suf-
fered the same evils without any such consideration, but merely as
calami'.ies that had befallen him. But if we should suppose an
innocent person to suffer for the faults of others, the punishment of
which he had, from a noble principle of love and kindness to the
guilty persons, taken upon himself, that the offenders might be
spared and freed from punishment, this certainly would not render
the evils and sufferings he endured on that account, more grievous
or afflictive to him, than if he had suffered the same evils merely as
calamities, or as a trial and exercise of his patience and submission
without any such view at all. Yea his sufferings may be justly
supposed to be less grievous and afflictive to him on that supposi-
tion, than otherwise they would be, because of the happy effects
they would produce for the benefit of others, as well as because on
this supposition they were what the person himself had freely un-
dertaken for valuable ends.
But still it will be urged, that the suffering of such an innocent
person for the guilty could not be properly a satisfaction to justice.
To which I answer, that if justice were merely an appetite of revenge
against the particular person that had offended, then it could not
be satisfied but by his personal punishment, and in no case could
the punishment of another be accepted for him. But the justice of
God is only a wise and steady will of vindicating and preserving
the honor and authority of his laws and government, an unalterable
resolution to act as becomes the wise and righteous Governor of the
world, for the maintaining of order and the universal good, by
keeping up, by all proper methods, an awe of his authority, an ab-
horrence of sin, and a fear of offending him in the minds of his
creatures. And if the dispensing pardon and salvation to guilty
creatures, through Christ's suffering and dying for our sins, answers,
these great and valuable ends, it satisfies his justice in the properest
sense in which that phrase can be used with regard to the Deity.
The reason of inflicting punishments in general is not merely to
exercise revenge upon the guilty person, or to take pleasure in his
pain or misery, but to vindicate the authority of the laws, to deter
persons from transgressing them, and to preserve order and good
government in the world: and as these ends cannot be ordinarily
CHRIST'S SATISFACTION CONSIDERED. 265
answered but by the personal punishment of the offender himself,
therefore this is ordinarily necessary. But if a case may happen
in which these ends may be answered by another person's interpo-
sing to suffer instead of the guilty, no reason in the nature of things
can be produced to prove that in such a case such a substitution
might not be accepted or that it would be unjust in that case to lay
upon such a person, though in himself innocent, the punishment or
sufferings which he voluntarily took upon him to endure for the
sake of the guilty. And this would be beyond all reasonable excep-
tion, if it could be so ordered as to tend upon the whole to the
glory and advantage even of the suffering person himself, by recom-
pensing so noble and generous an act of kindness and benevolence ;
and if at the same time the authority of the government be in this
way effectually manifested and displayed, and the majesty of the
laws vindicated, and the main ends of punishment obtained. Now
all these conditions manifestly concur in the case of our Lord Jesus
Christ suffering for sinners. For in this method, as the greatest
mercy is shown to the sinners themselves who obtain the pardon of
their sins, and are raised to the highest glory and felicity upon their
repentance and sincere though imperfect obedience; so there is an
awful display made of the majesty of God's government and the
authority of his laws, in that he would not pardon and restore sin-
ners to favor without the intervention of a Mediator of such eminent
dignity, who was himself to undergo the most grievous sufferings
in the stead and upon the account of the offenders, in order to their
redemption. And at the same time no irreparable injury is done to
the suffering person himself, who both freely consented and under-
took thus to suffer for sinners, and is now, as the reward of his
sufferings, crowned with glory and honour, exalted in that very
nature in which he suffered to the highest degree of glory and
felicity.
But our author farther objects, on the other hand, that if we
suppose justice to be satisfied, there is no room for the exercise of
pardoning mercy, and that the notion of satisfaction is absolutely
inconsistent with a free pardon. For if ' the satisfaction be full and
complete, it cannot reasonably be refused, and must entitle the
debtor or offender to an acquitment in law, which acquitment in
that case is an act of justice, and not to be considered as a pardon
or an act of grace. But where the satisfaction is not thus full and
complete, it is no satisfaction and good for nothing.' To this pur-
pose is his reasoning from p. 148 to p. 153, where he also endeavours
to show that the supposing God himself to have found out and
contrived this satisfaction doth not at all alter the case, or render
it an act of grace and mercy. The whole of what is there offered
proceeds upon this supposition ; that there is an exact parallel be-
tween the satisfaction Christ made to his heavenly Father for the
sins of mankind, and a pecuniary surety's paying the money to the
creditor on behalf of the debtor. In which case it will be easily-
acknowledged that the acquitment of the debtor by the creditor is
an act of justice j and that the creditor doth not properly remit any
266 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
thing at all, or exercise any act of mercy or generosity to the debtor,
but all the obligation is to the surety. And if the creditor should
himself contrive to find out some person that would pay him the
money instead of the debtor who was insolvent, this would not be
so much a proof of his kindness and compassion to the debtor, as
of his own cunning contrivance to get his money. But if this wri-
ter were as well versed in this controversy as he pretendeth to be, he
could not but know that the ablest defenders of the doctrine of
Christ's satisfaction have maintained that it is in several respects
very different from the satisfaction made by a pecuniary surety to
the. creditor, by paying him his money. And the absurdity of ar-
fuing from the one of these to the other hath been often shown,
'he satisfaction made by Christ suffering for our sins, is properly
an expedient fixed upon by the wise and righteous Governor of the
world for dispensing his mercy to penitent sinners of the human
race, in such a way as may at the same time vindicate the authority
of his laws, and preserve the rights and dignity of his government.
And on this supposition we may be sure, that if he fixeth upon any
expedient, it will be such as is fitted to answer the end proposed by
it, and in this sense will be a sufficient satisfaction. But the suf-
ficiency of the satisfaction taken in this view, that is, its being fitted
to answer the end proposed by it, which is, to preserve the reverence
due to God's authority and laws, and to manifest his glorious
greatness, justice, and purity, at the same time that he exerciseth
the highest mercy to the sinner ; is indeed a proof of his great rec-
toral wisdom, but doth not at all diminish the freedom of his mercy.
The pardon is as free to the offenders, and is as much the effect of
his grace and goodness, as if it had been given absolutely without
any such provision or expedient at all. And this particular way of
doing it, by giving his own Son to suffer in our stead, is a more glo-
rious proof of his rich grace and goodness (and therefore still spoken
of in Scripture as the most wonderful instance of his love to man-
kind that can possibly be conceived) than if he had pardoned sin-
ners by a mere act of his absolute prerogative without a"ny such
satisfaction at all. It is still true that eternal life is the free gift of
God to undeserving sinners, with this enhancing circumstance, that
in order to open a way for conferring it upon us in a manner suited
to the glory of his government and moral excellencies, and the order
and general good of the moral world, he gave his Son to suffer and
die for our sins, and confers this life upon us through his blood and
mediation.
It is therefore far from being true, which our author urges against
this doctrine, that in this method all ' our thanks and praises must
be due primarily and chiefly to the person who has made this satis-
faction for us ; and that we cannot receive any thing at all as a
free gift or act of grace from God.' p. 152. Or, as he expresseth it,
p. 151, 'It robs God of the glory of his pardoning mercy, and gives
all the honor of it to Christ the surety.' For Christ did not die for
us, to ' dispose God to be merciful to us,' as he is pleased to repre-
sent the sentiments of those that are advocates for Christ's satisfac-
CHRIST'S SATISFACTION, CONSIDERED. 267
tion ; but it was because he was disposed and determined to show
mercy towards us, and that in such a way as should best comport
with the dignity of his government, and his illustrious and moral
excellencies, that he sent his Son to suffer and die for our redemption.
So that this is so far from showing, as he would have it, that ' God
.has no such essential attribute as mercy, or any disposition to par-
don or forgiveness in his own nature, p. 150, that the whole design
had its rise in his rich grace and mercy, and the most free and
boundless benevolence of his own nature, and is only a contrivance
of wisdom how to exercise his mercy towards sinners, in a way most
becoming his own glorious perfections, and the character he bears
as the great Governor of the world. In this scheme therefore,
though we are under very great obligations to the Son, all is ulti-
mately referred to the glory of the Father ; and by his grace we
are saved. All blessings come to us from the Father, as the Foun-
tain and prime glorious Author of them, through the Son, as the
great medium of communication. They come as really from the
Father, and are as truly his gifts, as if there were no regard had in
the conferring them to the Mediator at all. The giving them to us
through Jesus Christ, and with a regard to his sufferings and medi-
ation on our behalf, relates only to the fittest manner of conveyance,
or that way of distributing those gifts, which seems most fit to the
supreme wisdom.
Another objection upon which he seems to lay a great stress is
this, that Christ's satisfaction is perfectly needless, because repen-
tance and new obedience will do as well without it. ' That God
will pardon sin upon repentance and reformation, and will never
reject or cast off a penitent returning sinner, is the eternal immu-
table voice of God in nature and reason, as well as Scripture ; and
therefore the case must be the same, whether Christ had suffered
and died, or not. So that there is no room for the common Jewish
hypothesis of satisfaction, nor can this alter the case, whether it be
supposed or not,' pp. 148, 150.
But this which he here lays down as a truth of immutable and
eternal certainty, that God is obliged in all cases and at all times
to pardon and restore his offending creatures as often as they
sincerely repent, and to accept this alone as a sufficient reparation,
if understood absolutely, and without any limitation, is a most
absurd principle, and would entirely vacate the authority of the
divine government and laws. I shall not repeat what I have
elsewhere offered concerning this matter.* But I believe every
roan that attentively considers it, will find himself obliged to
acknowledge that the principle which the author here pretends to
establish must necessarily be understood with limitations : and he
himself afterwards limits it within very narrow bounds, as I shall
have occasion to show. How far repentance shall be accepted and
rewarded, and how far God will extend his mercy even towards
* See ' Answer to Christianity as Old as the Creation,' vol. 1. chap. vi.
268 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
penitent sinners, dependeth wholly on his governing wisdom arid
justice, and what he seeth to be necessary for the preservation of
the sacred rights of his government, and the good order of the
whole. When therefore this author so confidently asserteth, that
the case must have been the same with regard to God's accepting
and rewarding penitent returning sinners, whether Christ had died
or not, he boldly pronounceth in the dark concerning a thing which
it is impossible for him to be sure of; since he cannot pretend
certainly to know what the divine government requireth, and what
is necessary for answering the great ends of it, and for securing
and vindicating his sacred authority. Besides, when he represented
it as a certain truth founded in nature and reason, that God will
reward those that repent and obey him, I would desire to know
whether he thinks God is obliged, in the nature and reason of
things, to reward an imperfect obedience, mixed with many defects,
and falling short, in many instances, of what the divine law
requireth (and such is all our obedience in this present state) with
eternal life, that is, with as glorious a reward as we could possibly
have hoped for if our obedience had been absolutely sinless and
without defect, yea and far transcending what in that case we could
have pretended to have deserved from God ? Upon what principle
will he pretend to found this ? Surely it must be acknowledged,
that it dependeth wholly on God's own most free and unmerited
grace and goodness, and on his supreme wisdom, how far he will
reward the imperfect obedience of such sinful creatures, and what
kind of reward he will confer, and in what way and method he will
dispense it, as the fittest and most suitable to his governing wisdom
and righteousness. And consequently no man can, without the
highest arrogancy, take upon him to say, that the death of Christ
doth not at all alter the case, and that God might as consistently
with the great ends of his government have conferred pardon and
eternal life upon sinners without it as with it. On the contrary, we
rnay affirm upon sure grounds, that God would not have sent his
own Son to undergo such grievous sufferings for our sakes, if our
pardon and salvation might as well have been obtained without it.
With regard to what he saith concerning the impossibility of
' communicating personal merit and demerit from one person to
another,' (which is another argument he makes use of against
Christ's satisfaction) and that therefore ' it must be an eternal con-
tradiction in the nature and reason of things to suppose or say that
Christ was ever punished for our sins, or that we are rewarded foe
his righteousness,' pp. 155, 224. It will be easily admitted, that the
individual personal crimes or good actions of one man cannot
become the individual personal crimes or good actions of another,
so that that other should be accounted to be the very individual person
that performed that action or committed that crime. But, notwith-
standing this, cases may happen in which one man may justly
suffer for the crimes committed by another, if he voluntarily
undertakes to suffer instead of the other, and the governing power
SATISFACTION CONSIDERED. 269
in the community seeth fit to accept of that substitution.* And
on the other hand, if one man should do a glorious action with a
view that the benefit of it should redound to others, and if we
should suppose the governing power to promise and agree, that in
case of his undertaking and performing such a difficult service, it
shall have such or such effects for the advantage of others ; then
there is nothing absurd in supposing, that in consequence of this,
others may reap the advantage of it, according to the terms and
conditions agreed on. Nor is there any thing in all this that can
be proved to be contrary to the law of nature or reason. Now to
apply this. It is not pretended that Christ's personal obedience
and sufferings really became our personal obedience and sufferings ;
or that God doth esteem us personally to have endured those
individual sufferings, and to have performed that individual
obedience which Christ himself suffered and performed ; for that
were to esteem us to be one and the same individual person with
Christ himself, or esteem them to be other than they really are.
For since what Christ did and suffered was offered and done
according to the Father's wise and gracious will and appointment
for our sakes and upon our account, to obtain pardon and eternal
life for all those that should comply with the terms fixed in the
new covenant : it is highly congruous, that the benefit of Christ's
obedience and sufferings should be applied to those for whose
benefit it was designed ; and that in conferring pardon and eternal
life upon us, God should have a regard to what his Son by his own
appointment did and suffered on our behalf, as a reason to his
infinite wisdom and righteousness for conferring that pardon and
salvation upon us, in that way and upon those terms which he hath
appointed. When therefore this writer declares, that he is ' satisfied
there is a day coming, in which no plea from the merits or
righteousness of Christ will be of any avail ;' and that he is ' as
sure of this as he is that God ever made himself known to mankind,
either by the Christian revelation or any other way,' p. 170. If he
means, that this should not be allowed as a plea for those that
obstinately persist in impenitency, and a course of presumptuous
disobedience to his authority and laws> or as excusing men from
personal obedience, it is very true : but if he means, that no regard
shall be had to what Christ did and suffered on our behalf, as a
reason why the sins of the truly penitent shall be forgiven them,
and not urged against them to their condemnation at the great day ;
and why the obedience of the truly upright and sincere, though
imperfect and mixed with many failures and defects, shall be
crowned with so glorious and transcendent a reward, this is not
true. Nor can he bring any good argument to show the absurdity
of such a scheme, or that there is any thing in it contrary to justice
or wisdom.
The strength of what he hath thought fit to urge against this
That for this we have the consent of nations, see ' Grotius de Satisfac. Christi,'
cap. 4.
270 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
dependeth wholly upon the wrong representation he is pleased to
make of this matter. He represents the advocates for Christ's
satisfaction as ' pleading the merit of his death in exemption from
the obedience which God requires of us/ (p. 178), and as supposing
that God will reward or punish men in the day of judgment, not
according to their own personal actions, but ' for the actions of
others, without any regard to the natural individuality or moral
characters of the persons thus rewarded or punished/ pp. 155, 198.
And on this foundation he objecteth against the doctrine of Christ's
satisfaction, as inconsistent with the great principle of God's
judging all men at the last day according to their works; which
principle he makes to be the ' certain and infallible criterion
between true and false religion.' But the necessity of personal
repentance and new obedience is as strongly supported upon the
scheme of those that assert Christ's satisfaction as it can possibly
be upon any other. Because the benefit of Christ's satisfaction
doth only extend to those who comply with the terms fixed in
the new covenant: and it is evident from the whole gospel, that
personal repentance and new obedience is there indispensably
required of all that would be partakers of that great salvation
which God offereth to us through his Son. It is as true on this
scheme, as it is on the author's own, that ' personal righteousness,
or a personal compliance with the terms of acceptance, is abso-
lutely and indispensably necessary.' And it will be easily acknowledged,
that ' no redundancy of merit, or any personal imputed righteousness
of another, can be ever taken in account as an equivalent for this/
as he expresseth it, p. 169, if by this be meant, that it will not
be taken instead of our own personal obedience, so as to render
that unnecessary. Yea, it may be justly affirmed, that there is
less hope of pardon and indulgence for those who do not now
comply with the terms of divine mercy, by repenting and forsaking
their evil ways, upon the scheme of those who maintain the gospel
doctrine of Christ's satisfaction, than there is or can be upon the
scheme which this writer seems here to advance. For since God
is so just and holy, and hath such an inviolable regard to the
authority of his government and laws that he would not pardon our
sins, and give us eternal life, even upon our repentance, and sincere
though imperfect obedience, without at the same time making such
. an effectual provision for securing the authority of his government
by the sufferings of his own Son in our natureand stead ; then it is evi-
dent, that those cannot hope to escape, who by their impenitency and
disobedience reject this remedy which he hath in his infinite wisdom
and goodness provided for them ; and that they, who now refuse to
comply with the terms on which alone pardon and salvation is
offered through his Son, can have no ground to expect any further
offerof mercy in any future time or stateof things. Than which nothing
can possibly be a stronger argument to show the absolute necessity
of a present compliance with the gospel terms, that is, to engage
us to present repentance and new obedience. Whereas, if repen-
tance and reformation alone be supposed at all times a sufficient
CHRIST'S SATISFACTION, CONSIDERED. 271
satisfaction without any other provision for securing the majesty of
the divine government, and the authority of his laws ; then, though,
persons should reject the terms on which mercy is now offered
during this state of trial, yet they might hope, that if at any time
during the course of their existence even after this life is at an end,
they should repent and be reformed, God would pardon and save
them: and that the way would always be open for. their being
received into favour, as often as ever they should repent and be
reformed, not only in this life, but to all eternity : and whether
this, if it were really believed, would not be a great encouragement
to defer their repentance and reformation, and to indulge themselves
in a present gratification of their corrupt appetites, may be left to
the consideration of any impartial thinking- person. That which
the author declares concerning the doctrine which he hath ad-
vanced, may, with much greater propriety, be applied to the
Scripture doctrine of Christ's satisfaction, that ' it is the doctrine
that must support the authority of God, and keep up the awe and
influence of his governing justice and moral perfections in the
world,' p. 199. At the same time that the most glorious favours
and benefits are conferred upon sinful creatures, on condition of
their returning to God by repentance, and a sincere though
imperfect obedience, care is taken to guard and temper this
marvellous grace, so as not to give them any temptation either to
think lightly of the evil of those sins which are so fully pardoned,
or to entertain too high thoughts of the merit of their obedience,
which is so gloriously rewarded.
Another attempt this writer makes against the satisfaction of
Christ is this, that the ' redundancy of Christ's merit could not be
placed to our account, because all that was done and suffered by
him was necessary to himself, and on his own account. As he
was under a law to God, and acted with the prospect of a glorious
eternal reward, he could not have failed in any part of his obedience
without losing that reward, and forfeiting the divine favour. He
finished the work that was given him to do^ but then he did no
more than he was bound to do, and nothing less could have been
accepted from him. And though his obedience was free, it was a
neeessaiy obligation laid upon him by the will and law of God ;
from which he would gladly have been excused if his heavenly
Father had thought fit. His praying earnestly not to be put upon
such a trial shows that he had no such notion of the necessity of
his death as a propitiation and atonement for the sins of the world.
He would not have spent a whole night in such passionate prayers
to God in order to prevent a thing which he certainly knew must
happen, and which had been previously agreed on between the
Father and him, 3 see pp. 154, 155.
It will be easily owned that Christ having once freely under-
taken the work of our redemption, was under an obligation to finish
it. But then it must be considered that his assuming our nature,
and being brought under this obligation to suffer and die for us,
not merely by an act of God's absolute authority, but by his
272 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
own free consent and voluntary susception. And his undertaking
this is still represented as the most astonishing proof of his won-
derful love to mankind, a love beyond all comprehension, and
beyond all parallel. And though it pleased God highly to reward
him in his human nature for his humiliation and sufferings, the
prospect of which helped to support him under those sufferings,
yet nothing can be more evident than it is from the whole New
Testament, that the proper design of his coming into the world was
not to procure glory to himself ; for this he had ' with the Father
before the world was ;' but to ' seek and to save that which was
lost. What he did and suffered was truly and properly on our
account, to open a way for our being pardoned and raised to the
highest felicity according to the glorious designs of infinite wisdom
and goodness. The law he was under as Mediator, by his own
consent and the Father's appointment, obliged him to make ' his
soul an offering for sin,' to suffer and die for our offences, and
thereby to ' make reconciliation for iniquity,' and to ' give his life
a ransom for many.' And it is very odd to argue, that because he
was under this law, therefore what he did and suffered could not
be accepted on our account, when by the essential tenor of this
law what he did and suffered was done upon our account, and was
to be accepted on our behalf.
And whereas this writer argues, that Christ would not have
prayed to the Father that the bitter cup might pass from him, if
he had had any ' notion of his death as a propitiation for the sins of
the world,' or if he had ' certainly known that his death was a
thing that must happen, and which had been previously agreed on
between the Father and him :' it is manifest that this prayer could
not be intended as he represents it. Since it plainly appeareth,
from many express passages in the gospel, that our Lord very well
knew that he must certainly suffer and die ; and that this was the
work which the ' Father had given him to do,' and which he
himself had freely undertaken. As he declareth in general, that
he came into the world ' to do the will' of his heavenly Father that
' sent him ;' so also that one great end for which he was sent was
that he might ' give his life a ransom for many,' Matt. xx. 28, and
might ' give his flesh for the life of the world,'- John vi. 51. He
expressly saith, ' as the Father knoweth me, even so know I the
Father:' i. e. the Father knoweth my intentions and dispositions,
and I am perfectly acquainted with the Father's most wise and
gracious counsels and designs : ' and I lay down my life for the
sheep. .Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down
my life. No man taketh it from me, but 1 lay it down of myself;
I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.
This commandment have I received of my Father,' John xT 15,
17, 18. A most remarkable passage, from which it appeareth, that
the laying down his life for the salvation of mankind was a thing,
in which the Father's appointment and his own most free and
voluntary consent perfectly concurred. It was not a mere constraint
laid upon him by God's absolute authority ; his life was not taken-
CHRIST'S SATISFACTION CONSIDERED. 273
from him, whether he would or not ; but he laid it down of himself;
it was his own act and choice, and therefore the Father loved him.
Here therefore we have the substance of what divines commonly
call the covenant of redemption, and which our author has thought
fit to ridicule, pp. 222, 223. For our Saviour here plainly repre-
senteth his laying down his life for the sheep as a thing agreed
upon between the Father and him ; and that the design of all was
for our sakes, to procure the salvation of sinners. Accordingly,
he frequently and expressly told his disciples what manner of death
he was to die, what kind of sufferings he was to endure, and the
principal circumstances of those sufferings ; and this he foretold as
a thing which he knew would most certainly come to pass.* And
when Peter, upon hearing him declare that he was to suffer and
die, took on him to say, ' Far be it from thee, Lord, this shall not
be unto thee ;' he gave him the severest rebuke that ever he gave
to any of his disciples, ' Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an
offence unto me, for thou savourest not the things which be of
God, but those that be of men,' Matt. xvi. 21 23. From whence
it appears what a strong sense he had of the certainty of his
sufferings and death, and the importance and necessity of those
sufferings for answering very valuable ends and purposes. To
which it may be added, that that very night in which he was
betrayed, he instituted an ordinance to be observed in his church
for a perpetual memorial of his body broken and blood shed for the
remission of sins ; where he represented it as a thing which was no
less certain than if it had been actually accomplished. It is evident
therefore that the design of those prayers which he offered up to
the Father immediately after this, could not be with any view or
expectation that his sufferings and death should be prevented,
since he perfectly knew that he must suffer and die ; that it was
the Father's will that he should do so; and that this was one im-
portant part of the work which was given him to do, and which he
himself had freely undertaken. But either the design of his prayer
was that he might be delivered from those tremendous sorrows and
agonies of soul which he then laboured under, and which were
beyond all expression grievous, as appears from the accounts the
evangelists give us of them ; and this was not a declining the work
that was given him to do for our salvation ; since the extremity of
those sorrows might be allayed or dispensed with, though his
dying for our sins could not : or if the bitter cup mentioned by our
Saviour in his prayer related to the whole of his suffering and
dying, then the design of his prayer taken together is evidently
this ; to signify that his sufferings and sorrows were so inexpressibly
grievous and dreadful that if it were possible he could have wished to
be delivered from them ; but that as he knew it was the Father's will
for very wise and valuable ends, he submitted and resigned himself to
undergo them, however grievous and shocking they might be, in them-
selves considered. Tothesame purposeis the prayer hehad uttered not
* See Matt. xvi. 21. xx. 17, 18, 19. Mark is. 31. s. 33, 34. Luke xviii. 31, 32, 33.
T
274 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
long before on the prospect of his sufferings, John xii. 27, 28,
* Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say ? Father save me
from this hour : but for this cause came I unto this hour : Father,
glorify thy name,' i. e. I foresee my sufferings will be so great and
grievous, that the prospect of them fills my soul with trouble and
amazement, so that I could wish if possible to be delivered from
that hour of suffering and sorrow which I see approaching : but
as I know that for this end I came into the world, and that this is
thy will, and what thou hast appointed for wise and gracious ends;
it is my desire and will that thou shouldst glorify thy name, and
fulfil the designs of thy wisdom and goodness, though by my most
grievous sufferings.
Whereas therefore this writer tells us, that Christ ' would gladly
have been excused' from this trial, ' if his heavenly Father had
thought fit ;' it is very true, that he would have been willing to
have been freed from those sufferings, if it had been consistent with
the great designs of the divine wisdom and goodness ; for he did
not choose sufferings in themselves and for their own sakes : but
taking in the whole, that it was the Father's will, and that such
great and valuable ends were to be answered by it, he was willing
and did undertake it. So that it is not true, that he ' declined a
few hours' bodily sufferings,' as he represents it. For he did not
decline his sufferings upon the whole, and taking in all conside-
rations : he only poured forth his sorrows before his heavenly Father,
and at the same time that he expressed his natural aversion and
horrors of those sufferings absolutely and in themselves considered,
he declared his resolution to undergo them as the case was circum-
stanced. And this prayer of his is highly useful for our sakes, to
give us a more lively sense of the exceeding greatness of his
sufferings and sorrows ; and of the great importance and necessity
of them, that they were such as could not be dispensed with ; and
to set us a pattern of the most entire resignation to God in the
most difficult and trying circumstances. And I think this is evident
from the whole account that is given us of our Saviour's last agonies
and sorrows, that there was more in them than the mere dread and
apprehension of temporal death, and the sufferings he endured
from the hands of men, It was not the mere prospect of a ' few
hours' bodily pain in a way that so many thousands had suffered
before him,' as this writer expresseth it, that filled his soul with
such agonies and conflict. Since many of the martyrs, vastly
inferior to him in a true firmness and constancy of mind, have been
enabled to bear temporal death, and the severest bodily suffering,
not only with patience, but with joy and exultation of mind. It is
evident there was something in his sufferings and sorrows that lay
much deeper, and which far transcended the greatest sufferings of
the persecuted saints and martyrs ; something that we are not able
distinctly to describe and to explain ; but which should fill us with
awful thoughts of the majesty, greatness, and purity of God, and
CHRIST'S SATISFACTION CONSIDERED. 275
of his abhorrence against sin, when we consider that all these his
sufferings, so grievous and inexpressible, were for our sins.
There is one objection more which our author frequently insists
upon with a peculiar air of triumph, as a perfect demonstration
that there can be no foundation for the doctrine of Christ's satis-
faction in Scripture ; and that is, that there ' was no such thing as
vicarious sacrifices under the law of Moses, and therefore there
could be no reference to any such sacrifies in the New Testament
when speaking- of the death of Christ ; and this he proves, because
under that law ' no other penalty of what nature or kind soever was
ever taken off or mitigated on the account of sacrifice. But this
hath been shown to be a great mistake : see above chap. vi. to
which I refer the reader ; where he will find all that the author
offers with a view to prove there could be no expiatory sacrifice
under the law of Moses, considered. I shall only here farther
observe, that whereas he wonders at Grotius and the systematical
divines, for supposing that ' ever the life of a beast under the law
was taken and accepted of instead of the life of the offender ;' and
declares, that if ' they can give him any such instance, lie will be
bound under a penalty never to speak a word more,' pp. 126, 127.
If he understands by it, that they must give him an instance, where
a person that had been guilty of a crime against which the law had
expressly denounced the. civil penalty of death, was by law to be
freed from that penalty upon offering a sacrifice : this is, what
none of those systematical divines over whom he so unmercifully
triumphs were ever so absurd as to suppose : for they all know that
in such cases there were no sacrifices appointed or admitted by law
at all. But then this is so far from proving, as this writer intends
it, that there were no vicarious sacrifices under the law, that it
rather proves the contrary. For the reason why no sacrifices were
appointed in those cases was, because sacrifices were understood to
free a man from the penalty he had incurred by his crime. And
therefore when it was designed that the offender in person must
die, and when it was judged necessary for the good of the com-
munity that it should be so, no sacrifices were appointed, because
he must shed his own blood, and therefore no blood of the beast
was to be shed to make atonement for him. If sacrifices had been
admitted in such cases, and yet the punishment had been inflicted
on the criminal, it might have been argued that those sacrifices
were of no avail to avert the threatened penalty. But it is a general
rule, that in all cases where it was judged necessary that the
offender himself should suffer in his own person, whether it were
the punishment of death, or any other penalty, there was no sacrifice
to be offered, or blood of atonement to be shed for him at all :
and on the other hand, in all cases where the blood or life of the
beast was to be offered for the man to make atonement for him,
the law never appointed death or any other penalty whatsoever to
be actually inflicted on him ; which shows that sacrifices were
supposed to avert the penalty from the person on whose account
"ey were offered.
T 2
276 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
In cases where sacrifices were prescribed to be offered for sin,
the man that came to offer the sacrifice was to 'lay his hand' upon
the head of the victim, and to 'confess his sin,' and 'trespass which
he had committed,' Lev. v. 5, and if he had wronged his neighbour,
was to make restitution ; and then the animal was to be slain, and
his blood shed and sprinkled upon the altar, and thereby offered to
the divine majesty: and hereupon the offender was, in the eye of
the law, freed from the guilt he had contracted. The curse he had
incurred in strict justice was supposed to be averted by the blood
of the sacrifice shed for atonement. For it is declared, that it is
'the blood that maketh atonement for the soul :' and the reason is
given, 'because the life of the flesh is in the blood,' Lev. xvii. 11.
From whence it is plain, that the atonement lay in this, that the
blood or life of the animal was given or offered for the offender, to
free him from the guilt he had contracted, and the curse and punish-
ment he had incurred by his sin. And accordingly this writer
himself tells us, that the Jews had a 'very high opinion of their le-
gal sacrifices and atonements by blood :' and that it was 'an esta-
blished principle with the whole Jewish nation, that without shed-
ding of blood there could be no remission :' and that they thought
that 'God himself could be no otherwise satisfied and atoned but
with blood.' And therefore he would have it that St. Paul was
obliged to talk of the blood and death of Christ as an expiatory
sacrifice in compliance with their prejudices ; but that the meta-
phor, as he uses it, 'ought not to be strained to the rigid, literal
and most absurd sense of the Jewish law,' pp. 163 165. Where
he manifestly supposeth, that the Jews did acknowledge a vicarious
sacrifice in that sense in which it is to be understood in this ques-
tion, and that this was agreeable to the 'literal sense' of their own
law. And hence he frequently calleth the assertors of Christ's
satisfaction 'Judaizers,' and the doctrine itself the 'Jewish doctrine
of propitiation and atonement.' And yet this same very consistent
writer hath the confidence to assert over and over again, that there
'was no such thing as a vicarious sacrifice under the law;' and that
'therefore the apostle Paul could not refer to any such practice, or
suppose the death of Christ analogous to a thing that never existed,
not so much as in supposition. And therefore the Christian priests
who have introduced this notion of a vicarious penal sacrifice, have
run into grosser absurdities and more dangerous errors concerning
it, than ever the Jewish or Pagan priests had done,' p. 210. But
that the notion of vicarious sacrifices was not first introduced by
the Christian priests, but had obtained long before both among Jews
and pagans, may be proved with the clearest evidence.* And it is
also undeniably evident that Christ's sufferings and death all along
in the New Testament are represented under the notion of an 'expi-
atory sacrifice ;' and that the sacrifices that were offered under the
law are there represented as the types and figures of that most per-
* For this see among others Dr. Outram de sacrif. lib. Leap. xxii. see also cap. *x-
pp. 228, 229.
CHRIST'S SATISFACTION CONSIDERED. 277
feet oblation which Christ hath offered, and of the true atonement
for the sins of mankind made by his suffering; and dying for us.
The way our author taketh to account for Christ's sufferings and
death being called a propitiation and sacrifice is pretty extraordinary.
Hemakes a propitiation, or sacrifice in general, to be something offered
to God by avoluntaryactof obedience tohiin, upon which God becomes
propitious to the person who yieldsand performs that obedience. And
therefore Christ's propitiation according to him was nothing but the
obedience offered to God upon which God became propitious to him, and
highly rewarded him, as he will also be propitious to us upon our
obedience. And he saith, that ' Christ by his death and shedding
his own blood made a public declaration or authentic notification
from God of the propitiatory reconciling virtue or acceptableness of
such personal obedience,' p. 225. But at this rate Christ could not
be said to offer a propitiation for us at all, but only for himself,
and every man as well as he might be said to offer a propitiation
for himself by his own obedience. And how this will agree with
the Scripture expressions, and the account there given us, may be
left to any man of common understanding that can read the New
Testament. Besides, I do not see how upon this scheme he can be
said to be a ' propitiation for sins' at all, much, less for ' the sins of
the whole world :' since he had no sins of his own to atone for, and
according to this writer made no atonement for ours. Nor can I
see with what sense it can be said, that 'Christ by his death, and
shedding his own blood, made an authentic notification from God
of the propitiatory virtue and acceptableness of his obedience ;' since
it was not his suffering and dying that properly notified to the
world the acceptableness of his obedience, and that God was well
pleased with him and his obedience, but his resurrection and con-
sequent glorification. And therefore it was this, and not his suf-
ferings and death, that according to our author's account of it,
should have been called a propitiation, which he makes to be only
declarative of the virtue and acceptableness of his obedience. But
I shall not spend any more time in considering the account he pre-
tends to give of this matter which hath nothing to support it but
his own imagination. But this I am confident of, that if there had
been nothing more in our Saviour's sufferings and death than this
writer would have to be understood and intended by it, the New
Testament writers would never have spoken of it, and represented it in
the manner they have done,and in phrases which according to the usnge
of them that then obtained through all the world both among Jews and
Gentiles,must almostunavoidably lead them to quitedifferent notions,
and to look upon it as making a true expiation for the sins of the world.
This book is already swelled so much beyond my original inten-
tion, that I must be very brief in my reflections on the account he
pretends to give of some other doctrines of Christianity. Thus
under pretence of rectifying the mistakes that have prevailed among
'Christian divines for 1400 years past to the unspeakable detriment
of the Christian world, and of mankind in general,' with regard to
the 'Christian doctrine of pardon upon repentance,' he makes a
278 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
very extraordinary attempt to prove, that not one wilful sin under
the gospel shall be pardoned even though a man doth sincerely re-
pent of it and forsake it. And that the general offer of pardon
upon repentance made in the gospel, extended only to the sins
committed by Jews or heathens before their embracing the faith of
Christ, but did not extend to any one wilful presumptuous sin
' committed under the gospel dispensation itself, after men had en-
gaged themselves in the Christian Covenant,' see from p. 170 to p.
177, this is to make the grace of the gospel much narrower than it
was under the Old Testament dispensation. For in the law of
Moses there was pardon not only for sins of ignorance, but even
for wilful, deliberate sins which were afterwards sincerely repented
of, and which the offender himself had voluntarily confessed ; such
are the instances mentioned, Lev. vi. 2, 3. And it is evident that
the prophets every where abound with promises of pardon and
mercy even to the greatest sinners upon their repentance and refor-
mation. And can it be supposed that the gospel dispensation,
which makes the most glorious discoveries of the divine grace and
goodness, was designed to confine the mercy of God towards peni-
tent returning sinners in narrower limits than it had been before, as
it must have been if the representation our author gives of it be
true ? He pretends to prove this by three texts ; two of which, viz.
Heb. vi. 4 6, and Heb. x. 26, 27, are evidently to be understood
not of any one single wilful sin which a man might happen to com-
mit, and of which he afterwards sincerelyjrepented, but of a total apos-
tacy from the Christian faith and practice, as will appear to any
one that impartially considers those passages ; and the reader that
would see this clearly proved, may consult Dr. Whitby. With respect
to one of these passages, viz. Heb. vi, 4 6, the author is guilty of
a signal falsification of the text. For he represents it as if it had
been said, that it is quite impossible to renew the persons there
mentioned 'by repentance;' and puts these words in large charac-
ters to distinguish them; the sense of which he makes to be this,
'That it is impossible to restore them to pardon, though they should
repent.' Whereas, the original has it as it is justly rendered in our
translation, that it is impossible to renew them 'unto repen-
tance,' viz. because they had sinned against the best and most
effectual means that could be made -use of to convince and to con-
vert them. And the simile by which he illustrates it necessarily re-
quires this sense. For he compares their case to that of ' barren
ground, which though it hath had rain coming upon it, and hath
been often dressed and cultivated, bringeth forth nothing but briars
and thorns, and is therefore ' rejected and nigh unto cursing.'
Where his meaning cannot be, that if that land after long con-
tinuing barren, should at length bring forth fruit and grain, it must
notwithstanding this be rejected ; but that there was no hope of its
ever becoming fruitful after all the cultivation that had been laid
upon it had proved ineffectual, and therefore it was rejected and
accursed. The last passage he produceth is from John v. 1618,
concerning ' the sin unto death/ which he pretends cannot be under-
CHRIST'S SATISFACTION CONSIDERED. 279
stood of a total apostacy from the faith of Christ, or of the sin
against the Holy Ghost, because it is said to be the sin of a 'bro-
ther or fellow-professor of Christ, which an apostate could not be.'
But without entering into a particular explication of that passage,
which would lead me too far, I shall only observe that the author's
observation upon it will not hold good. Though 'the sin unto
death,' is not there 'expressly said to be the sin of a brother,' as
this writer affirms : or if the apostle had expressed it thus, 'if a
brother sin a sin unto death,' 8cc., it would not have followed that
this sin unto death could not be understood of an apostacy from
the gospel. For it would be sufficient to justify such a manner of
expression, if the person guilty of that sin was one that had before
professed himself a brother or a Christian. Nor can I see any ab-
surdity in such a phrase as this ; if a Christian should totally apos-
tatize from the faith and practice of the gospel, he cannot expect
divine pardon and mercy. And of some such persons the apostle
John seems to speak in several passages of this epistle. But what-
ever be the precise meaning of this passage, into which I shall not
now particularly inquire, it cannot admit of the interpretation he
gives of it. He is pleased to talk of the 'unnatural, forced, and
constrained constructions that divines put upon these words,' but I
know of no construction so absurd and unnatural as his own.
Which is, that this sin unto death must signify any ' wilful pre-
sumptuous sin under the gospel in violation of a man's covenant en-
gagements to the Christian faith and practice:' that every such sin
is the sin unto death which is not to be prayed for, and which ac-
cording to this author cannot be forgiven even upon repentance
and reformation. Whereas it is evident from the whole gospsl that
that cannot be called a ' sin unto death,' which is sincerely repented
of. 'Repentance and remission of sins,' are there always joined to-
gether, as having an inseparable connexion : and in this very epistle
St. Johnsaith, that 'the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all
sins,' that is from all sin truly repented of, 1 John i. 7, for so he
explains himself, ver. 9, ' If we confess our sins' where confession
is put for the whole of true repentance, of which it is a part, ' he
is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness.'
The reasons this writer pretends to give to show the absurdity of
supposing that wilful presumptuous sins are pardonable upon re-
pentance, proceed entirely upon a wrong representation of the
doctrine of repentance. If repentance were supposed to be no more
than a man's expressing his sorrow for his sins at the same time
that he persists in the practice of those wilful presumptuous sins
which he pretends to confess and bewail, or a crying to God for
mercy in his last hours, and feeling some bitterness and remorse
from an apprehension of the wrath and misery which is ready to
come upon him for his crimes ; if this alone were judged to be suf-
ficient to ' wipe off the guilty score,' I will allow that this would be
a great encouragement to sin. But this is not that repentance to
.which pardon is promised in the gospel. Nor need we this author
280 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
to set us right in this matter, who talks as if he came to enlighten
the world with some new discoveries on this subject, when the most
judicious divines have all along asserted the utter insufficiency of
such a repentance, and shown the extreme folly and danger of re-
lying upon it. The repentance to which pardon and life is pro-
mised in the new covenant, includes such a real, effectual change,
whereby a person becomes a 'new man' and a 'new creature;' that
the vicious habits must be mortified, and the soul must be turned
from the love of vice and sin, to a real, prevailing abhorrence of it,
and to a love of God and universal goodness. And though a man
may have been guilty of heinous, wilful sins in violation of his
Christian covenant and vow, and may have long persisted in them,
yet if afterwards he is brought to a true repentance for them, and
not only with deep sorrow and humiliation applies to God through
Jesus Christ for pardoning mercy, but becomes thoroughly changed
and reformed, and is delivered from the power of his evil habits,
and brought to a holy life and practice ; it is very plain from the
whole gospel that such a man is entitled according the new cove-
nant to pardon and forgiveness : his sins shall not be charged upon
him to his condemnation, but he shall, through the rich grace and
mercy of God in Jesus Christ, be made partaker of that great salva-
tion which is promised in the gospel. And it is evidently of great
advantage to the interest of true religion in the world, that there
should be encouragement given to sinners during the continuance
of this state of trial to repent and forsake their evil ways, and to
apply themselves in good earnest to the practice of righteousness.
But if a man, after having been once guilty of any wilful, presump-
tuous sin, e. g. of any one deliberate act of injustice, fraud, violence,
uncleanness, &c., which are committed in violation of the gospel
covenant, and against which, if persisted in, damnation is there de-
nounced, could never hope to be forgiven, or restored to the divine
favour, though he should never so sincerely repent and become
entirely reformed, and show the most excellent dispositions : this
doctrine, under pretence of standing up for the necessity of a holy
life, would really be a prejudice to the cause of virtue; since it would
entirely defeat the force of all exhortations to repentance, and
would absolutely discourage all endeavours after reformation and
amendments, and tend to harden men in sin and impenitency.
Here, by the way, we may observe the great consistency of this
writer, who elsewhere represents it as 'the eternal, immutable voice
of reason and nature as well as Scripture, that God will pardon sin
upon repentance and reformation, and never reject and cast off a
penitent returning sinner,' and that to deny this, would be to deny
' the mercy and goodness of God, and to leave no rational ground of
hope or trust in him from any revelation whatsoever.' pp. 150, 212,
and yet here represents the doctrine of pardon upon repentance, as
a doctrine that gives the greatest encouragement to sin and wicked-
ness ; and denies that any wilful sins committed against covenant
engagements can ever be remitted ; and asserts that no 'grace or
favour of the gospel, or benefit by Christ, can ever be pleaded for
CHRIST'S SATISFACTION CONSIDERED. 281
any such sins,' even though they should be sincerely repented of,
pp. 17], 172, &c. It is true, he pretends that it doth not follow
from this, that 'repentance for such wilful, presumptuous sins would
be of no avail, because repentance must always have this good ef-
fect, to lessen the number of men's sins, and increase the value of
their good actions, in the day of account.' But how can this re-
pentance for wilful sins lessen the number of men's sins in the day
of account, if wilful sins are not pardonable upon repentance, as he
expressly affirms ? If such a repentance cannot procure the par-
don of the sins that are repented of, how can it procure the par-
don of other sins ? According to the interpretation this writer pre-
tends to give of the text produced by him, there could remain no
hope of mercy for such persons though they should repent, but a
'certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation.'
And then of what avail their repentance for such sins would be, or
how it could 'increase the weight arid value of their good actions,'
is hard to see.
But I cannot help remarking on this occasion, that this author,
who here pretends such a mighty concern for the interests of prac-
tical religion, and who seems so afraid of giving the least encourage-
ment to sin and wickedness, that he denounces nothing but death
and judgment even against all that have been guilty of any one
wilful sin committed under the gospel, though they should after-
wards be never so thoroughly reformed ; this righteous author, who
is here so zealous for strict rigid justice at the day of judgment,
elsewhere thinks fit to make a mock of hell and damnation, and
the perpetuity of the torments of the wicked, and represents it as
the invention of the clergy, to keep up the awe of their own author-
ity, see pp. 400, 401. He makes the eternal fire into which the
wicked shall then be sent, and which is a strong expression design-
ed to convey to us a more lively idea of the greatness of the punish-
ment and misery prepared for them, to be nothing else but a consum-
ing their bodies in the flames at the day of judgment: and the
second death and everlasting destruction that shall befall them, to
he only an utter abolishing of their being, body, and soul. So that
their worm which dieth not, is a worm that shall soon die ; and
their fire which shall not be quenched, is a fire that shall soon be
quenched, and that for ever. And all the expressions used in Scrip-
ture in various forms to signify the perpetuity of the punishment
prepared for the wicked, signify no more than that the punishment
which shall be denounced against them in the day of judgment,
shall in that day be ended at once in the utter extinction of their
being. And if this were to be all the punishment the most obstinate
and hardened sinners were to expect, that they must first be con-
demned, and then immediately be consumed and annihilated at the
great day, and so an utter immediate end be put to all their torments
and miseries, I do not see any great matter of terror there would be
in this to affright men from their evil courses ; and am certain that
if this were generally believed it would take off the greatest res-
traint on men's impetuous lusts and vices, and would let loose the
282 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
reins to all manner of wickedness, violence, and impurity. To which
it may be added, that upon this scheme there is.no room for sup-
posing different torments to the wicked in proportion to the differ-
ent aggravations of their crimes, since all are alike to be consumed
and annihilated. I cannot but observe on this occasion that Celsus
himself carries it much farther than this writer. For he saith that
the Christians are right in this, that they believe that those
that have lived well shall be happy, but the unjust or unrighteous
shall be subject to eternal evils, ot avticot ira.fj.7rav alwvioie Kanoig
ffvvtZovTai. And he represents this as a doctrine in which all man-
kind are agreed, and from which nobody ought to depart. See
Origen contra Gels. lib. 8. p. 409.
I shall take some notice before I conclude of the attempt our
author makes against the positive precepts of Christianity. He some-
times pretends to prove that what are usually called the Christian
sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, are not Christian insti-
tutions at all, nor designed for standing ordinances. And the ar-
gument he makes use of to this purpose is, that the external element-
ary parts of these sacraments were in use before as national rites,
usages, or customs among the Jews, and that from thence it natur-
ally follows, that they cannot, properly speaking, be Christian insti-
tutions. See p. 104, &c. 202, 203. But that which makes any
thing to be properly a Christian institution, is its being instituted
or appointed by Christ himself to be observed in his church ; if
therefore Baptism and the Lord's Supper were thus instituted or ap-
pointed by Christ himself, they are properly speaking Christian in-
stitutions. And it doth not alter the case whether we suppose them
with regard to the outward elementary part of them to have been
used among the Jews before or not. Thus, e. g. let us grant that
baptism was a rite of long standing among the Jews in the initiation
of proselytes before the time of our Saviour, though this author is
in the wrong to affirm that no learned Christian ever denied it, for
I could name him several learned Christians that have denied this.
But I am willing to grant that it was used before the time of John
the Baptist, and of our Saviour, in admitting proselytes of right-
eousness, who were obliged to observe the whole law (for as to the pro-
selytes of the gate, they never were admitted by baptism,* though
this writer positively affirms they were, p. 105.) But then it must
be considered that baptism in this case was never used alone, but
as joined with circumcision and the offering a sacrifice. If there-
fore Christ had used baptism, merely because it was a Jewish na-
tional rite or usage, as this writer pretends, why did he not use
circumcision for the same reason in admitting proselytes, since this
was accounted to be no less essential, yea and of greater importance,
and no man could be a member of that church and polity without
being circumcised ? It was not therefore merely because it had
been used before among the Jews, but because on other accounts
it seemed fit to the divine wisdom, that this should be the standing
* See Selden de jure nat. & gent. lib. 2. cap. 3.
CHRIST'S SATISFACTION CONSIDERED. 283
ordinance of initiation under the JSew Testament, as circumcision
had been under the Old. And accordingly Baptism was applied
by our Saviour to other and farther purposes than it had been among
the Jews. And I suppose our author will scarce pretend that they
were baptized before in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, or that they were baptized into the death of Christ.
With regard to the Lord's Supper he pretends that the Jews had
a rite of usage like this at all their common meals ; and I will grant
that it is probable they usually had bread and wine at their meals :
but what is this to the purpose ? Will he say that they ever re-
ceived bread and wine in the manner and for the purposes for which
our Saviour appointed it at his last supper 1 Was bread and wine
ever used before among the Jews in commemoration of the sufferings
and death or Christ? And whereas he tells us, that this usage was
pretty early brought into the churches, in their very large and pop-
ulous assemblies, first at Corinth, and afterwards at other places,
but this was done without any apostolical advice or authority, p. 107.
Nothing is plainer, than that they received this ordinance at the
same' time that they received the knowledge of Christianity from the
apostle Paul. From whose express words it is manifest that he de-
livered it to the Corinthians, as a thing that he had received by
immediate revelation from Christ himself, and as a matter of im-
portance to be observed in the Christian church till the coming of
our Lord, and which required great care and reverence, and solemni-
ty, in order to a right celebration of it.
The arguments he produceth against positive precepts in general
are little more than a confident asserting the very thing that is in
debate : As when he saith it is plain, and he may venture to take
it as a postulatum, that all means of God's appointment must have
a natural relation to, and connexion with the end, &c. or else we
must suppose that God is an arbitrary Being, pp. 201, 413. For a
thing which is in itself antecedently indifferent, may by divine ap-
pointment be appropriated to a sacred signification and use, which
it would not have had without that designation ,and appointment;
and then when it hath by God's institution such a signification an-
nexed to it, may be highly useful to promote the main ends of re-
ligion. Any one that is acquainted with human nature cannot but
know that the appointing outward signs and representations may
in some cases impress a sense of a thing more strongly and affect-
ingly upon the mind. Special commemorative signs and seasons
set apart for that purpose, have often been judged, by the wisest
nations, to be of great use for keeping up the remembrance of im-
portant events. And what arguments can be brought lo prove ei-
ther that God himself cannot in consistency with his wisdom and
goodness appoint some things of this kind to be observed, or that
if he did they would be of no use or advantage in religion at all ?
To apply this. The death of Christ is represented in the sacred
writings as an event of great importance, the belief and consideration
of which is of the highest use in religion : and even this writer him-
self supposes the death of Christ to be improvable to many valuable
284 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
and excellent purposes, some of which he is pleased to mention, p.
] 66, 168, 177, &c. And if so, then certainly it must be of great use
in practical religion frequently to commemorate the death of Christ.
And the more solemn that remembrance is, the more likely it is to
answer the end, and make proper impressions upon the mind. And
consequently an ordinance, the express design of which is to oblige
us to such a frequent and solemn remembrance of it, and to make
it present to our minds by sensible signs and representations, must
be highly useful for attaining and promoting the great end of all
religion.
Our author makes the application and attention of the mind, and
a man's taking himself off from such avocations to other business
and pleasure that would hinder his main pursuit, to be the necessary
means of obtaining the divine wisdom or true religion, p. 421. And
if so, then it must be of great use to have solemn seasons of recol-
lection, in which men look upon themselves as under an obligation
by divine appointment to apply themselves more particularly to re-
ligious considerations, which otherwise in the hurry of worldly bu-
siness or pleasures they would be apt to neglect. For this reason
I have always thought the appointment of weekly sabbaths to be a
wise constitution : and in this view the sacrament of the Lord's Sup-
per may be also shown to be of great use ; since when rightly attend-
ed upon according to the original design, it hath a tendency to fix
the attention of our minds on such considerations as must needs have
a mighty influence to strengthen and improve our love to God, and
charity towards mankind, and to inspire us with a deep sense of the
evil and malignity of sin. To which it may be added, that it en-
gageth us to frequent self-examination, 1 Cor. xi. 28, which hath
a tendency to promote that self acquaintance, which by the author's
acknowledgment is necessary to divine wisdom and true religion.
And besides all this, it must needs be of great use as it engageth us
frequently to recognize the obligations of the new covenant that was
ratified by the blood of Christ, and to renew our solemn engage-
ments to the practice of true religion and righteousness. When
Pliny in his celebrated letter to Trajan represents the primitive
Christians as solemnly binding themselves in their religious assem-
blies, not to commit immoralities, such as thefts, robberies, adulter-
ies, falsehood, and betraying their trust ; ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne
adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati ab-
negarent; was this a prejudice to their character! Or can it be
thought that their religion was the worse for having an ordinance
in which they solemnly bound themselves by an obligation, accom-
panied with sacred external rites or signs, to the practice of all right-
eousness and virtue, and to avoid vice and wickedness ?
And now it will be easy to form a judgment concerning the
justness of what our author advances when speaking of the distinc-
tion between the religion of the end, and the religion of the means,
he saith, that the means in this case must be as necessary as the
end, for otherwise they would be no means at all, in contradistinc-
tion to any thing else : And that unnecessary means are fit only for
CHRIST'S SATISFACTION CONSIDERED. 285
an unnecessary religion, and they that will have the one ought to
be content with the other, p. 420. When he talks of unnecessary
means, the word unnecessary may admit of two significations. If
by unnecessary means he intends things that are absolutely useless
and insignificant, it will be easily acknowledged that such things
are good for nothing, and of no advantage in religion ; but such are
not the Christian institutions, which rightly considered, and observed
according to the original appointment, are of great and manifold use.
But if by calling them unnecessary, he means that they are not as
necessary as the end itself, and that it is possible the end may be
obtained without them, then in this sense means may not be abso-
lutely necessary, and yet may be of considerable use. And if they
can be shown to be very usefuHn the original design and appoint-
ment, and that they were prescribed by the Author of our religion,
that in the use of them the great ends of religion might be promoted 5
to discard or neglect them under pretence of their not being abso-
lutely necessary would be a very wrong conduct, and would show
both folly and disobedience. Our author is pleased often to talk
of mechanical means of grace, mechanical agency of the Spirit, and
the conveyance of grace, ex opere operate, and he represents those
that think themselves obliged to attend upon those instituted means
as expecting that they would operate physically upon them like
medicines upon the blood and humours ; but without having recourse
to any such absurd suppositions, it may be justly said, that if divine
assistances be necessary to our making a proficiency in the know-
ledge and practice of true religion, as this writer himself seemeth
sometimes to grant, then, on supposition that God hath instituted
ordinances to engage us to a solemn recollection and remembrance
of such things as are of great importance in religion, and to be of
use in strengthening, exciting, and enlarging good affections and
dispositions in our souls, those that from a regard to his institutions
and in obedience to his authority are careful in their attendance upon
them, and endeavour to observe them in a proper manner according
to the original appointment and design, may more justly expect the
divine assistances and influences in the use of those means, than
they that allow themselves in the habitual neglect, much more in
the contempt of them.
There is one objection more which I shall here take some notice
of, because the author makes a great flourish with it, to show that
there is no certainty in revealed religion, and that is drawn from the
differences there are among Christians, with relation to the articles
of their faith. He sets out with great pomp in the beginning of his
hook with giving us a catalogue of doctrines of revealed religion in
which Christians differ, and those the most learned, impartial, and
diligent inquirers. From whence he argues that the Scriptures are
uncertain and obscure, and that there can be no important or fun-
damental doctrines in revealed religion, and no determinate sense in
which they are to be taken : that there are as many different schemes
of revealed religion as there are men ; and that it is not one religion,
b ut a vast number of religions : and he thinks it is strange that
286 OBJECTIONS AGAINST
God should reveal a religion as of any necessity or use to mankind,
which may be taken in as many different senses as there are differ-
ent capacities, apprehensions, and ways of thinking among men.
see pp. 15 19, 95, 96. and he returns to it again at the latter end
of his book, pp. 443, 444.
But if there were any thing in this way of arguing, it might be
equally turned against natural religion, and even against the com-
mon principles of sense and reason, to show that there is nothing to
be depended upon either in religion or any thing else. For though
this writer takes upon him to affirm that the religion of nature has
been always the same, and must for ever be alike apprehended by
the understandings of all mankind, as soon as it comes to be fairly
proposed and considered, p. 94. yet nothing is more certain than
that as large a catalogue might be easily produced of differences in
doctrines relating to natural religion, as what he hath been pleased
to give us with regard to the doctrines of revelation ; and that among
persons that pretend to impartial inquiry, and some of whom have
appeared to be persons of sobriety, benevolence, and all the social
virtues, as he expresseth it. And yet it doth not follow either that
there are no important and fundamental doctrines in natural reli-
gion, or that there is no determinate sense in which those doctrines
are to be taken. Our author himself furnisheth us with some in-
stances of this kind. He argueth at some length against some per-
sons who, he tells us, look upon them selves to be great philosophers
and very wise men ; and whom he himself acknowledgeth to be men
of parts, and subtlety in speculation, who yet deny man's free agen-
cy, and introduce an universal fatalism and necessity in all actions.
He also asserteth the obligation of the duty of prayer, which he
seemeth to regard as an important duty of natural religion against
some in this age who deny it. And he tells us, that many great
and celebrated philosophers, persons that are above the gross ignor-
ance of the common herd, have maintained, that the world is govern-
ed by certain inherent powers and properties communicated to it
in the beginning, without the continual presence, influence, and
operation of the first cause upon it. This he represents as a phil-
osophical scheme of natural atheism, the parent of moral atheism,
and argues strenuously against it : see from p. 179, to p. 197. These
then by his own acknowledgment are instances of differences relat-
ing to matters of great importance in natural religion, and yet he
will not allow that men's differing about them is any proof of their
being uncertain and obscure or of no use ; for he expressly declares
them to be matters of infinite consequence to mankind.
It is as true in points of natural religion as in revealed, that where
men do profess to agree in the doctrines, they often differ in the man-
ner of explaining them, and in some or other of the ideas they form
concerning them. * From whence it would follow according to our
* There are perhaps hardly any two thinking men that exactly agree in all the ideas
they form concerning the divine nature, attributes, and providence. But it would be
foolish to pretend that they do not agree in believing and acknowledging the being,
attributes, and providence of God, because they do not agree in all the ideas thejr form
concerning them. And yet thus it is that this writer argues in order to magnify the
CHRIST'S SATISFACTION CONSIDERED. 287
author's manner of arguing, that there are as many different schemes
of natural religion as there are men ; that there is no determinate
sense in which its doctrines and principles are to be taken ; and that
there is no natural religion at all, because God would not give a
religion as of any use to mankind that is capable of being taken in
so many different senses. Though how this could be prevented ex-
cept God should miraculously convey the same ideas to all men, and
at once remove all their prejudices and prepossessions, and heal all
their vices and wrong affections of mind, is hard to conceive. A no-
ted sceptic Sextus Empiricus, makes use of this very argument of
the author to show that there is no certainty to be depended upon
with respect to the being of a God, a providence, and the moral dif-
ferences of good and evil. See the third book of his hypotyposes.
But the truth is, the argument, whether with regard to natural
or revealed religion, is weak and fallacious. It doth not follow that
any thing is uncertain or obscure, or of no consequence, merely be-
cause persons pretending to learning and impartial inquiry differ
about it. If a doctrine comes to me confirmed with good evidence
and sufficient proof, I am not to think worse of it either with regard
to its truth or importance, because another man that professeth to
be an honest impartial inquirer denies or doubts of it. For the
causes of men's different apprehensions lie very deep ; and it is hard
to know who is an impartial unprejudiced inquirer. This is a thing
that we cannot properly judge of. There are often some unobserved
prejudices, some secret wrong turns and affections of mind, which
hinder those from a right discernment of truth in particular in-
stances, that are otherwise sober, honest, and diligent. We must form
our own judgments concerning any doctrine according to the evi-
dence that ariseth to us upon the best inquiry we are able to make :
and if it appeareth to be well founded in reason or revelation, this
ought to be sufficient to satisfy our own minds, and to influence and
regulate our own practice. And we may also, according to the
sense we may have of its importance, use all proper endeavours in
a fair way to convince and satisfy others too, and to oppose the
contrary errors. At the same time we ought to exercise great cha-
rity towards those that have the appearance of serious inquirers,
and who seem to have a real love of truth and goodness, however
greatly we may think them to be mistaken. But there are some
persons concerning whom it may be said, without any breach of
charity, that their behaviour is such as plainly discovereth the bad
temper of their minds, and that they are not in a proper disposition
for seeking out truth. And I believe it would be difficult to find
an author that hath taken less care to preserve the appearances of
a candid, a serious, and unprejudiced inquiry, than this gentleman
that is pleased to assume the character of the moral philosopher.
differences about the doctrines of revelation. But it doth not follow with regard to re-
vealed any more than it doth with regard to natural religion, that no two thinking men
?gree in any of its doctrines or principles, because they may happen to form different
l deas concerning something or other relating to those doctrines.
288 OBJ ECTIONS AGAINST
Towards the end of his book he breaks forth into a large enco-
mium on moral philosophy or divine wisdom, and the proper means
of attaining to it. His general design in this is obvious, which is to
direct men to seek the knowledge of true religion by contemplating
the heavens, the earth, themselves, and brute creatures, in opposition
to their learning it from the Holy Scriptures. No man will deny
that it is very useful, and a duty, to consider the discoveries that
are made to us of the divine glory and perfections in the frame of
nature, in the works of creation and providence, and in the consti-
tution of our own bodies and minds. And a much greater progress
hath been made in all these ways of obtaining knowledge by those
that have the advantage of divine revelation, than was ever made
by any that had no other way of instruction than what this writer
proposed). Revelation doth not at all hinder, but promotes such
inquiries : it doth not discourage but assists and improves the exer-
cise of cool impartial reason : and at the same time that it excites
and engages us to make use of all the light of nature and reason, it
opens and enlarges our views by giving us a more clear and certain
discovery of several things which it is of importance for us to know,
and which either we could not have known at all, or not with such
satisfying clearness and certainty as we can do by that assistance.
Our author talks in magnificent terms of a man's ( conversing with
God, and deriving communications of light and knowledge from
the eternal Father and Fountain of it, and hearing the clear and
intelligible voice of his Maker and Former speaking to his silent,
undisturbed, attentive reason.' But though a man that earnestly im-
plores the assistance of the Father of Lights, and with a humble and
teachable mind gladly makes use of the ad vantages of reason and reve-
lation which God hath put into his hands, and is ready to practise as
far as he knows, may upon good grounds hope for God's gracious
guidance and assistance as far as is necessary to lead him to truehap-
piness; yet if, besides the common light of nature and reason, God has
been pleased to favor us with farther discoveriesof great importance by
a more extraordinary revelation, those, that under pretence of heark-
ening to their own reason obstinately reject this revelation, though
confirmed with all the evidence that can reasonably be desired in
such a case, and shut their eyes against the heavenly light, cannot
justly expect God's gracious communications ; but rather have rea-
son to be afraid that he will give them up to the hardness of their
own hearts, and will call them to a severe account for their obstinate
unbelief and disobedience hereafter. It is certain that the gospel
pronounces a very severe sentence against those to whom it is made
known, and who yet reject the evidence; and warrants us to con-
clude, that their infidelity is owing to very criminal causes, and bad
dispositions of mind ; and that their danger is very great, and their
condemnation shall be aggravated. It highly concerns this author
to consider this, who pretends to own the great usefulness of reve-
lation in aid of human reason in the present corrupt state of human
nature, and yet useth his utmost endeavour to expose it to the derision
and contempt of mankind. I heartily wish him a better temper of
CHRIST'S SATISFACTION CONSIDERED. 289
mind, and that he would seriously reflect, if it be not yet too late>
on his great guilt and danger. I am sorry there is so much reason
to fear that he is incorrigibly hardened in his infidelity. For he
hath plainly enough let us know that if he had lived in the time of
our Saviour and his apostles, and had been an eye-witness to all the
glorious miracles that were then wrought, and all the extraordinary
powers and gifts of the Holy Ghost, that gave such an illustrious
attestation to the gospel revelation, this would have had no influ*
ence upon him, since he will not allow these to have been any proofs
at all. On others I trust they will still have their designed effect.
I have fairly examined whatsoever he hath offered that hath any
appearance of reason, and many things that are little better than
downright misrepresentation and abuse. I am satisfied that if
reason and argument be fairly attended to with that seriousness and
impartiality that becometh the weight and importance of the sub-
ject, our holy religion hath nothing to fear from the attacks of its
most subtle and malicious adversaries. God grant that those that
profess to believe it may be careful to adorn their profession by all
the fruits of piety, charity, purity, and the heavenly mind and life,
which it is the manifest design and tendency of its excellent doc-
trines and precepts to promote.
u
PART II.
THE DIVINE AUTHORITY
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT ASSERTED,
WITH A FARTHER VINDICATION OF MOSES AND THE PROPHETS; OUR SAVIOUR, JESUS
CHRIST, AND HIS APOSTLES.
BEING A
DEFENCE OF THE FIRST PART
OF THIS WORK AGAINST THE EXCEPTIONS AND MISREPRESENTATION'S IS
THE SECOND VOLUME OK THE MORAL PHILOSOPHER.
BY JOHN LELAND, D.D.
u 2
PREFACE.
THE author of 'The Moral Philosopher/ who honours himself
with the title of Philalethes, a lover of truth, has been pleased to
publish another book, which he calls ' the second volume of the
Moral Philosopher, or a Farther Vindication of Moral Truth and
Reason.' And he solemnly declares as he had done before, that
' he had no other view or aim in writing his book, but to serve and
promote the cause of truth, peace, and righteousness, and to sepa-
rate the true religion from that of superstition, which has always
proved the bane and destruction of it,' p. 10. It is well we have
his own word for this, or else, from his manner of writing, no man
would have suspected it to be so. If he really intended to be an
advocate for truth and religion, he is certainly one of the most un-
happy advocates that ever appeared, since the methods he makes
use of are fit only to serve error and imposture ; and are enough to
disgrace the best cause in the world.
He had in his former book declared, that if any man made re-
prisals upon him in his controversy, he would cheerfully submit to
the keenest revenges of truth and reason, and be always ready to
own the great advantage and honour of being thus conquered;
And that if in attempting to serve the cause of virtue and true reli-
gion he has missed his aim, he has put it in the power of his ad-
versary, by setting him right, to lay him under the strongest obli-
gations of gratitude and respect.* I endeavoured to answer his
invitation, and by detecting his mistakes and misrepresentations,
gave him an opportunity of rectifying them. But this, instead of
engaging his acknowledgments, has only raised his indignation.
And he seems resolved to let the world see what a dangerous thing
it is to presume to contradict a writer of his importance. Though
he appears to be mightily displeased with any that suppose the
apostles or prophets to have been under an infallible guidance, he
acts as if he thought he had the privilege of infallibility in his own
person. I do not find "that he has acknowledged or retracted any one
mistake, throughout his whole book, though several of them are so
gross that it is impossible to defend them. When he is most
pressed, the way he takes to justify himself, is, to persist in what
he had advanced, and assert it with greater confidence than be-
fore ; at the same time assuring his reader, that I had not said
one word to the purpose; and that all that was offered against
him was mere impertinent declamation and harangue. And to this
he usually adds a most fearful outcry against systems and school-
divinity. When he has nothing else to say in answer to an argu-
See Mor. Phil. vol. i. pref. p. 4.
PREFACE.
inent, it is but calling it systematical, and this must pass for effec-
tual confutation of it. And I believe the world will do him the
justice to acquit him of the charge of being a systematical writer,
since it does not appear either from his former book or from this,
that he has any consistent scheme of principles at all.
The reader cannot but observe, that though this author allows
himself an unbounded liberty with the characters of the most ex-
cellent persons, yet he shows an extreme sensibility with regard
to his own. He sometimes complains heavily, as if I had used
him very ill ; though I know no instance in which I have done so,
except by detecting his misrepresentations, laying open the injus-
tice and falsehood of his aspersions, and showing the weakness of
his reasonings. This I was obliged to do in my former book, and
I have had farther occasion to do it in this. If this tends to ex-
pose him, (and who can answer such a writer without thus expos-
ing him ?) it is what he has drawn upon himself, and to himself
alone he is obliged for it. But as to his invectives against me,
and the little flirts of low buffoonery, which run through his
whole performance, and which would have opened a large field
for ridicule, if I had been disposed to take that advantage against
him, the reader will find I have for the most part passed them by
without taking the least notice of them. And, indeed, I think a
man can scarce be reduced to more miserable circumstances, as a
writer, than to be obliged to have recourse to such meannesses as
these ; and it is one of the most effectual methods he could have
taken to expose himself and the cause he contends for.
. I have taken no particular notice of his preface, which is only
a heap of loose rambling reflections on superstition, the clergy,
supernatural doctrines, the proof from miracles, placing religion
upon authority, spiritual scholasticism, and Biblical infallibility.
These things he frequently repeats in his book, where I have
considered them as far as is necessary^ Nor have I entered on
a distinct examination of his long letter to Eusebius, which I
doubt not that learned writer, to whom it is addressed, will call
him to an account for, though there is very little in it but what
he said before. I shall not detain the reader any longer here, but
refer him for farther remarks on the author's management of his
subject to the introduction ; in which I have endeavoured to obvi-
ate some general charges he advances against me ; and have laid
together several things which lie scattered here and there through-
out his book, and cannot well be reduced to any particular head of
argument.
I shall only add, that I have endeavoured all along so to order
my answer to him, that it may have something in it worth reading,
and which may be of general use; which a bare defence of myself
against his misrepresentations would hardly have been.
THE INTRODUCTION.
OUR author is pleased to begin his introduction with blaming me
for having written ' a large book in defence of Christianity and reve-
lation, without so much as letting people know what I mean by
the words, what this revelation is, or what its peculiar doctrines and
duties are.' This is an odd complaint from an author who himself
talks in a perpetual confusion concerning Christianity, revelation,
reason and moral truth, and fitness. He had in his "former book
asserted the great usefulness of revelation in aid of human reason
in the present corrupt state of mankind. And he continues some-
times to express himself after the same manner. But it is no easy
matter to know what he intends by that revelation, the usefulness
of which he pretends to acknowledge. By ' divine revelation' he
seems frequently to understand no more than the discovery of truth
to the mind in whatsoever way it is made known, even though it be
by a man's own study and application in the ordinary use of his
natural faculties. He declares that reason itself is a ' natural revela-
tion from God to man, and the revival or recovery of lost or neg-
lected truth may be called a particular revelation, or extraordinary
manifestation of divine truth, however a man received or came by it,
whether by the strength and superiority of his own natural faculties,
or by any more immediate supernatural illumination,' pp. 25, 26, see
also pp. 12, 13, 44. But how to reconcile this sense of divine rev-
elation with other passages in his book is hard to see. He represents
Confucius, Zoroaster, Plato, Socrates, and the greatest moralists of
the heathen world, as having been without ' the light of revelation ;'
and that hence it was, that their ' best systems of morality' were
mixed with 'many gross absurdities.' And he represents the great
disadvantage those nations labour under that 'never had the benefit
of revelation ;' among whom he reckons the Indians and Chinese ;
and that therefore none of them ' could ever .draw up as good a
system of natural religion as a Christian.' See Mor. Phil. vol. i.
pp- 144, 145. But if by revelation he meant, according to .the
notion he now frequently gives us of it, any discovery or manifesta-
tion of moral truth, even when acquired by men's own study and
application in the natural use of their faculties ; or as he had ex-
pressed it in his former boqk' r ariy 'rational, moral truth, that must
appear as such to the mind .'' 'or understanding of man, as soon as it
comes to be fairly proposed under its proper evidence;' see vol. i.
p. 343 ; I do not see how he can consistently say, that Socrates,
Confucius, &c. and the reatest heathen moralists. were without the
* o --
294 INTRODUCTION.
light of revelation, or that the Chinese, &c. never- had the benefit
of revelation. For will he say, that none of them had any discovery
or manifestation of rational moral truth ever made to them in any
way whatsoever, no, not so much as in the natural exercise of their
own faculties ? But it seems our moral philosopher has the privilege
of varying the signification of words, just as it best suits his present
convenience. And if his answerers happen to take them in one
sense, he can easily produce some passages or other in his book to
show that he takes them in another sense, and then insult them for
not understanding him.
The reader might perhaps think there was reason to complain of
such a conduct. But he very dexterously turns the charge upon
his adversaries. He, it seems, needs not particularly explain what
he means by revelation, though he takes the word in a very unusual
and ambiguous sense ; but they must explain what they mean by
the revelation they contend for, though they take it in the common
sense of the word, and in which it has been always taken in this
controversy. He can call himself a Christian, and intend a quite dif-
ferent thing from what the rest of the world understand by it, and yet
must be thought to speak clearly and intelligibly, without explain-
ing himself more particularly ; but he has a right to insist upon it,
that his answerers should tell him what they mean by Christianity.
And if, to satisfy him, I should tell him what he knew well enough
before, that by Christianity I understand those doctrines and laws
whicli were taught and delivered by Christ and his apostles, and
which, there is good ground to believe, were originally given in a
way of extraordinary communication from God himself; and that,
therefore, I think myself obliged to regard them, not merely^as the
product of human fallible wisdom and reason, or as the dictates of
philosophers and moralists, but as the doctrines and laws of God,
and to be received and submitted to as of divine authority. This
will not content this writer, except I let him know what the several
doctrines and duties of Christianity are. I must be obliged to give
him a particular catalogue of all the articles of religion which I
believe, and of all the duties which I look upon myself obliged to
practise. And if I should do this, he might probably call it preach-
ing, which, with him, is enough to discredit the best discourse in
the world ; or compare me, as he is sometimes pleased to do, to a
child saying his catechism.
In the mean time, he is so kind as to tell the world, what is not
that faith I contend for. It is not that * grand essential article of
all religious faith, that God is, and that he is the rewarder of them
that diligently seek him. The filial love and fear of God, and the
brotherly love of mankind, groanded upon the firm belief of all the
divine perfections, and particularly a trust in God, as the rewarder
of good, and punisher of bad men;' this, he says, is no part of that
faith which I oppose to infidelity, nor has my anti-infidel faith any
relation to it or connexion with it. This is very strange. That a
man should believe the Scriptures to be a divine revelation, where
all these things are most clearly and fully revealed, most strongly
INTRODUCTION. 295
established, and most pathetically enforced ; and yet this, his belief
of the Scriptures, have no relation to or connexion with the belief
or practice of those things which are there so expressly taught and
enjoined. But our author presumes that a man may have this
faith, and yet be, in my opinion, ' an infidel, an enemy to religion,
and a wicked opposer of revelation/ p. 2. I must own, that it is my
opinion, there are very few that really believe and practise according
to the faith he here describes, taken in its just extent, that are
enemies to the Scripture revelation. But it hath often been observed,
that many of the enemies of revelation screen themselves under the
pretence of standing up for natural religion, who, at the same time,
when they have come to explain themselves, it hath appeared that
they have been for subverting some of the main principles and obli-
fations of it. And this writer must pardon me, if I cannot think
im any great friend to the faith and practice which he here de-
scribes, who uses his utmost endeavor, and that with all the arts of
misrepresentation and calumny, to expose the Scriptures to the
ridicule and contempt of mankind. The effect of which would be
mightily to weaken the force of those principles and duties among
the people. One of those principles, as he himself here represents
them, is, that ' God is the punisher of wicked men ; and yet, if we
may judge from several passages, both in his former book and in
this, if he came to explain himself, he would so manage the doctrine
of future punishments, as to set wicked men, in a great measure,
free from those terrors which the representation made of them in
the gospel tends to inspire them with.
The general account of his faith he seems wonderfully to value
himself upon ; for he repeats it in his preface, and in several parts
of his book. But there is no mighty thing in this for any man to
boast of, as if he was bringing some important discovery to man-
kind. It is the easiest thing in the world to talk in this general
way, and is of little use and gives little direction either in doctrines
or morals. Yet this loose and general account of religion is, I sup-
pose, to serve instead of Scripture, and must be of greater use to
instruct the people in religion and morals, and to engage them to
the performance of their duty, than the excellent doctrines and
precepts of holy writ, whereby we are particularly instructed what
we are to believe, and what we are to practise, and have our
duty enforced upon us with the most powerful and important
motives.
He next goes on to inform the reader, what that faith is which I
contend for, and which I would declare to be ' necessary and fun-
damental to Christianity, if I had but the courage and honesty to
speak out,' and that is, a ' firm and indubitable persuasion that the
whole Jewish and Christian history contained in the books of the
Old and New Testament is infallible, and certainly true, especially
that part of it which relates to prophecy, miracles, ghosts, appa-
ritions, and other supernatural and superrational facts,' p. 2. I do
"ot know what business he has here to bring in ghosts and appa-
ritions, except that he thought it would make a ridiculous sound
296
INTRODUCTION.
in the ears of some persons. However, he lets us plainly know,
that the Scripture miracles and prophecy have the same weight in
his esteem as the stories of ghosts and apparitions, which I presume
are of no great credit with him. But he adds, that ' since the
historians in all this were immediately inspired, and so far under
the direction of the Holy Ghost, that they could not err, to doubt,
or to reject any part of it, would be to reject the whole, and over-
turn all revelation.' Tin's, he says, he takes to be the faith which
I oppose to infidelity, and that every man that does not believe all
this, I account an infidel. Now to satisfy him that I am not quite
so narrow as he takes me to be, I will tell him, that if any man
should be of opinion that in some facts related in the Sacred
Writings there are mistakes, whether owing to the negligence of
transcribers, or even in some smaller instances to inadvertencies or
forgetfulness of the original historians, or if he should doubt of
some particular books belonging to the sacred canon, though I
should think him mistaken, yet if at the same time he believed the
fidelity of the sacred historians, and the truth and certainty of all
the main facts whereby the Christian revelation was attested, and
did accordingly receive the doctrines and laws there taught and
enjoined as a revelation from God, and consequently as of divine
authority ; I would be far from branding him as an infidel or an
enemy to Divine Revelation. But if a man should declare that we
have no proof that the main facts whereby the Scripture was at-
tested, were really done ; or that if they were done, they can furnish
no proof or evidence at all of its divine authority : that the Old
Testament is a scheme of superstition and imposture ; and that the
New Testament, as we now have it, is a jumble of inconsistent
religions ; that Jesus was not the Christ foretold by the prophets,
though he himself, and all his apostles after him, declared him to
be so; that the apostles preached different Gospels; and that the
accounts of facts, or of doctrines and laws, given by Christ's own
disciples, are not to be depended upon : any man that should assert
this, and with his utmost art and malice set himself to expose. and
blacken the Sacred Writings, and the characters of those that wrote
them, and yet all the while, with a grave face, call himself a Chris-
tian ; yea, and face the world down that he is a better Christian
than those that receive the Scriptures and the doctrines taught by
Christ and his apostles as of divine authority, must have no small
share of assurance, and presume very much upon the indulgence or
the stupidity of mankind.
But our author urges, that ' nothing can be plainer than this,
that there is no such thing as historical infallibility, but that all
men are liable to error, not only in remote and supernatural events,
but even with regard to the most common affairs and things near
at hand.' And he thinks I ought to have ' proved this infallibility,
at least with respect to the sacred historians, and not have supposed
it, as I have done all along/ p. 3. But if the extraordinary
miraculous facts, whereby the Mosaical and Christian Revelation
is attested, were of such a nature Ihut those that were witnesses to
INTRODUCTION. 297
them, could be as sure of them as any man can be of what he
hears and sees, and, consequently, could not be deceived or im-
posed upon themselves, in the facts they relate, without renouncing
the testimony of all their senses ; and if, at the same time, it can
be shown that we have the highest reason to think that they were
persons of great probity and simplicity, and who had no intention
to deceive others ; yea, and that, as the case was circumstanced, it
was not in their power to have imposed these facts upon the world
if they had not been true ; this lays a just foundation for depending
upon the accounts they give as certain and true. And that this is
the case with regard to the extraordinary facts done in attestation
of the Mosaic and Christian dispensation, I have not merely sup-
posed, but proved at large elsewhere.* And when to this it is
added, that the persons by whom those accounts are given, gave
the most manifest proofs of their being under an extraordinary
divine guidance, which has been shown to be the case of Moses,
and of the apostles toofj to whom our Saviour had promised his
Spirit to guide them in what they testified concerning him, and to
bring things to their remembrance ; then there is a sufficient his-
torical infallibility, if this author is resolved to use this word, for us
reasonably to depend upon.
There is no occasion, therefore, for the great concern this writer,
in his laudable zeal for Christianity expresses, lest this should be a
placing religion upon a very weak, precarious, and uncertain bot-
tom. He is afraid, good man, this will give advantage to atheists and
infidels ; because if any plain instances can be brought of errors,
mistakes, or inconsistencies, in the sacred writers, it will be enough
to set aside their inspiration, and immediate divine authority.
For if they were not infallible in one case, they might not in ano-
ther : and if they were not immediately inspired in historical
matters, who can prove that they were in doctrinals ?' And then
he observes, that ' such are the wretched shifts to which those must
be driven, who place infallibility and certainty in any thing else,
but the necessary immutable truth, reason, and fitness of things,'
p. 3. This, it seems, and not historical infallibility, must be the
' rock upon which Christ has built his church, and against which
all the powers of earth and hell cannot prevail,' p. 4.
Christianity surely is very much obliged to this writer, who is
so mightily concerned to take it off the uncertain bottom of the
writings of the apostles and prophets, and is for placing it upon
an impregnable rock, against which earth and hell cannot prevail,
viz. ' the eternal, immutable reason and fitness of things,' in which
alone infallibility ^and certainty can be fouud. I wish he had
more distinctly explained what this reason and fitness of things
is, and what this infallibility is, that he supposes to lie in the
fitness of things. Does he mean an infallibility in our judgments
concerning itr or, that we do of ourselves certainly and infal-
libly know the whole fitness of things as far as relates to us?
* See ' Answer to Christianity,' &c., vol. ii. cliap. '-'.
t See Divine Author, p. 19, 30, 371, oT-2, &c.
300 INTRODUCTION.
This is scarce consistent with what he himself, elsewhere, ac-
knowledges, that human reason, in matters of religion, had been,
in a great measure, lost amidst the general ignorance, superstition,
and idolatry of mankind, p. 55. And if so, I cannot but think,
it must be a mighty advantage to have the truths, relating to relU
gion, cleared and confirmed to us by a divine authority and testi-
mony. And that the bulk of mankind would be in much greater
danger of erring and going wrong, if left to themselves to collect
the whole of religion, and their duty, as well as they could, from
the nature of things, by their own reason, than if they had the
doctrines and principles of it laid before them, and the duties of it
enforced upon them in plain propositions, contained in books writ-
ten under the guidance of the Divine Spirit.
But here, it seems, the danger lies, in supposing that the Scrip-
tures were written by divine revelation or inspiration from God.
He affects to be in a doubt, whether I will dare to take upon me
to assert this. And he argues against it thus : ' if the revelation
consists in the moral doctrines and obligations of Scripture, all
morality will be revelation ; or if it consists in the historical facts,
all history will be revelation. But if it neither consists in the
moral doctrines, nor historical facts, I wonder where he will find
it. At this rate he (speaking of me) must go out of the Bible,
and look for his revelation somewhere else,' p. 6. This, it must
be owned, is very acutely argued, and may serve as a specimen of
the clearness and sagacity of this writer. But it doth not follow,
that if I believe the moral doctrines of Scripture to be by Divine re-
velation, and the historical accounts of the extraordinary facts there
contained, to have been written under the unerring guidance of the
Divine Spirit, that therefore I must believe all morality, and all
histoiy, to be revelation ; except it can be proved, that I have the
same reason to believe all other writers of morals or doctrines in
religion to have been extraordinarily inspired by God, as I have
to believe that Moses and the prophets, or that Christ and his
apostles, were so ; and that all other historians were equally under
a divine guidance as those who wrote the accounts of the facts in
the law and gospels. And when the author proves this, I shall
acknowledge the force of his argument, and shall look upon him
to be a very great man.
I can see no reason at all for the extreme surprise he seems to
be in, that any man should venture to assert that the sacred writers
were under a divine unerring guidance. Since there is nothing in
this but what is reasonable and consistent, supposing such a reve-
lation to have been really given. For if God designed a revela-
tion for the use of mankind, which he communicated to a person,
or persons, to be by them published to the world in his name, and
by his authority ; and if he gave them the most illustrious creden-
tials, to convince mankind of their divine mission, and enabled
them by his own divine power, to work the most extraordinary
miracles, in attestation of the revelation they published in his
name, it is but reasonable, to suppose, that he would also (if he
INTRODUCTION. 301
were able to do it, which will scarcely be denied) guide and assist
their minds in publishing and delivering that revelation to the
world, so as to keep them from error in delivering it ; because,
otherwise, that revelation would not answer the end, nor could
men safely depend upon its authority, either as to the doctrines to
he believed, or laws to be obeyed. And upon supposition, that
that revelation was designed for the lasting use and direction of
mankind in succeeding ages, it is equally reasonable, to conclude,
that he would also guide and assist them by his Spirit, in commit-
ting that revelation to writing, together with an account of the
main facts, or miraculous attestations, whereby it was originally
confirmed and established. An unerring guidance, in this case, is
equally possible, and equally fit and necessary, as in the other.
And it may be said, in some respects, that it was of greater im-
portance to keep them from erring in what was thus written, for
the instruction of all succeeding ages, than in what they delivered
by word of mouth. This is a consistent scheme, harmonious in
all its parts, and worthy of the divine wisdom and goodness. But
to suppose that God discovered his will, in a way of extraordinary
revelation, to any person or persons, to be by them communicated
in his name, and by his authority, for the use of mankind ; and
that he interposed by the most extraordinary and miraculous attes-
tations, to confirm the revelation they published, and to engage
mankind to receive it as true and divine, and, yet, that he did not
guide and assist them in delivering that revelation to others, which
they received from him, but left them to themselves to publish false-
hood as well as truth, and at the same time, still continue to give
the most illustrious attestations to them, and to their doctrine,
whilst they were doing so ; or, to suppose, that he guided them
unerringly in publishing that revelation, by word of mouth, to that
age, and yet did not assist and guide them in committing that reve-
lation to writing with the original attestations, whereby its divine
authority was established, though it was designed for the lasting
use and benefit of succeeding ages ; this would be an absurd, self-
confounding scheme, and would be to charge the Supreme Being
with an inconsistent conduct, which a wise and good man could
scarcely be guilty of.
I am in no great pain about the author's ' plain proofs of errors,
mistakes, and inconsistencies, in the sacred writers/ which, he is
afraid, ' would be enough to set aside their inspiration, and imme-
diate divine authority ; and would give advantage to atheists and
infidels.' Many gentlemen of his complexion have made attempts
this way, but they have hitherto failed of making good their
charge. He may, undoubtedly, without great difficulty, find objec-
tions of this kind made ready to his hand, in several that have
gone before him in this cause ; and he may also, if he pleases,
find sufficient answers made to them.
He goes on to observe, pp. 6, 7, that ' by revelation, one would
think, should be understood the discovery of some doctrines or
duties in religion that had never been known before, and which
302 INTRODUCTION.
were above the search or investigation of human reason. In this
sense it has been commonly represented by the learned, and con-
ceived and applied by the vulgar and unlearned.' This the author
repeats in many parts of his book. He all along represents it as
if revelation were, by those he is pleased to call systematical di-
vines, wholly confined to things above reason; or, as he expresses
it, pp. 55, 56, ' that they take revelation, or revealed religion, to be
nothing else but a new set of doctrines, absolutely above and be-
yond the investigation and judgment of human reason.' And yet
lie cannot but know, that as they hold the Scriptures to be given
by inspiration of God, so they look upon the Christian revelation
to contain all the doctrines and laws delivered by Christ and his
apostles ; among which are many doctrines and principles of na-
tural religion, which are not absolutely above the search, investi-
gation, or perception, as he sometimes expresses it, of human
reason ; though they were greatly obscured and perverted through
the corruption of mankind. And it hath always been acknow-
ledged to be one valuable end of divine revelation, to recover men
to the right knowledge and firm belief of those principles and
duties which, though not wholly unknown before, nor absolutely
above the search of human reason, yet were encumbered with much
darkness, and had, in a great measure, lost their force, at least,
among the bulk of mankind ; as well as to discover several things
in religion, which, though very useful when known, the mere rea-
son of man could not have known, with certainty, without such
assistance.
This writer, indeed, will not allow that any thing was discovered
by the gospel, but what was as well known before. He observes,
that revelation, as taken for the discovery of any new doctrines,
will have but very little or no foundation in the New Testament.
And he then endeavours to show, that our Lord Jesus Christ, as
both he and St. Paul declare, ' came not to set up any new religion,
or new revelation, but to restore the old religion, and the true Abra-
hamic righteousness that had taken place before the giving of the
law, and by which Abraham, Noah, Enoch, and all good men,
from the beginning of the world, had been justified and accepted
of God. And this justifying acceptable righteousness was the
filial love of God, and brotherly love to mankind,' &c. It is
very true, that the faith by which Abraham and the patriarchs
were justified, and that of good men under the gospel, is funda-
mentally the same: for faith, in both cases, doth include a firm
trust in God, a belief of the revelations and discoveries he makes
of his will, and a dependence on his promises, all issuing in good
works and sincere obedience. But it doth not follow, that, there-
fore there is nothing discovered, under the gospel, but what was
as clearly discovered and revealed to Abraham and the patriarchs
before ; though undoubtedly the same faith for which Abraham
was so eminent, and which caused him to believe in God, and in
the revelations he then gave, would have led him actually to believe
in Jesus Christ, and to receive the discoveries he brought, if he
INTRODUCTION. 303
had lived after Christ's actual manifestation in the flesh. But our
author further urges, that ' the faith which was intended to be in-
troduced and established by this new dispensation, or old religion
revived, was that faith which makes and denominates men faith-
ful ; and the want of faith or infidelity was always the want of
faith or faithfulness, with respect to the filial love of God, and the
brotherly love of mankind, and such acts of moral truth and righ-
teousness as must flow from it. And that in all this saving and
justifying scheme, there is not one word or tittle of an historical
faith ; and that no man was ever blamed or condemned for not be-
lieving the history,' 8cc. p. 8. To open the true design of this
paragraph it must be observed, that, with this writer, the belief of
any facts whatsoever, that are recorded in Scripture, must pass for
an historical faith : and consequently the belief that there was such
a person as Jesus Christ ; that God sent him into the world to
save sinners ; that he wrought such and such illustrious miracles,
that he taught such or such doctrines, and delivered such dis-
courses ; that he suffered, and died for our sins ; that he rose
again from the dead, and ascended up into heaven, and is now in
a state of exaltation, and shall come again the second time, &c.
All this is historical faith, and therefore, in this author's account,
of no necessity or importance at all. But whatever he himself
thinks of it, he should not pretend to put it upon the world, as if
the New Testament also supposed this faith to be of no necessity
or importance ; when everybody knows, that is at all acquainted
with those sacred writings, that faith in Christ is there insisted on
as necessary to our acceptance with God, where the gospel is pub-
lished and made known. And how a man can be said to believe
in Jesus Christ, and yet not believe the gospel history, which takes
in the things he said and did, is hard to know. Our author, in
his letter to Eusebius, acknowledges, that the other apostles and
teachers of the circumcision urged the necessity of an actual ex-
plicit faith and profession of Christ ; but insinuates, that in this
they went much farther than the apostle Paul, who declares 1 , that
justifying faith had been, in all ages, the same.* But that apostle
expresseth himself as fully and strongly on this head as any of the
rest. Thus he saith to the ' Corinthians, I declare unto you the
gospel which I preached unto you, which also you have received,
and wherein ye stand ; by which also ye are saved. For I deli-
vered unto you, first of all, that which also I received ; how that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ; and that he
was buried, and rose again,' Sec. 1 Cor. xv. 14. And when he
elsewhere saith, ' The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and
in thy heart, that is, the word of faith which we preach; that if
thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt be-
lieve in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteous-
ness,' &c. < Rom. x. 8, 9, 10. I am afraid this great apostle, for
See Letter to Eusebius, p. C.
304 INTRODUCTION.
whom this writer frequently professes a mighty veneration, must
now pass in his esteem for as great abettor of historical faith as
any of the rest. It is true, that we are taught both by St. Paul
and the other apostles, that the believing in Jesus Christ, if sepa-
rated from the fruits of righteousness, will not justify or save a
man. But this doth not prove, that that faith is not necessarily
required of the gospel ; no more than it will prove, that it is un-
necessary to believe a God or a Providence ; because the bare be-
lief of this, alone considered, will not save a man.
There is one general remark that must occur to every man that
reads the author's book, and that is, that he all along represents
his adversaries as renouncing all evidence from nature and reason
in matters of religion, as putting it solely upon positive authority,
and abstracting entirely from all consideration of the fitness of
things. This he frequently charges upon me. And in the same
manner he represents his learned adversary Mr. Chapman, as
' setting up miracles as a criterion of divine faith, and of revela-
tion, above reason, ' in opposition to the nature, reason, and
fitness of things' as appearing to the understanding,' Lett, to
Euseb. p. 29. I shall take some notice of this here, that I may not
be obliged to return to it on all occasions.
I freely grant, and it is granted by every divine who has wrote
in this controversy, that whatever is proved by clear and evident
reason, from the nature of the thing, may be justly received upon
the strength of that reason and evidence. But since it is mani-
fest in fact and experience, and our author himself doth not deny
it, that mankind are involved in great darkness and corruption,
and if left to themselves, are very prone to entertain wrong appre-
hensions in matters of religion, and to neglect and counteract their
duty in very important instances, an extraordinary revelation from
God, in which we are assured of the truth of doctrines in religion,
and have the duties of it enjoined and enforced upon us by the
express testimony and authority of God himself; would be of signal
benefit, and a great instance of the divine goodness and compas-
sion towards us.
But, then, supposing such a revelation really given, there must
be some way of proving to men, that it is indeed a revelation from
God, and to be regarded as of divine authority ; and that the
persons professing to have received it from God, and who pub-
lished it to the world in his name, were indeed sent by God, and
did receive those doctrines and laws by extraordinary revelation
from him. And here it is that the proof from miracles properly
comes in, as an illustrious attestation given by God to the divine
mission of these persons, and to the divine original of those doc-
trines and laws ; and, that, consequently, they are to be received
as of divine authority. And this divine authority, when once it
can be proved, would be of equal use, both to give men a more
certain knowledge and assurance even of those things, which, how-
ever, absolutely speaking, they are certainly discoverable by our
natural reason, yet in the present corrupt state of mankind, are
INTRODUCTION. 305
encumbered with much darkness and prejudices: and also more
distinctly to describe and specify the particulars of moral duty, and
give them a greater force, and urge them upon us with more pow-
erful motives ; arid, lastly, to assure us of things which it is a great
advantage to us to know ; and which yet we could not otherwise
have known, or not with sufficient clearness and certainty.
It is manifest, that upon this scheme, we are under no obliga-
tion or necessity to renounce any proof or evidence that can be
brought for any principle or precept in religion from the nature and
reason of the thing. Revelation leaves all the proofs of religion
drawn from the nature of things in their full force, and in all their
light and evidence ; and adds to them trie attestation .of a divine
authority and testimony. We have all the advantage of argu-
ments from the reason and nature of things that this writer can
justly pretend to have, with this farther advantage, that besides
this we have the assistance of extraordinary revelation of a di-
vine testimony, which gives a farther degree of certainty and evidence.
There is, therefore, a perfect harmony upon this scheme between
reason and revelation, and between natural religion and revealed;
though this writer pretends, that in ' the way of spiritual scholasti-
cism (as he thinks proper to express it) natural and revealed religion
are two essentially different religions,' which he thinks ' looks like
a setting up imperium in imperio,' p. 54. And though I do not take
revelation to be nothing else but mere natural religion revived, yet
I look upon it to be an important end and use of revelation farther
to clear, confirm, and establish the main principles and duties of
natural religion. The question, therefore, between him and me, is
not, as he is pleased to put it, p. 56, about rational and sensible
religion, or whether sense or reason are most to be depended upon
in matters of religion. As if I was for renouncing reason and de-
pending only upon sense in matters of religion ; or, as if he was for
a rational religion, and I was against it. But the question really
is, whether human reason, guided and assisted by an extraordinary
divine revelation, confirmed by the authority and testimony of God
himself; or reason left to itself, without that assistance, be of most
use and service in matters of religion.
This gentleman seems all along to value himself mightily upon
it, that he is for placing religion upon a firm and immoveable foun-
dation, the reason and fitness of all things ; and he saith that what
I mean by revelation, is a ' supposed positive religion, founded upon
mere authority, without any other or farther reason,' p. 14. One
would think, by his representation of the matter, that revelation,
according to my notion of it, is ' merely a positive religion,' as op-
posed to that which is founded in the nature of things; and that I
do not suppose that revealed religion hath any foundation at all in
nature or reason. And so he would pass it upon the world, that
his religion truly is founded in the reason and fitness of things, but
that which we plead for is not. I will therefore tell him once for
all, that I look upon revealed religion to have a ; real foundation in
the nature and fitness of things. For all truth hath a real fitness
306 INTRODUCTION.
in it, or is agreeable to tlie nature of things. And I am satisfied,
that there is a real fitness in the whole work and method of our
redemption and salvation by Jesus Christ ; that is, that it is really
agreeable to the just order of things, to the relations between God
and us, to the honor of the divine government and excellencies, and
that it is highly for the advantage and happiness of mankind. But
the question is not, whether that which is true and fit in matters of
religion is to be admitted, but which is the best way of getting a
right information and assurance of that truth and fitness. And the
way this writer seems to propose, as far as I can comprehend his
design, is for every man to collect the whole of religion, in principle
and practice, from the nature of things by his own reason, independ-
ent on all authority ; a work to which the greatest part of mankind
are manifestly incompetent. He seems all along to think, that if
he can but say that truth is founded in nature, or the reason and
fitness of things, this is sufficient to show, that in this case we
are not to be assured of it by authority. But this doth not follow,
except it can be proved that the whole reason and fitness of things
is open to us. It is evident, that a thing may be in itself fit and
reasonable, and yet we may not be able merely of ourselves demon-
strably to prove it to be so, for want of taking in a full view and
comprehension of those things that are necessary to form a clear
and certain judgment concerning it. And now where is the mighty
advantage of his scheme, which he extols as of so much use to
mankind ? We have all the light of reason to assist us that he can
boast of, and are as much at liberty to make a just use of it in
searching and examining into the reason and nature of things : and
besides this, we have the additional light of extraordinary revela-
tion, or a divine authority and testimony. And I may appeal to
the common sense of mankind, whether this is not a great advantage
where it can be had. For surely it must be acknowledged, that
God may ascertain us of things, which, however they have a fitness
in themselves, we should not have known, or not have known so
certainly, without that information and assistance. And that if he
assureth us of things by his own testimony or authority, that testi-
mony or authority may be safely depended upon ; and that this
would come with a far greater force, and give a more satisfying
assurance and certainty to the mind than the opinions of mere
philosophers and moralists.
But I shall have occasion to say more on this head afterwards,
when I come to examine what he offers to show, that no authority
can be depended on at all in matters of religion. And shall now
proceed to another remark, on our author's manner of writing ; and
that is, his confused jumbling together questions which are entirely
distinct, and so perplexing and confounding the debate. Whether
this be owing to a confusion of things in his own understanding, or
to art and design, or to both together, I shall not 'determine ; but to
whatsoever it is owing, it is not a very proper way of writing for an
author that sets up to enlighten mankind in things of ' the utmost
consequence in religion.'
INTRODUCTION. 307
In p. 45, he pretends to state the question between him and me.
He saith, the ' only question between us is concerning the principal
characteristic, or medium of proof, by which we are to perceive or
judge of divine truth, or of truth as coming from God.' And then
he adds, ' here the author (speaking of me) seems to think, that
human testimony and authority, weak and fallible as it is, yel
is both sufficient, and the only means of conveying such truth to
us, who cannot pretend to any immediate personal inspiration or
revelation in the case. But it is certain (says he) that divine
authority, as founded upon human authority, must be liable to all
the weakness, uncertainty, failures, and imperfections of such human
authority. Since the superstructure can never be stronger than the
foundation, nor the conclusion clearer than the premises from which
it is drawn.'
All the strength of this lies wholly in the obscurity of it, and in
jumbling things together which are of distinct consideration. It is
manifest that he here confounds the questions, concerning the ori-
ginal proofs of a divine revelation, supposed to be given in former
ages, and concerning the means or manner of conveying that reve-
lation with those proofs to us. But these are distinct. questions,
and to be considered distinctly.
It is one question, how we come to know that the Christian
religion, .as preached by Christ and his apostles, came originally
from God in a way of extraordinary revelation ; and the answer to
this is, that it came attended with such a series of illustrious mirac-
ulous attestations as gave a full testimony to the divine mission of
.the persons by whom it was published, and to the truth and divine
original of the doctrines and laws. But it is another question, what
ground we have to think that that original revelation, or the doc-
trines and laws, together with an account of those extraordinary
miraculous attestations are safely transmitted to us, in such a man-
.ner, that we may have a reasonable assurance that they are the
doctrines and laws that were originally given, and that these facts
were really done.
The questions were distinctly treated in the book he pretends to
answer ; the former, p. 16, &c. the latter, p. 36, 8cc. But this
writer, whose advantage lies in perplexing matters, perpetually
confounds the question concerning the means of conveying a
revelation to us with that concerning the proper proofs of its ori-
ginal authority ; as if, because the writings in which that original
revelation is contained, are conveyed to us through the hands of
fallible men, therefore the divine authority of that revelation is
founded upon human authority, as a superstructure upon its found-
ation, and .a conclusion upon the principles from which it is drawn.
But it is evident to every one, that the question whether a writing
or law be faithfully conveyed to us, is one thing, and the question
concerning the authority of that writing or law, and the grounds of
its obligation, is another. That which gives a law its authority, is
-Ms having been enacted ;by the legislature. Let us suppose such a
Jaw, committed 4o writing ;. and that an age or two after,, some
' "- '
308 INTRODUCTION.
person is accused for transgressing that law. He denies its author-
ity. Why? Because it comes to us through the hands of printers,
clerks, keepers of records, &c. and these are not legislators, nor
can pretend to any authority to make laws ; and the authority of
those laws must depend wholly upon the authority of the persons
by whom they are conveyed to us. For it is certain that the legis-
lative authority, as founded upon the authority of printers, clerks,
&c. must be liable to all the weakness, failures, &c. of their author-
ity, and can be of no other or higher kind than their authority is;
since the ' superstructure can never be stronger than the foundation,
nor the conclusion clearer than the principles from which it is drawn.'
I doubt this way of arguing would hardly be admitted in our courts
of judicature as sufficient to set aside the authority of our laws ;
and if any man seriously made such a plea as this, he would hardly
be judged to be in u his right senses. But any kind of reasoning will
go down, when brought against the authority of divine revelation.
It is on the same confused jumble of things that that censure is
founded which he passes upon me, p. 50. That my 'scheme necessarily
leads me to place the most important, or divine truth upon the foot
of human fallible authority.' And (every where, through his whole
book, he insists upon it, as if this alone was sufficient to destroy the
authority of the Scripture revelation, that it is transmitted to us
through the hands of fallible men ; and that to lay any stress upon
the authority of a revelation that is thus conveyed to us, is to lay
the whole stress of religion on fallible human authority. But if the
original revelation, when first given and published, was of divine
authority, and if that revelation was committed to writing, and we
have sufficient evidence that that original revelation is safely trans-
mitted to us without any material corruption or alteration, then it
is as much of divine authority now as it was at first, and we are as
much obliged to receive and submit to it, as if we had received it
immediately^from the persons by whom it was first published in the
name of God. A revelation or law, if it had any real original
divine authority, does not lose that authority by being committed
to writing. Nor does its authority depend on the intermediate
conveyers, but on the proofs of its having been originally given by
revelation from God, as the authority of a law formerly enacted,
depends not upon the persons through whose hands it is transmitted
to us, but upon its having been originally enacted by the legislature.
It is therefore to no purpose to object, as this writer does, p. 13,
that we cannot depend upon that revelation, 'because the interme-
diate conveyers, as not being inspired or infallible themselves, might
mistake the sense of the first prornulgers, or give us a wrong account
of it/ p. 13. For if the writings of those first prornulgers are
conveyed safe to us, then it is nothing to us whether the intermediate
conveyers be fallible or not : for in that case we judge of the sense
of the first prornulgers, not by the opinion of the intermediate
conveyers, but by the very words of the original prornulgers com-
mitted to writing; and in that case may as properly be said to have
-that revelation in our hands, and may as properly be governed by
INTRODUCTION. 309
the doctrines and laws of it, as if we had lived in the age when it
was first promulgated, and had then heard it published by word of
mouth.
That an original divine revelation may be transmitted to us
through the .hands of fallible men, in a manner that may be safely
depended on, was shown in my former book, p. 22, &c. And his
learned adversary, Mr. Chapman, has considered this more largely
and fully. To all which this writer has nothing to oppose but
general clamors, which he repeats on all occasions, about the ' un-
uncertainty and infinite confusion of history, and fallible. human
testimony.' This may possibly take with some that will not give
themselves the trouble of thinking, and are carried away by mere
sounds; but .cannot have any influence on men of sense. It will
easily be allowed this writer what he wisely observes, that all 'men
are liable to error, and that even with regard to the most common
affairs and things nigh at hand,' p. 3. But does it follow, that
therefore no man can ever be certain of any thing; no, not even of
what he hears or sees ? Men may be deceived by human testimony ;
but does this prove, that therefore no human testimony can, in any
case, be certainly depended on ; I know it only by the testimony
of fallible men, that there is such a place as Paris or Rome, or such
a part of the world as America, for I never was there ; and yet I am
as reasonably certain of this as I am of my own existence. It is
only by what the author calls ' human fallible testimony, that I
believe any past facts whatsoever ; that I believe there was. such a
king as Charles the First, and that he was beheaded, or that there
were civil wars between king and parliament, or between the houses
of York and Lancaster, and yet I have as little reasonable ground
to doubt of them -as if I had lived in those times, and seen those
events myself. It is undeniably evident, that the most of our
knowledge does, and in the present state of mankind must, come in
this way ; and that without it no advantage could be made of the
knowledge, experience, and observations of past ages. It is in this
method that all our laws, records, &c. are conveyed. And why then
should it be thought absurd, that writings, containing an account of
doctrines or facts relating to religion, should be also transmitted !n
this way ; that is, in the only way of conveyance that, in the present
constitution of the world and of mankind, is left for transmitting
any past writings, laws, or facts to succeeding ages ; and which in
many cases may be so circumstanced, that it would be a ridiculous
scepticism to doubt of the certainty and safety of the conveyance.
I would, therefore, ad vise this writer not to trouble the world
more with his general confused clamours about ' fallible human
testimony,' except he will lay it down as a principle that human
testimony, that is, the testimony of men, who are in themselves fal-
lible, can in no case be certainly depended upon. And whenever
he shall undertake to prove this, I will undertake to show his ab-
surdity. But if human testimony may give a reasonable certainty,
and be depended upon in many cases ; and, particularly, if books
written, and accounts of facts done in past ages, may be transmitted
310 INTRODUCTION.
to us in such a manner, 'that no man can reasonably doubt "that
these writings are safely conveyed, and that these facts -were really
done, then his mere crying out, that they are transmitted by human
testimony, and that the intermediate conveyers were fallible, is all
weak, impertinent harangue, and proves nothing at all. It has been
often shown, with great evidence, that the conveyance of the sacred
writings is such as may justly be depended on; and that we have
all the assurance that can be reasonably desired, that they .are trans-
mitted safe to us, without any material corruption, either in doctrines
or facts. If he would argue to the purpose, let him answer what
has been offered on this head, and produce his proofs, to show that
the conveyance is uncertain, and not to be depended upon. But
this, I doubt, we are never to expect from this writer. If he can-
not carry his point by general clamours, he has done his best, and
you are to expect no more from him.
I shall conclude this introduction with taking notice of a passage
which our author hath, p. 44, where he pretends to sum up the
whole argument of my book. He there observes, that my whole
work, as to the argumentative part of it, may be reduced to this
one syllogism.
' Whatever God has commanded must be reasonable and fit, and
ought, consequently, to be done on the sole foot of his authority,
abstracted from any prior reason or fitness of things, as appearing
to the understanding. '
'But God has commanded some things purely indifferent in their
own nature, so far as we can see, and other things which must ap-
pear unreasonable to our weak understandings, abstracted from
such immediate divine authority. '
' Therefore things indifferent in themselves, or which otherwise
might appear unreasonable and unfit to mere human reason, may
be reasonable, fit, and necessary by divine authority. '
Any one that had not read my book, and was to form an idea of
it, from the account this writer here pretends to give of it, would
imagine, that the main design of my book, and what I bent myself
laboriously to prove, was, that God may command, and hath ac-
tually commanded, things that appear to us ' unreasonable and
unfit, ' and that yet they ought to be done, and to be regarded as
' reasonable and fit ' on the sole foot of his authority. The major
proposition in this syllogism, viz. that ' whatever God has com-
manded must be reasonable and fit, and ought, consequently, to be
done on the sole foot of his authority, ' &c. ; I had little occasion
to meddle with except in the case of Abraham. And there also, I
mentioned it as a concession of our author's own, and a principle
which he himself allowed to be reasonable.* And as to the minor
proposition in the above syllogism, viz. that God ' has commanded
some things purely indifferent, and other things which must appear
unreasonable, &c. This, he tells us, is what he has denied, ' as if
- . * See Divine Authority, pp. 91, 92.
AN EXAMINATION, &C. 311
this was the main controversy between him and nie. It is evident
that he here forms his argument, as if I had not only granted, but
affirmed, that there are several things commanded both in the Mo-
saical and Christian dispensation, that ' must appear unreasonable,
and unfit to our understandings. ' But he knows very well, that I
was so far from granting this, that on the contrary, the main design,
of my book was to answer the objections he brought against them,
and to show that there is nothing in them that can be proved to be
unreasonable or unfit. Nor has he been able to make good his
charge in any one instance. But this may give us a specimen of
the candour and justice of this writer ; and by this, and several
other things in this book, one would be apt to think, that he wrote
principally for those who should never see or read my book at all,
but take his word for what is contained in it.
CHAPTER I.
An examination of what the author represents as the main principles of Us book. Their
absurdity and inconsistency shown. His account of the nature of truth, and the
grounds of its communicability ; and the attempt he makes to show that truth cannot
be proved by authority, considered. That authority may in many cases be of advan-
tage for ascertaining ns of truth, and that a divine authority, or testimony, may be of
signal use in matters of religion and morality. This particularly shown with regard
to the Christian revelation.
OUR author looks upon the main principles he had advanced in
his former book, to be so ' strong and clear, ' that ' I could not med-
dle with the principles themselves, and dared not contradict or ar-
gue against them directly ; ' and that I have therefore ' left all the
principles of the book, which I pretended to answer, in their full
force,' p, 6. And he repeats it again, p. 9, that I knew very well
that I ' could not confute any one general principle or position in
the moral philosopher/ p. 9.
I must confess I am something at a loss to know what principles
he means. That book is written in sp loose and rambling a manner,
with so little method or consistency, that it is no easy matter to
know what are the main principles of it, and the chief difficulty lies
not in confuting, but in understanding them. If there be any
thing that can be called the main principle of his book, it is that
concerning the ' moral reason and fitness of things, ' being the only
' criterion of divine truth, ' or of ' truth as coming from God. ' And
312 THE MORAL PHILOSOPHER'S
this principle of his is there expressed in so general and undeter-
minate a manner, that it is very hard to form a precise idea of what
he means by it. But, however, I endeavoured to confute it as far
as I understood it. He repeats this principle again in his last book,
and expresses it thus, that we ' have no certain mark or criterion of
divine or moral truth, or of truth as coming from God, and discover-
ing his will concerning our duty, but the moral reason and fitness
of the thing, or its relation to and connexion with our happiness,'
p. 12. He thinks it very strange that I should pretend to be under
uncertainty as to the meaning of this principle, ' as if it was one of
the most perplexed uncertain propositions I had ever met with.'
Now, I must own, I am still uncertain about the meaning of it.
And I find his other answerer, Mr. Chapman, was as much at a
loss what to make of it as myself. That learned writer has turned
the proposition several ways, and in every sense that he could
think of has found it to be absurd. The wisest thing, in my opinion,
our author could have done, would have been silently to have drop-
ped this principle, and not have put the world in mind of it any
more. But, without taking the least notice of what had been of-
fered against it, he securely repeats it, or refers to it, on all occasions,
in his last book. I had endeavoured, in the book he has under-
taken to answer,* to put this principle of his in terms that might
have rendered it something more intelligible ; but since he gives
me no thanks for this, but is resolved to go on in his own way, let
us take it as he himself has been pleased here to express it, and see
what can be made of it, and wherein its great strength and useful-
ness lies.
The professed design of this principle, as advanced by our author,
is to set before us the only, sure, and infallible criterion by which
we are to judge of all truth whatsoever relating to religion, and by at-
tending to which, we may be safely and certainly guided what
truths we are to receive as coming from God. Now, this principle,
as here expressed by him, seems to be in no way fitted to answer
that purpose. It is evident (as I had observed in my former book,
p. 4, 5,) that there are doctrines in religion, and those too of con-
siderable importance, which we are to believe, as well as propositions
immediately and directly relating to the duties which we are to
practise. Now this principle of the author's, according to the ac-
count he here gives of it, seems only to relate to the latter of these.
For the truth of which he here proposes to give the criterion, is
' divine or moral truth, or truth as coming from God, and discover-
ing his will concerning our duty.' Where, by 'divine or moral
truth, ' he seems to understand such truth as ' discovers the will of
God concerning our duty j that is, such truth as relates to the du-
ties which God requires us to practise. So elsewhere, p. 17, he de-
scribes ' moral truth ' to be the ' reason and fitness of actions, as
* See Divine Authority, p. 6.
EXAMINED. 313
founded in the nature of things, and as necessarily connected with
and related to the happiness of moral agents ; ' this, says he, ' is
what I, with others, call divine truth, or truth coming from God. '
And, in this sense, his criterion is very defective, and cannot he
said to extend to all truths or doctrines, and principles in religion,
hut only to the 'fitness of actions.' And, even with regard to
these, our author's principle is far from being clear and certain.
For the only criterion he here lays down, is, what he calls the ' moral
reason and fitness of the thing ; ' and this moral reason and fitness
he explains to be its ' relation to and connexion with our happi-
ness. ' So that, it seems, nothing is to be admitted as a proof or
evidence of any thing's being the will of God, concerning our duty,
hut its appearing to our own minds or understandings to be in the
nature of the thing connected with our happiness. But here, again,
another doubt arises ; what kind of relation to or connexion with
our happiness, a thing must have, in order to its being morally fit
and reasonable. For this author frequently expresses himself as if
he understood it only of a necessaiy and immutable connexion with
our happiness. Thus, p. 16, he describes 'moral truth ' to be that
which discovers to us the ' necessary relations and qualifications of
actions as connected with our happiness. ' And, p. 17, that it is
the reason and fitness of actions, as founded in the nature of things,
and as ' necessarily connected with and related to the happiness of
moral agents. ' And he expresses himself, in many other places,
after the same manner. And then the meaning of his principle
must be this, that nothing is to be admitted, as true or obligatory,
in matters of practice and morality, but what is in the nature of
things ' necessarily connected ' with our happiness ; and at that
rate, though a thing may be of great advantage, and manifestly
conducive to our happiness ; yet, if it be not necessarily connected
with it, it will not be any part of our duty. In like manner he often
talks of the ' immutable, eternal reason and fitness of things, ' and
represents this as the same thing with what he elsewhere calls the
' moral reason and fitness of actions. ' As if nothing could be fit
at all but what is unchangeably fit, or fit at one time, and in one
circumstance, but what is fit at all times'and in all circumstances.
And upon this view of his principle the design of it is to show, that
though a thing appears to us to be fit as the case is circumstanced,
yet it is not to be done, nor can it be the will of God that we
should do it, except it can be proved to have a natural, unchange-
able, eternal fitness in all cases, and all circumstances. But this
would be both absurd in itself, as it would exclude several particu-
lars of our duty, several things which, as they are circumstanced,
would be of considerable use and importance to our happiness ; and
would also be contrary to what he himself elsewhere acknowledges,
for after having observed, that ' all wise states and governments
have ever found it necessary to abrogate and alter the old, or to
enact new laws, according to mutable and variable relations and
circumstances of persons in society ; ' he adds, ' that this will equally
314 THE MORAL PHILOSOPHER'S
hold good, when applied to the laws of God himself. For what
God would require at one time, and in such particular Delations and
circumstances, he would not require at another time, under other
relations, and quite different or contrary circumstances. ' See Mor.
Phil. vol. i. p. 207.
But to give this author all possible advantage, let us suppose that
his principle is not to be understood according to the obvious mean-
ing and propriety of the expressions ; but, that, when he talks of
the ' unchangeable eternal reason and fitness of things, he intends
also to take in those things that are not unchangeably and eternally
fit, but are only so occasionally, and in such and such circum-
stances ; and that when he speaks of a thing's being necessary to
our happiness, he does not merely understand that which is simply
and properly necessary to our happiness, but that which is condu-
cible to it. For so I find he expresses himself, p. 13, where he
talks of the ' natural tendency and moral fitness of actions as con-
ducible to true happiness. ' Such is the way of this writer, as if a
thing's being ' necessarily connected with our happiness, ' and its
' being conducible to our happiness,' were terms of the same extent
and signification. Though the distinction between them is very
obvious, and it is manifest that many things, which are not neces-
sary in the nature of things, may yet be conducible, and have a
subserviency to promote our happiness various ways. And if we
take this principle in this sense, that a thing's appearing to us to be
conducible to our happiness, is a sufficient and the only proof we
can have of its being the will of God concerning our duty, this
would be to leave the doctrine of morals very loose, and on a very
uncertain foundation. At this rate, men are to set up their own
advantage precisely as the measure of their duty. It is left wholly
to themselves whether and how far they shall obey, viz. so far only
as they apprehend a thing to be for their own benefit, and no farther ;
and of this every man is to be judge for himself. To put all duty
and obedience merely upon this foot would go a great way to dis-
solve all bands of government human and divine ; especially con-
sidering how most men are governed in judging of what is condu-
cible to their happiness, by present sense and appetite. And even
those that pretend to be governed by cool reason, will be far from
agreeing how far appetite must be indulged or restrained, or what
things are for our good, or the contrary.
It appears, then, that this main principle of our author's concern-
ing the only infallible criterion, whereby we are to judge of divine
truth, as it does not properly relate to principles or doctrines (which
yet it ought to do, in order to answer the end he proposes by it)
but only to the ' moral fitness of actions ; ' so when it is applied to
this it is very loose, and either will be apt to lead persons astray, if
they have no other rule to go by in judging of the will of God con-
cerning their duty, or will be of very little use and significancy. To
tell a man in general, when he wants to know what is the will of
God concerning his duty, that he must do those things which are
PRINCIPLES EXAMINED. 315
necessarily connected with, or which are conducible to, liis own hap-
piness, is not to give him any certain directions in the knowledge
of his duty ; since it is evident that in the present corrupt state of
mankind, men, if left to themselves, are often apt to be greatly mis-
taken in judging of their own happiness^ and the things that
are connected with it. Or if we come to the particulars of our
duty, it may in many cases be hard to convince a man that what
is urged upon him as his duty is really necessary and conducible to
his happiness; abstracting from all authority enjoining it. The
author of ' Christianity as old as the creation, ' who had also ad-
vanced this principle of judging of our duty, by what appears to us
to be for our own happiness, in order to put this rule in practice, advises
men ' so to regulate their natural appetites, as will most conduce to
the exercise of their reason, the health of their bodies, and the
pleasure of their senses taken and considered together, since therein
their happiness consists.
This is the rule he prescribes for instructing mankind in general,
the meanest, the most illiterate, not excepted, in their duty ; as if
it were a very easy thing for the vulgar to weigh and compare all
these, and to form an exact judgment accordingly. I think I may
appeal to the common sense of mankind, whether they could not
much more easily and certainly find out their duty and happiness,
by some plain revelation from God, confirmed by his own authority,
determining the particulars of their duty, and instructing them
wherein true happiness doth consist, and which is the best way to
obtain it, than if they were left to themselves to collect it, by
considering and comparing all these. I shall now leave our author
to make the best he can of his main principle, and proceed to some
other things which he seems to lay a stress upon, as very certain,
and of very great importance.
When he talks, pp. 5, 6, of those principles of his, which are
' so clear and strong, that I could not meddle with them, and
dared not to contradict or argue against them directly;' one of
those principles, it seems, is this, that ' the divine authority of any
person or doctrine cannot be proved from miracles.' If he had
said I had not confuted this principle, or was not able to confute it,
nobody would have wondered at his saying so, because he will
never allow that any man ever did confute, or can confute any one
principle he has once advanced. But it was certainly wrong to
say I never e meddled with it, and that I durst not contradict or
argue against it directly,' when he knows my first chapter was
designed on purpose against this principle, and that I there bend
Myself to show that miracles may bs of such a nature, and so cir-
cumstanced, as to yield a satisfying proof of the divine mission of
persons, and of the divine original and authority of doctrines. And
whether he has been able to invalidate what I have offered on this
head, will appear, when I come to consider what- he has advanced
m this book* to the contrary.
Another of his principles, which are too clear and strong to be
316 THE MORAL PHILOSOPHER'S
contradicted, as laid down in the forecited passage, p. 6, is this,
' That the truth, certainty, and importance of the doctrines, prove
the authority of the person as divine, but not the authority of the
person the truth of the doctrines.' This principle, which he will
have to be so clear and strong, that nobody dare attempt to confute
it, is expressed in so confused and ambiguous a way, that it is no
easy matter to understand it.
What does he mean by the ' authority of the person as divine,'
which the ' truth and certainty of his doctrines is to prove ?' Does
he mean that where a person, professing to be extraordinarily sent
of God, teacheth any doctrines that upon examination appear to be
true, and of importance to mankind, this is to be regarded as a
proof that he is indeed extraordinarily sent of God; and that
because of the certainty and importance of some doctrines he
delivers, we may safely, upon his ' authority as divine,' receive
other doctrines, which may, perhaps, be in themselves true, but which
do not appear to us to be certainly true by any arguments drawn
from the nature of the thing, and of which we have no other proof
but his authority ? This, to be sure, he will not allow. Or, is the
meaning this, that as far as we can prove by arguments drawn
from the nature of the thing, that any of the doctrines that person
advanceth are true, and certain, and important, so far we are to
believe him in the right, and that he had an authority to declare
those doctrines, as every man hath to speak truth ? And then this
principle, that the * truth and certainty of the doctrines proves the
authority of the person as divine,' is to be understood thus, that
when a person teacheth any doctrine, which I find by my own
reason to be true and important, and agreeable to the will of God,
I am to believe that in that instance he speaks what is true and
important, and agreeable to the will of God ; and this I may
believe, and yet in other instances think him not to be depended
on at all. And this is a very pleasant way of proving a person's
authority to be divine, since when I have proved it, his authority is
to pass for nothing, and I am to believe nothing upon his authority
at all. For I am to believe him no further than he can prove
what he says to be true from the nature of the thing : which is to
allow him no greater credit and authority, than we are willing to
allow to the greatest liar ; that is, let him prove what he says to be
true, and we will believe him. This principle of our author's, therefore,
as far as I can understand it, really amounts to this, that whenever
I know a man speaks truth, I must believe he speaks truth. A
very undoubted principle, and which tends very much to the
instruction of mankind, and to enlighten the subject before us.
However, he may have this satisfaction in it, that it is a principle
which he may enjoy to himself, and in which no mortal will ( dare
to contradict him.'
It will be allowed that whatever we know to be true, by argu-
ments drawn from the nature of the thing, we must believe to be
true ; but then the question still remains, are we never to receive
PRINCIPLES EXAMINED. 317
any thing upon any authority at all? And as far as I can under-
stand this writer, according to him, we are never to receive any
thing at all as true, upon any authority whatsoever, human or
divine, or upon any other foundation than its own intrinsic
evidence. Indeed, in his former book, he seems to allow, that the
authority of God might, in some cases, be a reason for believing a
thing though we had no manner of proof from the nature of the
thing ; as in the case of. immediate inspiration. ' If God speaks
to me immediately and directly,' says he, ' I believe him upon his
own authority,' pp. 82, 83, 84. He makes an appearance of saying
the same thing in some passages of his present book, particularly
p. 44, where he seems to allow, that in case of immediate inspi-
ration, if God should command any thing that appears to be weak,
' unreasonable, and unfit to mere human reason,' it must be ' done
on the sole foot of his authority, abstracted from any prior reason
or fitness of things, as appearing to our understanding.' But it is
evident that he cannot say this in consistency with these principles
which he here asserts to be ' so clear and strong' that they are not
to be meddled with or contradicted, and which he represents as
the main principles of his book. For in the place already cited,
viz. p. 6, he lays it down as an undoubted maxim, that ' truth is
prior in nature to all authority, and therefore authority cannot be
the prior ground and reason of truth.' He has it over again fre-
quently in his book, particularly p. 21, where, after having said,
that ' no authority, divine or human, can prove itself,' he adds,
' that it is very plain that truth is, in its own nature and reason of
things, prior to all authority, and therefore cannot depend upon it,
or be proved by it.' And, again, p. 23, ' what is true in nature and
reason, as all religion must be, cannot depend on any authority, since
truth is, in its own nature, prior to all authority, and without it no
authority can be proved.' From which passages it is evident, that
his assertion, if it holds good at all, will hold with regard to all
authority, divine and human. ' Truth is prior in nature to all
authority, human or divine ;' from whence he infers, that, therefore,
it cannot depend upon it, or be proved by it. So that, according
to him, no truth can be proved by any authority at all ; or, which
is the same thing, we cannot be ascertained of any truth
by any authority at all, whether of God or man; and, con-
sequently, if ' God should speak to me immediately and directly,'
I am not to ' believe him upon his authority,' (which yet this
.author allowed we ought to do) because ' truth is prior to all
authority.' This it seems, is one of his clear and strong principles,
which entirely subverts his own concessions, and which I did not
meddle with before, because I did not understand it, nor had he
so plainly avowed it before to be one of the main principles of
his book.
But let us now venture to examine it. ' Truth,' says he, ' is prior
in nature and reason to all authority.' If the meaning be, and it
is the only sense in which it can be admitted, that a thing must
318 THE MORAL PHILOSOPHER'S
be true in itself, before any authority can show it to be so, this
will be easily owned ; but it is nothing at all to the purpose. For
the question is, supposing a thing to be really and in itself true,
by what means may we come to know that it is true ; and whether
authority may not, in some cases, be a proper medium for ascer-
taining us of the truth of a thing, which we could not have known
to be true, or not so certainly, but by that authority or testimony ?
This is what this writer seems to deny. And in this he hath the
common sense of mankind against him. It is evident, and agreed
to, by all that have duly considered the different ways of conveying
truth to the mind, that authority, or a competent testimony, is, in
many cases, of great use, and a very proper medium of assuring us
of the truth of things ; and, in some cases, is the only way we have
of coming to a certainty about them. Our author himself owns it
with regard to what he calls ' truth in fact,' see pp. 11, 15. Though
I do not see but if his principle, as here laid down by him, be good
for any thing, it will prove, that truth in fact cannot be proved by
authority any more than any other truth. For may it not be said,
with regard to this as well as other truth, that ' truth is prior in
nature to all authority ?' that is, a thing must be true in fact before
any authority or testimony can make or show it to be so : therefore,
according to this author's excellent .reasoning, that which is true
in fact can never be proved by any authority or testimony what-
soever. It were to be wished this gentleman would produce this
way of argument to enlighten our courts of judicature. If any
witnesses were to be brought for the proof of any fact, let those
witnesses be ever so credible, it would be sufficient to destroy all,
to urge, with relation to that fact, that if it be true at all, the truth
of it must be ' prior in nature to their testimony or authority/ and
therefore it cannot depend upon their testimony, or ' be proved by
it ; for no authority can prove itself.' It is the truth and certainty
of the thing itself that must prove the authority of those persons
or witnesses, and not their authority or testimony the truth and
certainty of the thing. But, it seems, this way of talking, which
would be hissed at in other matters, must pass for clear and strong'
in matters of religion ; and the persons that reason at this rate,
must be esteemed men of extraordinary penetration above the rest
of mankind.
But since our author, though in contradiction :to his clear and
strong principles, seems willing to allow that, with regard to ' .truth
in fact,' authority may be of use, and we may .reasonably depend
upon credible testimony ; let us see whether it is not equally rea-
sonable for us to receive some things upon testimony or authority,
at least a divine one, in matters of religion.
And here I shall consider what he offers on this head in his first
section, p. 15, &c. where he proposes distinctly to consider the
' nature of truth' and the ' grounds of its communicability.' He
pretends there to treat of this matter with great accuracy and
exactness, whereas it has been ' perplexed and confounded by the
systematical divines.'
PRINCIPLES EXAMINED. 319
He tells us, that ' whatever is true to us, or true to human
understanding, must be either scientifically true, or true in fact.' It
is only in regard to that which is ' true in fact, or historical truth,'
as he calls it, p. 18, that he there allows any room or use for
authority or testimony. As to ' scientific truth,' under which he
comprehends all truth, natural and moral, or religious, it is only
' communicable by its own evidence to the understanding,' as he
expresseth it, p. 11. And here authority or testimony, according
to him, hath no place. It is true he also mentions a ' third set or
class of communicable truths,' viz. truths communicable by ' inspi-
ration or immediate revelation/ p. 18, but he mentions this only as
a thing found out by our spiritual scholastics or systematical
divines, and will have it to relate only to things which are abso-
lutely ' beyond the investigation, perception, or judgment of human
reason.' And it is evident to any one that has carefully read his
book, that these are things which, in his opinion, have nothing
to do with religion at all.
I would observe, by the way, that we may hence judge of the
great candour and consistency of this writer, who tells us, p. 5,
' That he has laid it down as a principle of reason, which he
endeavoured to prove and exemplify throughout his book, that
natural and revealed religion, as to their subject matter, are one
and the same ; and are distinguished only with regard to the dif-
ferent method of teaching, or manner of conveyance.' Here he
expresses himself as if he really acknowledged a true and proper
.revelation from God, the design of which is to clear and confirm
the great truths and duties of natural religion ; and that this
revealed religion differs from natural religion ' in the manner of its
conveyance.' The obvious meaning of which seems to be this, that
whereas the one is communicated to the mind by the exercise of
our own reason, in the ordinary natural use of our faculties ; the
other is communicated from God in a way of immediate inspiration,
or what this author himself calls supernatural illumination. And,
accordingly, he sometimes speaks of the usefulness of revelation for
clearing and confirming natural religion, see particularly p. 55.
But by comparing this with what he here says, it appears, that this
is only designed to amuse the reader, and to make a show of saying
a thing that he does not really believe. For when he proposes
distinctly to treat of the nature of truth, and the means of com-
municating it, he treats inspiration and immediate revelation as the
mere invention of the school-divines, and will not allow it to have
any place with regard to the principles of natural religion, or moral
truth, but only with regard to things above reason, that is, with
regard to things which, according to him, are of no use, and have
nothing to do with religion at all.
But let us return to what he offers concerning this scientifical
truth, as he calls it, and under which he comprehends all natural
and moral truth. The general account he gives of it is this, that it
' depends upon the abstract nature and reason of things, as eternally,
necessarily, and immutably the same.' And he tells us, that 'the
320 THE MORAL PHILOSOPHER'S
truths of this class, or such as are scientific, being eternal and
immutable, as founded in the necessary relations of things, in the
agreement or disagreement of their ideas, must appear to all
understandings alike, and always the same, when once they come
to be proposed in their natural order, and perceived by the mind.'
Now this description which he here gives of scientific truth will
only hold with regard to some general principles in natural philoso-
phy or morals ; but there are many other things, and of considerable
consequence, which cannot pretend to that degree of evidence, and
yet we have great reason to think them true. It is plain to any
one that is acquainted with human nature, and with the present
state of the world and of mankind, that by far the greater part of
that knowledge which is most useful to us comes, not in a way of
scientifical evidence and certainty, but in a way of probability,
which yet in many cases rises so high, that we cannot reasonably
withhold our assent. And to confine all truth in naturals or morals,
as our author here seems to do, to that which is scientifically true,
and which must appear to all understandings alike, as if nothing but
what is capable of demonstrative evidence were to be admitted in
reason or religion, is to reduce our knowledge to a very narrow
compass, and under pretence of setting it on a better foundation, to
discard the far greater part of it as useless and uncertain.
And even with regard to things which, strictly speaking, are
capable of being absolutely demonstrated, authority may in several
cases be of great use, and may be reasonably depended on ; e. g.
with regard to the truths and principles of the mathematics and
natural philosophy, which he here calls 'scientific natural truth," it
is evident that in many cases men may come very reasonably to be
assured of the truth and certainty of some of those principles in a
way of authority. No man would judge it unreasonable for a
person that does not understand the mathematics, or not sufficiently,
to believe a proposition that Sir Isaac Newton has demonstrated,
and which the ablest mathematicians acknowledge to be so. As to
what he calls 'scientific moral truth,' he describes it to be that
which relates to 'moral practice, and discovers to us the necessary
relations and qualifications of actions, as they are connected with
our happiness and well being.' And how loose and undeterminate
this is, and what little direction it gives in the true knowledge of
morals, hath been already shown. He then goes on to observe that
this moral truth comprehends under it the ' truths concerning the
being and perfections of God, and our necessary relations to him,
and the necessary moral reason and fitness of the several obligations
towards God and man arising from thence. And, as far as I can
^find, this is the only way he leaves even for the bulk of all mankind
to attain to the knowledge of religion and the whole of their duty.
They are attentively to consider the natures and reasons of things ;
they are to know the being and perfections of God, and the relations
between him and us; they are to know themselves, and the relations
they bear to one another; they are to consider and compare these
several relations, and the fitnesses 'and obligations arising from
PRINCIPLES EXAMINED. 321
them ; and thus are to collect the whole of religion and their duty,
every man for himself, from the abstract nature and reason of things,
independently of all authority whatsoever, human or divine. But
certainly he must know very little of human nature, or the present
state of mankind, that can persuade himself that the generality of
men are fitted for such abstracted reasoning and inquiries. And
one should think our author should be sensible of this, who finds
fault with those that extol the ' strength of human reason in matters
of religion and morality, under the present corrupt and degenerate
state of mankind ; and declares that the best systems of morality,
drawn up by the greatest moralists that ever lived, without the light
of revelation, were intermixed and blended with so much supersti-
tion, and so many gross absurdities, as quite eluded and defeated
the main design of them. Mor. Phil. vol. 1. pp. 154, 155.
The author of ' Christianity as old as the Creation' might consist-
ently enough suppose, that every man is to be left to collect for
himself the whole of religion which he is to believe and practice,
from the reason and fitness of things, independently of all revelation
and all authority whatsoever, either divine or human ; because he
at the same time supposed, that the reason and fitness of things is
obvious to the meanest understanding ; that the whole of religion
and the law of nature is so clear to all mankind, even to those that
cannot read in their mother-tongue, that they naturally understand
it, and cannot be mistaken in the principles and duties of it. This
scheme is indeed contrary to evident fact and experience. But yet
it must be owned to be consistent with itself. But our author, as
far as I can understand his intention, adopts his main principle,
and is for sending every man to the reason and fitness, of things
for finding out the whole of religion and his duty ; and yet, at the
same time, would be thought to acknowledge that in the ' present
corrupt state of mankind the law of nature is not written with suffi-
cient strength and clearness on every man's heart,' as that author
affirmed ; and that even ' the greatest moralists that ever lived,' if
left merely to themselves and their own reason, could not furnish out
a right scheme of religion and morality. But certainly if this be a
j ust account of the present state of mankind, it cannot reasonably
be denied that authority, especially a divine one, may be of very
great use in matters of religion and morality. Even with regard to
things which, absolutely speaking, are capable of strict demonstra-
tion, an extraordinary revelation from God, assuring us of them in
his name and by his authority, may be of great use to the bulk of
mankind, who are not very capable of following these things through
a chain of abstracted reasonings, especially considering how much
they are generally under the influence of corrupt passions and pre-
judices. Much more will this hold with regard to those things
which, though they have nothing in them but what is agreeable to
reason, yet cannot be proved to be necessarily true by arguments
drawn from the nature of the thing; of which kind there are several
things which it may be very useful for us to get a certain inform-
ation of.
322 THE MORAL PHILOSOPHER'S
Some things there are which appear certain enough in the general,
yet when we descend to particulars, there is a great deal of dif-
ficulty in them. Of this kind is what the author mentions, 'that
it is certain, since God is the wise and righteous Governor of the
world, he will reward good men and punish the wicked, as reason
and justice require.' This, he thinks, is a more 'certain and infal-
lible manifestation of God to man than any historical proof can
amount to.' But whatever may be said as to the certainty of the
general principle, that God will ' reward good men and punish the
wicked, as reason and justice require,' yet with respect to the par-
ticulars comprehended under it, and upon which the use and appli-
cation of that principle in a great measure depends, e. g. how far,
in a consistency with his own wisdom, and justice, and purity, God
may think fit to pardon the iniquities we are chargeable with, and
to reward an obedience attended with so many failures and defects
as ours is in our present imperfect state ; what kind of temper and
conduct.it is that will denominate persons righteous in his sight,
and what that righteousness comprehends under it that is necessary
to entitle us to a future reward ; and who those persons are that
shall be accounted wicked, and shall be thereby obnoxious to future
punishments; and, finally, the nature, greatness, and duration of
the reward that shall be conferred, and the punishments that shall
be inflicted. These are things that may occasion great doubts and
difficulties to a serious and inquisitive mind. And it cannot reason-
ably be denied, that an extraordinaiy revelation, additional to the
common light of nature and reason, would be highly useful, in
which we might have these things explained and ascertained by an
express testimony from God.
Again, with respect to moral obligations resulting from the rela-
tions between God and us, and between us and our fellow creatures,
though we may have sufficient evidence as to the grounds of those
moral obligations in general, (which is all that this author's argu-
ings prove) yet we may be greatly at a loss, if left to ourselves,
with regard to the particular laws and duties comprehended under
those general rules. There may be duties that appear agreeable to
nature and reason, and the relations we stand in, and which yet
Cannot be proved by arguments, from the nature of the thing, to be
necessarily obligatory. There may be such objections brought
against them, and with some appearance of reason, as may mightily
weaken the force and influence of them ; especially if appetite and
a little worldly interest be on the other side. But an express reve-
lation from God, enforced by his divine authority, would soon decide
the controversy, and give those laws and duties a vast weight, and
overrule the contrary pretences. And I may appeal to the common
sense of mankind, whether an express revelation from God himself,
declaring what is his will, and what it is that he expects and
requires of us with regard to the particulars of our duty, would not
be a vast advantage, if such a revelation can be had ; and whether
in this case they would not come far more easily and certainly to
the knowledge of their duty, than if they were left to collect it,
PRINCIPLES EXAMINED. 323
every man for himself, merely from the abstract reason and fitness
of things.
I shall conclude this chapter with observing, that as this writer
is for discarding all authority in matters of religion and morality,
so he would endeavour to persuade us that the gospel does so too.
That our Saviour and 'his apostles, especially St. Paul, disclaim all
pretence to authority, and place the whole proof in the nature of
the doctrines they taught, which was to make its way to the hearts
and consciences of men merely by its own force and energy, pp. 23,
24, 33, 41, 42. Our author often affects to talk of the intrinsic
evidence of the doctrines of the gospel, and would put it upon the
world, as if he was a better friend to Christianity who puts the proof
of its doctrines upon their own internal immutable evidence, than
others who put the proof upon a divine authority or testimony,
confirmed by miracles. But the design of all this, when examined
and compared with other parts of his scheme, is plain enough. It is
that no regard is to be paid to the authority of Christ as a teacher
sent from God ; nor are we to believe any thing he delivers upon
his testimony as divine. The doctrines and laws of the gospel,
taught and delivered by Christ and his apostles, are on a level, in
poiut of authority, with the dictates of those philosophers and
moralists that never pretended to any extraordinary revelation.
And the people are still left to find out the whole of religion and
their duty, from the reason and fitness of things, as they were
before. But this is entirely to destroy the peculiar use and advan-
tage of the gospel-revelation, which was, leaving all the proofs from
nature and reason, to stand in their full force, to assure men of the
great important truths and doctrines of religion, and to urge and
enforce the duties and precepts of it upon them by a divine author-
ity and testimony.
When our Saviour speaks of a future judgment, and describes
the process of the great day ; when he assures men of his own
coming to judge the world, and of the resurrection of the dead ;
when he makes the most express promises and declarations of the
pardon of sins, the terms upon which it is to be obtained, of the
gracious assistances of the Holy Spirit, and of eternal life to be
conferred as the reward of our sincere though imperfect obedience ;
when he proposes himself as the Saviour of mankind, and urges the
most pure and excellent laws, and self-denying precepts, &c. does
he urge these things merely by reasoning at large upon them, after
the manner of philosophers and moralists, by arguments drawn
from the nature of the thing ? It is evident, that he assures men
of these things, and urges them upon their own consciences in a way
of divine authority, as one who spoke in the name and by the au-
thority of God himself, and who was extraordinarily sent by him to
instruct mankind ; and to whose doctrines and laws they were
therefore obliged to pay an entire submission and regard. And to
convince the world that he was indeed sent of God, as he professed
to be> he wrought the most illustrious miracles, visibly trancending
all human power, and appealed to these miracles as the evident
Y 2
324 THE MORAL THILOSOPHEn's
proofs of bis divine authority and mission ; and at last confirmed
all by his own resurrection from the dead, and ascension into
heaven. And his apostles, who were commissioned by him to
preach his gospel to all nations, and to teach what he commanded
them, were also enabled, in his name and in attestation of the gos-
pel, to perform the most wonderful works, bearing all the signatures
of an extraordinary divine interposition, for a series of years
together. How great soever the excellency of Christianity is in
itself, yet it is plain that it was not by the mere force of its own
intrinsic evidence that it prevailed. Yea, as the state of mankind
then was, sunk in ignorance and vice, idolatry and superstition, its
pure and self-denying precepts, its sublime and heavenly doctrines,
the spiritual worship it introduced, in opposition to the reigning
admired superstitions and pompous rites of their ancestors, and to
the darling vices, passions, and prejudices of mankind, would have
proved a great hindrance to men's receiving it. And he must
certainly know little of mankind, that can suppose that such a
religion as this, propagated and preached by a few poor fishermen
and a tent maker, and urged in the name of a person that had been
ignominiously crucified by his own nation, should be able to make
its way, and establish itself in a wicked, an ignorant, and idolatrous
world merely by the force of reason ; when it had the power of the
magistrates, the interests and artifices of the priests, the eloquence
of the orators, the learning of the philosophers, the prejudices of the
vulgar, the darling opinions and passions of mankind engaged
against it; and had no worldly advantages on its side ; but exposed
its followers . to contempt, obloquy, and reproach, to the most griev-
ous sufferings and persecutions, and even to death itself. That
which chiefly rendered Christianity victorious at its first publication,
and made way for its reception in the world^was the manifest
proofs of an extraordinary interposition from heaven, and a divine
power and authority attending it and its first publishers ; whereby
their hearers were convinced that they were indeed extraordinarily
sent of God, and that Jesus Christ was what he professed himself
to be, the great appointed teacher and Saviour of mankind, of which
God had given assurance, as by the many illustrious and super-
natural works he performed, so especially by raising him from the
dead.
I doubt not our author will be ready to charge me here, as he
has already done, with 'rejecting the internal rational evidence of
the doctrines as appearing to the understanding,' p. 51 or 52.
But I am far from rejecting or undervaluing any internal rational
evidence that can be brought for any of the doctrines of Christi-
anity. These are left in their full strength, and have the addi-
tional attestation and enforcement of a divine authority or testi-
mony. I am persuaded that none of the doctrines of the gospel
can be proved to be contrary to any clear principles of right reason;
and that they are all of an excellent tendency. But their being
agreeable to reason, or having a good tendency, will not alone
prove them to be true. Thus. e. g. when St. Paul, whom this au-
PRINCIPLES EXAMINED. 325
tlior represents as placing the whole stress not upon any external
proofs, but solely upon the intrinsic evidence of the doctrines them-
selves, when he declares in that excellent passage, 1 Thess. iv.
14 17, that those that sleep, or die ' in Jesus, will God bring
with him ; that the Lord Jesus will descend from heaven,' Sec.
and the dead in Christ shall rise first ; and that those that remain,
and are alive, ' shall be caught up together in the clouds to meet
the Lord in the air; and so shall be for ever with the Lord :' And
when in the 15th chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians, he
gives such an excellent account of the resurrection of the dead,
and of the glorious change that shall be made Upon the bodies
of good men at Christ's second coming, and that in a moment, in
the twinkling of an eye ; this must be owned to be an admirable
doctrine ; it has something in it very noble, and full of comfort.
But nobody will say, that there is any proof of it from the nature
of the thing that makes it necessarily trne. It may pass for a fine
speculation, but cannot engage or determine the assent of the mind
merely by its own intrinsic evidence. But if it conies confirmed
by a divine testimony or authority, if I consider it as received by
extraordinary revelation from God himself, then I regard what
before I might wish to be true, as most certainly true, and to be
depended on as such.
But our pretended moral philosopher is for depriving us of this
advantage. He sometimes affects to extol the great usefulness of
the Christian revelation, for bringing men to a certainty, as to se-
veral things of importance, as to which they were uncertain before.
But, at the same time, he is for utterly depriving it of its proper
authority, as an extraordinary revelation from God. Whatsoever,
therefore, was uncertain to the reason of mankind before is so still,
since the testimony of this revelation can give no additional weight
to it at all. Its heavenly doctrines are of no more force than the
speculations of philosophers. Its divine promises are stripped of
that which gives them their greatest weight and comfort to the
minds of good men, i. e. the word and testimony of God himself.
Its glorious hopes are greatly weakened, and amount to little more
than some pleasing conjectures, which may amuse, but cannot
yield a satisfying certainty. The force of its divine laws, and its
powerful and amazing sanctions, are in a great measure defeated,
and must very much lose their influence upon mankind, when in-
stead of being regarded, as bound upon us by the express autho-
rity and testimony of God, they are regarded as having no greater
authority than those proposed by Plato, or any other philosopher,
and which men will be apt to slight, and think themselves at liberty
to reject, when appetite or interest stands in the way. And this
may help us to judge what obligations the world is under to this
writer, and of what mighty benefit the scheme he proposes must
needs be to mankind.
326 QUESTION CONCERNING
CHAPTER II.
The question concerning the proper proofs of truth, as coming from God, stated. The
author's ambiguities detected. Our not being able to explain, the particular manner
of extraordinary revelation, or immediate inspiration, no objection against the reality
of it. Things originally received in away of extraordinary revelation from God,
capable of being communicated to others, to whom the revelation was not immedi-
ately made. Exceptions against this considered and obviated. In what sense mi-
racles may be proofs and evidences of the Divine authority of persons or doctrines.
Tlie true notion of miracles, explained. The propositions the author lays down,
relating to them, examined. His objections against the proof of doctrines from mi-
racles, shown to he vain and inconclusive.
HAVING considered the general principles of our author's book,
and which he repeats and refers to on all occasions, and particu-
larly his attempt to show that no authority can be of any use,
or is at all to be depended on in matters of religion ; and having
shown that a revelation by a divine authority or testimony, would
be of great advantage in the present state of mankind ; it is now
natural to inquire what are the proper proofs whereby we may
come to know that such a revelation is really given, and that it
may be justly received as coming from God, and as of divine
authority. For if we have no way of proving that such an extra-
ordinary revelation was ever given, it is the same thing to us as if
no such revelation had been really given, since we cannot in that
case depend upon its authority, either with regard to the doc-
trines to be believed, or the duties to be practised. But we are
just left to ourselves, as much as if there was no such revelation
at all. Accordingly this is the point the moral philosopher appeared
to me to labour in his book ; and I therefore took it, that the
question between us, related to the proofs or evidences of truth as
coming from God in a way of extraordinary revelation. And this
was what I considered in my first chapter. But now I am cor-
rected by this writer for supposing that in this debate, by truth as
coming from God, is to be understood that which comes in a way
of extraordinary supernatural revelation. It seems it might be for
my purpose to understand it so, but it is not for his, see p. 12,
that is, it is not for his purpose to keep close to the point at all,
but to be perpetually shifting and doubling, and perplexing the
question by the ambiguous senses of the word revelation, and
truth as coming from God. By revelation be can sometimes seem
to understand what others mean by it, that which comes in an
extraordinary supernatural way ; and, at other times, intends no
more by it than any discovery of truth to the human mind, though
it be made in the ordinary and natural use of men's own faculties.
In like manner, by truth as ' coming from God/ it seems he in-
PROOFS OF TRUTH, STATED. 327
tends ariy'truth that hath its original from God in any way what-
soever. And, he supposes, I will not deny, that ' all truth is from
God as the only true original fountain and conveyer of it, p. 44.*
But then he ought to consider, that in this sense, truth, 'as com-
ing from God,' cannot be the appropriated distinguishing character
of what he calls moral truth, which, yet, he every where supposes ;
for he all along mentions 'moral or divine truth,' and truth as
coming from God, as terms of the same signification. But, accord-
ing to that general notion of truth as coming from God, which he
advances in the passage now mentioned, mathematical and meta-
physical truth, all the truths of natural philosophy may be as pro-
perly called divine truth, and be as justly said to come from God
as what he calls moral truth. But the proper question between
us is not concerning the evidences we may have of the truth of any
thing which we know by a natural and rational proof in the ordi-
nary exercise of our faculties ; but it is really this, whether there
can be any proofs or evidences given of truths coming from God
in a way of extraordinary supernatural revelation ; and what those
proofs and evidences are.
* It is pleasant enough to hear this writer complaining of me for using the -words
' Divine truth, truth coming from God, inspiration, revelation, &c. in a loose declama-
tory way, without ever affixing any clear determinate ideas to them,' p. 83. And again,
p. 219, that I use these words in a general, loose, and undefined sense. Whereas
the charge lies properly against himself. I take these words in one and the same
sense throughout my hook, the sense in which they are commonly understood in this
controversy, as signifying that which comes from God in an extraordinary supernatural
way. But he uses these words in a loose, general, and indeterminate sense, as taking
in all truth whatsoever, whether it comes in a natural or supernatural way, in the ordi-
nary exercise of our faculties, or hy immediate illumination. And hecause, in the
question between us, I am not for taking truth as coming from God in tbe same loose
and general sense that he does, he thinks fit to represent me aa ascribing nothing to
Go'd at all, but what is supernatural and extraordinary. He very pertinently ob-
serves, p. 82, that ' all things come from God, evil as well as good, punishments
as well as mercies; and that all great events, and all extraordinary degrees of wisdom
and knowledge, especially in spiritual matters, may be more especially ascribed to him.'
And, as if I denied all this, he very gravely complains, that ' it is impossible for him
to please me ; for he sees I am resolved never to suffer him to have any thing from.
God, but that he hopes God will be more merciful to him, if he ascribes every thing to
him, and owns himself to be his creature, subject, and absolute dependent. Por my
part, I will be no hinderance to his pious resolutions, and should he very glad that he
gave the world more convincing proofs than he has done in this book, of his ascribing
any knowledge or abilities he has to God, by employing them in his service, and in
promoting the valuable interests of truth and religion. I am very willing he should
ascribe every thing to God hut his faults, his falsehoods, and misrepresentations. These
T would have him take the credit and merit of wholly to himself. And in this very
passage, where he expresses himself so piously disposed, he does not deal very fairly
hy me. For he wpuld fain have the reader believe, that I will not allow that any thing
can he said to come from God at all, except it comes in a supernatural way. And par-
ticularly he observes, speaking of me, ' This author cannot admit any truth to he di-
vine, or to come from God, unless it comes from him immediately by inspiration or
revelation,' p. 83, that is, because I say, the proper question between him and me, is
not about that which comes from God in a natural way, and in the ordinary use of our
faculties, but about that which comes in a way of supernatural extraordinary revelation,
therefore I acknowledge no truth at all to come from God in a natural way. This is
our author's excellent reasoning, and his candid way of representing the sense of his
adversaries. Though it must be owned, he is a little kinder to me, p. 44, where he
allows, that I never have denied, and he supposes, ' I never will, that all truth is from
God, as the only true original fountain and conveyer of it.'
328 QUESTION CONCERNING
And, with regard to this, I proposed two questions to be distinctly
considered. The one is, whether those, to whom the original revelation
is immediately made, may have a sufficient certainty that what they re-
ceiveby immediate inspiration is, indeed, a revelation from God. The
other is, whether other persons, besides those to whom the original re-
velation was made, may have a sufficient ground of reasonable assur-
rance, that what those persons published to the world, as by reve-
lation from God, is indeed a revelation from God, and is, there-
fore, to be received and submitted to as such. Our moral philo-
sopher owns, that these are ' two very important questions,' and he
promises * to attend to my reasonings upon them the more care-
fully, because the whole controversy between him and me, must,
in a manner, depend upon it, p. 14. With regard to the first
question, I laid it down as a proposition that cannot reasonably
be denied, ' that God can communicate the knowledge of things,
by immediate revelation or inspiration, in such a manner, that the
person or persons, to whom such a revelation is immediately made,
may be certain that it is, indeed, a revelation from God.' This I
endeavoured to prove and illustrate, p. 7, &c. Nor does our au-
thor himself pretend to deny it. He says he agrees with me, ' that
God may immediately and directly, if he pleases, communicate his
mind and will, concerning our duty and happiness, to any man or
number of men, and enable them to communicate the same to
others upon sufficient grounds of belief,' p. 15. And, elsewhere,
he says, the question between him and me is not, ' whether God
may reveal or discover truth to the mind in a way superior to what
is common and natural ; for this he allows,' p. 44. He grants that
' God may communicate and convey spiritual and divine truth,
either mediately or immediately, as be thinks fit ; either by the
superior strength and extent of men's own natural faculties, or by
any more immediate supernatural illumination,' pp. 25, 45. From
these and other passages that might be mentioned both in his
former book and in this, it appears, that he himself allows, that
immediate inspiration, or supernatural illumination, is one way by
which God can communicate his will concerning truth and duty
to the human mind ; and, no doubt, he would cry out upon me as
egregiously misrepresenting him, if I accused him as denying this.
And if it be, as he himself expresses it, supernatural, it cannot be
expected that we should be able distinctly to explain the manner
in which it is communicated. And yet this gentleman is pleased
frequently to urge it as a mighty objection, that I do not explain
the manner of this inspiration. He charges me with ' talking of
inspiration absolutely in the dark,' and that ' I no more convey
any idea of it than one could to a blind man of light and colours,'
p. 82. And that ' I cannot tell what I mean by any such super-
natural or superrational light,' p. 227. But if he be sincere in the
acknowledgments he makes, that God may, if he thinks fit, com-
municate his will to the mind, by 'immediate inspiration or super-
natural illumination, he must also acknowledge that it is no objec-
tion against the reality of it, that we are not able distinctly to ex-
PROOFS OF TRUTH, STATED. 329
plain, or account for the way in which he doth it. He cannot but
be sensible, if he hath carried his inquiries in these matters as far
as he would be thought to have done, that we are very little able to
explain the operations of our own minds, or in what manner ideas
and notions are impressed and produced there, even in the natural
way. And if no more of "these things must be accounted certain
than we can distinctly explain the manner how they are done, we
must be uncertain of our own sensations. If, therefore, there can
be any satisfying evidence, that God doth communicate himself to
the mind in a way of immediate inspiration, or supernatural revela-
tion, this is sufficient, whether we can explain the manner of it or
no. And of this the person, immediately thus inspired or illumi-
nated, may have an absolute certainty, as I have shown in my
former book, pp. 7, 8. Nor does the author himself pretend
to contest it. And this is all that properly belongs to the first
question proposed ; for what assurance others may have concern-
ing it, will come to be considered afterwards.
But here it may be proper to observe, that this writer, after
having granted, pp. 13, 14, that ' God may communicate his will
concerning our duty and happiness, immediately and directly, if
he thinks fit,' viz. as he elsewhere expresses it, by ' immediate inspi-
ration, or supernatural illumination ;' yet when he comes, p. 18,
to treat of inspiration, or immediate revelation, as a way of com-
municating truth distinct from the natural way, he represents it
as the invention of our spiritual scholastics, or systematical di-
vines. And there are two things he observes concerning it. First,
that it extends only to things which, as he expresses it, are ' above
and beyond the investigation, search, perception, or judgment of
natural reason.' And secondly, that the persons that have any
such things communicated to them, by immediate inspiration or
revelation, cannot possibly communicate them to others ; nor can
any man understand them without a personal inspiration, or su-
pernatural illumination.
With regard to the first o these, he plainly abuses those he
calls the systematical divines, when he represents them as con-
fining inspiration or immediate revelation wholly to things which
are absolutely beyond the investigation or perception of human
reason. For, as I have already observed, all that hold the Scrip-
tures to be written by inspiration of God, do and must maintain,
that that revelation extends to the great principles and duties of
natural religion, as there farther established and confirmed. And
that this is one great use and advantage of divine revelation, that
it gives us a clearer and more satisfying knowledge and certainty
even of those things, which, absolutely speaking, are discoverable
by human reason. It will, indeed, be easily granted that this reve-
lation doth also extend to things which we could not have disco-
vered by human reason, if they had not been thus extraordinarily
revealed : but when once they are thus revealed, they are as capable
of being communicated as any other truths. Propositions, relating
to them, may be communicated in word or writing, and may be
330 THE MORAL PHILOSOPHER'^
understood by us, as far as it is necessary for us to understand
them, as well as any other propositions. Nor would it alter the
case, though the subject, to which those propositions relate, taken
in its full extent, may exceed our comprehension ; for, notwith-
standing this, those propositions may be both intelligible and use-
ful. So it is with regard even to some of the principles in natural
religion ; e. gr. those relating to the divine eternity, immensity,
&c. There may be propositions relating to those things which
may be of considerable use, and are capable of being understood
and communicated, though the subject in its full extent, is be-
yond the reach of our faculties, and may be attended with diffi-
culties which we are not able to explain.
But let us see what this writer offers to show that these things
cannot be communicated. He begins with telling us, that besides
' scientific truth, and truth in fact, our spiritual scholastics, or
systematical divines, have found out a third class or set of commu-
nicable truths, which are neither scientific nor historical, and which
cannot be derived either from our reason or senses ; and this they
call inspiration or immediate revelation,' p. 18. But here he
expresses. himself with great impropriety, and ought not to put this,
which is his own blunder, upon the scholastic divines and syste-
matical men. None of them ever said, that this ' set of truths is
inspiration, or immediate revelation ;' but that these truths came
originally by inspiration, or immediate revelation. He then goes on
to observe, that ' some have asserted the necessity of a personal
immediate inspiration, or supernatural spiritual illumination of every
man, in order to perceive and judge of these doctrines and truths
of immediate revelation.' And these, he says, ' have been consistent
with themselves, and proceeded upon the only supposition, that
can render their principles so much as intelligible/ p. 19. He
acknowledges, that others, who would seem more rational, say,
' that though the doctrines and truths of pure revelation could not
have been known at first, but by an immediate inspiration or reve-
lation from God ; yet, when once they are thus discovered and
made known, the common reason of man may so far perceive and
judge of them, as to have sufficient grounds for receiving and
believing them, as coming from God, and depending on divine
authority,' p. 20. ' This,' he owns, ' may look plausible, and is the
common way of getting off;' but he pronounces, that these ' com-
pounding gentlemen,' as he calls them, ' have been most of all
mistaken, and, by halving and mincing the matter, have left them-
selves no solid ground or footing at all,' p. 20. This is dictated
with a very decisive air, after our author's manner. But let us see
how he proves it. He asks, ' what this supposed divine authority,
by which we must judge of the will of God concerning our duty,
is founded upon ?' I answer, that the divine authority of doctrines
and laws, supposed to have been originally communicated by
immediate inspiration or extraordinary revelation from God, 1 say,
their authority, with regard to us, is founded on the proofs we
have, that the persons, by whom they were first published, were
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. : 331
indeed extraordinarily sent of God, and had them by revelation
from God himself; and if proofs are given sufficient to produce a
reasonable assurance of this, which will come to be considered
under the second question, then we may, upon good grounds,
receive those doctrines and laws as the doctrines and laws of God,
or as, doctrines and laws that came originally by extraordinary
revelation from him ; and, consequently, must receive them as of
divine authority. The author, next, has recourse to his great prin-
ciple, that it is plain, that * truth, in its own nature and the reason
of things, is prior to all authority; and, therefore, cannot depend
upon it, or be proved by it,' p. 20. And he has this over again in
the next page. But the absurdity of this hath been sufficiently
shown. And, if this principle were just, it would prove, that even
immediate personal inspiration can give no more assurance, in
point of authority, than if it came in any other way ; which, yet,
this writer seems here to allow.
There is another argument he offers to show, that the doctrines,
had originally by immediate revelation, cannot be communicated.
' It is certain/ says he, ' that inspiration or revelation cannot be the
object of our senses, since no man has seen God at any time, or
heard his voice ; and it is allowed not to be a matter of science, or
communicable by any natural relation and rational connexion of
ideas, as this would make a part of natural religion ; and, therefore,
cannot be known or communicated at all, but by a personal inspi-
ration or supernatural illumination.' And then he adds, that the
' certainty or communicability of immediate inspiration, or revelation
above reason, could never have been thought of, or found out, but
by great necessity, the mother of invention,' pp. 21, 22. But, here
again, he confounds, as he had done in his entering on this argu-
ment, p. 18, ' personal inspiration, or immediate revelation,' with
the truths, the doctrines, and laws, that came originally by inspi-
ration ; and upon this blunder of his own the force of his argument
depends. But though the original, immediate, personal inspiration
itself is not communicable, as being a personal thing, yet the truths
or doctrines, that came originally by inspiration, are communi-
cable, if those doctrines can be expressed in human language, or
conveyed by word or writing. And such are the doctrines and laws
contained in the Scriptures, which are actually transmitted to us in
writing. And as to any truths, that cannot be expressed in word
or writing, we shall have no controversy with him about them.
And if the person that had those doctrines and laws, by immediate
inspiration or revelation from God, can communicate them to others
by word or writing, and, at the same time, those, to whom they are
communicated, may have sufficient proofs, that the persons, by
whom they were originally delivered to the world, had them by
inspiration or revelation from God, this lays a just and sufficient
foundation for believing those doctrines, and submitting to those
laws, as of divine authority.
This, therefore, leads to the second question, with regard to
which I had laid down this proposition, ' That there may be such
332 THE MORAL PHILOSOPHERS
proofs and evidences given, that persons professing to have received
doctrines and laws by revelation from God, for the use of mankind,
were, indeed, sent and inspired by him, and did receive them by
revelation from him : such proofs and evidences as make it rea-
sonable for those to whom they are made known, to receive such
laws and doctrines as of divine authority.' And here I particularly
observed, that miracles may be so circumstanced as to be sufficient
proofs of the divine mission of those persons, and of the certainty
and divine original of those doctrines in attestation of which they
were wrought. This is what our author proposes to consider, from
p. 25 to the end of his first section. But before I come directly to
examine what he offers, I shall state the point in what sense I
make miracles to be the proofs or evidences of the divine authority
of persons or doctrines ; because this writer seems greatly to have
mistaken or misrepresented it. He saith, speaking of me, p. 30,
' This author grounds the whole of revealed religion upon the evi-
dence of miracles, as a proof of divine authority, abstracted from,
or independent of any reason or fitness of things, as appearing to
the understanding by a rational connexion of ideas. This is plainly
the author's grand principle, and what he has made himself ac-
countable for ; or, otherwise, he would not contradict me.' And he
all along represents it, as if, because I made miracles proper proofs
of divine revelation, therefore I entirely renounced all consideration
of the reasonableness and fitness of the thing itself, and could not
consistently ever urge this at all, as of any use or weight in judging
of a divine revelation, or inquiring into its evidence. And, accord-
ingly, because in my second chapter I offer several considerations
to show the ' intrinsic wisdom, goodness, and rational design of
the law of Moses, and the fitness of the ritual and ceremonial part
of that policy to the circumstances of that people,' he represents
this as ' entirely overthrowing and giving up the argument of my
first chapter, concerning divine authority, as proved by miracles,
being the only proper and genuine evidences of divine truth, or a
revelation from God,' p. 54. But this is far from being a just
representation of my sentiments.
In the passage, cited by this author, I observed that ' the reason-
ableness of a doctrine or law will never alone prove, that the man
who teacheth that doctrine, or bringeth that law, had it by imme-
diate revelation from God.' See ' Divine Authority,' p. 47, where
it is plain, that I do not say, that the reasonableness of the
doctrines and laws must not be considered at all, or that it is of no
use to consider it ; but that such reasonableness will never alone
prove that the man who teacheth that doctrine or bringeth that law
had it by immediate extraordinary revelation from God. Accord-
ingly, in the case there put, I make a supposition of a person's
professing to have received doctrines and laws by revelation from
God, &c. and mention, among other things, the apparent probity
and sincerity of the person's own conduct, and the good tendency
of the doctrines and laws he teacheth ; and add, that ' this may
form a strong prejudice in his favour, but doth not alone prove that
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 333
he received those doctrines and laws by revelation (that is, by
extraordinary supernatural revelation) from God himself.' See
'Divine Authority,' p. 16. And again, in p. 41, in mentioning the
f rounds upon which religion may be received as of divine authority,
suppose these grounds were, ' besides the good tendency of its
doctrines and laws, the illustrious miraculous attestations whereby
it was confirmed.'
From these passages it is evident, that though I deny that the
reasonableness of doctrines and laws will alone prove that the man
that bringeth those doctrines had them by immediate extraordinary
revelation, yet I do not deny but that it may be very useful to
consider the reasonableness and good tendency of those doctrines
and laws ; and this may be of great weight to give the proof from
miracles a greater force, and set them in a stronger light.* For
when there is a body-of doctrines or laws published to the world,
by persons professing to be extraordinarily sent of God, the main
design of which is to promote the practice of true piety and virtue ;
and they are enabled, in confirmation of it, to perform the most
glorious miracles, visibly transcending all human power; this good
tendency of those doctrines and laws furnishes a strong additional
proof that those miracles could not be wrought by evil beings ;
and, consequently, if they are above all the power of man, must be
wrought by the immediate power of God himself; or by good
beings superior to man, acting according to his direction, and
must, therefore, be regarded as yielding a divine attestation to the
certainty and divine original of those doctrines and laws. And
such a divine attestation or authority would (as I have already
shown) be of very great advantage to give men a more satisfying
assurance even of those things, which, however agreeable to right
reason, are encumbered with much darkness and prejudice in the
present state of mankind, and would give a mighty force and
efficacy to laws, which, however good in themselves, might appear
contrary to our inclinations and appetites, and liable to objections.
Nor would it at all diminish the force of the proof given by miracles
to that revelation, if, among those laws, there should be some of a
positive nature; and, among the doctrines there taught, there
should be some relating to things, which, depending on the free
counsels of God, we could not have known or discovered, if they
had not been thus revealed to us ! though, when they are revealed,
they are also of a good tendency, and may be very useful to us.
For some things of this kind may justly be expected in a revelation
from God to mankind ; and when confirmed by a divine attestation,
may very properly be received upon that authority; though,
without it, we could not have necessarily proved them to be true
and divine, by arguments drawn from the nature and reason
of the thing.
Having offered this to obviate the author's misrepresentations,
* Accordingly I actually make this use of it in
See ' Divine Authority,' &c. p. 13. :
the case of the Christian revelation.
334 OBJECTIONS AGAINST MIRACLES
and to state the design of the present question, I shall now proceed
to consider the attempt he makes to show, that miracles can, in no
case, be sufficient proofs of the extraordinary divine mission of any
person, or of the certainty and divine original of any doctrines.
And here I had observed, that the question doth not properly
proceed ' concerning all miracles in general, whether' all kinds of
miracles are proofs of doctrines as coming from God ; but whether
miracles may not be of such a nature, and so circumstanced for
number, grandeur, and continuance, as to yield a sufficient attes-
tation to the divine mission of the persons, Jn favour of whom,
and to the divine original of the doctrines, in confirmation of
which they are wrought ; and, particularly, whether the miracles,
wrought in confirmation of the Mosaic and Christian dispensations,
were not such.
In order, therefore, to invalidate this, he ought to prove, either
that no miracles can at all in any case be .of such a nature, and
so circumstanced, as to yield a sufficient attestation to the divine
mission of persons, or to the certainty and divine original of doc-
trines and laws ; or he ought to show, that the miracles, wrought
in attestation of the Mosaic and Christian dispensations, were not
such. And, accordingly, he has made some attempt as to
both these.
With regard to the general question he hath said very little but
what is sufficiently obviated, either in my former book, or in
Mr. Chapman's learned performance, who hath considered the
question about miracles very fully ; though this writer, according
to his laudable manner, pretends to answer it without almost taking
any notice of what he hath advanced.
He observes, p. 49, that I ought to have given some certain no-
tion or idea, or other, of a miracle ; at least, as the matter stands
in my apprehension.' Mr. Chapman has given a definition of a mi-
racle, but neither does this satisfy him ; for he declares Lett, to Eu-
sebius, p. 29, 30. That after all the pains Eusebius has taken, about
the definition of a miracle, he is still as. much at a loss as ever how
to judge of a miracle; and that, in his opinion, we do not so much
want the definition of a miracle, as some certain rule or criterion of
j udgment concerning it. Thus I find it is a very hard thing to con-
tent this writer, whether with a definition of a miracle or without it.
But though I did not give a formal definition of a miracle, yet, I
think, I have said enough to give a certain idea of what I under-
stand by miracles in this controversy.
It appears from the account I give of miracles in my first book,
pp. 10, 11, that I supposed the following conditions to concur in
them, which, when they all concur, yield a sufficient and convincing
attestation to the divine mission of persons, and authority of
doctrines.
1st. That they must be works of such ' a nature as manifestly
and undeniably transcend all the power and skill of any man, or all
the men upon earth ; and, therefore, evidently argue a supernatural
interposition. For though we do not know the utmost power of all
CONSIDERED AND REFUTED. 335
other beings, yet many instances may be supposed, in which we may
safely pronounce, that such or such effects are above all the skill or
power of man ; and that, therefore, they must be necessarily owing
to the interposition of a superior agent or agents.
2dly. It carries this still higher, if it be supposed that they are
such ' amazing and extraordinary acts of power and dominion, as
naturally, and almost unavoidably, lead us to regard them as pro-
ceeding from the supreme Lord and Governor of mankind. ' For
whatever we may suppose the power of any inferior created beings
to be, yet since they are all under his sovereign control, since he,
and he alone, is the Governor as he was the Maker of the world,
and since it is of high importance to mankind that he should main-
tain a visible character of dignity and superiority in his works,
above the competition of all other beings whatsoever, it may rea-
sonably he supposed, that there are some works which God reserves
in his own hands, or which he will never suffer to be done, but un-
der his especial direction and influence ; at least, never by any evil
beings, engaged in an opposition to the interests of his kingdom.
Instances of this kind are mentioned by Mr. Chapman. See Euseb.
pp. 96, 116. And such, manifestly, are several of the miracles, re-
corded to:have been wrought by Moses and ouv Lord Jesus Christ,
which carry such glorious indications of a divine power and domi-
nion, that it is scarce possible to hslp regarding them, as done by
the Lord of nature, and under his own direction and special in-
fluence.
3dly. It adds great force to this, if there be a succession or ' con-
currence of many such amazing and extraordinary acts of power
and dominion, ' and that for a series of years together, all mani-
festly tending to the same end. For if such things were done
' merely in a single instance or two, let the fact be ever so extra-
ordinary, and above all the power of man, yet it might be suspect-
ed that it was only some strange thing that had happened, ' from
which nothing could be certainly concluded, And such also were
the miracles of Moses and Jesus Christ. The evidence was not put
upon a single miracle or two, however extraordinary and glorious,
but there was a wonderful series and succession of unparalleled
acts and supernatural attestations.
4thly. Another condition I mentioned is this, that they should
be all plainly wrought in attestation and evidence of the divine
mission of the person by whom, or in favour of whom, they are
wrought, and in ' confirmation of the scheme of doctrines and laws,'
by him published to the .world, in the name of God. And accord-
ingly, we find that Moses put the proof of his being extraordinarily
sent of God, and of the divine original and authority of the Jaws
he delivered in his name, upon those illustrious miracles, which he
was enabled to perform in the name and by the power of God.
And in like manner the miracles wrought by Jesus Christ, and his
apostles and disciples after him, had evidently this as the main view
to which they were all directed, viz. to confirm the divine mission
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the truth and divine authority of the
doctrines and laws which he introduced.
336 OBJECTIONS AGAINST MIRACLES.
5thly. It is farther required, that they should never be ' controlled
or overruled by any superior miracles, or contrary evidence. '
Perhaps something short of all this might in many cases be suf-
ficient; but where all these things concur, they may be justly re-
garded as yielding a divine testimony to those doctrines and laws,
in attestation of which they are wrought. And it cannot reasonably
be reconciled to the notion of an infinitely wise and good Mind,
presiding over the affairs of men, to suppose that they ever should
be suffered to be wrought in attestation of an imposture. I have
already shown, that a revelation, confirmed by the authority and
testimony of God himself, would be of vast use to mankind in mat-
ters of religion in their present state, both to assure them of doc-
trines, which however useful, they could not have known, or not so
certainly, without it ; and to give a greater force to laws ; and urge
their duty more strongly upon them in its just extent. Now it is
scarce to be conceived what greater proof could be given to man-
kind of the divine authority of such a revelation, than such a se-
ries of extraordinary miraculous works wrought in attestation of it.
One way of God's discovering himself to mankind is by his works.
And as his ordinary standing works exhibit the glorious displays of
his eternal power and Godhead, which should lead men to acknow-
ledge and adore him, and will leave them without excuse if they
do not do it ; so, supposing that God designed to make extraordinary
discoveries of his will, in a way of special revelation, a series of ex-
traordinary miraculous works, that argue a dominion over nature
and its established laws, wrought in attestation of that revelation,
seem to be peculiarly fitted for engaging mankind to receive and
submit to that revelation, as of divine authority. This is a way of
God's giving his testimony, and showing his interposition, the most
powerful and striking that can be, and which comes with a force
which human nature is scarce able to resist. And those, that on
the evidence of such a series of wonderful works as I have been
supposing, receive doctrines and laws as coming from God, act a
wise and reasonable part, and show a becoming veneration and re-
gard to the Supreme being, and a due submission to the discoveries
of his will.
Let us now see what our author offers to show, that no miracles
can be proofs of the divine mission of persons, or the divine original
and authority of doctrines.
He lays down some general observations concerning miracles, p.
30, &c. to be afterwards applied ; though when he should come
distinctly to apply them to the miracles of Moses, and of Jesus
Christ, he leaves the reader to himself to apply them as well as he
can. But I shall consider his lemmata, as he calls them, and make
some application of them as I go along.
His first observation is this, ' that we have no certain test or rule
of judgment, whereby to distinguish between a true miracle and a
false one, or between a thing of this nature that is really done, or
done only in appearance. ' And to strengthen this, he observes,
.CONSIDERED AND &EFUTED.
that tlie ' senses themselves are liable to deception : and, in cases
of this kind, we have the more reason to suspect them, because
there have been innumerable stories of supernatural facts which
have been generally received and believed, as strongly attested by
great numbers of credible eye and ear witnesses, and yet afterwards
appeared ill-grounded, and to have been owing to imposture, igno-
rance, or credulity, ' &c. And * men are the more easily imposed
on in such matters, as they love to gratify the passion of admi--
ration. '
This is a very general way of talking, and if it were good for
any thing, might be brought to prove, that because persons have
been sometimes deceived and imposed upon in facts, therefore no
man can ever depend upon the testimony of his senses in any case
whatsoever; though our author himself elsewhere speaks of our
senses as so certain, ' that they leave no room to doubt of any de-
ception, 'p. 18. And, for my part, I cannot help thinking, that if mi-
racles be of such a nature, and so circumstanced, that men may
have as much certainty that they were really done, and not in ap-
pearance only, as they can have that any other facts whatsoever are
really done, here is a certainty sufficient to satisfy any reasonable
mind, and it were perfectly absurd and unreasonable to demand
more. And such were the miracles that were wrought by Moses,
and our Lord Jesus Christ. They were a series of extraordinary
facts done in open view, before such numbers -of persons, and the
reality of which so plainly appeared in the effects, that to say that
those that heard and saw them could not be certain that they were
really done, is to destroy all certainty whatsoever. And I will un-
dertake to prove, that taking them as they are recorded to have hap-
pened, the persons that were witnesses to them had as full proof of
their reality as any man can possibly have of any thing for which
he has the testimony of all his senses.
His second observation is this, ' that we have no test or rule of
human judgment, whereby to know what is, or is not a miracle,
supposing a thing to be really done, and that there is no deception
in the case with regard to the fact itself. ' The reason he gives is
this/ because we know not the utmost power of natural agents, or
how far even the most common causes may sometimes concur un-
observed by us, which may make a thing look extraordinary, when
there is nothing uncommon in it. And from hence how extra-
ordinary and supernatural soever a thing may appear, yet we can
scarce ever pronounce with any cei tainty, concerning a peculiar di-
vine agency, or immediate and occasional divine interposition, p. 31.
Now, in opposition to this lemma, [ lay down another, and that is,
that as miracles may be so circumstanced that we can have all the
assurance that they were really done, and not in appearance only,
that we can have that any facts whatsoever were really done ; so
they may be. of such a nature, that we may certainly know that
they were really miracles ; that is, that they were above all the power
of any man, or all the men upon earth, and of all natural material
causes. And though we are not thoroughly acquainted with all the
'888 OBJECTIONS AGAINST MIRACLES
secrets of nature, and the powers of natural causes, yet this does
not hinder, but that in many cases we may safely and certainly pro-
nounce that such and such effects, e. g. the raising the dead, or re-
storing a perished limb in an instant, exceed all natural mechanical
powers.* And as there may be miraculous works performed, con-
cerning which we may be sufficiently certain, that they exceed the
power of man and all natural material causes, so they may be of such
.a nature, and so circumstanced, that we may be certain, that they
were not wrought by superior invisible evil beings, and therefore
must be wrought by the immediate power of God himself; or
which comes to the same thing in the present question, by the
agency of invisible good beings, acting under his special influence
and direction. There may be works that carry such illustrious
characters of a sovereignty and dominion over nature, that they
cannot reasonably be ascribed to any other than to the supreme
Lord and Governor of the world, or to his special direction : nor
can it, without the greatest absurdity, be supposed, in consistency
with his infinite wisdom and goodness, and the glory of his un-
equalled majesty and dominion, that he should ever suffer them to
be wrought in attestation of an imposture, or to promote the in-
terests of vice, and falsehood, and superstition. And I am willing
to join issue with this writer when he pleases, and show, that the
miracles wrought in attestation of the Mosaical and Christian dis-
pensation were such.
His third lemma or observation, with respect to miracles, is this,
that ' where the facts are not the immediate objects of sense, but
depend upon testimony, this testimony being human must be always
fallible. And in this case the probability will be still less at a
greater distance from the fountain, or first original evidence, or as
it comes to us through more hands, and in a longer succession of
time. For in this case there must be always some danger of altera-
tions in the conveyance ; and a few circumstances, either left out or
added, might make the most common thing in the world look ex-
traordinary and miraculous. ' In opposition to this I lay down this
position, that as miracles may be of such a nature, that those that
are eye and ear witnesses may be as certain of the reality of them,
as any man can be by the testimony of his senses, of any facts
whatsoever, so those miracles may be transmitted to others that
were not eye and ear witnesses, with such a degree of credibility,
that there can be no reasonable ground for doubt of the truth of
those facts. And though in this case our belief of them depends
upon human testimony, yet human testimony may be so circum-
stantiated as to give a certain assurance, which no reasonable man
can doubt of, concerning that which is conveyed to us by that tes-
timony. And particularly with respect to accounts of facts done
in past ages, all the world owns, that they may be transmitted to
us with such a degree of evidence, that we can no more reasonably
- * The absurdity of the contrary supposition Mr. Chapman has well exposed, Euseb.
pp. 82, 83.
CONSIDERED AND REFUTED. 339
doubt of them than if we ourselves had lived in those ages ; and
any man that should refuse to believe them, and give no other rea-
son for it, but that they come to us by human testimony, and were
done several ages ago, would only render himself ridiculous.
His fourth observation is this, that as ' human testimony must be
always fallible, so with regard to miracles, prodigies, ghosts, appar-
itions, and things in themselves improbable, it has the very least
and lowest degree of credibility. The same testimony and attestation
which would be easily taken for a common natural fact, would not
be soon admitted for an extraordinary and miraculous one, where
there must be always more danger and probability of deception.
And therefore the evidence or proof in this case ought to be so much
the stronger and incontestable, in proportion to the natural impro-
bability or incredibility of the thing/ p. 32. But a thing's being ex-
traordinary and miraculous is no objection against the credibility of
it, if at the same time it be of such a nature, and so circumstanced,
that the persons that were witnesses to it might have as full an as-
surance of the certainty and reality of it, as any man can possibly
have of any facts whatsoever. And of this ki nd were the miraculous
facts that were done in attestation of the Mosaic and Christian dis-
pensation. They were attended with such a degree of evidence as
was every way equal to the importance of the facts, and far su-
perior to the evidence brought for many other facts, which yet it would
be accounted unreasonable to doubt of. And the accounts of those
facts are transmitted to us with a degree of evidence and credibility,
that many other accounts of past facts are not transmitted with ;
which yet, in the judgment of all reasonable persons, may be safely
depended on.
His fifth observation is, that 'it is highly improbable, and cannot
be admitted, that God should work miracles, or interpose by an im-
mediate divine power out of the way of natural agency and common
providence, but to answer some great end of vast importance to man-
kind. And therefore he would not work miracles, either to prove
things which were plainly and necessarily true in nature and reason
before, nor things in their own nature indifferent, and such as can
serve to no good use or purpose at all, when they are known and
put in practice,' p. 33.
It will be easily granted, that if God interposes, by an immediate
divine power, out of the way of natural agency, it will be for some
worthy end of importance to mankind. And it is a valuable
end, and of importance to mankind, to attest a revelation by
miracles ; one design of which is to confirm and illustrate those
great truths and obligations, even of natural religion, which, though
founded in nature and reason, yet, by the author's own acknowledg-
ment, were, through the corruption of mankind, in a great measure
defaced and obscured ; and also to make a discovery of some things,
which, though of considerable importance to mankind, were such
as they could not have discovered without such a revelation. Nor
is it any objection against the usefulness and importance of such a
revelation, that it also prescribes some things of a positive nature>
z 2
340 OBJECTIONS AGAINST MIRACLES
which, though abstractly, and in themselves considered, the/ are
indifferent, yet are designed, in a subserviency to the main ends of
all religion, and when observed according to the institution, are
really useful.
Our author, in enlarging on this last observation, takes occasion
to show, that Christ's miracles were useful to remove the 'prejudices
of the people, and to procure a due attention and regard to his doc-
trines ; though he will not allow them to have yielded any addition-
al proof or attestation to those doctrines. I shall take notice of this
afterwards. At present I shall only observe, that if it were an end
worthy of God to interpose by such glorious miracles, as this writer
pretends to' grant, to engage the attention of the people to our
Saviour's doctrines, then certainly it must be owned to be an end
worthy of God, to exhibit those miracles in order to give an attesta-
tion to the truth of those doctrines. And indeed, the one of these
as the case was circumstanced, was really inseparable from the other.
For if God concerned himself in so extraordinary a manner, by in-
terposing out of the way of natural agency, to procure their attention
to those doctrines, this was a proof of his approbation of those doc-
-trines; and consequently was a proof of their being good, and
true, and divine. And therefore these miracles must, in reason, not
only engage the people to consider what Christ delivered, but be re-
garded by them as proofs and evidences of his divine mission, and
of the truth and divine authority of the doctrines he taught. And
accordingly it is evident, that it was in this view that our Saviour
Jiimself represented the end and design of his miracles ; as I shall
have occasion to show.
Our author has little more as to the general question concerning
miracles,- he thinks 'nothing can be plainer than this, that the bare
power of working miracles can be no proof at all, either of the truth
of doctrine, or any authority, or special commission, that the persons
have from God,' p. 26, and again, p. 49, ' nothing can be plainer
than this, that the bare exertion of power, of what nature or kind
soever, can have no connexion with truth or goodness ; but the ends
and purposes to which that power is directed must be considered,
and must denominate the persons as good or bad,' &c. This objec-
tion is so fully exposed by his learned adversary Mr. Chapman,
that he ought not to have repeated it, at least without endea-
vouring to answer what had been offered against it. See Euseb.
pp. 78, 79.
It will be easily allowed, that power and truth are distinct ideas,
though inseparably united in God, the great fountain of both j but
it doth not follow from thence, that power can in no case be so ex-
erted, as to yield an attestation to truth. For supposing power ex-
erted in such a manner as to bear the evident marks and characters
of a divine interposition and agency, and that this power is exerted
in confirmation of a body of doctrines and laws pretended to have
been received from God, then this power so exerted may be regarded
as the testimony of God himself, in favour of those doctrines and
laws, and as a proof that, they did, indeed, come from God. And
CONSIDERED AND REFUTED. 341
if it shows, that these doctrines came from God. it shows that they
are true ; because it is impossible that God should be deceived him-
self, or be accessory to deceive others, by giving his attestation to
a lie.
There is a passage which this author has, pp. 80, 81, which I shall
here consider, because it relates to this subject, and the evident de-
sign of it is to show, that neither inspiration, nor miracles as a proof
of that inspiration, are to be regarded as yielding any attestation to
the truth and divinity of doctrines received by inspiration, and con-
firmed by miracles. He urges, that we are obliged to ' try the spirits,
to bring the doctrines themselves to the test of reason and sound
judgment, and to consider their nature and tendency, thereby to
know whether they came from the spirit of truth and righteousness,
or of error and delusion.' And that, 'suppose doctrines to be deliv-
ered in the most extraordinary way possible, this extraordinary man-
ner of conveyance could be no proof of those doctrines, which might
.be error and delusion notwithstanding ; and those doctrines must be
judged by the same test and rule, as if they had come to us in the
most common and natural way.' And he observes, that if 'an angel
from heaven should have delivered any other doctrines, different
from those of natural light and purity, they must have been reject-
ed, with what extraordinary miraculous power soever they had been
proposed and delivered.'
As far as I can understand the force of his argument, it runs thus ;
that because all doctrines are to be brought to the test and judg-
ment of reason, so far that no doctrines must be admitted that are
evidently contradictory to the clear principles of sound reason, and
subversive of morality, and the eternal rules of righteousness, there-
fore neither inspiration nor miracles can be depended upon as any
proofs of doctrines at all ; nor is any more regard to be had to what
comes this way, and is thus attested, than if it had come in the or-
dinary way. This is a very strange way of reasoning ; nor is it easy
to discern the connexion of the conclusion with the premises. But
let us suppose doctrines which are not contradictory to the clear
principles of reason, or subversive of morality, but yet, which we
could not have found out of ourselves by our own reason, and
which cannot be proved to be necessarily true by any arguments
drawn from the nature of the thing, and that these doctrines are
confirmed by numerous uncontrolled miracles : the question is,
whether such miracles may not be justly regarded as yielding a
divine testimony to those doctrines ? and, whether they may not
be reasonably received as of divine authority, on the account of
those extraordinary miraculous attestations, though we should
not have thought ourselves obliged to receive them without those
attestations ? and to this the author's argument here saith nothing
at all.
It will be granted, that no doctrines are to be admitted upon any
pretence whatsoever that are contrary to the evident light of reason,
and which subvert the obligations of morality ; and in this sense it
342 OBJECTIONS AGAINST MIRACLES
may be admitted, as our author observes, that 'if the doctrines of
Christ himself could not have borne this test of light and purity, they
could not have been rationally received.' But then, at the same time,
it may also be certainly concluded from the wisdom and goodness of
divine providence, that if this had been the case, Christ would never
have been enabled to work such illustrious miracles in confirmation
of his divine mission, much less would God have raised him from
the dead. It can, in no consistency with the divine perfections, be
supposed, that God would have given, or suffered to be given, such
a series of illustrious attestations, bearing all the marks of divinity,
in confirmation of an imposture, and to favour the caxtse of idolatry,
false doctrine, vice, and licentiousness. The apostle Paul, in his
epistle to the Galatians, chap. i. 8, puts the case, that if he himself,
or 'an angel from heaven,' should preach a different gospel from that
which he had preached to them, they were not to regard it. This
is only a vehement form of asseveration, to show, that on no pre-
tence whatsoever should they swerve from the gospel they had re-
ceived from him. But why were they so firmly to adhere to the
gospel he had taught them ? it was, because it was the. gospel he
had received ' by revelation from Jesus Christ ; ' see ver. 12, and
which was confirmed by the most illustrious miraculous attestations,
and gifts of the Holy Spirit ; see chap. iii. 2. 5. So that he is so
far from intending by this to insinuate, that inspiration and miracles
can be no proof of doctrines, that on the contrary he produces these
as manifest and incontestable proofs of the truth and divinity of that
gospel, from which they were never under any pretence to depart.
CHAPTER III.
The miracles wrought by Moses vindicated against the author's objections. The case
of the Egyptian sorcerers, and their miracles, considered. His attempt to prove that
Moses might have been assisted by some supernatural evil power, because his mira^
cles were wrought, not for the good, but for the destruction, of mankind, and were
done out of a particular partiality to the Israelites. The nature of those miracles,
and the end for which they were wrought, prove they could not be the work of an evil
being. The miracles of Jesus Christ vindicated. Not merely wrought to procure
attention from the people, but designed as proper proofs and attestations to his divine
mission, and the truth and divine authority of his laws and doctrine. The wonderful
effects of Christ's miracles not owing to the strength of imagination. The extraor-
dinary miraculous facts wrought in attestation of the Mosaical and Christian dispen-
sation come to us with sufficient evidence to make it reasonable for us to believe the
truth of these facts,
HAVING considered what this writer offers on the general ques-
tion about miracles, I shall now proceed to examine what he hath
CONSIDERED AND REFUTED. <~ 343
Concerning the miracles of Moses and our Lord Jesus Christ. I had
endeavoured to show, that, supposing those miracles to have been
really done as they are represented in Scripture, they were of such
a nature, that it cannot reasonably be supposed that they could be
done, or that God would have suffered them to be done in attesta-
tion of an imposture. See divine authority, p. 19 23. This the
author represents as a 'building the whole proof upon a petitio
principii, and as a taking the miraculous facts, with regard to Moses
as well as Christ, for granted.' p. 48. He cannot it seems, or will
not, distinguish here between two questions which are of very dis-
tinct consideration. The one is, whether, supposing the miracles
wrought by Moses and our Lord Jesus Christ to have been really
done as represented in Scripture, they might justly be regarded as
sufficient credentials of their divine mission, and as sufficient attes-
tations to the truth and divine original of the doctrines and laws
they published in the name of God. The other is, what reason we
have to believe that those miracles were really wrought as they are
represented, and the accounts given of them, may be safely de-
pended upon. It is the former of these that comes properly to be
considered in this place. And it highly concerns this author to
consider it, because, if this can be proved, the main question is de-
termined against him, viz., That there may be miracles of such a
nature, and so circumstanced, as to yield a proper proof and attes-
tation to the divine mission of persons, and authority of doctrines.
He is not insensible of this ; and therefore, after having made a
flourish about the petitio principii, as he calls it, he is willing, it
seems, to 'give <ne all possible advantage in the argument, and to
suppose the truth of the facts themselves,' and yet denies 'the use
I made of it, and the consequences drawn from it :' that is, he de-
nies, that supposing the facts were true, they could furnish a suf-
ficient proof of the divine mission of those by whom these miracles
were performed, and sufficient attestations to the truth and divine ori-
ginal of those doctrines and laws, in confirmation of which they were
wrought. One would have expected here, that he would have un-
dertaken to prove this from the nature or circumstances of those
miracles ; but nothing of this appears in this place, where it might
naturally be expected ; nothing but a repeating what he had said
on the general question, that the intrinsic excellency of the doc-
trines themselves is the only possible proof, and that no miracles can
be a proof. But as there are several hints loosely scattered after the
author's manner in several parts of his book, particularly in his first
section, to show that neither the miracles of Moses, nor those of Christ,
taken as represented in Scripture, were proper proofs or attestations to
their divine mission, or to the divine authority of the doctrines and
laws they published in the name of God, I shall draw them together,
and distinctly consider them.
And, first, I shall begin with what he saith concerning the mira-
cles of Moses.
One objection, which he repeats again and again, is drawn from
the jniracles wrought by the Egyptian sorcerers. He observes, that
344 OBJECTIONS AGAINST MIRACLES
nothing can be plainer than this, that the bare power of working
miracles is no proof at all, either of the truth of doctrines, or any
authority, or special commission, that the persons have from God.
The Egyptian sorcerers, if the accounts be true, wrought great
miracles 5 and they who could create a living creature, and turn a
rod into a serpent, might as well have made a world, raised the
dead, or done any thing else within the compass of power. It can
signify nothing, to say that these sorcerers only wrought false or
counterfeit miracles, but the miracles wrought by Moses were true
and real ; since nothing appears from the story itself, but that the
miracles were of the same kind, and equally true on both sides.
And though Moses wrought greater miracles than they, this can
only prove his greater power or skill ; and that the magicians were
fairly out-done in their own way. But it can no more prove any
commission or divine authority of Moses, than if he had conquered
them by force of arms,' &c. pp. 26, 27.
In examining this passage, I shall first consider of what kind the
miracles were, that were wrought by the Egyptian sorcerers, and
then I shall inquire into the justice of the inference drawn from it ;
whether it follows, that because they wrought such miracles, there-
fore the miracles wrought by Moses could not 'prove any com"
mission or divine authority of Moses.'
With regard to the Egyptian sorcerers, he observes, that 'if the
accounts be true, they wrought great miracles. And they who
could create a living creature, and turn a rod into a serpent, . might
as well have made a world, raised the dead, or done any thing else
.within the compass of power.' And I must own, that though I will
not carry it so far as to say with this author, that the'turning a rod
into a living creature would have been as great an exertion of power
as creating a world, yet it would have argued so great a power,
that I think, no created being, much less an evil one, can be reason-
ably supposed to have really done it. I am therefore persuaded
that it was done only in appearance. It may reasonably be con-
ceived, that supposing evil spirits to have been concerned, they
might easily have snatched away the magicians' rods, and have
substituted serpents in the room of them, of which there were
enough to be had in or about Egypt. And that they might do
this by so quick and slight a conveyance, as not to be observed by
the spectators, as jugglers often perform their tricks. But to this
the author objects, -that 'it signifies nothing to say, that these
sorcerers wrought false or counterfeit miracles, but the miracles
wrought by Moses were true and real ; since nothing appears from
the story itself, but that the miracles were of the same kind, and
equally true on both sides.' To which I answer, that supposing
the miracles of the magicians were wrought in appearance only in
the manner now described, not by a real conversion of a rod into a
serpent, but by a quick and dexterous substitution of a serpent in-
stead of a rod ; and that in Moses's case there was a real conver*
sion of a serpent into a rod ; yet it was proper, in relating the story,
to relate the fact as it appeared to the spectators. If it had been
CONSIDERED AND REFUTED. ' 345
said in the story itself, that Moses really turned his rod into a ser-
pent, but the magicians did not really turn their rods into serpents,
but only appeared to do so ; this might, and no doubt would have
been, objected against as a manifest proof of the great partiality in
the historian. The spectators thought their rods, as well as that of
Moses, were turned into serpents, and it was proper to relate the
matter as it appeared to them. But it may further be urged, why
may it not then be supposed, that Moses also wrought his miracles
in appearance only, by some slight of art and cunning, or by the
agency and confederacy of evil spirits, and therefore was only a
greater magician than they were ? I answer, this might possibly
have been suspected, if Moses had wrought only such miracles as
the magicians seemed to work as well as he. It might, in that case
have been imagined, that there was some trick in it, though the
spectators could not find it out ; or that it was only some strange
unaccountable thing that had happened, from which no inference
could be drawn in proof of his divine mission. But the amazing
succession of wonders that followed, put it beyond all reasonable
doubt, that his miracles were real, and incomparably grand, ex-
ceeding the power of any creature. And many of them were of
such a nature, that by the reality and greatness of their effects, left
no room for supposing or suspecting an imposture. If it be said,
If the magicians imitated some of Moses's miracles so well, why-
might they not imitate others of his miracles too in the same way ;
e. g. why might they not pretend as he did, to turn the dust into
lice, and to have managed this as they did in the other case, by a
conveyance, of lice into the place of the dust ; which would have
been no very difficult matter, supposing the assistance of invisible
agents ? I answer, that I doubt not, they might have imitated that
as well as they had done some of the former miracles, if they had
been permitted to do so ; but Providence would not suffer them, or
the evil spirits that assisted them, to go so far as to imitate the
other miracles of Moses even in appearance ; but ordered it so, that
there was an entire triumph over them ; and they themselves were
forced to acknowledge that Moses's miracles were real, and owing
to the power of God. And their being thus stopped and hindered
from going any farther, even in a matter that seemed not to be more
difficult than the other wonders they appeared to perform, might
give the people just ground to conclude, that all their feats before
were owing to delusion and imposture, and that they had not really
effected what they had seemed to do.*
* It must be observed, that even with respect to some of the miracles in which the
magicians seemed to imitate Moses, he still preserved a manifest superiority, and the
miracles, as performed by him, left no reasonable room for suspicion of a juggle or im-
posture, though theirs justly might, e. g. The magicians pretended to imitate the mi-
racle of Moses in turning water into blood, and in bringing frogs upon the land. But
there was evidently a vast difference between them ; from whence it appeared, that an
imposture might take place in the one case, but not in the other. Moses by only
stretching forth his rod, turned the river, and all the 'streams and pools, and all the
waters, in vessels of wood and of stone, throughout all the land of Egypt, into blood, so
that the fish that was in the river died, and the river stank.' The reality and great ex-
tent of the effect, showed the truth and divinity of the miracle,, and that there was
346 OBJECTIONS AGAINST. MIRACLES
And now it is manifest, that the author's inference will hot beai*,
that because the magicians wrought such miracles, therefore the
miracles wrought by Moses could give no attestation to the divine
authority of his mission. For the miracles of the Egyptian sorce-
rers were very few in number, and those immediately controlled by
a superior power. In this case, there is no absurdity in supposing,
that God may suffer evil beings to exert their utmost power and art
to deceive and impose upon the spectators, in behalf of error, and
idolatry, and vice ; because there is a remedy at hand. The supe-
rior miracles, by which they are controlled and overpowered,
open a way for detecting the delusion, and are a sufficient antidote
against the bad influence those miracles might otherwise have upon
the minds of men. But that he should suffer such an astonishing
series of glorious works, so incomparably grand, and bearing all the
marks of a divine power, and of a dominion over nature, such as
were those which were wrought by Moses, that God should suffer
those to be wrought by evil beings (even supposing it in the power
of such beings to perform them, which was highly improbable) and
that in attestation of falsehood and imposture, for a course of years
together, without ever controlling them by any contrary or supe-
rior miracles ; this is a quite different case, and cannot possibly be
reconciled to the wisdom and goodness of a superintending provi-
dence. And to suppose (as this writer does) that the vast superi-
ority and amazing grandeur of Moses's miracles above those of the
magicians, was no more a proof of his being sent of God than if he
had overcome them by 'force of arms,' is a banter on the common
sense of mankind ; except he could prove that there is nothing more
extraordinary in the one case than in the other.
But the author further objects against the miracles of Moses,
that 'he might have been assisted by some supernatural evil power,
since his miracles were commonly wrought not for the good, but
the destruction of mankind.' p. 27. And elsewhere he asks, 'for
what good end were Moses's miracles done, supposing them to
have been really wrought? And he pronounces, that 'it was
only to destroy one nation, the Egyptians, and to enable the Israel-
ites to destroy another nation, the Canaanites, by putting them all
nothing of juggle and delusion in it. For where could a quantity of blood he found at
once sufficient to do all this, except we suppose a real transmutation of it? But with
respect to the magicians, the case was otherwise. A small quantity of water must have
been brought to them, that probably was got by digging ; which was the way the Egyp-
tians took to get water to drink, Exod. vii. 24. If this was brought to them in a vessel,
it was no hard matter, supposing the assistance of invisible agents, to convey that water
away, and by a quick conveyance, put blood in the stead of it, which was then easily to
be had every where. In this case there was room for a juggle and imposture, but not
in the former. In like manner, with regard to the miracle of the frogs, Moses at once
brought an immense quantity of frogs out of the river, streams, and pools of water,
which filled the whole land at once, and even all the houses and chambers of the Egypr
tians ; and such an instantaneous production of so vast a quantity showed that it was
not mere juggle, but that there was a creating power exerted in the production of them,
. and that the God of nature was concerned in it. But when this was done, the magi-
,cians might imitate this miracle by causing some frogs to come upon the land, which
they might easily bring, by a quick and artificial conveyance, when frogs abounded
every where, in the plaee where they pretended to work the miraele.
COMSIDERED AND REFUTED. 347
to the sword, without mercy or humanity/ &c. see. p. 70. I an-
swer, that the great end of Moses's miracles was plainly this, to
five attestation to a most excellent law and constitution, esta-
lished for the most wise and valuable purposes, as I showed
largely in my former book. See Divine Authority, chap. 2. And
if in the course of these miraculous dispensations, and in pursuance
of the main ends of them, there were awful and exemplary judg-
ments inflicted upon guilty nations, there was nothing in this that
can be proved to be unsuitable to the character of a just and holy
God. For since justice and purity are included in the idea of the
Deity as well as goodness and mercy, extraordinary acts of power
in execution of his righteous vengeance upon wicked persons and
nations, may be as much the works of God, and bear as evident
marks of divinity, as extraordinary acts of goodness and mercy.
And in Moses's miracles, there were evident demonstrations of
both these. As to the plagues inflicted upon the Egyptians, which
the author has particularly in view, there was nothing in them un-
worthy of God as the wise and righteous governor of the world.
The Egyptians had treated the Israelites with the utmost barbarity
and insolence, and had been guilty of a series of oppressions scarce
to be paralleled in history ; and if, in this case, the Israelites had
done themselves justice, and forced their way out of the unhospi-
table country, even to the destruction of those their enemies and
oppressors, and had taken their substance with them, as a just
compensation for the inhuman exactions and oppressions they had
laid upon them ; I presume, this author himself would scarce pre-
tend there was any thing in this contrary to justice, and the law of
nature and nations. And it is great odds, but that if it had been
done by a people that happened to be in his favour, he would have
commended it as manifesting a noble spirit of freedom in opposi-
tion to oppression and tyranny. And if the Israelites could not
have been justly blamed for endeavouring, if it had been in their
power, to free themselves from the Egyptian yoke, even by methods
that might have ended in the ruin of their cruel and arbitrary op-
pressor; T can see no reason to prove, that it was unbecoming God
to exert his own divine power in vindication of an injured people,
and to exhibit a signal monument, to all ages, of his just detesta-
tion of tyrannical insolence and oppression. Especially when it is
considered, that the plagues were not inflicted all at once, but by
degrees, one after another : that Pharaoh and his Egyptians were
told upon what terms they might be freed from them ; even upon
the terms of letting the oppressed people go : that these judgments
were successively removed soon after their being inflicted, upon
their expressing their repentance, and promising amendments : that
the severest judgments of all, which touched their lives, such as
the destruction of the first-born, and the overwhelming Pharaoh
and his host in the Red Sea, were not inflicted till they had had
such repeated demonstrations of the divine power and vengeance
as rendered them utterly inexcusable; and that they had fair
warning given them before the former of these was executed, and
348 OBJECTIONS AGAINST MIRACLES
might have prevented it by a proper conduct : and as to the latter,
it was what they plainly brought upon themselves by their own
presumption and obstinacy.
It must be farther considered, that, by the author's own ac-
knowledgment, Egypt was the seat and fountain of idolatry and
superstition, from whence it was derived and propagated to other
nations. And in this view the propriety of the miracles wrought by
Moses among the Egyptians is very evident. One manifest design
of them was to confound idolatry in its proper seat and source,
and to ' execute judgment against all the gods of Egypt,' as it is
expressed, Exod. xii. 12, Numb, xxxiii. 4. Those amazing acts of
divine power and vengeance might naturally have led the Egyptians,
and especially their priests and rulers, to reflect on their ill con-
duct, not only in the oppressions they had exercised upon the
Israelites, but in the idolatries they had too much countenanced
and propagated ; and tended to convince them, that their gods, of
whom they entertained a high opinion, and whom they endeavoured
to recommend to other nations, as proper objects of adoration,
were vain and idle things, unable to defend or deliver themselves or
their worshippers. And this should have led them to the acknow-
ledgment and sole adoration of the only true God, the Lord of
nature. This was both the natural tendency of those miracles,
and is expressly said to have been one great design of them.* If
they had produced this effect, they would have had- a salutary
influence, not only upon them but other nations, and been of signal
service to mankind; and if they did not actually produce this
effect, it could be charged upon nothing but their own obstinacy.
With respect to the case of the Canaanites, our author frequently
insists upon it as a demonstration that the law of Moses could not
possibly be from God. He looks upon the destruction of the
Canaanites, which Moses commanded in the name of God, to be
the most ' bloody outrage and profanation of the name of God that
ever was known.' That it was contrary to all ' common humanity,
and the laws of nature and nations, since the Canaanites had never
done those holy butchers, or divine conquerors, the least injury. 1
He aggravates this in the strongest expressions, and returns to it
upon all occasions ; as particularly pp. 27, 29, 39. and again, pp.
70, 75, and in several other places.
I have elsewhere fully considered this objection, which had been
urged in all its force by the author of ' Christianity as Old as the
Creation.'-]- At present, I shall only observe, that if our author be
disposed calmly to reason the case, and not think to carry his point
by dint of clamour and confidence, and giving hard words, he
must, in order to make good his argument, fairly prove that it is
inconsistent with the idea of God, considered as the wise and
righteous Governor of the world, to punish a guilty nation, even
to utter destruction, for their execrable wickedness; or, that if it
See Exod. vii. 5, viii. 10, is. 16, 29.
t See ' Answer to Christianity,' &c. vol. ii. pp. 429 437.
. CONSIDERED AND REFUTED. 349
be just in Kim to. do so, he cannot commission another nation to be
the executioners of his just sentence against them : or that, in that
case, they cannot j ustly execute such commission ; and that this
alone will be sufficient to prove that a dispensation was not given
from God, which was confirmed by such illustrious miracles bearing
all the characters of a divine interposition, and the laws of which
were holy, just, and pure, and of an excellent tendency.
That it is not unworthy of God, as the righteous Governor of
the world, to punish a guilty nation or nations, even to extirpation,
for their wickedness, can scarce be denied by any that acknowledge
a providence. If he should send a destructive plague or famine
with this view, to punish a wicked people, it would be the highest
presumption to arraign the justice or wisdom of his providence,
though in this case infants as well as the adult, persons of every
sex and age, and some comparatively innocent, would be involved
in the common destruction ; but God knows how to make a dif-
ference between them in another world. There is scarce any fact
that is vouched by a more universal tradition than the general
deluge,* which destroyed almost the whole human race at once, as
a punishment for the wickedness of mankind. There have been
plagues that have raged over a great part of the earth, and have
been thought to have destroyed near a third part of mankind. And
I believe none that own a providence but will acknowledge a
special hand of God in all this ; at least this author must do so,
who affirms, that evil as well as good, punishments as well as
mercies, come from God, p. 82. Now to apply this to the case of
the Canaanites ; the destruction that God had determined to inflict
upon them is expressly declared to be for their abominable wicked-
-ness and corruption of manners. They are charged not only with
the most gross idolatries, but with the most unnatural and mon-
strous crimes of bestial impurity. See Lev. xviii. 3 25, xx. 2 23.
Their vices a long time before this had brought down a most
exemplary judgment upon considerable numbers among them, viz.
the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbouring
cities. And they had afterwards a considerable space given them
for repentance, near four hundred years. See Gen. xv.. 13 16.
But, notwithstanding the warning that had been given them, they
grew worse and worse, and became so universally depraved in their
manners, that the ' Lord was ready to spew out the inhabitants/ as
it is emphatically expressed, Lev. xviii. 25. If in this case God
had sent a pestilence entirely to destroy the whole nation, or had
rained a fiery deluge upon the whole land, as he had done upon
Sodom and Gomorrah, his justice could not have been accused ;
and it is very likely this author himself would scarce have presumed
to find fault with it, though in this case infants as well as the
adult, men, women, and children, must have perished in the
common calamity.
And if God might justly destroy a nation for their wickedness, I
* See concerning this ' Grot, de Verit. Relig. Christ.' 1. i. s. 16.
350 OBJECTIONS AGAINST MIRACLES
think it must be allowed that it belongs to him to determine in
what way he will think fit to execute that vengeance. And if he
should think fit to give commission to another nation to execute
that vengeance which he had decreed, I see not upon what principle
this can be denied ; or how it will be proved to have anything in it
unworthy of the Supreme Being. If it be, because it is unnatural
and unfit for creatures of the same species to destroy one another,
this cannot hold ; because there may be many cases alleged, in
which creatures of the same kind may without fault deprive one
another both of their lives and properties. Every body will allow
that this may be done in execution of the sentence of a just
magistrate, and that he may commission those to execute that
sentence who were never personally injured by the persons on whom
the punishment is inflicted. And in the case of wars between
contending nations, it has never been accounted unjust for a prince
to give commission to his enemies to conclude things in the ene-
mies' country which will by necessaiy consequence bring ruin upon
many innocent persons, and deprive them both of their substance
and of their lives, though they had done nothing to deserve it,
any further than as they were the members of such a community.
And therefore I cannot see how it can reasonably be denied, that
the Supreme Lord of the Universe may, if he thinks fit, without
any impeachment of his governing wisdom and justice, give express
commission, enjoining any man or anmber of men, to execute his
righteous, though severe sentence, against a guilty people, even
though it were to their utter extirpation, in which case some
innocent persons would probably be involved.
And if God should give such a commission, expressly enjoining
or commanding any man or any number of men, or a whole com-
munity, to destroy another nation, in a declared execution of his
righteous vengeance upon them for their heinous wickedness, I do
not see but that it would be very lawful, yea, it would be a duty,
for such a people, so commissioned, to execute that sentence j and,
not to execute it, when known to be so, would be a crime ; as it
would be a crime for the persons appointed and commissioned to
execute the sentence of a just magistrate to refuse to execute it,
out of a partial regard or pity to the persons thus suffering.
It will be easily granted, that such a commission to one nation
to extirpate another, ought to be exceedingly well proved ; it must
be plain and express, and given in a manner that leaves no room to
doubt, that it is indeed a plain and express commission from God
himself. And this I take to have been the present case. The
commission that was given to destroy the Canaanites for their
abominable wickedness was express and solemn ; it was the com-
mand of God himself, confirmed to be so by the most extraordinary
attestations. The miracles done by Moses, and afterwards at the
entrance of Israel upon the land of Canaan, were of such a nature,
and bore such evident marks of a divine power and dominion,
that it was scarce possible to regard them in any other view, than
as proceeding from the sovereign Lord of the universe ; nor can it
CONSIDERED AND REFUTED. 351
well be conceived, that supposing God himself to have interposed,
it could have been by more illustrious demonstrations of his
own. divine power and majesty than were here exhibited ; or, that
supposing such an express commission to have been really given,
it could have been more convincingly proved. And therefore, upon
such a view of the case, it is wrong to charge what the Israelites
did by express command of God himself, and in execution of his
just sentence, as a proof of their transcendent guilt and wickedness,
and as an instance of outrage and injustice beyond example ; since,
though without such an express commission from God, it would
have been cruel and unjust in them to do it, yet-it was not cruel
and unjust to do it in execution of that command. As persons may
deprive others of their lives and substance in execution of the
sentence of a just magistrate, and be sufficiently warranted in doing
so by his authority and command, though to do the same thing
without that authority, prompted by their own private passions and
interests, would be murder and rapine. If it be urged, that this
may serve as a precedent for other nations, to use their neighbours
with the greatest cruelty and injustice, under pretence of their being
very wicked and the enemies of God ; I answer, that it cannot
justly be a precedent, except in the like circumstances. Let any
nation produce the same proofs of an express commission from God
himself that the Israelites did, and then their commission will be
allowed. And if no other nations have a right to imitate them, till
they can produce as express and illustrious evidences of an extra-
ordinary divine commission as the Israelites had, I apprehend there
is no great danger of any ill consequences from such a precedent.
Upon the whole, the real state of the case was this. The
Canaanites were arrived to the most monstrous height of wickedness,
deserving utter extirpation. God had determined to execute his
just vengeance upon them for their crimes in the most exemplary
manner. He had, at the same time, selected a people to himself,
whom he determined to erect into a peculiar polity, and to whom he
gave a body of pure and excellent laws ; the design of which was
to maintain the worship of the only true God and the practice of
righteousness. This people he chose for the executioners of his just
vengeance, and gave them commission to destroy that wicked race.
At the same time he declared the reason of it to be on account of
their abominable idolatry and impurity, and wickedness of all kinds.
And this was accompanied with the most solemn warnings to the
Israelites not to commit such crimes, for that they themselves
would be obnoxious to as great punishments if they imitated them
in their idolatry and corruption of manners. And it is scarce
possible to conceive, that any thing could have a greater influence
to make them sensible of the atrociousness of those crimes, which
they saw so exemplarily punished. This is the true state of the
case, as it is represented to us in the Scripture ; and, notwith-
standing all the author's noise and confidence, there is nothing in
it, thus considered, that can be proved to be inconsistent with the
idea of a just and holy Deity.
352 OBJECTIONS AGAINST MIRACLES
.' But there is another objection urged by this writer against the
miracles wrought by Moses, and which, he thinks, seems to show,
that if they were really wrought, ' he might have been assisted by
some supernatural evil power ;' and that is, that they ' were done
out of a particular partiality in favour of one nation, who pretended
to be the peculiar chosen people of God, whilst they were the very
worst and wickedest part of the world,' p. 27. And then he breaks
put into his usual invectives against the Jews, of whom he gives
the most odious representation imaginable.
As to the erecting the Jews into a peculiar polity, distinguished
from the rest of mankind, that there is nothing in this inconsistent
with the divine perfections ; yea, that it Tvas ordered for very wise
and excellent purposes, I have fully shown in my former book,* and
shall have occasion to say something to it again in the following
chapter. And supposing God selected any nation at all for a peculiar
people to himself, I do not see why the Israelites were not as proper
as any others : they came from worthy ancestors, and though,
during their long continuance and oppression in Egypt, they
probably fell very generally from the knowledge and practice of the
true religion professed by their ancestors, yet it is highly probable
that there were still many persons among them that preserved it ;
and, perhaps, more than were at that time in other nations. I think
we may justly suppose them to have been better than the Egyptians
their oppressors, and who were greatly instrumental in corrupting
them ; or than the Canaanites, who, as appears from the accounts
given of them, were then arrived to the greatest height of vice,
and monstrous wickedness. What was then the state of other
nations we cannot certainly tell ; but it appears, from the accounts
given us by the best historians, of the ancient state of Greece and
other countries at that time, that violence, rapes, and lawless
wickedness, very much prevailed.-)- So that, for any thing that
appears to the contrary, the body of the Israelites, with all their
faults, were, at least, as good and as righteous as any other nation
at that time. With regard to their after conduct, their greatest
fault consisted in their suffering themselves to be enticed to a con-
formity to the neighbouring nations in their corrupt customs and
practices ; but though this was a very great fault, yet, considering
the proneness of mankind in all ages to vice and idolatry, perhaps
other nations, in their circumstances, would not have behaved
better than they did. However this may be, there is no reason to
talk of God's manifesting a partial conduct towards them, as this
writer insinuates. On the contrary, the whole course of his dealings
towards the Israelites, may give us a just idea of the wisdom, the
righteousness, the equity of his providence, and the impartiality of
his judgments : since, though he had entered into a special relation
to them as his people, yet he never connived at or approved their
crimes : but as he heaped benefits upon them when they kept
* See ' Div. Authority,' &c. chap. 2.
t See ' Thucyd.' lib. 1 and ' Plutarch in Thesseo.'
CONSIDERED AND REFUTED. 353
close to his covenant, so he punished them in an exemplary manner
for Iheir disobedience; and again accepted them upon their re-
pentance and return. Such particularly were his dealings towards
them in the wilderness, every way agreeable to his own perfections.
He, on many occasions, signalized his mercy towards them ; and
he also manifested a just displeasure against their miscarriages
and revolts. And from his dealings towards them we may learn
this useful lesson, that no pretence of special favour or outward pri-
vileges will secure those from his just displeasure that allow them-
selves in a course of presumptuous sin and disobedience. And this
was the use that the Israelites in after ages were, taught to make
of those extraordinary facts. As appears particularly from the
Ixxviiith Psalm, where, from the consideration of God's dealings
with their fathers in the wilderness, they are instructed to conceive
of him, as a God full of compassion and of great mercy, and, at the
same time, as a Being of infinite justice and purity. And the
apostle makes the same use of it in 2 Cor. x. 1 1.
Thus it appears, that the author's objections against the miracles
of Moses, drawn from the end for which they were wrought, will
not bear. On the other hand, an argument may be brought from
the nature of those miracles and the end for which they were
wrought, to prove that they could not be the works of an evil being.
For can it be thought that an evil being (if he had been able to have
performed all those glorious miracles, which is very absurd to sup-
pose) would have exerted himself in such amazing and extraordinary
acts of power and dominion for such purposes as these; to triumph
over idols, and confound the chief patrons and propagators of idol-
worship; to punish tyranny and oppression, and manifest his
abhorrence of vice and wickedness ; to establish and give attestation
to a law and polity, the great and fundamental design of which
was to establish the worship and adoration of the one only living-
and true God, in opposition to the then prevailing idolatry and
polytheism; the moral precepts of which were pure and excellent,
:and its rituals wisely contrived ; and which would have been effect-
ual, if carefully observed, to preserve those to whom it was given
from the idolatrous rites and corrupt customs of the neighbouring
nations ? If this cannot, without great absurdity, be supposed,
then those miracles which evidently transcended all the art and
power of man, must have been wrought, either by the immediate
power of God himself, or, which comes to the same thing in this
case, by subordinate good beings, acting under him and by his
direction ; and consequently must be regarded as yielding an
illustrious testimony to the divine mission of Moses and to the
divine original and authority of his laws, in attestation of which
they were wrought.
There is one passage more which this writer has, relating to the
design and use of Moses' miracles, which I shall here take notice
of. It is in p. 61, where he observes, that ' God had never left
himself without a standing and most glorious witness and proof of
his being and perfections to mankind, infinitely superior to the
A A
354 % OBJECTIONS AGAINST MIRACLES
evidence of all those miracles of Moses, supposing them to have
been really wrought ; which could only astonish and confound, but
not possibly prove the truth and righteousness of such a religion as
that. The moral law could need no proof from miracles, as de-
pending upon a much clearer and superior proof before; and the
ceremonial law was incapable of any proof at all, as having any
thing of religion in it.' But since we find that notwithstanding the
standing- proofs of a Deity in the works of creation and providence,
the nations were generally fallen into idolatry and the worship of
inferior deities, and this coloured over with artful and specious
pretences, as well as into a ' great corruption of manners, will any
man pretend to prove, that it was unworthy or unfit for the great
Lord and Governor of the universe to interpose, by extraordinary
exertions of his own divine power and dominion, to awaken men to
a sense of his supreme majesty and glory, and to give attestation
to laws, the principal design of which was expressly to forbid all
idol-worship, or the worship of inferior deities, and the worship of
God by images ; and which also exhibited a system of pure and
excellent morals, in plain and express precepts, enjoined and con-
firmed by a divine authority, which must needs give a mighty
additional weight and force to them ? As to our author's pretence,
that the ceremonial injunctions were incapable of any proof at all,
as having any thing of religion in them, this depends upon this
principle, that God cannot command or enjoin any thing of a cere-
monial nature to be used in religion at all ; a principle highly
absurd in itself, and contrary to what this author himself elsewhere
allows, who acknowledges that God can, if he thinks fit, prescribe
things of a positive nature. See Mor. Phil. vol. 1. pp. 87, 88. And
indeed, things of this kind may be so circumstanced as to be sub-
servient to the main ends of religion ; they may be instituted for
wise purposes. Such evidently were some of the ritual injunctions
of the law of Moses ; and we have reason to think so of all the
rest, though we may not be able to assign the particular reasons of
them at this distance. And therefore, such a series of glorious
miracles, wrought in attestation of a body of laws, containing such
ritual injunctions as well as moral precepts, may be reasonably re-
garded as giving an attestation to those ritual injunctions, as making
up a part of those laws. And as to what the author there adds,
concerning the absurdity of making a law, enjoining such ceremonial
rites to be the ' irreversible unalterable will of God,' this is wrongly
represented. That law, in the ritual part of it, was never designed
to be irreversible and unalterable, but was only assigned to be in
force till a more perfect dispensation should succeed, to which it
was intended to be preparatory and subservient.
Let us now proceed to what our author offers with regard to the
miracles wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ. And here, first, he
would persuade us, that Christ's miracles were not done at all with
a view to prove his divine mission, or the truth and divinity of his
doctrines, but only ' to procure him a sufficient degree of attention
from the people, &c. For that they having heard of nothing but
CONSIDERED AND REFUTED. ' 355
miracles, and having been settled in nothing but what had been
confirmed and proved by miracles, it was absolutely necessary for
him to work more and greater miracles than had been done before,
without which he could never have gained any regard to the most
obvious truths from so stupid a generation,' &c. He adds, that
' their attention being once procured, it was the native intrinsic
evidence of eternal, immutable, divine truth, that convinced the
understanding, and made its own way to the hearts and consciences
of men.' And that * though miracles might be necessary to make
way for this and procure attention, they could be no proper evidence
or additional proof of it,' p. 33, &c.
But since our Saviour was -undoubtedly the best judge of the
design of his own miracles,' it is but just to consider the account he
himself gives of them. It is evident that he speaks of himself all
along as sent from God, in an -extraordinary manner, as a person of
wonderful dignity, the only-begotten Son of God, in a most eminent
and transcendent sense, in which that character can be attributed
to no other, and as perfectly acquainted with the Father's will : and
that accordingly he claimed their regard to his mission' as divine ;
he spoke to them as with a divine authority, and urged it upon them
as their indispensable duty to believe in. him and obey him. Now
what were the proofs and evidences he brought of this his divine
authority and mission ? It is undeniably evident, from the passages
I cited in my former book, p. 28, that he himself appeals to the
illustrious miracles he performed, as plain and sufficient proofs and
evidences of it. These his miracles he represents as ' works which
his Father had given him to finish ;' yea, that it was ' the Father
that dwelt in him that did these works ; that they were wrought by
the Holy Ghost, and by the finger, that is, the power of God. He
expressly represents them as a testimony given to him by God him-
self; and that they bore witness to him, that the ' Father had sent
him;' and that he was 'in the Father,' and the ' Father in him.'
And accordingly, he urges his wonderful works as a reason why they
should not merely attend to him, but believe in him, and receive
with an unshaken faith the declarations he made, and the doctrines
he taught in his Father's name. See John v. 36, x. 24, 25, 37, 38,
xiv. 10, 1 l.Matt. xii. 28, 3 1. Luke xi. 20. From all which passages
it is extremely evident, that our Saviour represents the miracles he
performed as really and in themselves a just and valid testimony to
the divinity of his mission and to the truth and certainty of his
doctrines. And accordingly, it is manifest that he appeals to his
miracles as proofs, in cases where it cannot be pretended that there
was any intrinsic evidence in the nature of the thing to support his
declarations. So in the fifth chapter of John he had declared, that
' as the Father raiseth the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the
Son quickeneth whom he will ;' that the Father had ' given him
authority to execute judgment ;' and that all that were. ' in the
graves should hear his voice, and should come forth to the resur-
rection of life or of damnation.' What was the evidence upon
which the Jews were to believe these declarations ? Was there any
A A 2 "" '
356 OBJECTIONS AGAINST MIRACLES
thing in the nature of the thing that could merely by its own in-
trinsic evidence, persuade the Jews that Christ was the person
appointed by the Father to raise the dead and judge the world ?
Will our author say iu this case, that it was the ' native intrinsic
evidence of immutable eternal truth' that convinced their under-
standings ? No. The credit of these declarations rested not merely
on the nature of the thing, but on the proofs he gave of his divine
mission, that he was indeed extraordinarily sent of God, and that
what he delivered as from God was true, as being confirmed by the
testimony of God himself. And accordingly, after having made
those declarations, he expressly appeals to his miracles, as bearing
testimony to him in a manner that could not be denied or contested .
See ver. 36.
The only proof this writer brings, that our Saviour did not pro-
duce his miracles as evidences of his divine mission, or of his being
a true prophet sent from God, is this; that when the Pharisees
attributed his miracles to a confederacy with Beelzebub, the prince
of the devils, our Saviour answered them, ' If I by Beelzebub cast
out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out 1 therefore they
shall be your judges.' Which words suppose, that ' their own sons
or their own party cast out devils by some means, and to some ends
and purposes or other; which was, doubtless, to support their own
superstition, or to maintain their usurped dominion over the under-
standings and consciences of men, by the specious and plausible
pretence of miracles, as a proof of divine authority, p. 35.
It is hard to know what our author would bring this argument to
prove. Does he intend it for a proof that our Saviour here supposes
or grants, that the Pharisees or any false prophets wrought, or
could work as glorious miracles in confirmation of their own super-
stition and tyranny, as those which he himself performed ? It is
impossible that this could be his intention in this passage : because
it is undeniably manifest, from the passages already produced, that
he appeals uporr all occasions to his miracles ; and all along goes
upon this foundation, that none but one that was extraordinarily
sent of God could perform such Works as he did. He expressly
declares, speaking of the scribes and pharisees, and rulers of the
Jews, that rejected him, that if he ' had not done the works among
them which no other man did, they had not had sin.' John xv. 24.
Which plainly implies, that the miracles he wrought were such as
no deceiver could perform; and that they were proper proofs and
evidences of his divine mission, and of the truth of what he taught
and delivered in the name of God.
What then is the argument the author would found upon this
passage ? The utmost that can be made of it is this, that there
were some among the Jews, and of whom the Pharisees had a good
opinion, that did cast out devils. And, for any thing that appears
to the contrary, they might really be good men, who were enabled
to perform some extraordinary works of this kind for the eood of
mankind and for the relief of the afflicted and oppressed, without a
particular view to the attestation of any doctrines. Nor doth it
CONSIDERED AND REFUTED. 357
appear that those that did these works set up for teachers at all;
though this writer, without the least proof, supposes that they
wrought these miracles in confirmation of the peculiar superstitions
of the Pharisees ; whereas, if they were wrought in testimony of any
thing at all, it was in testimony to the supreme power and glory of
the only true God, whom the Jews worshipped, in opposition to the
heathen deities and demon-worship. But the truth is, it doth not
appear that there were then any among the .Jews that did really
cast out devils, nor doth our Saviour's argument necessarily suppose
it. The people were mightily struck with the evidence of his mir-
acles, and concluded from thence, that he must be the Son of
David, i. e. the promised Messiah, Matt. xii. 22, 23. And this, by
the way, manifestly shows, that the miracles he performed were of
an extraordinary and peculiar nature. And if any other, at that
time, pretended to perform any wonderful works, it is plain that the
people themselves were convinced that there was a vast difference
between him and them, and between his works and theirs.* The
Pharisees, to take off the force of this impression, did not pretend
that there were persons among themselves that wrought as great
miracles as he ; which undoubtedly they would have done, if they
could have said it with the least appearance of truth ; because this
would have plainly showed that his doing such works, which many
others performed as well as he, could not be a proof or evidence
that he was the Christ. But it is evident they could not say this,
and therefore were forced to have recourse to a very absurd pretence,
viz. that he ' cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.'
This carried an intimation in it, that his miracles were indeed extra-
ordinary, and of a nature far superior to any works that other per-
sons performed ; but that this was owing to his being assisted by the
'prince of the devils,' and whose power and dominion were far
superior to all the rest. Our Saviour shows the absurdity of this,
both by a direct argument from the nature of the thing, and by an
argument ad hominem. The direct argument is drawn from the
great absurdity of supposing that Satan should cast out Satan; as
if that subtle and malicious spirit would enter into a confederacy to
exert his own power for the good of mankind, and to dispossess his
own associates, and thus engage against the interests of his own
kingdom. The other argument was ad hominem. ' If I by Beel-
zebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out ?
therefore they shall be your judges.' There were several among
the Jews at that time, that pretended to be exorcists and to cast
out devils. An instance of this we have in the sons of Sceva, men-
tioned Acts xix. 13. Now the Pharisees were far from charging
those persons with acting in a confederacy with Satan. Our Saviour
therefore urges them with this, to show their unreasonable partiality,
and the malice and injustice of their charge. But this does not
necessarily suppose that any of them did really cast out devils, or
* We find the people, on another occasion, saving, 'It was never so seen in Israel.'
JVIatt, ix. 33.
358 OBJECTIONS AGAINST MIRACLES
that our Saviour himself thought so. It was enough that they
pretended to do it, and that the Pharisees acknowledged it, or pre-
tended to acknowledge it. For, in this case, the force of the argu-
ment was still the same, and they were manifestly self-condemned,
which was all our Saviour intended by it.
As to what this writer pretends, that our Saviour there laid the
whole stress of his argument, not upon the extraordinary nature
of his works, but upon the ends and purposes for which they were
performed; and that he 'insisted upon it, that his miracles were
all exerted for the good of mankind ; and not only for their out-
ward temporal good, but to enlighten their understandings, and
bring them to the true knowledge of God and themselves,' 8cc.
Though it be very true in itself, that his miracles were designed
for the good of mankind, spiritual and temporal, yet it is not true
that this is what our Saviour here insists upon in his argument
with the Pharisees. There is not one word here offered to this
purpose. And whereas this writer takes upon him to affirm, that
abstracting from the end for which our Saviour's miracles were
wrought, ' the plea of the scribes and Pharisees, as to any argu-
ment from miracles, must have been as good as Christ's own plea,
and have gone as far/ p. 36. This goes upon the supposition,
that the scribes and Pharisees performed miracles equal to those
of Christ. A supposition which is absolutely false, and which
they themselves never had the confidence to pretend. 1 add, that
in this very passage we are now considering, our Saviour plainly
supposes that the miracles he wrought were such as manifested
a divine agency : and that resisting them, was resisting the strong-
est evidence. For it is on this occasion that he represents the
great danger and unpardonable guilt of the sin or blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost, viz. ascribing the works of God to the
power of Satan.
I need not take notice of what our author goes on to observe,
that wicked men might work miracles, and that Christ himself
supposes, that some that had ' done wonderful works in his
name,' should be rejected at the last day as workers of iniquity,
p. 36. This hath been fully considered and obviated in the book
he pretends to answer. See Divine Authority, pp. 26, 384. But
it may be proper to make some remarks on what he offers con-
cerning the faith of healing, which, he tells us, 'was indispensably
necessary to the bodily cures, whether the person healed was a
morally good or bad man. ' Dost thou believe ? if thou believest,
thou mayest be healed ; thy faith hath made thee whole ; and be
it unto thee according to thy faith ;' was the constant language and
indispensable condition of those miraculous cures.' He says,
' that this faith only wrought by the force and power *of imagina-
tion, and must have had the effects, whether it had been well or
ill grounded.' He observes, that ' Christ could work few or no
miracles among his neighbours, the Galileans, because of their un-
belief;' and that one should think, had the miracles been intended
as a test of truth, they ought chiefly' to have been wrought upon
CONSIDERED AND REFUTED. 359
unbelievers, as the most effectual means of their conviction and
conversion : but it is plain the case was quite otherwise,' pp.
37, 38.
The design of all this seems evidently to be, to depreciate
Christ's miracles, as if the miraculous cures he wrought were
rather owing to the strength of fancy and imagination in the pa-
tient, than to power in the agent. But there are many of his mi-
racles, with respect to which there can be no pretence for alleging
this. If the strength of their own imagination could have an in-
fluence to heal the persons themselves that were under the ma-
lady, could that of others do it ? Could the centurion's faith, that
is, because in this author's sense he had a strong imagination him-
self, could this heal his dying servant ? Or could the ruler's faith
heal his son, and that in an instant, and at a distance ? I suppose it
will scarce be 'pretended, that in the case of his raising the
dead, the imagination of the dead persons themselves was so
strong, as to contribute to their own resurrection. Or could
the faith of Martha and Mary, that is, as the author un-
derstands it, the strength of their imagination, raise their brother
Lazarus from the grave, after he had lain dead there four days ?
If Christ ordinarily required faith in those whom he healed,
(though many instances might be produced of his healing persons
without any previous requiring them to believe ; as in the case of
his healing the man with the withered hand, Mark iii. 3, 5, and
the impotent man that had an infirmity thirty eight years, John
v. 5, 7, 8, and in the case of his healing the high-priest's servant
that had his ear cut off, and who was one of those that came to appre-
hend him ;) but if he ordinarily required faith in those on whom
he wrought the miracles, the design is plain, it was to let them see
what was the true and proper end of his miracles ; that it was not
merely to do acts of kindness to their bodies, but to confirm his
divine mission, and strengthen their faith in him ; and that their be-
lieving in him, and submitting to the evidence he brought, was a pn>
per disposition of mind, pleasing to God, and which tended to qualify
them for partaking of his benefits. As to our author's insinuation,
that Christ ought to have wrought his miracles for the conviction and
conversion of unbelievers ; but that this was not the case : it is
certain that this was one great design of Christ's miracles ; and
accordingly they had this effect, that many that did not believe in
him before, were brought by the evidence of his miracles to believe;
though where persons manifested an invincible hardness and infide-
lity, they were justly left to the effect of their own obstinacy. And
when it is said that he ' could not do many mighty works' among
his countrymen of Nazareth, ' because of their unbelief,' it is
plain this was not owing to any want of power in him to perform
his mighty works; but when he saw them so obstinate and hard-
ened in their incredulity, that no miracles would have an influence
upon them, and that instead of giving a due attention to his doc-
trine they rejected it, and went about to kill him ; he judged them
unworthy to have many miracles wrought among them, though
SCO OBJECTIONS AGAINST MIRACLES
he did some. And both in Scripture and other writings, it is a
very usual way of speaking, that persons cannot do a thing, which,
for good reasons, they do not think fit to do.
I shall only, before I leave this section, take notice of one thing
more, which this writer has advanced with as much confidence as
if it were certainly true, and he could prove it ; and that is, that
when ' St. Paul came to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, we hear
but very little of any miracle wrought among them.'* He^had a
gospel to preach, and doctrines to be delivered to them that must
make their own way, and force conviction as soon as they came to
be duly considered,' p. 42. The contrary to this is so true, that
almost all the miracles we read of, that were done by St. Paul,
were wrought among the Gentiles, and for their conviction, to
bring them to the acknowledgment of the truth. Thus, Acts xv.
12, we find that Barnabas and Paul ' declared what miracles and
wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.' The
great miracles he wrought, during his stay at Ephesus, were
wrought not merely before the Jews, but principally before the
Greeks, and had an influence to convert them to the faith, xix. 10,
11, Sec, 17, 18. To the Corinthians, who had been for the most
part Gentiles, he declares, that ' truly the signs of an apostle were
wrought by him among them, in signs, and wonders, and mighty
deeds,' 1 Cor. xii. 12. And to the Romans, giving an account of
his preaching the gospel among the Gentiles, and the progress he
had made, he speaks of the ' things which Christ had wrought by
him, to make the Gentiles obedient by word and deed, through
mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God,'
Rom. xv. 18, 19. And though no part of St. Paul's doctrine was con-
trary to the clear and evident principles of right reason, yet it is
incontestably evident, to any one that ever read his epistles, that
several of the doctrines he taught were such as could never have
been proved by reason alone, or have made their way to the minds
of men merely by their own native force and intrinsic evidence ;
and the proper proof of which rested on the evidence there was of
his having received what he taught by revelation from God, and
being under the unerring guidance of his Holy Spirit. And, it is
certain, that this was what he himself pretended to, and on that
account claimed a regard to the doctrines which he preached, as
of divine authority. As hath been fully proved in my former book,
pp. 218, 219.
Thus I have considered every thing this writer has to show, that
miracles can in no case be proper proofs and evidences of the divine
* We find St. Paul, in his admirable discourse to the Athenians, appeals to
Christ's resurrection from the dead, as a certain proof and assurance to mankind of
his being appointed by God to j udge the world, as he himself had declared, Acts xvii.
31. And elsewhere the same apostle saitb, that Christ ' was declared to be the Son of
God with power by the resurrection from the dead/ Rom. i. 4. From whence, it is
erident, that in the judgment of this great apostle, for whom our author professes so
great a regard, miracles may be of such a nature, and so circumstanced, as to" yield a pro-
per and sufficient attestation to the truth of a person's divine mission, and'to the autho-
rity of his doctrine.
CONSIDERED AND REFUTED. 361
mission of any person, or the truth and divine authority of any doc-
trine ; and, particularly, that the miracles wrought by Moses, and
these wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles, even
taking the account of them for true, as given in the sacred writ-
ings, were not such proofs and evidences. It is very Hkely, that
in his great sufficiency he may well pronounce concerning what I
have here said, as well as he has done concerning what was said
on this subject in my former book, that it is 'entirely oratorial
and declamatory, without any thing of argument in it,' and that it
is to no purpose to follow me in such a wild-goose chase. And
the world, no doubt, by this time, must be so . well acquainted
with the ability, the candour, and modesty of this writer, and to
take his bare word for it that it is so.
1 have hitherto proceeded upon the supposition of the truth of
the miraculous facts, recorded to have been done at the first estab-
lishment of the Jewish and Christian dispensation. If the ques-
tion be, what reason there is to think that those facts are true, and
to be depended on; 1 answer, that they come to us with all the
evidence that can be reasonably desired, or that the nature of the
thing will admit of, and it were perfectly absurd and unreasonable
to desire more. The only way that all mankind do, and must
depend upon, for knowing past facts, is either by oral tradition,
which may indeed serve to preserve the remembrance of some
principal facts, but is not much to be depended on for an exact
conveyance of laws, doctrines, and the particular circumstances of
fact ; or by authentic records written at the time when the facts
were done, and the laws given. And all the world owns, that
these may in many cases, be so circumstanced, that we cannot
reasonably doubt of the facts and laws so transmitted. If God
should, in his great goodness, make an extraordinaiy revelation of
his will, concerning matters of great importance to mankind, the
possibility, and even usefulness of which our author pretends not
to deny ; and if, to convince the world of the truth and divinity of
that revelation, he should cause it to be accompanied with the
most illustrious miraculous attestations ; in this case it would be
sufficient that those attestations were given when that revelation
was first published to the world.* And this being once done, and
the authority of those doctrines and laws fully established, all that
would be necessary for the use of mankind, in succeeding ages,
would be this ; that those laws and doctrines, together with an
account of those extraordinary miraculous attestations, should be
transmitted in such a manner, and with such a degree of evidence,
as might be safely depended upon, and give a sufficient reasonable
assurance, that these are the laws or doctrines that were originally
given as by revelation from God, and that these facts were done.
And this is the case of the Mosaic and Christian revelation. The
laws and doctrines of both were at first published in the most
* That to desire that those miraculous attestations should be continually repeated,
would be a. most unreasonable demand, I have shown, pp. 22, 23.
362 OBJECTIONS AGAINST MIRACLES
open and public manner. Those of Moses were delivered to a
whole nation, who were to be governed by those laws, in their
successive generations. The Christian laws and doctrines were
immediately published throughout a considerable part of the then
known world, by persons divinely commissioned to that purpose.
The facts whereby both the Mosaical and Christian revelation was
attested were done in public view, before great numbers of per-
sons ; they were of such a nature, and attended with sti'ch circum-
stances, such evidence of their reality, that those that were eye-
witnesses of them could not be deceived in them themselves, or doubt
of their reality, without renouncing the testimony of all their
senses. Upon the credit of these facts, as undeniably true and
evident, those laws and doctrines were immediately received by
great numbers who had all possible opportunities of knowing whe-
ther those facts were true ; and many of whom were deeply pre-
judiced against the laws, &c. so attested. The remembrance of
those doctrines and facts was not merely handed down by oral tra-
dition, but they were immediately committed to writing; and these
writings were published in that very age, and among the persons
that could not but know whether those accounts were true. The
writings containing an account of the law of Moses, and the facts
whereby it was attested, were published by Moses himself before
his own d^ath. Nor were they to be concealed or kept private in
a few hands, but by the express appointment of the law itself were
to be made known and considered by all the people, who were
carefully to instruct their children in the knowledge both of the
laws and facts. And accordingly we find that nation, in all their
various revolutions, still in possession of those laws, and still pre-
serving a remembrance of those extraordinary facts. And, indeed,
there was all possible provision made in the law itself for keeping
up the constant remembrance of those facts by several remarkable
constitutions, which were designed for this very purpose. Those
writings, are still regarded, as containing the rule both of their
civil and religious policy, from which, even in the times of their
greatest degeneracy, they never totally and universally apostatized ;
and therefore were still looked upon by many among them with
veneration, and their sacredness and divine authority acknow-
ledged. And if we examine the writings themselves, they bear all
the characters of genuine antiquity, and the original simplicity.
Nor have any alterations been made in them in those instances, in
which it may be justly supposed the Jews, in succeeding ages,
would have altered them, if they durst have attempted to corrupt
them at all.
And with "\espect to the original Christian records, they were
immediately dispersed in the very age in which they were first
written, that is, in the age in which the laws were published and
the facts were done. In that age they were dispersed into many
hands in different parts of the world, received with great veneration,
read in the public assemblies, soon translated into various languages,
ever since constantly appealed to by friends and enemies, by persons
CONSIDERED AND REFUTED. 363
of different sects and parties, and with different views, large portions
of them transcribed into the writings of others, and commented
upon. A general corruption of them, either in the doctrines or facts,
as the case was circumstanced, if it had been attempted, would have
been an impossible thing. And it is evident, in fact, that they
have not been corrupted, in instances where it might be supposed to
have been the interest and inclination of some persons to have cor-
rupted them. Nothing appears in them of the corruption of the follow-
ing ages. They carry all the marks of genuine purity and simpli-
city that any writings can possibly have. Upon the whole, there is
as much evidence as can reasonably be desired, that these are the
very original laws and doctrines, and the original accounts of those
facts written in the verv age in which those facts were done. And
i O
I do not see what can reasonably be expected more ; unless we are
resolved not to believe, except we ourselves, at this distance, have
ocular demonstration of the facts done in past ages ; which is to
demand a thing absurd and impossible. All this is what I have
largely "shown in a former treatise, to which I have referred in a book
this author has undertaken to answer, p. 39. Yet he thinks fit fre-
quently to represent me as taking the facts for granted, without
having offered the least proof. But I know no obligation I am
under to repeat the proof in every book, when I had done it largely
and fully before, to which no answer has been yet returned. I shall
however take' some notice, in the next chapter, of what he offers
with regard to the law of Moses, and the facts whereby that law
was attested. And as to the original records of Christianity, Mr.
Chapman has fully shown that they are transmitted to us with un-
questionable evidence of their being genuine and uncorrupted in all
material points, both as to doctrines and facts. Our author has not
thought fit to answer what that learned writer has urged on this
head, and yet persists as securely in repeating his general clamours
about the uncertainty of human testimony, as if nothing at all had
been offered in this case ; or as if he himself had clearly confuted it.
CHAPTER IV.
The law of Moses is in itself reasonable and excellent. This does not render the
attestation given it by miracles needless ; but strengthens and enforces it. The
covenant of peculiarity not a vain pretence and national delusion. The argument
brought against it from the authority of St. Paul and the nature of the Abrahamic
covenant considered. The God of Israel not represented in Scripture as a national,
local, tutelar deity. The author's strange way of accounting for some of Moses's
miracles. The extravagance of his suppositions shown. The objections against
his being the author of the Pentateuch, considered and obviated. The plan Moses
364 DEFENCE OF
laid down for the conquest of Canaan, not inconsistent with the nature of the pro-
mise made to Abraham. Other exceptions of this writer considered.
THE principal design of my former book was to vindicate the
Mosaical and Christian revelation against the objections this writer
had brought against them. And before I entered on a particular
discussion of his objections against the law of Moses, I premised
some general considerations concerning the nature and design of
that law. It was shown, that its moral precepts were pure and
excellent ;. that its ritual injunctions were appointed for wise rea-
sons ; that the whole Mosaic constitution was designed for excellent
ends ; for preserving the knowledge and worship of the only true
God in opposition to all idolatry, and for engaging those to whom
it was given to the practice of righteousness ; that it was a consti-
tution that answered many wise purposes of Divine Providence, and
was made subservient to the general good of mankind. This was
in opposition to the odious representation this writer has made of
the law of Moses, as if it was the worst constitution in the world.
In this last book, which is professedly written in vindication of his
former, he has been pleased to pass by what I had offered concern-
ing the excellency of that law, and thinks it sufficient to observe,
that by endeavouring to show the) reasonableness and excellency of
that law, I have ' entirely overthrown and given up the argument of
my first chapter, concerning the proof from miracles. With this
observation he begins his second section,' pp. 53, 54. But the
weakness of this pretence, and the consistency of the scheme I
advanced, has been fully shown.* If I had affirmed that the rea-
sonableness and good tendency of the Mosaic constitution was
alone considered a sufficient proof that Moses had it by extraordinary
revelation from God, this would have been a contradicting my first
chapter, in which I say, that ' the reasonableness of a doctrine or
law will never alone prove that the man that teaches that doctrine,
or brings that law, had it by immediate revelation from God.'
But to say that, because I assert the reasonableness and excellent
design of that law, therefore I cannot consistently lay any stress
upon the extraordinary miraculous attestations that were given to
that law, as proofs of its divine authority, is a strange way of argu-
ing. On the contrary, this sets the proof from miracles in the
strongest light. For, though it might be justly concluded, from
the very nature and circumstances of those miracles, that they were
such as could never be done, nor would God suffer them to be done
in attestation of an imposture ; yet, when to this it is farther added,
that the main design of that law and constitution was pure and
excellent, for promoting the worship of the only true God, and the
practice of righteousness, this furnisheth a further demonstration,
that those miracles were not wrought by evil beings, and that, con-
sequently, since they undeniably transcended all the power of man,
they must have been wrought by God himself, or by good beings
* See pp. 58, 59.
THE LAW OF MOSES. 365
acting under his special direction and influence ; and therefore may
be j ustly regarded as sufficient proofs that Moses, in attestation of
whose divine mission they were done, was indeed extraordinarily
sent of God ; and that the scheme of laws he professed to have
received from God, did indeed come from God, and was of divine
authority.
Our author, after a digression in his rambling way, concerning
the spiritual scholastics, &c. in which he says nothing but what has
been already fully considered and obviated, proceeds to offer some-
thing concerning the ' covenant of peculiarity with the Jews.' I had
shown that there was nothing in this constitution that can be proved
to be inconsistent with the divine perfections, or to derogate from
his universal goodness ; and that it was appointed for wise and
valuable ends, several of which were mentioned.* But our author
here gives us his word for it, that it was all a ' vain pretence and
national delusion, in which their prophets and historians had
greatly contributed to support, humour, and encourage the pride,
vanity, and superstition of the common people,' pp. 53, 56. Though
soon after he is so kind as to excuse the prophets, who ' might have
good reason from the necessity of the case, considering the blind-
ness and obduracy of the people they had to deal with. And though
some enthusiasts may call this imposture ; yet, where it was neces-
sary for the good of a nation, it must have been justifiable.' It
seems that the prophets, according to him, were in the right to
*' encourage and humour the pride, vanity, and superstition of that
people, and to support them in a vain notion and delusion. And if
any man will presume to call this imposture, he will incur our
.author's heavy censure, and must be content to pass for an enthu-
siast. He had talked at the same rate in his former book, that a
' wise and good man may falsify and deceive without injury, and
secure his own private interest for the public good.' It is lawful,
it seems, to pretend inspiration, to forge miracles and revelations,
whenever it is apprehended that this may be for the good of a
nation. This is one instance of our author's application of his rule
of moral truth and fitness, and of judging of the fitness of a thing
hy its connexion with our happiness. There may be a moral truth
and fitness even in falsehood, when we apprehend it tends to our
own or others' good. Pious frauds are very innocent things, and
must not be found fault with any more. There is either no real
evil in falsehood and imposture ; and if so, I cannot see upon what
foundation it can be asserted, what all mankind have hitherto ac-
knowledged, that ' it is impossible for God to lie ;' or, if it be in
itself evil, it is sanctified by the goodness of the end, and then I
cannot see but the same pretence may justify false oaths and perju-
ries. In this, it must be owned, our author's morality and fitness
of things is widely different from that taught us in Scripture, and
particularly by the apostle Paul, who will not allow that a lie is
sanctified under pretence that the glory of God is promoted by it,
* See pp. 27, 28,"32.
366 OBSERVATIONS ON
and pronounces that the damnation of those is just, that teach ' that
we may do evil that good may come of it, ' Rom. iii. 7, 8.
But not to insist any longer upon this, he asks, * How shall we
know or prove that God did enter into a special relation to that
people ? Must we take their own words, or the proud superstitious
imagination of their own people for it ?' p. 59.* I answer, that it
is proved by the same evidence by which the divine authority of the
law of Moses is proved, which was in its very original constitution
in the nature of a special covenant with that people ; in which God
condescended to enter into a particular relation to them, and erected
them into a peculiar polity for wise and valuable ends ; and conse-
quently it was confirmed by the testimony of God himself, who, as
hath been already shown, did, in an extraordinary manner, bear
witness to the divine mission of Moses, and to the divine original
and authority of the laws he delivered in his name. And I hope,
whatever our author thinks the prophets would do, he will hardly
pretend that God himself would endeavour to 'humour and encou-
rage the pride, and vanity, and superstition' of that people, by
making them believe he intended to enter into a special relation to
them, when he did not.
But if we will believe him, he has St. Paul on his side, who has,
in a manner demonstratively set this covenant of peculiarity aside,
by proving that the covenant of promise, which God made with
Abraham, had no peculiar relation to Abraham's natural seed, or to
the Jewish nation, but extended equally to all mankind, or to all
the sincere worshippers of the one true God, in all nations, and at
all times, to the end of the world, pp. 58, 59. The author as his
manner is, triumphs upon this, as if it were perfect demonstration.
But it is hard to see where the force of this reasoning lies. The
apostle sets himself to prove, that Abraham, in whom the Jews
boasted as their father, was justified by faith : he believed God, and
it was accounted to him for righteousness, even when he was yet
uncircumcised : and God promised, that in him, and his seed, should
all nations be blessed. This promise related to the blessing that
should come upon all nations, through Jesus Christ, who was to
come of the seed of Abraham. And, consequently, all true believ-
ers, even among the Gentiles, were to have an interest in that bless-
ing, being justified by faith as Abraham was, without the obser-
vation of the law of Moses ; which came after that promise, and
was not designed to repeal or abrogate it. This is the apostle's
reasoning, Gal. iii. Rom. iv. And it is strong and cogent against
those judai zing teachers, who urged, that it was absolutely necessary,
that even the Gentiles should be circumcised, and observe the law,
in order to their being justified and saved. But doth it follow from
thence, that God never entered into any special relation to the
people of Israel at all, nor erected them into a peculiar polity ? it is
* In this way of talking, as well as in several other things, our author treads in the
steps of Dr. Tindal, the absurdity of whose rule of judging of truth or falsehood, by its
tendency, Las been elsewhere exposed.
THE COVENANT OF PECULIARITY. 367
evident, the apostle neither saith nor intendeth such a thing. On
the contrary, in that very chapter, the author seems to refer to it,
Gal. iii. He plainly supposes, that the law of Moses was really or-
dained of God, through the ministry of angels, ver. 19, but denies
that it was intended to disannul that promise that had been made
long before, concerning God's blessing all nations in Abraham and
his seed, or make it of none effect, ver. 17. And then goes on to
show, that the law was designed only in a subserviency to that pro-
mise, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made.
That it was designed to be a schoolmaster to lead men unto Christ ;
that it kept them under a strict discipline and bondage, like that
which an heir is under whilst he is subject to tutors and governors,
till the time appointed of the Father. But now men are freed from
it by the coming of Christ, the proper end of it being answered; and
all distinction is to be taken away. There is now neither Jew nor
Greek, but all are one in Christ Jesus, ver. 23, 24, 28. chap. iv. 1 4.
This writer asks, p. 58, how it appears, that this people, viz.
the Jews, were ever such peculiar servants of the Almighty, or that
they were ever under any such special relation of adoption, or son-
ship, as they pretended to ? I answer, it appears, among other things
by the testimony of St. Paul himself, whom he pretends to produce
to the contrary ; who expressly declares, that to them pertained the
adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the
law, and the service of God, and the promises, Rom. ix.4. iii. 2. And
it is undeniably manifest, that though there was a general promise
made to Abraham, that all nations should be blessed in him, and in
his seed, that is, in Christ, who was to proceed from him ; to which
promise the apostle refers in his arguings on this subject ; yet there
was also a particular promise and covenant of a more limited nature,
and more immediately relating to his posterity by Isaac, in which
God engaged to give them the land of Canaan for a possession, and
that he would be their God, viz. in a special relation, Gen. xvii. 8,
And the peculiar constitution of Moses was in consequence of this
promise and covenant made with Abraham, and was a fulfilment of
it, Exod. ii. 24. But there was nothing either in that particular
promise made to Abraham relating to his seed by Isaac, nor in the
peculiar constitution established by Moses in the name of God, that
was at all inconsistent with the general promise made to Abraham
relating to all nations being blessed in him. Nor did it follow,
that because God erected the people of Israel into a peculiar
polity, and gave them peculiar distinctive rites for wise purposes,
that therefore he 1 would not accept those of any other nation that
truly believed in him, and worshipped and served him in sincerity.
Other nations were not by this put more out of the favour of God,
or into a worse condition than they were in before. God's univer-
sal goodness still continued the same that it was, and all that fear-
ed God, and worked righteousness, though not belonging to that
peculiar polity, were still accepted and justified, as Abraham him-
self had been. And, accordingly, under the Mosaic constitution,
368 OBSERVATIONS ON
though no idolaters were to be tolerated in the land of Israel, yet
all that worshipped the true God, though not belonging to their
tody, nor observing their particular rites, were to be treated by the
Israelites with great kindness, as persons whom God himself ao
cepted.
I had observed, that the peculiar constitution of the Jews was of
great advantage for keeping up the knowledge and worship of the
one true God in the world. This he treats as a mere imagination.
For it is certain, that no other nation ever received the worship of
one God from this nation ; but they themselves were continually
running into idolatry, and worshipping from time to time the gods
of several other nations that conquered them, p. 60. It will be
easily acknowledged, that they were often enticed to fall into a con-
formity to the vicious and idolatrous customs and practices of neigh-
bouring nations; and that principally when peace and luxury had
corrupted them. This was a fault, "as they were circumstanced,
great and inexcusable ; but which is not extremely to be wondered
at, considering the unaccountable proneness of mankind in all ages
to idolatry, and to vice and sensuality, the usual attendants of the
heathen worship. And this shows the wisdom of their peculiar con-
stitution. For hence it was, that even in the times of their greatest
degeneracy, there were still many persons among them who sincere-
ly worshipped the only living and true God, free from idolatry, and
made a right use of the ad vantages they enjoyed. And how far the
knowledge of the true God might spread from them to other nations,
is more than this writer can tell, notwithstanding all his confidence;*
and the instances I produced, and which he has not thought fit to
meddle with, render it highly probable. And it was certainly a sig-
nal advantage, that they were kept for so many ages a distinct pol-
ity, set apart to the worship and acknowledgment of the only true
God, amongst whom the prophecies and promises, relating to the
redeemer to come, were kept distinct, and the faith of his coming
preserved, and the world prepared for a glorious and perfect dispen-
sation that was to succeed. And though our author pretends, that
when Christianity came to be preached, Judaism was the greatest.
obstacle to it ; and that the miracles of Moses, as supposed to have
proved his religion to be the true religion, prevented and obstructed
the progress of Christianity more than the heathen idolatry did, pp,
60, 61. Yet it is certain, in fact, that the law and the prophets did
make way for receiving and spreading of Christianity, and was a
great advantage to it. And though the body of the Jewish nation,
especially the chief priests and rulers, rejected our Lord Jesus
Christ, and persecuted his disciples, yet the first harvest of converts
to the Christian faith was among the Jews, and a greater number
of them in proportion was converted to Christianity in that first
age, than of any other nation whatsoever. Nor was any thing of
* See several letters, containing directions for the conduct of young persons; with an
inquiry into natural and revealed religion. Letter vii.
COVENANT OF PECULIARITY. 369
greater advantage to Christianity, at its first promulgation, next to
the extraordinary attestations with which it was accompanied, than
this, that the Jews were then generally spread throughout the
"Roman empire ; their Scriptures were everywhere known ; they had
proselyted vast numbers of the Gentiles from the worship of idols to
the worship and acknowledgment of the true God ; and among these
the gospel was first preached, and made a great progress.
But this writer has another extraordinary attempt to show, that
the peculiar polity of Moses answered no valuable purpose at all :
he asserts, that it would not have cured the people of idolatry, even
supposing they had kept his law. He owns, indeed, that Moses
confined all worship and obedience to one true God ; and that no
doubt but he, and the prophets after him, had just notions enough
of God, and of his spiritual divine perfections ; but he indulged the
gross vulgar or body of the people, in a sort of worship not much
unlike to that of the heathen, local, and tutelar gods ; and with
the gross of the people, the God of Israel was a local tutelar God,
p. 62. This he repeats on all occasions in his book. He boldly
affirms, without disguise, that the God of Israel was an idol. That
' it is very evident from the whole story, that this people had a local,
oracular, and tutelar God, who is called the God of Israel, as dis-
tinguished from the like residential Gods of Egypt, Philistia, Zidon,
and other nations ; and that this was the God for whom the priest-
hood was instituted, and to whom the sacrifices were offered, pp.
134, 135. That the God of Israel, who was supposed to reside in
the sanctuary, in the custody of the high priest (as he is pleased to
express it) was a mere cheat, and as much an idol as the tutelar,
oracular, and residential gods of Egypt, and other nations, ' p. 172.
I must own this way of talking is to me very shocking. An author
ought to be sure, to demonstration, that he is in the right, before
he ventures to bring such a charge as this. For if it should prove
to be the true God, whom he thus boldly arraigns and vilifies, it is
no light guilt to be found reproaching the living God. And what
is the proof that he brings to support this charge ? it amounts chiefly
to this ; that ' God is represented as residing with the Ark upon the
mercy-seat, between the cherubims, with a luminous glory about
him, ready on all occasions to be consulted by the people, and give
answers by an audible voice. And that when the Philistines took
the ark, the priest, people, 8cc., were under a general consternation ;
they gave up their God for lost. The glory was departed from Israel :
the enemy had robbed them of their God. '
I had sufficiently obviated this in the book which he pretends to
answer ; and had shown, that God's manifesting himself among the
people of Israel, by a visible cloud of glory, and his giving answers
on some occasions by an audible voice, was indeed a marvellous in-
stance of goodness and condescension, but cannot be proved to have
any thing in it absurd or unworthy of God, or inconsistent with his
essential perfections. Nor doth it follow, that therefore he is a fi-
nite limited being, or that his essence is circumscribed, or confined
to the place, where it pleaseth him thus peculiarly to manifest his
B B
370 OBSERVATIONS ON
presence. Nor doth it appear that the Jews ever understood it so,
who were everywhere taught in the law to form the noblest concep-
tions of the Deity, as the sovereign Lord of heaven and earth.*
It is not to be wondered at, that when the ark was taken, they la-
mented that the glory was departed from Israel ; for it was their
peculiar glory that God had been pleased to enter into a special
relation to them, and had vouchsafed them extraordinary tokens of
his favour and presence : and his suffering the ark of the covenant
to be taken by their enemies, which was the symbol of his special
presence, and an external token of his covenant and particular re-
lation to them, was a great instance of his displeasure, and must
therefore give much concern to all good men among them. But
they were far from thinking, that because the ark Was taken, there-
fore the enemy had robbed them of their God ; nor was this what
they lamented, that Jehovah their God was taken, but that the ark
of God was taken. Nor was any of them ever so senseless as to
think, that when the temple was afterwards destroyed, their God
was burnt in his own palace by the idolatrous Babylonians ; this is
our author's own reflection, p. 134, for the impiety and absurdity
of which he alone is answerable : but the Jews were taught to enter-
tain worthier and nobler notions of the Deity. In the same passage
he seems to think it a sufficient proof, that the God that was wor-
shipped among the Jews was not the true God, but an idol, or local
residential deity, because sacrifices were offered to him. But this,
if it proved any thing, would also prove, that the God whom the
ancient patriarchs worshipped, and particularly Abraham, of whom
this writer sometimes affects to speak with great veneration, as a
sincere worshipper of the true God, was no more than an idol, or
a local tutelar deity. Sacrifices were used in the divine worship
from the earliest ages, and probably were of divine appointment,
and instituted for wise purposes, as I have elsewhere shown.f And
sufficient care was taken, by many express passages in the sacred
writings, to prevent the Jews from forming such gross notions, con-
cerning sacrifices, as this writer insinuates. See Psalm 1. 9 13,
and many other places to the same purpose.
But farther to show that God was regarded among the people
of Israel as a local tutelar Deity, he produceth a passage from
2 Sam. vii. concerning David's purposing to build a house for the
Lord to dwell in, ' which the prophet Nathan forbade, alleging
that God had hitherto walked in a tent and tabernacle, &c. And
that though he intended to have a better and more commodious
house to dwell in than ever he had before, yet not David himself
but his son Solomon was to have the honour of it,' pp. 63, 64. But
certainly, no man that considers- the sublime and admirable descrip-
tions that David everywhere gives of the glory and majesty of the
Lord Jehovah, as the sovereign Lord of the universe, and especially
the noble representations he makes of the divine immensity
* See Divine Authority, pp. 41, 42.
t See Divine Authority, pp. 112, 117. See also Answer to Christianity, &c. vol. i.
pp. 67, 68, 69.
THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION. 371
and omnipresence ' in the cxxxixth psalm, and which he gave
to the chief musician to be. employed in the public worship,
can possibly suppose that when he purposed to build a house
for the Lord to dwell in, he regarded him or designed that the
people should regard him only as a topical God, like one of the
heathen deities, whose presence was to be confined there. When
Solomon made that excellent prayer at the consecration of the
temple, he begins it with saying, ' I have surely built thee a house
to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever.' But that
he was far from intending thereby to make such a mean repre-
sentation of the Deity as this writer insinuates, is evident from
those noble expressions tittered in the same prayer before all the
people of Israel who were convened on that occasion ; ' But will
God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, the heaven, and the
heaven of heavens, cannot contain Thee, how much less this house
which I have builded ?' 1 Kings viii. 13, 27. When Hezekiah
addressed himself solemnly to God for protection against the
invasion of Sennacherib, he begins his prayer. thus, ' O Lord God of
Israel, which dvvellest between the cherubims !' But, must it be
concluded from these words, that therefore he regarded him only
as a national local Deity ? The contrary is extremely evident, from
what he immediately adds, ' Thou art the God, even Thou alone,
of all the kingdoms of the earth ; them hast made heaven and earth.'
And then he goes on to represent him as infinitely superior to all
the idol-deities whom the heathens worshipped, 2 Kings xix. 15.
It is plain, therefore, that those expressions, so usual among the
Jews, concerning the house of God and his dwelling there, were
not intended or understood by them as signifying, that the Lord
Jehovah, whom they worshipped, was only a local residential Deity
like the tutelar gods of other countries ; or as if his presence was
confined to the temple or tabernacle ; but that it was his will that
there they should offer up their solemn worship to him, and there
he was pleased to vouchsafe special tokens of his gracious presence.
The Syrians, indeed, agreeably to the notions they conceived of
their own deities, supposed that the Hebrew gods might be gods
of the hills, but not of the valleys, 1 Kings xx. 23, 28. And the
idolatrous Samaritan nations, that were brought in the place of
Israel, when the ten tribes were carried away captive by the king
of Assyria, regarded the God whom the Israelites worshipped as
the god of the land ; and Rabshakeh, in his blasphemous speech,
supposed the God of Israel was like the gods of Hamath, Arpad,
Sepharvaim, Sec. which were topical tutelar deities ; but it is
manifest that the Jews themselves were far from entertaining such
notions of the Lord Jehovah, but rejected this with horror, as the
highest blasphemy. See 2 Kings xviii. 34, 35, xix. 16 19.
Yet this writer has the confidence to say, that ' whoever will
observe the language and style of the Hebrew historians all along,
while they are accommodating themselves to the gross notions and
superstitions of the common people, must see, that they speak of
God as a national, local, and tutelar Deity ; under which notion
B B 2
372 . OBSERVATIONS ON
the populace always conceived of him, and worshipped him. They
worshipped him therefore only in name, while they had the same
conceptions of him that the heathens had of their national idols or
false gods. They could have no just notions or apprehensions of
the infinite perfections, universal presence, and providential govern-
ment of God, as the common father and friend of mankind, nor
could they have borne any such representation of their peculiar idol
or national god, but would have stoned the prophet who should
have come to them with any such doctrine, 1 p. 64. I am so used
to this author's way of representing things, that I am not surprised
at this, or at any thing else that he advances, though ever so con-
trary to truth and decency. There is scarce any thing capable of
a clearer proof than that the Jews, though they considered God as
having made himself known to Israel in a particular manner, and
as having entered into a special relation to them, yet did not regard
him as a national, local, tutelar deity, as the heathens regarded
their idols,*butas the Lord of the universe,the Creator and Governor
of the world, the God of nature, who rules all things by his provi-
dence, and fills heaven and earth with his presence. It is undeniably
evident that this is the idea under which he is continually repre-
sented throughout the whole Old Testament; in the law, in the
prophets, in the psalms and sacred historical writings, and in all
their acts of devotion, as there recorded, whether offered up by
private persons, or offered publicly in the name of all the people.
Their language is still entirely different from that of other nations,
and from what it would have been if they had had the notions of
God which this writer thinks fit to ascribe to them. I will not,
indeed, answer for all the common people among the Jews,
any more than I will for all the common people among the
Christians, or in our own nation, that none of them ever entertained
gross and unworthy notions of the Deity ; but this I will say, that
there was great care taken in their laws and other writings to
prevent this, and inspire them with just and noble sentiments of
the Supreme Being. Nor could they possibly regard God as a
mere national idol or local deity, whilst they adhered to their laws,
and were governed by them ; and what notions they might entertain
when they forsook their laws, and suffered themselves to be seduced
into the idolatries of the neighbouring nations, is nothing to the
purpose to inquire.
Our author next proceeds, p. 65, to say something about the
* It ought to be observed, that those that believe topical, local, tutelar deities, did
universally believe that there were more gods than one. One nation, one city and country,
had its local tutelar deity as well as another. And hence they had their forms of
evocation, or persuading the tutelar gods of other countries to abandon the protections
of them. But will any man pretend to say, that it was the notion and principle of the
Jews, that there were many gods ; or that the law or the prophets countenanced them
in this notion 1 When, on the contrary, it is as clear as the light, that this is entirely
contrary to the very fundamental constitution of the whole Jewish law and polity, in
which nothing is more strongly inculcated than the unity of God, or that there is no
other God but one, even the supreme Lord of the universe, who is alone to be acknow
ledged and adored.
THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION.
miracles of Moses, to show that they were not really done, but only
in appearance ; and the poor stupid people were made to believe,
they saw those things done before their eyes, though all was
imposture and delusion. With regard to their passing through
the Red Sea, he observes, that the people not knowing the way out
of ' Egypt, might think there was no way of going out of it but
through the sea;' and as they were conducted only by night,
Moses made them believe, that the ' dry ground which they
marched over was the bottom of the sea, which God had miracu-
lously cleared of all the water-rocks and quick-sands/ &c. This,
it must be owned, is very shrewdly conjectured. To which it
should be added, that Moses, next morning, made them believe
they saw the whole place through which they had passed, covered
with the waves, though there was not one drop of water in the
place; and that they saw the bodies of the Egyptians, who, it
seems, had been drowned on dry land, floating on the waters, and
their chariots, &c. cast upon the shore. With regard to the
promulgation of the law at Sinai, he will have it, that the people
heard nothing more than the voice of thunder, which they could not
articulate, that is, they heard no words or articulate voice at all ; and
yet Moses made that whole vast multitude believe they heard the
voice of God, out of the midst of the fire, distinctly pronouncing
the ten commandments, when they heard no such thing ; and
appeals to themselves concerning it, as a thing they all knew, and
the like of which no other nation had ever heard or seen from the
foundation of the world. See Deut. iv. 32, 33, v. 4, 22. Our author
next tries his hand upon the miracle of bringing water out of the
rock, by Moses's striking it with his rod. And this he most
ingeniously accounts for ; ' this people had never seen any fresh-
water springs in Egypt, and therefore seeing water flow out of a
rock, must at first appear as wonderful to them as drying up the
sea,' &c. The water, it seems, had been there all along. It had
come flowing from the rock, and had passed by their tents ; but
the poor senseless creatures could not see it, though they were, at
that very time, ready to perish for want of it. And when he brought
them to the rock, he made them believe there was not one drop of
water issuing out of it till he struck it with his rod, though it was
all the while gushing out in great abundance, a rapid spring before
their eyes. To attempt a serious answer to such wild suppositions,
would be to render myself as ridiculous as this writer ; and he must
suppose these nations to be as senseless as he makes the Israelites
to be, if he imagines such stuff as this can pass upon them. It
were to be wished he had gone through the other miracles, which
he might easily have done in the same way. He might have shown,
that Moses made above a million of people believe that the manna
fell about their tents constantly six days in the week, and that they
themselves gathered it, and fed upon it all along for forty years
together, in the barren desert, when there was no such thing. But,
it seems, there is one way of accounting for all this, and that is,
the great stupidity of the Israelites, against which he inveighs on
'374 OBSERVATIONS ON
all occasions. But it is not sufficient to suppose them very
ignorant and stupid, except he can prove them quite senseless, that
they could neither see, nor hear, nor feel, nor understand. They
were, it seems, a race of creatures, that happened some way or
other to have the human shape, but they had nothing else belonging
to men ; and thus continued throughout all their generations. And
yet the wonder is, that this strange people, as appears from all their
remaining monuments, had far juster notions of religion than those
that passed for the most polite and learned nations upon earth ;
and numbers, even of the common people among them, except in
the times when they themselves were drawn from the obser-
vation of their own laws to a compliance with the opinions and
customs of the neighbouring nations, had far nobler notions of the
only living and true God, and of the worship due to him, in
opposition to all idolatry, not only than the common people even
of Greece and Rome, but than many of their wise men and
philosophers themselves.
But our author has got one instance, which he produces as a
1 proof of their more than brutish stupidity ; and from whence we
must conclude them more brutish than their cattle, and not endued
with any common sense or human faculties/ pp. 27, 67. And that
is, their worshipping ' the golden calf so soon after the extra-
ordinary promulgation of the law.' I will agree, that this was a
strange instance of stupidity and guilt, and so I look upon all
idolatry to be, though it is a folly the wisest nations have been
guilty of. But this writer thinks proper, by his representation of
it, to make this matter worse than it really was, though it was bad
enough. He represents them as ascribing their deliverance to the
gods of Egypt. But this is far from being true. It was the God
of Israel, and not the Egyptian deities, they intended to worship
by this symbol. They said, These be thy gods, O Israel, or as it
might very properly be rendered, this is thy God, O Israel, (for it
is well known that the word Elohim, there made use of, though
plural in construction, is often singular in its signification, see Gen.
xx. 12, xxxv. 7, and is so used in the present case, Nehem. ix. 18,)
which brought thee out of the land of Egypt. And this is the
character under which God had described himself when he gave
the ten commandments. And accordingly we find Aaron, when he
proclaimed a feast on that occasion, proclaimed a feast to the Lord,
to Jehovah, Exod. xxxii. 5 ; from whence it appears, that it was
God Jehovah they intended to worship, though they took a wrong
way of doing it. Moses had been absent from them above a month.
They could not tell what was become of him, and probably thought
he was consumed by the fire, or taken up into heaven, and would
not return to them any more. They were weary of continuing any
longer in that station at Sinai, and wanted to be going forward,
but they had a mind to have a visible symbol of the divine presence
with them, a visible representation of the Deity. And people, even
those that have passed for learned and wise, have been very
ingenious in all ages, in finding out plausible colours and pretences
THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION. 375
to justify this. If it be urged, that this had been so expressly
forbidden, just before in the second commandment, delivered with
the most awful solemnity, that it can scarce be conceived that they
.should be guilty of it ; or, if so, they must have been stupid beyond
the common race of human nature : I answer, that without sup-
posing them uncommonly stupid, they might be ready to argue,
that when they were forbidden to worship any image, or the
likeness of any thing, &c. this related only to their worshipping the
false gods and idols of other countries, but that there was no hurt
in worshipping the true God by an image or symbolical represen-
tation. This is the explication that has been actually given of the
design of the second commandment by some df the church of
Rome, and those persons of learning and sagacity too. And what
reason can be given why the Israelites might not understand it so,
and think it a sufficient justification or excuse, that it was not the
worshipping a false god they intended, but the worshipping the
true God under that symbol ? And, at that rate, it was not owing
to an excess of stupidity, but to their subtlely explaining away the
true design of this commandment in favour of their own prejudices,
and according to a way of thinking that then generally prevailed.
And as to the particular symbol they chose, that of an ox, several
symbolical reasons might be given for it, according to the wisdom
that then obtained. But there is no proof that the Egyptian Apis
or Serapis were so ancient ; and the rites the Israelites made use
of on this occasion, viz. the sacrificing of oxen, was no way
agreeable to the rites made use of by the Egyptians in honour of
that idol.*
Our author, after having made this extraordinary attempt to
account for the miracles of Moses, next proceeds to blame me ' for
supposing a thing that cannot be proved ; and that is, that this
account was written by Moses himself, and was as firmly believed
then as it was in after ages,' p. 68. I observed, in my foi-mer
book, that we have as full a proof of this as can reasonably be
desired, or as we can have, that any book was written by any
author under whose name it goes. For we have the constant
testimony of the whole nation to whom these laws were given, and
who regarded them with great veneration, as the rule of their
polity. And all other nations that had occasion to mention them,
still ascribed these writings to Moses. None, either among friends
or enemies, among those who lived nearest those times, ever pre-
tended to deny it. There is a constant reference to these books as
written by Moses, in all the succeeding records and monuments of
their nation ; and finally, which ought to have a mighty influence
upon us Christians, they are all along ascribed to Moses in the
New Testament by our Saviour and his apostles. Nor was this
ever pretended to be contested, but by a few in these later times,
who come too late, and whose objections are too weak and trifling,
to disturb an uninterrupted possession of so many ages.
* See Dr. Tennison, on Idolatry, chap. vi. part 3, 4.
376 OBSERVATIONS ON
But he urges, ' that it does not appear thatMoses wrote any thing
himself but the original book of the law, which was to be kept with
the ark, and never to be read by any but the priest who was to
officiate,' p. 69. Here then we have this writer's own concession,
that Moses himself wrote the original book of the law, which was
deposited in the side of the ark. And this certainly was a very
wise provision, by virtue of which there was always an authentic
original kept safe in the most sacred place, to which recourse might
be had, and by which all other copies of the law might be adjusted
and corrected. But it certainly never was the design of Moses,
as this writer seems here to insinuate, that there should be no copy
taken of the law at all besides the original one, and that it was to
be kept wholly in the hands of the priest. It was expressly ap-
pointed by Moses, that the king should write a copy with his own
hand, which, for the greater correctness, was to be taken from the
authentic original ; and he was ' to read therein all the days of his
life,' Deut. xviii. 18, 19. And it is certain that Moses urged it in
the strongest manner upon all the people as their indispensable
duty, to meditate on the law themselves, and to teach it diligently
to their children, and to make it the daily subject of their thoughts
and conversation, Deut. iv. 9 6, vi. 9, xi. 19, which evidently
supposed that the law was not to be confined in the hands of the
priests and governors, but that all the people were to be acquainted
with it. One design of instituting the Sabbath, was to give the
people leisure for this. And one whole tribe, that of Levi, was set
apart to assist the people in the knowledge of that law, and was
for that purpose dispersed through all their tribes, Lev. x. 2. Deut.
xxxiii. 10. It was looked upon as the proper character of a good
man, who was entitled to the divine blessing, that ' his delight was
in the law of the Lord, and in that law did he meditate day and
night,' Ps. i. 1, 2. With regard to Moses himself, we are expressly
told that ' he wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests, the
sons of Levi, which bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and
unto all the elders of Israel/ Deut. xxxi. 9. From which words
the Jews very reasonably conclude, that as he delivered an original
copy, written with his own hand, to the priests, to be deposited in
the sides of the ark, of which we have an account, ver. 24, 25, so
he at the same time delivered written copies of the law to the elders
of the several tribes, to be by them carefully preserved.
If the question be what we are to understand by the book of the
law which Moses wrote and delivered, I think it may be reasonably
concluded, that if he gave them the law at all, he gave them the
whole of that law, since they were strictly enjoined to observe all
things that were there prescribed, and neither to add to it, nor
diminish from it. And consequently, the law he gave them in
writing to be preserved, could not be merely the book of Deutero-
nomy, as some have imagined ; because, though this contains a
recapitulation of the principal laws and extraordinary miraculous
facts, for the truth of which he appeals to the whole body of the
people who had been eye and ear-witnesses, yet there are several
THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION. 377
laws and directions which they were carefully to observe, which yet
are not to be found there, but in the book of Leviticus and of
Numbers.
And if Moses himself committed his laws to writing, he also
wrote an account of the extraordinary facts whereby those laws
were attested, since this was as necessary as the other ; and indeed
the law of Moses is a perpetual intermixture of laws and facts.
They are so interwoven, that in the one there is a perpetual refer-
ence to the other ; and they cannot be separated. Those facts
contained the proofs of the divine original of the law ; many of the
laws themselves were designed and intended on purpose to keep up
the remembrance of those facts ; and Moses himself frequently in-
culcates it upon the people to consider those facts and to teach them
to their children. And accordingly the knowledge of the laws and
facts went still together, and was alike preserved among that people
throughout their generations, Psalm Ixxviii. 5, 6, 7, and constantly
referred to in all their monuments as things universally known and
acknowledged among them. We are expressly told. Numb, xxxiii.
1, 2, ' that Moses, by the command of God> wrote down the jour-
neyings of the children of Israel, which went forth out of the land
of Egypt, under the hand of Moses and Aaron.' And if he was
ordered to write an account of their journeyings out of Egypt, and
in the wilderness, much more of the wonderful things that befel
them, that the remembrance of those things might be preserved
throughout all their generations. And as the law was that for the
illustration and confirmation of which all the rest was written, the
whole might well be called ' the book of the law.' So we find the
apostle Paul, citing a passage out of Genesis, calls it ' the law,'
Gal. iv. 21, 22. And reference is made to some things as written
in the law, that are only to be found written in the books of Exodus
and Numbers.*
Our author has little to offer, that has any appearance of reason
or argument, to prove that Moses was not the author of the books
under his name. He first amuses the reader with some general
talk about the ' alterations and additions that the biblical books
have undergone.' He observes, that ' the book of Nehemiah brings
down the genealogy of the high priests to the time of Jaddua, who,
according to Josephus, was contemporary with Alexander the
Great.' But supposing Josephus to have been mistaken, and that
Jaddua was not contemporary with Alexander the Great, then our
author's reflection falls. Now this is what Sir Isaac Newton sup-
poses to be the case. The chronology of Josephus, particularly
with regard to the times of the Persian empire, is known to be very
confused. He confounds Darius Nothus, in whose reign Jaddua
lived, with the last Darius that was overcome by Alexander, and
this led him to make Jaddua contemporary with Alexander the
Great, or to call the high-priest that then lived Jaddua.f But even
* See Chron. xvi. 40," and 2 Chron. xxxi. 3, compared with Exodus xxix. 28.
Numbers xxviii. xxix.
f See Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms amended, chap. vi.
378 - OBSERVATIONS ON
allowing our author's own supposition, all that would follow from it
would be only this, that in the list of the high-priests, Nehem. xii.
10, &c. the name of a high priest or two was afterwards inserted by
other persons, probably the men of the great synagogue, who revised
the sacred books,* to make the catalogue of the high-priests com-
plete, and bring it down to their own times. But this doth not
touch the authority of that book, nor prove that Nehemiah was not
the author of it, which it appears, from the whole strain of it, he
manifestly was. He next observes, that 'the books of Daniel and
Esther were written pretty long after the captivity, and pretty low
down in the Persian empire.' This is not true of the book of
Daniel, which was written by Daniel himself, in the very beginning
of that empire. The book of Esther was indeed written afterwards,
and no wonder, since it contains an historical narration of what
happened lower down in the Persian empire. He farther assures
us, that ' there are several passages, and whole chapters in Isaiah,
that must have been written after the Babylonish captivity ;' that is,
many years after Isaiah was dead. And this he asserted with as
much "confidence as if he could really prove it. The reason he gives
is pleasant enough. ' They relate to the state and circumstances of
the people at that time;' that is, because they prophesy of what
was to happen to the people at and after the time of the Babylonish
captivity, therefore they were written after that time. All that can
be gathered from this is, that in our author's opinion, all prophecies
are written after the event ; but this will hardly pass with others
for an argument. He next very pertinently observes, that 'the
book of Psalms is a collection of poems and songs, composed by
several hands, at great distances of time ;' and that one of them,
viz. xcth Psalm, was composed by Moses. And what this is
brought to prove is hard to say. 'The second book of Samuel
brings down the histoiy above forty years after the death of that
prophet, and the last ten chapters of the first book relate to things
that were done after the death of Samuel.' And what follows from
thence ? That Samuel did not write the last ten chapters of the
first book, nor any part of the second. And who supposes that he
did 1 According to the Jews, he wrote the former part of the first
book ; and the remainder of that book, and all the second book,
were written by Gad and Nathan, the prophets ; which they gather
from what is said, 1 Chron. xxix. 29. And the whole, when com-
piled together, might be called by the name of Samuel, because he
was the most eminent person of the three, and his acts were re-
corded in the first place.
All this is nothing to Moses ; but at last he comes to produce a
proof, that the books of Moses were not written by him ; and the
proof relates only to a passage in the book of Genesis, chap, xxxvi.
c where we have an exact list of all the kings and dukes of Edbm,
before there was any king in Israel, which therefore was wrote when
there was a king in Israel, and consequently could not have been
earlier than the time of Samuel and Saul,' p. 69.
* Concerning this, see Prid. Connect, part I. at the end of book VIII.
THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION. 379
But if it should be granted, that to the account Moses had given
of Esau and his posterity was afterwards added by some other
person, perhaps by Samuel, a list of the kings of Edom, down to
his time, to make the account complete, it would not follow that
therefore Moses did not write those books, or that there is any cor-
ruption or alteration made in the laws or facts. This insertion has
nothing- to do, either with the laws as delivered by Moses, or with
the accounts of the facts whereby those laws were attested, both
which were written by Moses, and kept with the utmost veneration.
Nor would any succeeding writer pretend to corrupt or change
them ; or if they had attempted it, must soon have been detected.
And I have elsewhere shown, that there are no corruptions or alter-
ations made, in those instances in which it might be expected that
they would have altered the original records, if they durst have
corrupted them at all.* But after all, it doth not appear that the
passage the author refers to was inserted after the time of Moses,
nor can any sufficient argument be brought to prove, that it was
not written by Moses himself. It is indeed observed in that pas-
sage, that the kings there mentioned ' reigned in the land of Edom,
before there reigned any king over the children of Israel,' Gen.
xxxvi. 31. From whence our author concludes, that ' it must have
been written when there was a king in Israel ;' but this doth not
necessarily follow : these expressions may be designed barely to
signify, that the posterity of Esau had had so many kings as are
there mentioned before the time in which Moses wrote ; whereas
Israel had had no king hitherto ; though he knew they would have
kings in after-times, as is plain from what he saith, Deut. xvii.
14, 19.
But if it should be granted, that these words suppose that at the
time of writing this, there was a king over the children of Israel, it
could not be concluded from thence that Moses did not write it ;
for he is expressly said to have been ' king in Jeshurun,' or Israel,
in the blessing which he himself pronounced upon the tribes, Deut.
xxxiii. 5. And that he was really so, and had a regal power, the
learned Selden proves at large, De Synedr. lib. ii. cap. 1, 2. And
in this view, the design of these expressions would only be to sig-
nify, that there were so many kings in Edom before Moses ruled
the Israelites, who had never been- governed by a single person be-
fore. If it be urged, that there is not space enough for so many
kings in Edom before Moses' time, I answer., that from Esau's
marriage to Moses' death, there were no less than 345 years. And
here there is room enough, both for the first race of dukes of the
children of Esau, mentioned ver. 15 19, and who were all contem-
porary, and may well be. reckoned within the first hundred years
after Esau's marriage, and after them for the eight kings, mentioned
ver. 31 39. For the reigns of kings, according- to Sir Isaac
Newton's computation, may be reckoned at a medium, one with
another, at eighteen or twenty years apiece ;+ but let us reckon the
* See Answer to Christianity, &c. vol ii. pp. 139, 140.
't See his Chronology of ancient Kingdoms amended, chap. i.
380 OBSERVATIONS ON
kings of Edom at twenty-two years and a half, one with another,
they will be comprehended within 180 years ; and at that rate there
will be about sixty-five years still remaining between the last of the
kings there mentioned and the death of Moses ; which is space
enough for the dukes that are mentioned after the kings, ver. 40,
and who probably were all contemporary. And the Edomites, who
seem to have been under the government of dukes when Israel went
out of Egypt, Exod. xv. 15, returned under the government of kings
a little before the death of Moses ; for we find there was a king of
Edom at the time when Israel demanded a passage through their
land, which was the last year of Moses' life. There is nothing in
all this but what is very consistent ; and so this mighty argument
of our author's, to prove that Moses was not the author of the
Pentateuch, falls to the ground.
He next inveighs, pp. 70, 71, against the miracles of Moses, as
he had done several times before, because of the destruction
brought on the Egyptians and Canaanites : but this hath been
already considered and obviated above. And after pronouncing
these accounts of things to be the ' most incredible fiction and for-
gery that ever was invented ;' and that it is ' contrary to all reason
and common sense' to look upon those historians as having been
divinely inspired, he declares, that for his part, he ' is sure that this
miraculously stupid people were always inspired and possessed with
the spirit of the devil. And it is both a matter of grief and wonder,
that they should be able thus to transfuse their spirit and faith into
Christians,' p. 72, that is, that both the Jews, all along, in all
their generations, and all Christians that have believed that those
accounts are true, and that the sacred Hebrew writers were di-
vinely inspired (and it is certain, that our Saviour, and his
apostles, and the body of Christians, have considered them in this
view), have been ' inspired and possessed with the spirit of the
devil.' This may give us a true specimen of the temper of this
writer. Many will be apt to think, that in describing the spirit
of the Jews, he has plainly discovered his own : and that he has
drawn his own character in stronger terms, than any of his adver-
saries would have done it for him.
He farther objects against Moses, as guilty of imposture, 'in
trumping up the Abrahamic covenant to the people of Israel, or
* pretending to any right or claim from thence ;' as if it was in ac-
complishment of the promise made to Abraham, that they were to
be delivered out of Egypt, and brought to Canaan. He urges,
that ' this must have been without the least ground or foundation j*
because the covenant God made with Abraham, concerning his pos-
terity possessing the land of Canaan within 400 years was condi-
tional : and the terms of that covenant had never been complied
with, and all right and claim from it had been forfeited long
before the days of Moses : which he proves, because ' they had run
into all the idolatry and superstition of Egypt,' &c. p. 72. But
it doth not appear, that their possessing the land of Canaan was
suspended on the condition of their persisting without any inter-
THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION. 381
ruption in the pure profession and practice of the true religion ; so
that any failure in their obedience was an entire forfeiture of their
right and interest in that covenant ; and that even though they
should afterwards repent and return, they were to have no benefit
by it. Besides the passage the author refers to, Gen. xv. 13 16,
contains not merely a conditional promise, but a plain and abso-
lute prediction of what should certainly come to pass. It is there
expressly declared and foretold to Abraham, that his seed should
be strangers in a land that was not theirs, and should serve ano-
ther nation, and be in an afflicted state ; and that at the end of
400 years, they should come out with great substance, and come
to the land of Canaan. Moses might therefore justly put the
Israelites in mind of the promise made to Abraham, since the
time prefixed for the accomplishment of it was now come. It was
indeed proper, in order to their having the benefit of it, that they
should solemnly engage to take ' the Lord for their God,' and walk
in obedience to his laws. And this they did engage to do ; and
upon their frequent rebellions and revoltings that generation fell in
the wilderness ; and their children, who were not involved in their
corruptions and idolatries, had the benefit of it.
But he farther urges, p. 73, that the ' plan which Moses laid, or
the method which he had concerted, to make himself master of the
country, was absolutely inconsistent with the nature and condi-
tions of the Abrahamic covenant.' How is this proved ? It should
have been by converting the Canaanites, and not in a way of
bloodshed and violence. But all that was promised in the cove-
nant made with Abraham, was, that his seed should have the land-
of Canaan for a possession. The particular manner, in which they
were to be put in possession of it, is not told. But the reason of
their not being to possess that land, till after 400 years, is declared
to be this, that the iniquities of the Amorites were not yet full,
Gen. xv. 16. This plainly implies, that when their wickedness
should be arrived to the greatest height, then, and not till then,
should that promise of putting the Israelites in possession of that
land be accomplished. And, consequently, it is plainly intimated,
that it was to be done by dispossessing the Canaanites in a way of
exemplary vengeance upon them for their crimes ; which this wri-
ter, who presumes to direct divine providence, in the way of deal-
ing with guilty nations, calls ' unnatural cruelty, violence and out-
rages.' But, it seems, ' Abraham might easily have possessed him-
self of the country by force of arms, if he had thought this a just
and proper method ; and so might Joseph have done after him,
when he was prime minister "in Egypt,' pp. 73, 74. But since
Abraham was assured, that his seed should be strangers and af-
flicted in a foreign land, and not possess the land of Canaan till
after 400 years, it may be presumed, that he was willing- to wait
the appointed time ; and to have attempted it before, would
have been no way suitable to Abraham's character, or to the
faith for which he was so renowned. And the same may be
said with regard to Joseph, who made no doubt of the accom-
382 ON. THE MOSAIC POLITY.
plishment of that promise, as appears from Gen. 1. 24, 25, but
knew that the time for it was not yet come.
Our author, after some farther invectives against Moses and the
Israelites, for invading the Canaanites, and for plundering and de-
stroying the Midianites, who were punished in an exemplary man-
ner by -the divine command, for enticing the Israelites to idolatry
and vice ; would fain offer something for vindicating his little sneer
concerning Judah's not being able to drive out the inhabitants of
the valleys who had chariots of iron, ' because the Lord never en-
abled the Israelites as infantry to stand before the Canaanites'
horse.' He represents the answer I had given to this in his own
way ; but as he is pleased wisely to pass over the express proofs I
had brought, to show the falsehood of the reason he had assigned,*
I need not take any further notice of it.
He had, in his former book, insinuated, as if the promise made
to Abraham, concerning the Israelites coming to Canaan in 400
years, was not accomplished, because they were not immediately
at their first entrance into the land of Canaan put in possession of
the whole country at its full extent. To which it was answered,
that it is nowhere absolutely promised, that they should be imme^
diately put into possession of the whole land at once. The time
of 400 years was fixed for their coming again to the land of Ca-
naan, Gen. xv. 16, but no time is fixed for their being put into
entire possession of the whole country. And I observed, that it is
most expressly again and again declared and foretold, that God
would not drive out the Canaanites from before them ' all at once/
but ' by little and little.' To which this author answers, that ' God
had never declared this, till Moses himself had found, and was
convinced by experience, that they could not be driven out alto-
gether, and that the Israelites had not strength enough,' pp. 75, 76.
But it happens unluckily for him, that this was declared soon after
the Israelites came to Sinai, a considerable time before the spies
were sent to explore the land, and before it could be pretended that
the Israelites had any experience of the strength of the Canaanites,
see Exod. xxiii. 29 31. But, however, 'he is sure, that the rea-
son which the historian gives for this, could not be God's reason,
that he would not drive them out altogether, lest the land should
become desolate, and the beasts of the field should multiply against
them.' He thinks the people must have amounted to ' between
three and four millions of men, women and children ; and it is won-
derful, that they should not be sufficient to stock and inhabit a
country, not a fourth part so big as England, as this country was
not in its full extent, had they conquered it all. And yet a land
thus stocked with inhabitants must have been more populous than
England, Holland, or any other part of Europe, at this day, p. 75.
But it happens, that in this passage, where those words are to be
found which the author here refers to, the land assigned to the Is-
raelites, and which was to be delivered into their hands, was of a
* See Divine Authority, pp. 46, 47.
ST. PAUL'S TESTIMONY CONSIDERED. 383
vastly larger extent than all England; for it. is represented as
reaching ' from the Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines,
and from the desert unto the river, viz. Euphrates; all this was
comprehended in the grant,* though not fully possessed till the
time of David and Solomon. And with regard to the land of Canaan,
properly so called, it must be considered that it was a hilly coun-
try ; and such a country has much more room in it than a plain
country of the same extent. And, in fact, we find that great num-
bers of the Canaanites continued to inhabit many parts of the land
for a considerable time after the first entrance of the Israelites into
it. And since they and the Canaanites together did no more than
fill the land, if the Canaanites had been utterly detroyed at once,
some parts of it might have been left desolate, and the beasts
might have been multiplied upon them ; especially considering
that this land was surrounded with great deserts and wildernesses,
as well as full of hills and mountains. And, accordingly, long-
after this, when the people of Israel were much more in number
than they were at their first entrance into the land of Canaan,
that country was frequently infested with wild beasts, as may be
gathered from several instances.
CHAPTER V.
The testimony given by St. Paul to the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures of the
Old Testament vindicated against the author's exceptions. The apostle recom-
mended those sacred writings as of divine authority to the churches which he
founded among the Gentiles. He regarded the law of Moses as having been origi-
nally of divine institution, though he knew by revelation it was no longer to be in
force under the gospel. Objections against this obviated. The typical reference of
that law vindicated. His attempt to prove that St. Paul was not the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, considered.
THE author, in his former book, had undertaken to show, that
the law of ' Moses was not originally a divine institution or reve-
lation from God, to be afterwards abolished and set aside by ano-
ther revelation, but was a mere piece of carnal worldly policy/
And what was more extraordinary, he declared, that if he ' could
not make it appear that St. Paul was on his side, he would give
up the argument.' In opposition to this I showed, by the most
express testimonies, that the apostle Paul did look upon the
law of Moses to have been originally a divine institution or reve-
lation from God. One passage I produced to that purpose was
* See Deut. xi. 22, 23, 24. Jos. i. 3, 4, 5.
384 ST. PAUL'S TESTIMONY
that remarkable one to Timothy, where he commends him, for
that from ' a child he had known the Holy Scriptures,' and de-
clares, that they were ' able to make him wise unto salvation.'
And then adds that all Scripture (or the whole Scripture) ' is
iven by inspiration of God,' &c. I observed, that by the Holy
criptures he ihcontestably refers to the writings of the Old Tes-
tament, viz. those of Moses and the Prophets. Now what does
our author say to this ? Can he deny that the Scriptures there
referred to are the writings of Moses and the Prophets ? He can-
not deny this. But he would have it, that by all Scripture the
apostle only means the moral precepts of Scripture, p. 79. And
at this rate any writing in the world, that has any good moral pre-
cepts in it, though mixed with many things that are false and of
a pernicious tendency, and containing a ' scheme of superstition
and enthusiasm, contrary to all reason and common sense, falsely
set up under the popular pretence of a divine institution or revela-
tion from God,' which is the idea he is pleased to give us of the
Old Testament writings, may be safely recommended, and pro-
nounced to be divine, and given by inspiration from God. But
whether this be consistent with common honesty, may be left to
the judgment of every reader. And, I am persuaded, that even
this writer himself, though none of the most scrupulous, yet in the
notions he now hath of the Jewish Scriptures, would not recom-
mend them to mankind under that general character, which he
here pretends the apostle gave of them, who, he would make us
believe, had the same notions of them with himself: and yet he
confidently puts it upon his reader, that ' St. Paul's principles and
practice are perfectly consistent in his scheme,' and that he ' cannot
be charged with anything of artifice or prevarication,' p. 92.
But he urges, that when the apostle Paul here talks of the Holy
Scriptures, and recommends them as written by inspiration of God,
he could not understand it of the whole Scripture in gross, or of
every ' thing that the Jews had received as authentic Scripture : be-
cause this would be to make him asserfa thing contrary to all truth,
sense, and reason/ p. 80. All that I can make of the argument is
this, that because this author looks upon it to be absurd to hold
all the Scripture to be divinely inspired, therefore the apostle Paul
did not and could not holdit to be divinely inspired, though he plainly
represents it in that view. But it is urged, that he could not
mean the bare historical parts of Scripture, nor could be mean
that part of those writings which relate to the ordinances of the
ceremonial law, which this apostle every where condemns and ex-
plodes. As to the ceremonial law, it has been shown, that St.
Paul all along supposes and asserts it to have been originally of
divine institution, designed to be preparatory to the gospel, and
subservient to it.* Nor hath this writer been able to answer the
clear proofs that were brought for that. And, indeed, it would be a
strange thing to suppose, that when the apostle gives this noble cha-
* See Divine Authority, pp. 48, 49, 52 57.
TO REVELATION CONSIDERED. 385
racier of the Scriptures in general, he should have no regard to
the writings of Moses, which made so eminent a part of those
Scriptures. As to the historical parts of Scripture, though this
writer seems to think it absurd to suppose that they could be pro-
fitable for correction or instruction in righteousness, 8cc. yet it is
certain, the apostle Paul did not think so. He represents the histo-
rical parts of Scripture as written for our admonition, and for our
learning, see 1 Cor. x. 6 11, compared with Rom. xv. 4. And
he frequently refers to the historical books of the Old Testament,
under the notion of Scripture. Thus we find him referring to some
historical passages in the book of Genesis, Rom. iv. 3 : Gal. iii. 8 ;
iv. 30. And to an historical passage in the book of Exodus,
Rom. ix. 16 ; and to another in the first book of Kings xi. 2, 3, 4.
All these he evidently cites and refers to as Scripture, and as of
divine authority.*
But our anthor urges, that the historical writings, which the
Jews received as authentic Scripture, * abound with many mistakes
and inconsistencies in history and chronology.' This is the notion
he has of them : but the question is, whether this was also the notion
the apostle Paul entertained of them. And, I am persuaded, if
this had been the case, he would not have given so glorious a cha-
racter of the Holy Scriptures in general without distinction, as he
does, in this passage, and which must necessarily have been un-
derstood by Timothy, and all others in that age, as relating to
the sacred writings of the Old Testament in general. I am very
little concerned about the author's charge of inconsistencies when
he produces them, they may be considered. Though if it should
be admitted, that some mistakes, with regard to names, numeral
letters, computations of years, and other matters of small conse-
quence, have in process of time crept into those original writings,
through the mistake or negligence of transcribers, it would not
destroy the authority of those writings, or show that the original
authors of them were not divinely inspired.
He next goes into a digression, pp. 80, 81, concerning inspiration,
the design of which is to show, that no more regard is to be had to
^ * It is evident to any one that impartially reads the historical writings of the Old
lestaraent, that the main design of them is not merely to gratify a curiosity, but to be-
get and maintain in the minds of the people a veneration for the Supreme Being, a de-
testation of vice and idolatry, a dread of his justice, and a thankful sense of his great
goodness, by letting them know how they and their rulers prospered, when they ad-
hered to the worship of God, and the practice of righteousness ; and, on the contrary,
what calamities befelthem, when they fell into idolatry and wickedness. These are the
important lessons which the sacred historical writings are designed to convey to poste-
Mty. All things there are made subservient to the great ends of religion : and in this
they are gloriously distinguished from all other historical writings. This author, in-
deed, represents the ' Hebrew historians as every where discovering a visible and
strong prejudice and prepossession in favour of their own nation/ p. 28. But the con-
trary is evident. If the wonderful actings of divine providence for them are recorded,
so also are the ungrateful returns they frequently made to the divine goodness. The
lollies, the idolatries and revolts of their own people, and the faults even of their great-
est and most admired good men and heroes, are related without any arts of palliation
or disguise, with a fairness, a simplicity, and impartiality that cannot be sufficiently
admired. .
C C
386 ST. PAUL'S TESTIMONY
what comes by extraordinary inspiration, or is confirmed by
miracles, than if it had come only in the ordinary way. What he
offers here to this purpose hath been already considered ; see above
p. 343, and pp. 364, 365, &c. At present I shall only observe,
that whatever this writer's way of thinking may be, which is of
little importance to the world, he should not pretend to put this
upon us as the apostle Paul's sentiment ; or as if it was his opinion
too, that divine inspiration is of no authority at all, and no more to
be depended on than if there had been no inspiration ; and as if
by saying, that the Scriptures are given by inspiration of God, he
intended that they are no more to be regarded than any common
writings that do not pretend to be written by inspiration at all.
But it is urged, that ' under that extraordinary dispensation of the
Spirit, men were not to receive and believe every spirit, or every
matter of inspiration, but to try the spirits or doctrines of inspiration,
whether they were of God, or not.' But does it follow, that they
were to have no regard to true inspiration, because they were to
take care not to be deceived or imposed, upon by falsely pretended
ones ? When Christians are commanded in the New Testament to
try the spirits, it is evident that this is not designed to derogate
from the authority of the Scriptures, since one test, by which they
were to try them, was their agreeing with the Holy Scriptures. So
the Bereans tried the doctrines of the apostles by the Scriptures,
and are commended for it, Acts xvii. 11, 12. And another test,
whereby they were to try the spirits in that first age, was their
agreeing with the doctrine of Christ and his apostles. Hence they
are commanded to mark those which taught ' things contrary to
the doctrines which they had learned, and to avoid them/ Rom.
xvi. 17. And St. Paul earnestly exhorts the Galatians not to
receive any doctrine different from what he had taught them. And
why were they so firmly to adhere to the gospel he had taught
them ? Because it was what he himself had received by revelation
from Jesus Christ, Gal. i. 8, 9, 11, 12, and which was confirmed
by the most illustrious attestations and gifts of the Holy Spirit,
chap. iii. 2, 5.
This writer next takes notice of a passage, produced by me, from
Rom. iii. 1, 2, where St. Paul calls the writings of the" Old Tes-
tament, of which the law of Moses was a principal part, the oracles
of God : and they are expressly called so by St. Stephen, Acts
vii. 38. He has nothing to say to this, but the old story over again,
that the apostle could not mean the law of Moses, because he calls
its ordinances carnal ordinances, beggarly elements, &c. And this
he frequently repeats in this book, though he knows I had proved
fully and distinctly, that the apostle did not, and could not, in
consistency with himself, intend by those expressions to signify that
the law of Moses was not originally of divine institution. Yea,
and that he supposes and asserts the contrary, in those very places
where he makes use of that manner f expression. He has not
thought fit to offer the least answer to the proofs that were brought
TO REVELATION CONSIDERED. 387
for this;* and yet repeats what he had said before as securely, as
if no notice had been taken of it at all. His following loose
harangue, about evils coming from God, as well as good, &,c. hath
already been considered in the marginal note, pp, 58, 59, to which
I refer the reader.
In pp. 83, 84, he charges me as ' discovering a great deal of
artifice and prevarication, but nothing at -all of truth and reason ;'
because I say, that ' it cannot be denied that St. Paul, in all his
epistles, cites the Mosaical and prophetic writings as of divine
authority, and that he delivered those writings to all the churches
of the Gentiles among whom he preached, and whom he instructed
in the Christian religion, under the notion of Scripture, or divinely
inspired writings.' He says, that ' the apostle always argues from
the authority of Moses and the prophets against the Jews, but
that he never so much as quotes them but to the Jews, where he
found them dispersed among the Gentiles, and that the Jewish or
Judaizing teachers had been tampering with the Gentiles before,
and had furnished them with those writings.' !Now the contrary to
what this writer here so confidently affirms may be proved with
great evidence. And it might seem a trifling thing to attempt to
prove a thing so well known, if this author's denying it did not
make it necessary.
The epistle to the Romans was principally directed to the
Gentiles, see chap. i. 13. And it appears that there were many
among them that well understood their Christian liberty, and whom,
he thought it necessary to urge not to despise the Jewish converts,
chap. xiv. 1,2, 3, 5, 15. And yet he cites the Scriptures all along
as of divine authority., not merely in those parts where he is dis-
puting with the Jews, but where he is applying to the Gentiles,
chaps, xiv. xv. And in the conclusion of that epistle, speaking of
the gospel mystery which was then made manifest, he saith that by
' the Scripture of the prophets, according to the commandment of
the everlasting God it was made known to all nations, for the
obedience of faith,' chap. xvi. 26. I do not think there can be a
clearer proof of what this writer with so much confidence denies,
that the Scriptures of the Old Testament were recommended by
the apostle to the Gentiles, and represented by him as of divine
authority. In his Epistle to the Ephesians, who were a church
consisting of Gentile converts, -and whom he addresses to, and
considers entirely as such, Eph. ii. 1, "2, 11, 12, he declares to
them, that they were ' built on the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone,' ver. 20 ;
see also Eph. iv. 8, vi. 2. The Corinthians were a church gathered
from the Gentiles, and from his first epistle to them it appears that
they understood their Christian liberty, and were rather in danger
of carrying it to an excess than the contrary. Nor is there any
thing at all in that epistle relating to the controversy of those times
between the Judaizing teachers and the apostle Paul ; and yet he
* See ' Divine Authority,' pp. 53, &c.
c c 2
388 ST. PAUL'S TESTIMONY
frequently, on all occasion?, cites the Old Testament writings to
them as Scripture, and as of divine authority, see 1 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 8,
9, 10, x. 11, xiv. 21. See also in his second epistle, 2 Cor. iv.
13, vi. 2, 16, 17, 18, vii. 1, viii. 15, ix. 9. And even to Timothy,
his fellow-labourer, and whom this writer supposes to have been of
the same sentiments with himself, he all along quotes the Scriptures
as of divine authority, 1 Tim. v. 18, 2 Tim. iii. 14 18. And where
he exhorts him to ' continue in the things he had learned and been
assured of,' he recommends the ' Holy Scriptures' to him ' as able to
make us wise unto salvation,' as given 'by inspiration of God,' and
as fitted to make the ' man of God perfect,' i. e. one that was fit to
instruct others in religion. And now can it possibly be thought
that this great apostle would have acted at this rate, if he had not
looked upon the writings of the Old Testament to be divinely
inspired, but written by persons falsely pretending to inspiration,
and containing many things that were false and superstitious, and
only dispersed among the Gentiles by the Jewish teachers, his
adversaries 1 Would not a man of his sincerity and zeal have faith-
fully warned the churches among whom he preached, not to be
deceived or imposed upon by such pretences, which, according to
this writer's representation, tended to lead them so wrong in
religion 1 Would not he at least have said it in confidence to
Timothy when he was near his own death, and have instructed him
to let others know it 1 But since the contrary to all this is manifest,
that he everywhere in his epistle to the Gentile churches, and in
those he wrote to Timothy, especially his last, writ a little before his
own death, represents the Scriptures of the Old Testament as of
divine authority, and refers to them on all. occasions as such ; it is
but reasonable to conclude, supposing him to be a man of common
honesty, that he himself believed them to be so, and intended to
recommend them to those churches among whom he preached as
such. To which it may be added, that it is evident in fact, as
appears from the eldest monuments of those times still extant, that
the churches which the apostle Paul planted among the Gentiles,
and who looked upon themselves as freed from the obligation of
the Mosaic law and ordinances, did receive the Scriptures of the
Old Testament as of divine authority, and did read them as well
as the writings of the apostles in their public assemblies, and that
they have continued to be owned as such by the general consent of
the Christian Gentile church unto this day.
In pp. 84, 85, he reflects upon a passage in which I had said,
that ' the apostle Paul insisted upon it, that he had received an
immediate revelation from God, concerning the abrogating the
ceremonial law, as our author himself acknowledges.' Upon which
he saith, ' This is another mere fiction and forgery, for never did
St. Paul nor I assert any such thing : and therefore all the author's
rant upon it afterwards can only serve to show the candour and
justice of such spiritual systematical scholastics.' And p. 87, he
saith, that I ' most unrighteously urge his concession for the
abrogation of the ceremonial law by an immediate revelation to
TO REVELATION CONSIDERED. 389
St. Paul.' And then he goes on to observe, that ' this law could
not be abrogated or repealed with regard to the Gentiles, who had
never been bound by it ; and as to its continued obligation to the
Christian Jews, it never came into the question.'
When I first read this reflection of the author's, I imagined, that
in the citation I had made from his book, I had by mistake put in
the word immediate, and added it to revelation ; for though this
would not have altered the sense, yet it would have been enough to
have given him occasion to raise mighty clamours upon it. But,
notwithstanding all his confidence, I did not think him, or any
other writer, capable of bringing in such a direct and strong charge,
where there was not the least foundation or pretence for it. But
now I find there is nothing so unfair, or so contrary to evident
truth or fact, which this writer will not venture to assert, if he
thinks it may but expose his adversary. The reader will not think
this too severe, when he reads the following paragraph, quoted oat
of his first book, and to which I had referred. He there tells us,
that ' the great concerning debate of that time was reduced to these
two questions; first, whether the Jewish converts were still obliged,
in point of religion and conscience, to obey the whole law? and,
secondly, whether the Gentile converts, as a matter of religion and
conscience, were bound to comply with the Mosaic law of pro-
selytism, as the necessary condition upon which the Christian Jews
were to hold communion with them ? In both these points, the
apostles, elders, and brethren at Jerusalem, in consequence of their
decree, stood to the affirmative, while Paul as stiffly maintained
the negative against them, declaring that he had received this not
from man, or by any intermediate conveyance, but by immediate
revelation.' And after having observed, that this controversy at
length rose so high, that the rest of the apostles thought them-
selves obliged to separate from St. Paul, he again repeats it, that
' St. Paul still insisted upon immediate revelation for this,' Mor.
Phil. vol. i. pp. 78, 79.
Here it is as evident as words can make it, that he himself
makes one of the questions which he supposes to have been debated
between St. Paul and the other apostles to relate to the continued
obligation of the law upon the Jewish converts, though in his present
book he saith, that this ' never came into the question.' And that he
makes St. Paul to maintain, that even the Jewish converts were
' not obliged, in point of religion and conscience, to obey the whole
law,' in opposition to the other apostles who maintained that they
were thus obliged. And that the apostle pleaded, that he had
received * this by immediate revelation from God.' And before this,
he had declared, that ' St. Paul, in all the Jewish synagogues
where he had preached, in Greece and Asia Minor, had taught and
maintained that the law was abrogated and done away by the death
and resurrection of Christ; that in Christ, or under the gospel
dispensation, there could be no difference or distinction between
Jew or Gentile,' see Mor. Phil. vol. i. p. 67. And in p. 52, he had
represented it as a matter of fact, too plain to be doubted of or
390 . ST. PAUL'S TESTIMONY
denied; that St. Paul, in his preaching to the Gentiles and to the
dispersed among the Jews, throughout all the parts of the Roman
empire, had set aside the obligation of the Jewish ceremonial law,
and declared it abolished and done away by the death and sacrifice
of Christ.' He has this over again, pp. 57, 59, And that this was
' clearly St. Paul's opinion and a new doctrine of his own,' ibid.
And expressly saith, that all the apostles, ' Barnabas, &c. fell off
from St. Paul, because they could not agree to absolve the Jewish
converts from their obedience to the law, as the law of God, or as
a matter of religion and conscience,' p. 72. And that, therefore, as
he expresses it, p. 79, they left him to preach his own gospel, as he
called it, in his own way. And then adds, that St. Paul ' insisted
upon immediate revelation for this ;' that is, for this among other
things, that the Jewish converts were not ' still obliged, in point of
religion and conscience, to obey the law:' or in other words, that
the law was abrogated and done away in Christ, even with regard
to the Jewish converts. And yet he has the confidence now to
charge me with fiction, forgery, and unrighteousness, as if I had
abused and misrepresented him in the highest degree, for saying, that
he himself acknowledged, in his former book, that St. Paul insisted
"upon it, that he had received an immediate revelation from God,
concerning the abrogating the ceremonial law. And, in most express
contradiction to what he himself had asserted in his former book,
he now affirms, that ' St. Paul pretended to no revelation from God,
as abrogating the ceremonial law with regard to the Jews,' p. 87.
I leave it to the reader to make what reflections he thinks fit upon
this conduct.
He has a long, confused ramble, pp. 85 92. The design of
which is to show, that St. Paul could not look upon the law of
Moses, as a thing which had been originally instituted by God, but
\yhich he knew by revelation was now abrogated. But he offers
.little on this head but what he had alleged before, and which .was
fully confuted. It was proved, in the book which he has at-
tempted to answer, by plain and express testimonies from the apos-
tle Paul himself, who best understood his own sense, that he did
look upon the law of Moses to have been originally of divine insti-
tution; and that even- where he argues against its being now obli-
gatory, yet he grants and asserts this law to have been originally
given by God himself, and that for wise purposes. It was also
shown that he plainly declares, that this law is now abrogated ;
that whereas we wore formerly 'kept under the law' till the faith
should be revealed, and the 'promised seed' should come, as a
child in his state of non-age is kept under the discipline of tutors
and governors, we are now freed from that yoke ; whereas it was
as a 'schoolmaster to lead us unto Christ,' we are now no longer
'under that schoolmaster;' that Christ hath broken 'down the
middle wall of partition,' that is, the ceremonial law which was a
partition-wall between Jews and Gentiles; and that he 'abolished
the enmity, even the law of commandments, consisting in ordi-
nances :' that he hath 'blotted out the hand-writing of ordi-
TO 'REVELATION CONSIDERED. 391
nances and hath taken it away, nailing it to his cross :' and that
now in ' Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, but all are one
in Christ Jesus.'* I question whether any words could be more
express to show that the law of Moses is now no longer in force ;
and that the obligation of it is taken away through Jesus Christ.
This was evidently part of the gospel the apostle Paul preached in
opposition to the Judaizing teachers; -and he expressly declares,
that he had the gospel which he preached, 'not of man nor by man,
but by revelation of Jesus Christ;' which is as plain a description
of his having had it by immediate revelation, as any words can be.
From whence it clearly follows, that he had it by revelation from
Jesas Christ, that the law of Moses was now abolished, and no
longer obligatory in point of religion and conscience. But our
author urges against this, that 'if there had been any revelation
at all about abrogating the ceremonial law, Peter and the other
apostles and teachers of the circumcision must doubtless have
known it, and it must have been first revealed to them as being
more immediately concerned in it ; and that if St. Paul had urged
any such revelation, it must have been rejected by them as a false
pretension and an imposture, as God had revealed no such matter to
any of them.' pp. 85, 87, 89. And he has it over again, p. 98. But if
it should be granted, that St. Paul had a revelation relating to this
matter before it was revealed to any other of the apostles, or that it
was more clearly and fully revealed to him than it was to any of
the rest, and that he was more expressly appointed and commis-
sioned to declare it, it would not follow, either that it was not a
true revelation from God to St. Paul, or that the other apostles
would not or could not acknowledge it as such. The apostle Peter
had a revelation relating to his preaching the gospel to the Gen-
tiles, and taking them into the Christian church, without putting a
difference between them and the Jews, before the other apostles
had it; but they did not for this reject it, but when they found he
had such a revelation, acquiesced in it with joy. And it was evi-
dently proved in my former book, that the other apostle did not
deny the revelation which St. Paul professed to have received from
Christ, but approved the doctrines he preached, and acknowledged
his divine mission. If this writer could prove that the other apos-
tles had, or pretended to have, a contrary revelation, and that in
opposition to St. Paul, they urged it upon the Jewish converts as a
duty to observe the ceremonial law as still necessary in point of
religion and conscience, this would be something to his purpose;
and this he had asserted in his former book. But in answer to
him, it was shown, that there was an entire harmony between St.
Paul and the other apostles on that head : that it doth not appear,
by any one passage in the whole New Testament, that any of the
apostles ever once exhorted their Christian converts to adhere to
the law of Moses, and the rites there prescribed, as still obligatory
under the gospel : that the doctrines they preached, as well as the
* See Rom. vi. 14 ,Gal, iii. 25, 28, iv. 5, Epli. ii. 14, 15, Col. ii. 14, iii. 11.
392 ST. PAUL'S TESTIMONY
apostle Paul, tended to prepare the Jewish converts for an entire
abrogation of the law : and that it appears, from their whole con-
duct, that neither St. Paul nor the other apostles looked upon the
law of Moses as properly obligatory under the gospel, in point of
conscience, and as necessary to our justification and acceptance
with God ; though both he and they looked upon it to be still lawful
to observe the Mosaic rites in compliance with weak consciences.
This, indeed, is what this writer cannot comprehend. He thinks
it is evident, that if St. Paul or the other apostles had known by
revelation, that the law was abrogated or abolished by Jesus
Christ, they could not have complied with it, or observed it all in
religion, reason, or conscience ; which yet we find they did. He
triumphs in this, as if it were perfect demonstration, and has it
over and over, as if he were never weary of repeating it.* But the
whole of what he says on this head proceeds upon a palpable mistake,
as if because that law was no longer obligatory as before, so as to
bind the consciences of men to the observance of it as necessary by a
divine command, therefore the observation of it became immediately
and absolutely unlawful : but this doth not follow. Two things were
observed, that fully account for the consistency of the conduct of St.
Paul and the other apostles in this matter. The one is, that they
knew it was the will of God, that the law of Moses with its pecu-
liar rites, should be no longer strictly obligatory in point of con-
science on the disciples of Jesus ; and that Christ, by his coming,
and by his death, had really superseded that law, and set them
free from the obligation of its ceremonial rites and ordinances ; and
had taken away the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. The
other is, that they also knew that it was the will of God, that in a
merciful condescension to the prejudices of the Jews, the observa-
tion of that law and its peculiar rites should be indulged for a
while, and that the abrogation of it should not be urged upon them
all at once, but by degrees ; which was accordingly done. And I
showed the great wisdom and reasonableness of this method. Our
author has not offered the least answer to the proofs I had brought
for this;f but contents himself with assuring his reader, that I
have not 'answered any thing that had been said,' but that 'I
ramble on upon a presumption, that the ceremonial law had been at
first in St. Paul's account, an immediate divine institution, and conse-
quently a real matter of religion and conscience to those who were
under it, but was now vacated, and done away, or repealed, by re-
velation ;' but that, for this, I have not the 'least authority from
St. Paul, nor any other apostle.' p. 91. And if he can make such
a general, confident assertion pass with any of his readers for a
sufficient answer to all the proofs I had alleged, he is a very lucky
man : in the mean time, till he offers something new, I shall pass
this by, together with his choice flowers about 'fox-hunting,' and
a 'wild-goose chase' and pursuing or not 'pursuing an untamed
creature.'
*
' See pp. 85, 88, 89, 94, 98, 100, 101.
f See all this proved, Divine Authority, pp. 235, &c.
TO REVELATION CONSIDERED. 393
He next observes, p. 92, that 'Moses had given the laws to the
people as a standing perpetual ordinance throughout all their gene-
rations, and that, consequently, any abrogation or repeal of it must
be contrary to the nature and declared intention of the law itself.'
And he observes, that to this I answered, that the words 'for ever,'
'everlasting,' 8cc., do not always signify, to the end of the world.
This, indeed, was one thing I urged, but it is far from being the
whole of what I offered, as this writer thinks fit to represent it.
It was farther observed, that whatever we suppose the extent of
those phrases 'for ever,' and 'throughout their generations,' to be,
the design was only to signify, that Israel should be obliged to a
perpetual observation of those laws till God should signify his will
to the contrary; and that it was never to be abrogated by any hu-
man authority, nor were the people themselves to cast off the obli-
gations of it by any act of their own. But it was not the design
of those phrases to signify, that God himself would never change
or abrogate those laws. On the contrary,. Moses himself plainly
signified, that they might afterwards expect a new law and new
institutions from God, and directed their thoughts to another that
was to arise 'like unto him,' to whom they were to hearken, and to
do what he should command them in the name of God. And that
afterwards, the abolition of the law, and the introducing of a new
dispensation, was more clearly signified by the prophets. And
finally, that the very nature of the law itself plainly showed, that
it was not designed to be of invariable continuance.* Of all this,
our author takes not the least notice ; only observes, that it is very
plain, that the whole nation never understood it so. Which is far
from being true, since it hath been often shown, by evident testi-
monies from the Jewish writers, that some of them have acknow-
ledged, that in the days of the Messiah there should be a new law,
and that the ceremonial law of Moses should be abolished.f And
if the Nazarene or Christian Jews were (as he urges) for a long
time 'zealous for the law,' it only shows the great power of preju-
dice ; though many of those that had been converted from among
the Jews to the Christian faith, did, in process of time, come to see
their liberty.
He goes on to acquaint us, p. 93, that he had urged, 'that Moses
had established propitiations and atonements for sin, by the blood
of beasts ; and that St. Paul had declared it to be impossible that
the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin.' And then he
says, speaking of me, 'the author grants this contradiction, and
yet says it is no contradiction. For though the blood of beasts
might take away sin under the law, yet it could not do it now the
law was abolished.' It is thus he represents my argument, and
puts these last words in an Italic character, to lead the reader to
think they were my own words. Any one that compares this with
what I had offered in the book he pretends to answer, pp. 60, 61,
* See Divine Authority, pp. 58 60.
t The reader may see several express testimonies to this purpose collected from the
ancient Jewish writings, in Bishop Chandler's Defence, &c. pp. 359, 360.
394 ST. PAUL'S TESTIMONY
will find how far this is from being a fair representation of the
. argument.
As to the contradiction he speaks of, there is no more a contra-
diction, according to the doctrine of the apostle, between the sacri-
fices appointed under the law and the sacrifices of Christ, than be-
.tvveen the substance and the shadow, the type and the anti-type.
The apostle's doctrine is plainly this, that the legal sacrifices could
not by any virtue of their own, purge away sin, or make the offerer
'perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.' They were external
atonements in the eye of the law, upon offering of which, in the
manner there prescribed, the person was legally clean, and free
from the penalty he had incurred, and the guilt he had contracted.
But they were not in their own nature a proper satisfaction to God,
and a sufficient expiation for the sins of men. And in this sense
it was then, and always will be, impossible for the 'blood of bulls
and goats to take away sin.' And therefore they were not insti-
tuted merely for their own sakes, but with a farther view, as types
and prefigurations of that most perfect sacrifice to be offered in ful-
ness of time, viz., that of the Son of God, who 'through the eternal
Spirit offered himself without spot to God,' and hath appeared
once in the end of the world to 'put away sin by the sacrifice of
himself,- which being infinitely superior to that of bulls and goats,
hud a much greater virtue and efficacy, and could alone do that in
reality, which the oblations under the law could only do in type
and figure. This is evidently the apostle's doctrine, and upon
which the strain of his arguing depends.
What hath our author to say to this ? Can he deny that the
apostle all along, in that epistle, supposes the law of Moses, parti-
cularly with regard to the sacrifices and priesthood, to have been of
divine institution, even where he is arguing for its being abolished?
It is incontestably evident, that in the whole course of his argu-
ment, he not only grants, but asserts this; as appears from the
passages cited in my former book, pp. 82, 83. Nor has this writer
any thing to offer against it, but the old story, that if it had been
originally a divine institution, and afterwards set aside by revela-
tion, the apostle Paul could not have observed that law in any one
instance. And upon saying no more than this, which had been so
fully answered, he thinks fit to triumph over me, as not 'capable
of conviction,' or of 'thinking out of the common systematical
track.' p. 94.
I had mentioned the apostle's declaring, ' that the legal sacrifices
sanctified to the purifying of the flesh ; and that this external
atonement is what Moses intends as the immediate consequence of
the priest's sprinkling the blood.' But he cannot for his ' life un-
derstand, or make any sense of this external legal purification and
atonement.' And the truth is, as he represents the matter, nobody
can understand it. ' He cannot,' he says, ' make any sense of this
external legal purification and atonement for sin, where no sin had
been committed, for which the law required the sacrifice, and no sin
could be pardoned or done away by it,' p. 94. This, indeed, is ah-
TO -REVELATION CONSIDERED. 395
solute nonsense, to talk of a legal atonement for sinwhere'no sin had
been committed against the law, and no pardon could be obtained
by it. But then the nonsense, is his own, and he may take the credit
of it. This external purification and atonement for sin did suppose
that a sin had been committed for which the law required the sa-
crifice, and that the sin or fault was done away or pardoned in the
eye of the law. And this is what the apostle calls ' sanctifying to
the purifying of the flesh ;' i.e. a person was, upon offering the sa-
crifice, outwardly sanctified or cleansed ; he was clear, in. the eye
of the law, from the guilt he had contracted. When, therefore, he
goes on wisely to ask, ' was legal sin no sin, and legal forgiveness
no pardon or remission of sins at all 1' I answer,- legal sin was a
sin or fault committed against the law ; and legal forgiveness was
a pardon or remission of that sin in the eye of the law, and whereby
a person was set legally clear and free. But he cannot e conceive
what sin could be forgiven or atoned for by a man's offering a sa-
crifice in the legal way, unless it was the sin of not offering it,
which would have been punished with death, for any wilful pre-
sumptuous refusal.' This, again, is completely absurd. Let us
suppose a man had committed a sin or fault, for which the law re-
quired sacrifice to be offered, and that upon offering the sacrifice,
and doing what the law required, it was declared, that his sin was
forgiven him. The question is, what sin was forgiven him ? Any
man of common understanding would take it, that it must be the
sin on the account of which he offered the sacrifice, which was no
longer to be charged upon him, nor was he to be obnoxious to any
penalty on the account of it. No ; this writer cannot conceive this
at all ; but he can conceive that the sin that was declared to be for-
given him upon offering the sacrifice, was the sin of not offering
the sacrifice, i.e. a sin which he had not committed for he did
offer the sacrifice. Our author, who undoubtedly designs by this
to expose the Mosaic constitution, has only manifested his own
absurdity, and shown what an excellent expositor he would prove,
if he was left to interpret the Scripture in his own way. He then
goes on to repeat what he had said in his former book, that no
' punishment was ever remitted on the account of the sacrifice that
was offered, except the punishment which must have been inflicted
for disobedience, in case of not offering the sacrifice.' This is ex-
actly repeating the same nonsense, in other words, which he had
urged before, concerning remitting a punishment that had not
been incurred, and pardoning a sin that had not been com-
mitted.
He next proceeds, pp. 95, 96, to say something about types. And
he begins with observing, ' that I seern^by my way of talking upon
it, to understand no .more about the nature and use of types than a
child when he is taught such things in his catechism.' And, therefore,
he condescends, in his superior wisdom, to instruct me. And what
he saith on this subject amounts to this : That all types are bare
allegories, which had no original resemblance to the things to which
they are compared, but are only afterwards accommodated by way
396 ST. PAUL'S TESTIMONY
of allusion and illustration. And I will readily grant this author, that
it does not prove that 'things had originally any such sense, meaning,
or construction, merely because they are afterwards referred to in a
way of allegory, simile, and allusion ; and that such allegories and
allusions may serve for illustration in comparing one thing to another,
where there is any resemblance, but that they cannot alone estab-
lish any doctrinal truth.' In this our author has made no dis-
covery, and has told me nothing but what I knew as well before.
But still the question remains, whether, in the original institution
of the law of Moses, there was not, in the design of God, a refer-
ence to what was to come under the New Testament dispensation ?
And whether some of the rites and ordinances, there prescribed,
were not originally so contrived by the supreme wisdom as to be
intended as types and prefigurations of ' good things to come ?"
In which case they differ from mere allegories, which, without
having been originally intended, are only afterwards accommodated
by way of allusion. And our author saith nothing at all to show
the absurdity of such a scheme as this. This is evidently the
scheme the apostle Paul goes upon. And though we could not
demonstratively have urged this without such information, yet if
the same Divine Spirit, by whom those ordinances were instituted,
enlightened the apostle in discovering the original intention of
them, this is a sufficient authority in the case. And now, by com-
paring the one with the other, as represented by the apostle, the
beautiful harmony and correspondence between the type and the
antitype appears ; and this gives a noble and comprehensive view
of the Divine wisdom, and shows one uniform glorious design still
carrying on from the beginning.
In pp. 96, 97, he repeats what he had said in his former book,
concerning the Mosaic law being, in St. Paul's opinion, a ' dispen-
sation of darkness, slavery,' &c., and that therefore it could not be
a divine institution, and that it is directly contrary to the Gospel.
What he had offered on this head was fully and distinctly con-
sidered *, to which he has not vouchsafed the least answer. I need
not, therefore, take any farther notice of it, nor of some other
things here said by him, which he had repeated twice or thrice
before in this very section, and which have been already con-
sidered. He concludes, with an attempt to prove, that the Epistle
to the Hebrews was not written by St. Paul : butj he himself had,
both in his former book, and in this very section, supposed that
St. Paul was the author of it. For, p. 93, he urges, ' that St. Paul
had declared it to be impossible that the blood of bulls and goats
should take away sin.' And it is only in the Epistle to the Hebrews
that this declaration of St. Paul is to be found. But it happened to
be for his convenience, at that time, to suppose St. Paul to have
been the author of this epistle ; and now, a few pages after, it is
most for his convenience to deny it. And what does he produce to
* See ' Divine Authority,' pp. 52 57.
TO REVELATION CONSIDERED. 397
show that that Epistle was not written by St. Paul 1 Why, it is
plain to him, that ' it is not written in that apostle's style and
language. There is nothing in it of his loftiness of expression and
strength of imagination.' This author has a very nice taste ; but
others, who are as good judges as he, find it nothing inferior to
any of his epistles in strength or loftiness. And the learned Span-
heira hath produced a great number of expressions in this epistle
parallel to those in his other epistles, and many of them peculiar
to St. Paul, and only to be found in his writings.* He farther
urges, ' that St. Paul's not setting his name to this epistle, as he
did to all his genuine undoubted and authentic writings, is alone
sufficient to set aside this epistle,' &c. But St. Paul's not pre-
fixing his name to it cannot be alone a proof that he did not write
it, if we have other sufficient reasons to believe him the author of
it. And I think we have sufficient reason, both from the testimony
of the most ancient writers, who mention it as St. Paul's, and the
general consent of the Greek Church from the beginning -f-, and
from his way of concluding that epistle, exactly after St. Paul's
manner, chap. xiii. 18, 19, 24, 25, and talking of his coming to see
them with Timothy, whom he represents as ' set at liberty,' and
whom he calls his brother ; and from the testimony of St. Peter,
who plainly makes mention of an epistle written by St. Paul to
those to whom Peter directed his epistle, who seem principally to
have been the believing Jews.
But our author farther urges, that ' it is plain to him, that this
epistle must have been written after the destruction of the temple,
and the cessation of the Jewish priesthood and sacrifices, because
it never mentions the temple or sacrifices as then subsisting ; but
always speaks of the Jewish priesthood and economy as abolished,
done away, and ceased.' On the contrary, it may be argued, that
throughout that whole epistle he speaks all along as if the temple
were still in being, and its sacred rites and ceremonies still in use
among the Jews. And it can scarce be supposed, that if this
epistle had been written after the destruction of the temple, the
author of it would have omitted the mention of this, which might
have been of considerable advantage to his argument. In the
epistle ascribed to Barnabas, and which is written pretty much on
the same subject with that to the Hebrews, the destruction of the
temple is expressly mentioned, cap. 16. Where, speaking of the
temple, he saith, * it is now destroyed by their enemies.' Then,
citing a prophecy, to show that -the city, temple, and people of
Israel were to be given up, he adds, ' and it hath come to pass ac-
cording as the Lord spake :' an evident proof that this Epistle was
written after the destruction of Jerusalem. And if the Epistle to the
Hebrews had been written after that event, we might have expected
* See his Dissert, de Authore Epistote ad Hebrajos,' part ii. cap. 1, 2 ; part iii.
cap. \, . 9.
t See the Dissertation now mentioned, part i. cap. 6. And the English reader may
consult Whitby's Preface to his Commentary on that epistle.
398 ON ST. PAUL'S TESTIMONY TO REVELATION.
some hints of this kind; but no such thing appears.* As to what
the author urges, that ' this epistle always speaks of the Jewish
priesthood and economy as abolished, done away, and ceased :' no
more is said in this epistle to this purpose than in other epistles,
which are undoubtedly St. Paul's, and written before the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem. As in the passage before referred to, p. 236,
where he declares, ' that Christ hath broken down the middle wall
of partition between Jews and Gentiles : and that he hath abolished
the law of commandments in ordinances/ &c., and hath ' blotted
out the hand-writing- of ordinances, and hath taken it away, nail-
ing it to his cross.' Here, it is evident, St. Paul speaks of the
legal economy as abolished and done away in Christ, that is, that
the obligatory virtue of it was ceased, in epistles written whilst the
temple was yet standing.' And yet our author here takes upon
him to affirm, that ' the apostle never would have done this in
his time, while he himself was complying with it occasionally,
and pronounces it to be a most wild and extravagant notion, that
the Jewish priesthood and sacrifices had been abolished and done
away, while the whole Christian circumcision was under it, and
submitting to it,' p. 100, 101. The consistency of the practice and
conduct of St. Paul and the other apostles in this matter hath been
fully shown. But I cannot help observing, by the way, the great
consistency of this writer, who, in his former book, had strongly as-
serted it over and over as a most certain matter of fact, that could
not be denied, that St. Paul, in ail the synagogues of the Jews
throughout the lesser Asia, had preached up to the Jews themselves
the abrogation of the ceremonial law, and endeavoured to convince
them that it was done away by the death of Christ, as if he had
made this the constant subject of his p-eaching, which is carrying
the matter a great deal too far ; but in his present book represents
the supposing him ever to have talked of the abrogation of the law
at all, 'as so wild and extravagant a notion, that it deserves no con-
sideration at all.' What can be done with an author that so glar-
ingly contradicts himself, and seems to have no settled scheme of
principles at all, but affirms or denies things just as best answers
his present purpose?
* He speaks, chap, viii. 15, of -the Covenant's ' waxing old, and being ready to
vanish aivay, tyyvt a^aviffjuv, near an abolishment or disappearing,' which seems to
show that the time for its utter abolition or vanishing away by the destruction of the
temple and city of Jerusalem was not yet come, but was very near.
399
CHAPTER VI.
That the law of Moses did not extend only to the outward actions, but to tbe inward
dispositions. That it did not confine benevolence to those of their own particular body,
nor was founded in the principles of persecution, shown in opposition to the author's
attempt to prove the contrary. What he further offers to prove, that human sacrifices
were indulged and encouraged in that law, shown to be vain and insufficient. His
exceptions with regard to the case of Abraham's offering up Isaac, considered. That
patriarch vindicated from his charge of enthusiasm.
THE author had, in his first book, affirmed, that the law of Moses
was merely political, and that it could only relate to outward actions,
but could not relate to the inward principles and motives of action,
whether good or bad. In answer to which I showed, by express
testimonies from that law, that it did not relate to the outward ac-
tions alone, but to the inward principles and motives of action. Upon
which he now observes, that all political laws must presuppose the
reasonableness of inward truth and righteousness, but yet it is only
the outward practice or political part that can be guarded or secur-
ed by force : this is all that can be done by any temporal penal laws,
p. 104. But the argument I urged was this, that Moses did not
merely suppose, but frequently and expressly require and enjoin, a
right disposition of the heart and mind, as well as a proper outward
practice ; and therefore this must be regarded as properly the subject-
matter of his law.
Our author himself, after shifting awhile, owns that Moses preach-
ed moral truth and righteousness to the people, but then this he did,
not as a lawgiver and judge, but as a prophet and preacher of right-
eousness. This is really granting the point in question. For it
must be considered, that it was as a prophet extraordinarily inspired
of God, that Moses delivered his law. And the design of it was not
merely to erect that people into a civil community, but into a sacred
polity. It was not therefore merely a system of political precepts,
intended to regulate their outward actions and civil conduct in so-
ciety, but to form them to just sentiments and a right practice in re-
ligion, and to give them directions as to the whole of their conduct.
And, therefore, it contains solemn commands and injunctions, in the
name of God himself, their supreme lawgiver, relating not only to
their outward behaviour, but to the inward affections and dispositions
of their minds. And these precepts are as express as any other
commands of the law, enforced by the same divine authority by
which the other cominands are enforced. And though the neglect
of those precepts that required good inward dispositions of mind,
could not come under those penalties in the law that were to be in-
flicted by the civil Magistrate, yet they came under the general
sanctions of the law, as enforced by the hopes of the divine favour,
and the fears of the divine displeasure, to which they were taught
by Moses to have a continual regard. And, therefore, no reason
400 THE MOSAIC LAW
can be given why these should not be as properly regarded as a part
of that law, as any other laws or injunctions there prescribed. And
in this view good men considered the law, and extolled its great
usefulness and excellency, as enlightening the mind, purifying and
rejoicing the heart, and converting the soul, 8tc. Psalm xix. 7 11.
I had urged the tenth commandment as forbidding all coveting,
&c. The author answers, that this relates to the outward act of
robbery, rapine, violence, &c. and not barely to the inward act of
coveting, desiring or wishing for, &c. But how does he prove that
it doth relate to the outward act of rapine, &c. The reason he
gives, is,' because if this was not against rapine and robbery, there is
no commandment in the decalogue against it. As if the law, com-
manding not to steal, was not a sufficient prohibition of robbery and
rapine, especially in so short and comprehensive a collection of laws
as the decalogue is. But both the propriety of the words them-
selves naturally lead us to interpret the tenth commandment as prin-
cipally relating to the inward desires and motions of evil concupi-
scence ; and the apostle Paul so interprets it, as I showed, which
this writer thinks proper to take no notice of. And though as he
urges, the inward act of coveting could not possibly fall under the
cognizance of any human penal law, yet it could fall under the cog-
nizance of a divine law, and of God, the giver of that law, whom
they were taught to regard as their supreme governor and judge,
who perfectly knew their hearts, and from whom they were to ex-
pect rewards and punishments accordingly.
He had mentioned it as a defect in Moses's law, that it provided
no sufficient remedy against intemperance, &c. But now he owns,
that in the passage I quoted from Deut. xxix. 19, 20, Moses threa-
tens such sinners, as indulged themselves in drunkenness and intem-
perance, with the vengeance of God, as offenders against the rule
and law of righteousness ; but he would have me produce a statute
or law of Moses, where such acts of personal intemperance are made
penal, i. e. where civil penalties were enacted against them. But,
surely, if Moses threatens such sinners with the wrath of God, and
that all the curses written in the law should be upon them, as in the
passage I produced, this, to those that regarded it as the law of God,
enforced by his express authority, ought to have had a mighty
weight. And if, notwithstanding this, that nation run into great
excesses of intemperance, as this writer alleges, this was not to be
charged upon the law, but upon the corruption of mankind; no more
than the corruption of Christians is to be charged upon the gospel-
law.
But he farther observes, that ' St. Paul every where distinguishes
the law of Moses from the law of faith, fidelity, or righteousness
towards God. And that he proves at large, that righteousness could
never be obtained by the law, which was a law of works, or outward
obedience only/ p. 105. But this author entirely mistakes or mis-
represents the apostle's sense, and seems to have no just notion at
all of the design of his arguings on this subject. St. Paul doth not
represent it as if the law only required outward obedience, whereas
DEFENDED. 401
the Gospel requires inward righteousness : nor doth he, by calling
it the law of works in opposition to the law of faith, intend to sig-
nify, that it only required external works, or acts of duty. This
would be to make him contradict himself, and subvert his own ar-
gument. For he expressly represents the law as extending to the
inward motions of the soul, and as forbidding and condemning the
inward irregular workings of concupiscence ; and that, therefore, it
was by the law he came to the knowledge of sin. He declares, that
the law was holy, just, and good; and that it was spiritual, though
men were carnal, Rom. vii. 7 14. And he proves, that by the
works of the law could no man be justified, that is, accepted in the
sight of God, and entitled to life ; which is what he means by jus-
tification in this argument, because no man could perfectly obey its
precepts. And therefore, his doctrine is, that we must be justified
or accepted only through the infinite grace and mercy of God, by
which faith, or a steady dependence on his faithfulness, truth, and
goodness, issuing in a sincere obedience and the practice of right-
eousness., is graciously accepted and rewarded, though imperfect,
and attended with failures and defects. Thus Abraham the father
of the faithful, who was so highly favoured of God, and upon their
descent from whom the Jews so highly valued themselves, was jus-
tified before the law was given: He believed God, and it was ac-
counted unto him for righteousness ; that is, he exercised a firm
trust and dependence on his faithfulness, goodness, and mercy, and
on his most gracious promises, and showed the reality of this faith
by his obedience and ready submission to the significations of the
divine will, and therefore was accepted and justified before God,
though he had not yet received circumcision, nor was any part of
the ceremonial law yet instituted. And when the law of Moses was
afterwards given, the design of it was not to alter or annul the pro-
mise made to Abraham, or render it of none effect. Still good men,
even under the law, were justified and accepted of God, as Abraham
had been, not merely by their works, or obedience to the law, which
obedience, being defective, could not in strict justice entitle them
to a reward, but by their faith and trust in the divine grace and
mercy, productive of a sincere though imperfect obedience. The
s law was added, as the apostle speaks, because of transgressions.
It was given to restrain idolatry, and other offences, to discover
to men their duty, and to convince them of sin, to keep them
under a strict discipline and tutorage, suited to that time and
state of things, till the time should come for the last and most
perfect revelation of the divine will, and for the full disovery of
the divine grace and mercy through Jesus Christ, the promised
Saviour. This seems to be the account the apostle gives of the
true original design and intent of the law. And, accordingly,
Christ being come, that peculiar economy is abolished. And as
Abraham was justified without the observance of the Mosaic law,
or any of its peculiar rites and ceremonies which were not then insti-
tuted; so Christians now are justified without. observing any of the
peculiar legal rites and injunctions, which were only imposed for. a
D D
THE MOSAIC LAW
time till the promised seed should come, in whom all nations were
to be blessed. They are accepted and justified as Abraham was,
freely, by divine grace through faith, or a steady trust in God, and
dependence on his mercy, faithfulness, and goodness, and on his
most gracious promises and the revelations he hath given of his
will, accompanied with a sincere though imperfect obedience to his
holy and excellent precepts. But this faith, now required of us,
hath a more explicit regard than that of Abraham had to the Re-
deemer, as being now actually come, and in whom the exceeding
riches of the divine grace and mercy are most gloriously displayed,
and freely offered and exhibited.
But to return to our author. He had laid a mighty stress upon
it, as an insuperable objection against the Mosaical economy, that
though it obliged those that were under it to live in peace and
amity with one another, yet they were put into a state of war with
the rest of the world; and that the Jewish state, or the religion of
Moses, was founded on the principles of persecution. In opposition
to this it was clearly shown, by express testimonies from the law
itself, that it prescribed to the people of Israel, who were constituted
under it, a kind and benevolent conduct, not only towards one an-
other, those of the same community, but towards strangers of any
other nation that were among them, whom they were most ex-
pressly commanded to treat with the utmost kindness and human-
ity. And, whereas this writer had urged, that this was only to be
understood of such strangers as were incorporated with them, I
showed, that it extended to all strangers, though not incorporated
into their peculiar polity, nor observing any of their particular laws
and rites, provided they did but worship the one true God, free
rom idolatry ; nor were they ever to persecute any for not conform-
ing to their peculiar rites and forms of religion and worship.
But the author is resolved to persist in his charge. And the
great thing he alleges to make it good is, because of their distinctive
rites and usages, whereby they were kept separate from other na-
tions, which he represents as obliging them ' not so much as to
converse with those of any other nation, nor to show them the least
marks of common respect, civflity, or decency.' And he thinks
there could not be a more effectual method taken to establish a state of
eternal enmity and war between them and the rest of the world than
this;' and that it 'was not possible that a people thus constituted
could propagate the true religion to other [nations but by force of
arms.' And that this therefore, was a ' declaration of war with the
rest of the world, made and confirmed by their very constitution,'
pp. 107, 108. And he repeats it again, p. 112. It will be acknow-
ledged, that by the Mosaic constitution there were many distinctive
rites and usages appointed, the design of which was to keep them
from incorporating with other nations, lest they should learn their
corrupt customs, and by too great a familiarity be drawn into a
conformity to their idolatrous rites. And the proneness they
showed to revolt to the usages of other nations, notwithstanding all
this care to keep them distinct, showed the wisdom and expediency
DEFENDED. 403
of this constitution. But though they were thus kept distinct and
separate from other people, it doth not follow, that therefore they
were hereby put into a state of war with them by their very consti-
tution ; nor that they were obliged not so much as to converse with
them, or show them the ' least marks of common respect, civility,
and decency.' There is no such thing urged upon them in their
law. They might, notwithstanding their distinctive rites, show
them all the offices of humanity. It is observed concerning the
ancient Egyptians, Gen. xliii. 32, ' That they might not eat bread
with the Hebrews ; for that is an abomination to the Egyptians/
And therefore when Joseph entertained his brethren with great
kindness, they had bread set for them by themselves. And Herod-
otus observes, concerning the Egyptians in his time, that they
would not make use of a knife, a spit, or a pot belonging to the
Greeks, nor take a bit of beef cut with a Greek's knife, Herod.
Euterpe, cap. 41. And after this, cap. 78 of the same book, he
concludes his discourse concerning their feasts with this observation,
Trarpioifft e ^paw/zevoi VO/JLOKTI aX\ov ouSlva iTnKTtwvrat Tciicri :
'Using their own country-customs, they receive no other besides
them.' And afterwards, cap. 91, that as they use no Greek cus-
toms, so nn?? a\\wv, &c. ' neither would they use the customs of
any other men in the world.' Yet this did not hinder the Egypt-
ians from- conversing with those of other nations ; nor were they for
this regarded as in a ' state of eternal enmity and war with the rest
of mankind.' Nor did it hinder them from propagating their reli-
gion, since by the author's own acknowledgment, they were the
great propagators of idolatry to other nations. And though he
takes upon him to affirm, that a people constituted as the Jews
were could have no other way of propagating their religion but by
force of arms, the contrary to this is evident from undeniable fact.
For that they did propagate the true religion, and did proselyte
great numbers of other nations all over the Roman empire, as well
as in Babylon, Persia, and many parts of the East, without using
any force of arms. There might be some pretence for charging the
Mosaic constitution as putting the Jews into a state of war with the
rest of mankind, if any passage could be produced out of the law,
urging the Jews to such a conduct towards all other nations, as
Socrates is introduced by Plato prescribing to the Greeks with res-
pect to the barbarians, which was a name they generally gave to
all other nations but themselves.*
To what I had observed, that by the law of Moses they were
expressly obliged to show kindness, not only to one another, but to
strangers too, our author answers, as he had- done before, that it
_ * He would have the Greeks look upon one another as all of the same family and
kindred, but upon the barbarians as strangers and aliens ; that the Greeks were QVS-ZI
$1X01, ' friends by nature,' and therefore they should not go to war with one another ; or
if they did, they should do it as if they were some time to be reconciled ; but that the
barbarians were TTOXEJMIOI <t>ui, enemies by nature,' with whom they were to be contin-
ually at war ; that it would therefore be wrong for the Grecians to destroy Grecians, to
reduce them to slavery, or waste their fields, or burn their houses.; but that they should
do all this to the barbarians. See Plat, de Repub. 1. 5. Op. Tom. ii. pp. 470, 471. _
D D 2
404 , THE MOSAIC LAW
was only to their own ' naturalized strangers, or the proselytes who
lived among them, and who worshipped the same God, and made a
part of the same nation/ p. 108. And he represents it as an extra-
ordinary piece of assurance in me, to deny that ' the proselytes of
the gate were naturalized strangers, or that they were considered and
owned as members of the same society,' p. 109. The reader that is
at all: acquainted with these matters, will be apt to smile at this
passage. The writer had, in what he said on this head in his
former book, showed his utter ignorance of the Jewish constitution.
I endeavoured to set him right, and show him his mistake ; that
though the proselytes of righteousness, who were circumcised and
obliged to observe the whole law, were naturalized and looked upon
as Jews, and belonging to their particular body or polity ; yet the
proselytes of the gate, who worshipped the true God, but were not
obliged to any of jjhe peculiar Mosaic rites,* never were looked upon
as naturalized, or belonging to that particular polity or body, but
were still regarded as Gentiles, and as the pious among the Gen-
tiles. But our author is resolved to persist in his error. He had
said they were naturalized; and he is resolved that it shall be so.;
and not only will not receive information when it is offered him,
but is for abusing those that are not as ignorant, or will not speak
as improperly as himself.
His proof that they were naturalized is pleasant enough. ' I am
very sure (says he) that by the law of Moses they were to be re-
ceived, considered, and treated as brethren and fellow-citizens, and
were under the protection of the law as much as the circumcised
Jews themselves, while they lived among them. And this was all
that I meant by naturalization.' Who would not admire the acute-
ness of this writer ? that is, because they were to be treated very
kindly and tenderly, therefore they were naturalized, or regarded as
belonging to their peculiar nation or polity. Whereas the proper
conclusion from it is this ; that though they were not (as it is certain
they were not) regarded as belonging to their peculiar polity or na-
tional body ; yet they were to be treated with the utmost kindness
and humanity. Though, if we should allow this to be a sufficient
proof of their naturalization, it would only prove, contrary to this
writer's intention, that the Mosaic constitution was of a large and
noble extent. For it seems all the world were naturalized and
looked upon as belonging to their body, only upon worshipping the
one true God free from idolatry, and without observing their pecu-
liar rites and ceremonies.
But he makes an attempt, if he could prove it, that would be
something more to his purpose. After having told us, that the
proselytes of the gate ' made a part of the same nation,' he saith,
that though they were not circumcised, yet ' they complied with
the sacrificial part of the law, and paid their tithes and dues to the
* Thus we find the ' strangers within their gates/ that is, who were suffered to dwell
among them, and to whom they; are so often commanded to show kindness, in the law,
are allowed 'to eat that which died of itself;' which was expressly prohibited to every
Jew. Deut. xiv. 21..
DEFENDED. '405
priests.' He expresses himself as if he intended to put it upon his
reader, that the proselytes of the gate, who were uncircumcised,
observed all that part of the Mosaic law that related to sacrifices.
And this every body, that is not a stranger to that constitution,
knows to be a great mistake. The Gentiles, indeed, were allowed,
though hot obliged, to offer some kinds of sacrifices to God, as sa-
crifices had been a part of worship in use before the law was given ;
but there were many sacrifices required on particular occasions, and
which all the Israelites or proselytes of righteousness were obliged
to offer in the manner there prescribed ; but the proselytes of the
gate never were required, nor so much as permitted to offer them,
or any sacrifices that had the peculiar rites of the Mosaic law inter-
mixed with them ; nor to pay tithes, first-fruits, &c. These were so far
from being required of them by the law of Moses, or by any of the
Jewish constitutions, that if they should offer them they were to be
rejected. See all this fully proved by the learned Mr. Selden, De
Jur. Nat. et Gent. Lib. iii. Ap. 37.
As to what he saith, that ' Solomon, when he built the temple,
assigned a particular court for those devout Gentiles who came up
with their gifts and offerings to Jerusalem ; and he prays for them,
that God would bestow upon them all the favours and blessings of
his own people, p. 109.' This only proves against himself, that
that constitution was not on so narrow a foundation as he repre-
sents it ; for Solomon is there praying for strangers that were not of
the people of Israel. See 1 Kings viii. 41 43. But it doth not
prove, that those strangers were regarded as naturalized and incor-
porated into their peculiar body and polity without circumcision.
And indeed the very name of the court of the Gentiles (though it
does not appear that there was any court with that name in Solo-
mon's time, as there was afterwards) shows that they were still
regarded as Gentiles, and not as belonging to the Jewish nation or
body at all j and therefore they were not suffered to come within
those limits, into which every Jew and every proselyte of righteous-
ness was allowed to come ; and it was considered as penal if they
transgressed those bounds.
Page 110, the author gives a signal instance how much he is to
be depended upon in representing the sense of his adversaries. He
represents me as pretending, 'that though persecution for conscience'
sake, or establishing true religion by force of arms, would be wrong
now, and must be wrong under all circumstances of which we can,
judge ; yet it does not follow that therefore it was wrong under a
theocracy, or under the circumstances of the Israelites when that
law was given.' This, he says, is the sum of my whole argument
under this head ; where he very candidly puts it upon his reader j
that I have acknowledged that ' persecution for conscience' sake, or
establishing religion by force of arms, was allowed, and even pre-
scribed by the law of Moses ;' when the design of that part of my
book was to show, that the law of Moses did not prescribe persecu-
tion for conscience' sake. And then he proceeds, very formally, to
argue against persecution for, conscience' sake, or establishing reli-
'406 THE MOSAIC LAW
gion by outward force and violence. He urges, that 'the argument
depends on the eternal, immutable reason and fitness of things, the
moral perfections of God, and the nature of religion in itself/- &c.
But he might have spared his argument ; and instead of proving,
that to force religion upon the conscience, or to force the outward
practice against conscience is wrong, he should have proved, that in
the Mosaic constitution, persecution for conscience' sake is estab-
lished. On the contrary, it is certain, that in that constitution there
was no attempt to be used to ' force religion upon conscience and
inward judgment, or to force the outward practice against conscience
and inward judgment.' No person of any other nation was ever to
be forced to embrace the Mosaic law, or to observe any of its par-
ticular rites or constitutions, against their own judgments or con-
sciences. Their benevolence was not to be confined to those of
their own particular form of religion or worship, but was to extend
to all that worshipped the One God, the supreme Lord of the uni-
verse ; nor were such persons obliged to worship him by any of the
peculiar rites of the law. And how happy would it have been for
the world, if this had been imitated by all other constitutions !
They were not indeed to suffer any idolaters to dwell in their land;
and if any of their own nation openly revolted to the worship of
other gods, he was to be put to death ; because, as I showed,* this
was subversive of the very fundamental constitution of their polity,
and of that original contract upon which their state was founded,
and on which their preservation as a community, their right to all
their privileges, and to their country itself, depended. So that those
that were guilty of idolatry were, in the worst sense, traitors and
enemies to their country. And if our author will call this persecu-
tion, he may, if he pleases, call all putting persons to death for
being engaged in a conspiracy to subvert the state, persecution.
But let him prove, by any argumentTrom the nature of things, either
that it was unworthy of God to appoint and establish a constitution,
the fundamental principle of which was the acknowledgment and
worship of the one only living and true God, and to make this the
condition of their national privileges and prosperity ; or that, sup-
posing such a constitution, it was contrary to the nature and per-
fections of God, or to the reason of things, to make a law, that
those that attempted to subvert that constitution by worshipping
other gods, should be punished with death. But, for ought I know,
he may think it unfit for God himself to execute judgments on
idolaters, either in this world or in the next, for fear of forcing con-
science ; and on this account may find as much fault with the
Christian constitution, as being contrary to the rights of conscience,
as he had done by the Mosaical ; since it is there expressly de-
clared, that 'idolaters shall not enter into the kingdom of God.'
See Gal. v. 20, 1 Cor. vi. 9. But we expect he should bring other
proofs of this than his own confident assertions ; which with me,
and I believe with the generality of his readers, pass for nothing
at all.
* See Divine Authority, p. 177.
DEFENDED. 407
He had asserted in his former book, that the ' Jews were not
only set at liberty, but encouraged and directed by Moses himself
to extend their conquests as far as they could, and to destroy by
fire and sword every nation that would not become their subjects
and slaves. That their plan of government was contrived for
conquest ; and that Moses commands all idolatry to be exterminated
by fire and sword, not only in Canaan, but in all the rest of the
world, as far as his people should have it in their power, and that
of this Moses was very confident.' In answer to this it was shown,
that though they were not to tolerate idolatry in their own countiy,
as being absolutely subversive of the fundamental constitution of
their polity, yet they were never commissioned to destroy idolaters
in the rest of the world by fire and sword* And it is so far from
being true, that their plan of government was contrived for universal
conquest, as this writer represents it, that the whole frame of their
constitution was so contrived as to discourage a restless ambition
of enlarging their empire. And the laws given them were of such a
nature, as rendered it extremely difficult, if not impracticable for
them, to make and maintain large conquests abroad. And though
Moses knew and expressed his confidence that they should conquer
the land of Canaan and the nations there, because God had
promised it, yet he was so far from being very confident, as our
author affirms, that they should extend their conquests through the
rest of the world, that he knew and foretold the contrary : all this was
clearly and fully proved.* Nor does this author so much as
attempt to answer any of the proofs that were brought 5 but yet,
that he may make a show of reasoning, he tells us, pp. Ill, 112,
that Moses was confident his people should conquer the land of
Canaan, whereas, what he had to prove was, that he was confident
they should conquer the rest of the world ; and then falls into a
furious invective, as he had done several times before, against the
war with the Canaanites ; and that this shows Moses thought fire
and sword the best way of propagating true religion. But the
destruction of the Canaanites, as hath been shown, was in execution,
of God's j ust vengeance upon those nations, not merely for their
idolatry, but for 'the most abominable wickedness and vices of all
kinds. And this was not persecution, any more than the sending
fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah was persecution, or
than a man that executes the sentence of a just magistrate in
punishing a criminal, may be said to persecute that criminal. Our
author's following discourse, p. 113, in which he instructs me, that
things are sometimes ascribed to God in Scripture which were
only permitted in the course of his providence, might be something to
the purpose, if he could prove that the destruction of theCanaanites
is only ascribed to God in the same general sense in which all
evils and calamities are ; but it is evident, that according to the
representation there given, it was executed by the express command
of God himself, notified and confirmed by the most illustrious
. * See ' Divine Authority,' pp. 79, &c.
408 THE MOSAIC LAW
attestations. But this case hath been fully considered above ; to
which I refer the reader, that I may not, like this writer, be guilty
of continual repetitions.
He had in his former book asserted, that ' among the free-will
offerings offered by the Jews under the law, human sacrifices were
looked upon as the most efficacious and acceptable to the Lord.'
And that such ' oblations were encouraged and indulged under the
law as the highest possible acts of religion and devotion, when they
were intended and given up as sacrifices to the true God.' In
answer to this it was shown, from the nature and constitution of
the law, that such sacrifices were not allowed there, since there are
no directions any where concerning human sacrifices, as there must
have been in that constitution, if they had been intended to have
been ' indulged as the highest acts of devotion.' For they were
most expressly and solemnly forbidden to add to the law or diminish
from it : and, particularly, were not to offer any other sacrifices, or
in any other manner, than was there expressly appointed : this
alone would be a sufficient answer to this writer's insinuation. But,
besides, it was shown by an express testimony from the law itself,
Deut. xii. 30, 31, that it prohibited human sacrifices.
Our author, in answer, assures his reader, p. 115, that he had
' clearly proved, and beyond the possibility of any fair answer,' that
human sacrifices were indulged and allowed, though not enjoined
by the law of Moses, and that they were supposed and included
among the several other cases of ' vows or free-will offerings.' He
had, to this purpose, in his former book, cited Lev. xxvii. 28, 29 ;
to which a particular answer was given, and it was shown, that it
was not capable of the interpretation he put upon it. But he pro-
nounces the answer I had given to be ' shamefully evasive, and
contrary to my own convictions.' And the account he gives of it is
this. ' He pretends,' says he, speaking of me, ' that the person or
things to be given up and devoted to God in sacrifice, by a special
or absolute vow and free-will offering, as Lev. xxvii. 29, were
devoted and given up to him as a curse ; or in a way of vengeance,
as the Canaanites were.' Where he represents me as pretending
that that passage, Lev. xxvii. 29, relates to persons or things that
were to be ' given up and devoted to God in sacrifice, by a special
or absolute vow and free-will offering.' Whereas this is what I
expressly deny. I there show that the twenty-eighth verse relates
to things which a man should devote to God by a special vow * out
of all that he had,' that is, that belonged to him in property, not
merely to ' be given up in sacrifice,' for it will not be pretended,
that the ' field of his possession' was to be offered in sacrifice, but
to be employed in sacred uses ; and it is there determined, that
whatever a man should thus devote to God by a special vow, whe-
ther person or thing, should be ' holy to the Lord,' that is, perpet-
ually employed to the uses to which it was devoted, and that it was
never to be redeemed. But the 29th verse doth not relate to things
which any man should devote of his own possession and property,
which was the case of all free-will offerings, but to persons solemnly
DEFENDED.' 409
devoted to destruction for just causes ; that none of these were ever
to be redeemed, no ransom whatsoever was to be accepted for them,
but they were surely to be put to death. This is the account which
the Jews give of this passage, and which makes it perfectly consist-
ent with other passages in the law, which this writer's interpretation
of it is not ; nor does he produce so much as the shadow of an ar-
gument to show that it is not to be understood in that sense. And
1 referred him to Mr. Selden, by whom this is largely and accurately
handled.
But he again produces the instance of Jephthah's sacrificing his
daughter, as he had done before. I had observed, that ' whether
Jephthah did really sacrifice his daughter, is a question debated
among the most learned critics, both Jews and Christians, and still
like to be so.' This our author explains thus : ' that is/ says he,
' they have doubted whether this story, as the Scripture relates it,
is true or not, or whether the historian has here given us the real
matter of fact ; for they could have no other real ground or cause of
doubting.' But if this writer had known much of the matter that
he undertakes to talk about, he would have known that the ques-
tion or doubt in this debate, is not whether the story, as given by
the historian, is true ; for this is agreed on all hands ; but what is
the true meaning of the historian. The controversy is about the
sense of some of the Hebrew phrases made use of in relating the
story, whether they import that Jephthah really sacrificed his
daughter or not.
But supposing Jephthah did really sacrifice his daughter, it only
follows, as I observed before, that he did wrong in it, through a
mistaken zeal and scrupulosity, since the law of Moses nowhere
allowed human sacrifices. This our author denies ; and yet soon
after says, that ' Jephthah's rashness in making such a vow, and
thereby laying himself under such a necessity of law, was never ap-
proved of.' But how could it be thought an instance of rashness in
Jephthah to make such a vow, or how can this writer consistently
acknowledge that it ' was never approved of,' when he tells us, that
' among the free-will offerings offered by the Jews under the law,
human sacrifices were looked upon as the most efficacious and ac-
ceptable to the Lord, and that they were encouraged and indulged
as the richest donations, and were regarded as the highest possible
acts of religion and devotion?' If this had been the case, how
comes it that Jephthah has always been blamed for it by those of
his own nation that have supposed him to have offered such a sac-
rifice, and that no other instance can be produced of any of their
great and good men that ever offered up a human sacrifice, through
the whole course of their history ?
To the testimony I produced, to show that the law forbids such
sacrifices, the author answers, that the ' passages I have referred to,
where God absolutely forbade this people to worship and offer sacri-
fices to him after the manner of the heathen, conclude nothing at
all.' But this is not a fair representation of my argument. In the
passage I produced from Deut. xii. 30, 31, God not only prohibits
410 THE MOSAIC LAW
the people of Israel to worship him as the heathens worshipped their
gods ; but the sacrificing their sons and daughters is expressly
mentioned as one instance of their worship which was an abomina-
tion to the Lord, and the Israelites are forbidden to do so to the
Lord their God. And if this be not a manifest prohibition of human
sacrifices under that constitution, it is hard to conceive what can be
so. As to what he adds, that it ' would be hard to find any sort or
kind of sacrifices in use among the heathens, that Moses did not
adopt into his own scheme of superstition, only they were not to be
offered in the same places nor to the same gods,' p. 117, this is far
from being true. The offering up of swine was counted a valuable
sacrifice among the heathens, which yet was held in abomination
among the Jews ; and many other animals that were offered in other
nations were not allowed in the law of Moses. And that in these,
and several other instances, the rites there prescribed were contrary
to those of the heathens, is what may be proved with the clearest
evidence. I need not take notice of what our author goes on to
offer concerning the local tutelar god of Israel, or^ popular idol of
Israel, which he is sure could not be the true God, pp. 118, 119.
He had said this before, and he is never weary of repeating his
precious conceits, and obtruding them over and over upon his read-
er. But this hath been fully considered above, p. 370, &c.
He next comes to vindicate the argument he had brought from
the law about the redemption of the first-born, Exod. xiii. He had
urged, that that law laid the Israelites under a legal obligation to
sacrifice their first-born children unto God, but that ' this law was
afterwards very much mitigated, or rather repealed, viz. by God's
accepting all the males of Levi for the first-born males of all, as a
ransom or redemption of their lives.' And he added, that 'God
hereby remitted the legal obligation of human sacrifices, and left it
to the free choice and voluntary oblation of the^- people, whether
their burnt-offerings of this kind should 'be male or female, and
whether it should be the first-born or not.' I had taken this, as if
the author intended by God's ' remitting the legal obligation of hu-
man sacrifices' to signify, that he only remitted the obligation they
were under to offer up their male children as sacrifices or burnt-
offerings to the Lord ; but still they were to offer up some of their
children, only they were at liberty to offer male or female, and
whether they were first-born or not. The author exclaims against
this as a gross abuse of him; and represents it, as if his intention in
saying that God then remitted the legal obligation of human sacri-
fices, was to signify that the people were thereby absolutely freed
from any obligation to offer any human sacrifices at all. J am will-
ing to allow this to have been his sense, since he affirms it to have
been so. But then I cannot understand to what purpose he there
immediately adds, ' that God left it to the free choice and voluntary
oblation of the people, whether their burnt-offerings of this kind
should be male or female, and whether it should be the first-born or
not.' Does not this seem naturally to imply, that they were still to
offer burnt-offerings of. this kind to God, but that the remission or
DEFENDED. ' 411
mitigation consisted in this, that they were left at liberty to offer
any of their children, male or female, first-born or not ? Thus I
took it, and thus it was obvious to understand it, especially consid-
ering his manner of introducing it, that ' this law was very much
mitigated or rather repealed :' a way of speaking which no man
would have chosen that had intended plainly and clearly to signify,
that it was totally and absolutely abrogated and repealed, and that
they were under no obligation to offer any human sacrifices at all.
And yet, because I had thus understood it, he talks of my being
transported beyond all the bounds of truth, reason, or conscience ;
that all my friends must blush for me. And he very gravely asks,
' does this man believe a God or a judgment to come ?' I so far
believe it, that I would not, for any worldly consideration, be guilty
of such falsehoods and gross misrepresentations as I take this writer
to be guilty of, and even in the management of this very argument.
In order to make it answer his end, he represents it as if the law
concerning God's claiming or reserving the first-born of Israel as
holy to himself, was one law ; and the law concerning their redeem-
ing the first-born, was another law ; see p. 123, and that the law
concerning redeeming them was a repeal of the law by which God
claimed them to himself. But this is entirely misrepresented ; for
in the very original law relating to this matter, where God chal-
lenges the first-born as his, they are expressly commanded to redeem
the first-born of man, at the same time that they are commanded to
sacrifice the first-born of clean beasts. So that, as I observed in
my former book, the original law which this writer refers to, Exod.
xiii. is so far from laying the Israelites under a legal obligation to
offer their first-born as sacrifices unto God, as he is pleased to re-
present it; that to have done so would have been the most express
and manifest breach of that law.* As to what he pretends, that
the first-born among men were said to be holy to the Lord,, as well
as the first-born among clean beasts, and that this signifies, that
they were both set apart as holy to the Lord in the same sense, that
is, they were both to be sacrificed ; this is very strange, when that
very law expressly provides, that the first-born among clean beasts
were to be sacrificed, and the first-born among men were not to be
sacrificed, but redeemed. '< But he adds, that 'this is the more evi-
dent, because when the Levitical males came to be substituted for
the first-born of the other tribes, the expression is quite altered ;
and it is not said, they shall be holy to the Lord, as the others were
before; but they shall be mine, i. e. my chief servants or peculiar
favourites.' Here we have another specimen of the sincerity of this
writer, and how much he is to be trusted in his account of things.
He boldly affirms, and lays a great stress upon it, that the expres-
sion, when speaking of the Levitical males, is quite altered from
what it was in the law concerning the first-born ; for in the one
case it is said, they shall be holy to the Lord ; in the other God
declares, they shall be mine. If this had been true, the observa-
* See Divide Authority, pp. 90, 91.
412 THE MOSAIC LAW
tion would have been low and trifling, and would have proved no-
thing at all. Since I suppose he will hardly say, that a person or
thing's being holy to the Lord is a proof of its being to be offered
to God in sacrifice ; or that when it is said, as it often is, concern-
ing the priests, that they were holy to the Lord, it signifies they
were to be sacrificed, see Lev. xxi. 6, 7. But it happens, that what
the author so confidently affirms, is entirely false. For in the ori-
ginal law concerning the redemption of the first-born, it is said of
them, as of the Levites afterwards, ' they are mine,' Exod. xiii.2, 12.
And in the very passage he refers to, where the Levitical males were
taken instead of the first-born of the children of Israel, as it is said,
the Levites shall be mine, it is immediately added, ' because all the
first-born are mine,' Numb. iii. 12, 13. I need not take any notice
of the way he pretends to account for the Israelites being brought
into the settling the priesthood, &c. in the tribe of Levi, viz. because
they were hereby freed from the obligation they were under of sacri-
ficing their first-born. This goes upon the supposition, that they
looked upon themselves as having been legally obliged to sacrifice
their first-born by that very law that enjoined them not to sacrifice
their first-born, but to redeem them ; a thing, that as stupid as they
were, could not have entered into their heads, but was a discovery
reserved for the extraordinary sagacity and penetration of this
writer.
He next proceeds to the case of Abraham, pp. 126, 8cc. which I
had considered fully and distinctly. He has not thought proper
to answer what was offered, but thinks it sufficient to represent me
as going upon if s and may-he's ; and no doubt, this will be esteem-
ed a full confutation of my whole reasoning on this subject.
But he urges, that it is the most absurd and ridiculous supposition
in the world, that God. himself should command this to try what
Abraham would do in such a case, as if God did not know as well
without it. But it is not pretended, that it was for his own infor-
mation that God did this, nor is this ever the meaning of the phrase
of his trying persons, which is frequently made use of in the sacred
writings ; but it was to give Abraham an opportunity of discovering
to the world the excellent temper of his mind, and exhibiting a last-
ing example to all ages. And this author himself owns, p. 128,
that ' it served to show the strength and invincibility of Abraham's
faith and trust in God, and that he was ready to do any thing, or
part with any thing, at his command.' p. 128.
The way he takes to account for Abraham's conduct in this mat-
ter is one of the most extraordinary that ever was invented. The
Canaanites, it seems, told him, that if he would sacrifice his own
son, God would raise him from the dead, and they would worship
the God of Abraham, and be of his religion, p. 129. And Abraham
was such a fool, as upon this, and no other foundation, to entertain
a strong and indubitable persuasion and impression upon his mind,
that God would do as the Canaanites had said, yea, and fancied that
God appeared to him, and commanded him to sacrifice his own be-
loved son Isaac, the heir of all the promises. And if all this was
DEFENDED. 413
merely owing to the strength of his own fancy, no account can be
given why this indubitable enthusiastic persuasion did not carry
him actually to execute it,
I had showed the great absurdity of supposing, that Abraham's
believing he had such a command from God was owing to the force
of his own enthusiasm.* Our author, without troubling himself to
answer what had been alleged to this purpose, pronounces that it
was an irrational enthusiastic persuasion, which God himself could
never have been the author of; and to show that it was so, he urges,
that Abraham, according to the representation made of it by the
writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, was persuaded that God would
certainly raise his son from the dead, if he sacrificed him ; whereas
says he, it is certain that God had never intended or promised any
such thing. It will be easily allowed, that God had not promised
it. Nor if he had, would Abraham's self-denial, and trust in God,
and submission to his will in this instance, been so illustrious. But
he had promised, that in Isaac should his seed be called ; and he
did not doubt, but that promise would be accomplished in God's
own way. And when he received the command about sacrificing
his son, he reasoned with himself as the apostle to the Hebrews re-
presents it, Heb. xi. 19, not that God had promised to raise his
son, but that he was able to raise him from the dead ; and he con-
cluded, that God would do this rather than fail of the accomplish-
ment of his promise. There is nothing in this, but what is just and
sober reasoning, and which shows a calm and steady temper of
mind, a sound judgment, as well as eminent faith and trust in God,
as I observed, Divine Authority, p. 93.
As this writer thinks fit to charge this upon Abraham's enthusiasm,
so he gives us a plain hint, that he looks upon all the promises and
appearances of God to Abraham, and consequently the covenant
founded upon them, to have been nothing else but wild enthusiasm.
For he intimates, that if Abraham was mistaken in this, he might
be in other cases too, where he depended on any immediate revelation
or communication from God, p. 129. So that this father of the
faithful, so much celebrated by St. Paul, and of whom our author
himself frequently affects to speak with respect, was the father of
visionaries and enthusiasts. However, he has here let us know his
own opinion, and it may go as far as his authority goes ; but the
instance he produces proves the quite contrary of what he pretends
to prove by it. For he refers to the prediction made to Abraham,
that 'his seed should be strangers, oppressed and afflicted in a land
that was not theirs, and at the end of four hundred years should come
outwith great substance, and come to theland of Canaan,' Gen. xv. 13,
16. He wants to know whether this be supposed to be a prophecy,
or a conditional promise. I answer that it was a prophecy or pre-
diction, and not merely a promise. For that his seed should be
afflicted, &c. could not be a promise. But then he urges, that it
was not accomplished. And in order to make this appear, he is
* See Divine Authority, p. 95, &c.
414 THE MOSAIC XAW
pleased to represent it, as if it had been promised or foretold, that
at the end of the four hundred years, they were to be put into the quiet,
peaceable possession of the land for ever, or throughout all their gen-
erations, p. 129. But there is .no such thing there promised or fore-
told. All that is there said is, that at the end of four hundred years,
they, Abraham's posterity, shall come hither again, that is, to the
land of Canaan ; but how they were to possess it, whether in a quiet
and peaceable way, or by war, or how long they were to continue
there, is not said. But what is immediately there added, as a rea-
son for their not coming thither sooner, viz. that the iniquity of the
Amorites is not yet full, seems plainly to intimate, that it was to be
by the expulsion of the Canaanites, who were then to be exempla-
rily punished for their iniquities. All which was punctually and
literally fulfilled.
As to what he observes from Dr. Hyde, that this case of Abraham
was the original or first occasion of human sacrifices all over the
east ; there is no proof of this. And Abraham's case rather furnish-
ed a manifest proof, that human sacrifices were what God would
not accept, since though he was pleased to lay this injunction upon
him for the trial of his faith and obedience, yet he expressly forbade
him, by a voice from heaven, to execute it. Concerning which, see
Divine Authority, pp. 91, 101.
CHAPTER VII.
What he offers to show that the whole power of the government, by the Mosaic constitu-
tion, was vested in the tribe of Levi, examined. His vain attempt to vindicate what he had
said concerning the priests having twenty shillings in the pound upon all the lands of Is-
rael. The falsehood and extravagance of his computations shown. Theburden of the legal
priesthood not the cause of the revolt of the ten tribes from Rehoboanii The law of
Moses did not forbid all inquiries into the reasons of its injunctions. Reasonsfor se-
veral of those injunctions given in thelawitself. Sabiisme prohibited in the lawof Moses,
which was the most ancient land of idolatry that prevailed among the eastern nations.
OCR author next proceeds to vindicate what he had said concern-
ing the power and revenues of the priesthood under the law of Moses.
He is pleased to declare, p. 135, that my ' pretence, that he had as-
serted that the Levites were exempted, by law, from the common jur-
isdiction of the law; and whatl say uponit, pp.106, 107,isnothingbut
forgery and abuse.' Ididnotcharge him with asserting, that the Levites
were exempted by law, from the j uri sdiction of the law ; for he had not
used those words, by law, and I kept religiously to his own words in
citing him. But I charged him with asserting that 'the Levites,
though servants in the temple, had greater rights and immunities
.than any prince or first magistrate of another tribe, and that Levi
DEPENDED. 415
was a tribe exempted from the jurisdiction of the law, and protected
against it.' See Mor. Philos. vol. i. p. 141. The falsehood of this
was plainly shown, and that in that constitution the Levites, or
priests, were not exempted from the jurisdiction of the law more
than any other persons. Our author answers all that I had offered
by saying, that this is nothing but forgery and abuse. A very com-
pendious answer this ! and which must no doubt, pass, with every
intelligent reader, for an effectual confutation of the proofs I had
brought.
But he is pleased to mention some of the legal privileges, in which
the meanest of the Levites were superior to the Princes, &c. of the
other tribe. See pp. 133, 135. One of them is, that they could
not be obliged to civil offices, nor to bear arms. And at this rate
he may also undertake to prove, that the meanest clergyman, or
curate or teacher, allowed by the act of toleration, has greater pri-
vileges and immunities than the greatest magistrate in the nation.
As to what he saith farther there concerning their receiving all the
revenues of the nation ; this is not true, except by it be meant only
their receiving the tithes, and other dues. And whereas he adds,
that they were only 'Lords and Judges, and not common subjects ; '
I suppose he will hardly pretend that this was a privilege belonging
to the meanest of the Levites, and that in a more eminent degree
than to the princes and first magistrates of other tribes. He urges,
indeed, p. 135, that 'the court was entirely levitical, and therefore
the Levites might easily evade the jurisdiction of the law in common
cases.' And this he has the confidence to affirm, notwithstanding
the clear proof that was brought, and to which he has not been able
to return the least answer, that the inferior judges, wha were ap-
pointed by Moses to judge the people in the lesser causes, and the
seventy elders that were appointed to judge in the more difficult and
important cases, were chosen out of all the tribes, and not that of
Levi only. It was shown, that by the acknowledgment of all the
Jews, the great Sanhedrim, or supreme council of judicature, was
to consist not merely of priests and Levites, but of any other persons,
of other tribes, that were qualified by their knowledge of the law ;
without which qualification, even the high-priest himself had no
right to sit there, by virtue of his birth or place.
Page 133, he repeats what he had said before, that the supreme
power was in the high-priest,, by the Mosaic constitution ; and that this
is so very evident, that I could not deny it. And yet he knows I
did deny it, and snowed that Moses himself, who was not the higb-
priest, had the government in his hands during his own life-time ;
and that he appointed Joshua, who was not a high-priest, nor (jf
the tribe of Levi, to succeed him in the government of the people.
And afterwards the supreme power was vested in the judges, who
were extraordinarily raised, and appointed by God. And the nation
continued generally under their government some hundreds of years.
And when there happened to be no such judge governing them, it
is represented as a state of anarchy ; and that every man did what
was right in his own eyes j though all the while there was an high-
416 THE MOSAIC LAW
priest among them : nor was any one of those judges a high-priest
except Eli ; nor any of them, so much as of the tribe of Levi, except
Eli and Samuel. And as to the kings who succeeded the judges
in the government of the people, our author himself acknowledges,
that the high-priest had not the supreme power in their time. But
then he pretends, that the people's throwing off the supreme power,
vested in the high-priest by the law of Moses, was a fundamental
breach of their constitution, and a rejecting God from being their
king. But this is wrongly represented. It was not the throwing off
the power of the high-priests, who still continued to exercise their
office, under the kings, as much as before, that is represented under
this idea ; but it was the throwing off the government .by judges,
who were officers extraordinarily raised up, and appointed by God
himself, to judge and govern the people, and instead of them,
choosing to be governed by kings, after the manner of other nations,
who should succeed one another, in the govern ment,in a lineal descent.
But notwithstanding this, they still continued to acknowledge the
Lord for their God, and still continued to be his people, in a special
sense, bound to the observation of the Mosaic covenant and polity;
the main of which still subsisted, after that alteration in their form
of government, as well as before. Nor is it true, which, this writer
suggests, that thenceforth it was to no purpose to ask counsel of
God, or consult the oracle, when the high-priest was become sub-
ject. For it is certain they still continued to ask counsel of God,
under their kings ; and had his direction, both by the oracle of
TJrim, of which instances were given,* and by prophets, extraordi-
narily inspired from time to time. As to what he here again repeats
concerning the God of Israel's being only a local, oracular, tutelar
Deity, the residential God of that country, the palpable absurdity
of this hath been already shown. See above, pp. 370, &c. to which
I refer the reader, that I may not, like this author, clog him with
continual repetition.
He next proceeds to vindicate what he had said in his formei
book, ' that it would be easy to prove that the church revenues,
under this government, amounted to full twenty shillings a pound,
upon all the lands of Israel. I had called this a wild assertion :
and I think so still. But our author, after desiring the reader to
observe it as a specimen of my uncommon talents, and that this
' shows I never rented an estate myself, and paid the rent ;' which,
to be sure, must be allowed to be a manifest proof of my talents
as a writer ; proceeds to prove, that ' the revenue to the priests
could not amount, by law, to less than an annual rent upon the
lands, which he explains to be a third part of the yearly produce
or real value of the land, besides what the priests and Levites
might extort by the power and privileges granted them.
I must own that I understood him that the whole yearly value
of the land went to the priests ; and though this appeared to me
a very strange assertion, yet I thought it not too extravagant for
this writer in his rant against the priests. But now he has reduced
* See Divine Authority, pp. 138, 139.
DEFENDED. 417
it to a third of the real yearly produce or value of the land ; and
allows, that the ' people might live under it as well as a great part
of this and other nations live now under a rack-rent.' It must be
considered, that the Israelites had, all of them, by their original
constitution, their lands free inheritance : nor could their lands be
so alienated, but that they were to return to them and to their
families at the year of jubilee. By their original constitution they
paid no other taxes but the tithes, and other dues, for maintaining
the Levites, priests, and keeping up the public worship. They had
no taxes, or tribute, imposed upon them, till they came under the
government of their kings ; which was a government of their own
choosing. For their judges, though they had great power and
authority to judge and govern them, yet did not put them to much
expense by the splendour of courts, nor by keeping up standing
forces. Whereas the people of England not only pay the annual
rent to their landlords, but taxes to the state, of several kinds, be-
sides the dues to the clergy ; and among other dues, tithes ; and
yet they are far from being so miserably poor and indigent, or so
mightily impoverished, as he would persuade us the Israelites were
by their original constitution. But let us attend to our author's
computations.
And first : he makes the one- tenth, that is, the tenth of corn,
wine, oil, fruits, &c. to be equivalent to three tenths of the
annual rent of the land ; because it was neat and free from
labour and expense in cultivation and tillage. And if it had
not come neat and free from the expense of cultivation, it could not
have been called a tenth at all, or have been of any great advan-
tage to them. But he adds, that after this had been taken away,
the priesthood had a tenth of all the beasts, clean and unclean, and
the firstborn of all beasts, which he puts as a tenth more : though^
he says, it might easily be proved, that it much exceeded a tenth.
But he reckons both together as two tenths, or a fifth. And then
he adds, that ' since the stock upon a landed estate must, upon
an average, amount to, at least, two annual rents, a fifth of this
will be two fifths, or four tenths, of the annual rent, which, with
the other three, make seven tenths.' Here we may observe his great
accuracy in his computations. First, he supposes, an estate in
land to be entirely under tillage or vintage, so that the corn and
fruits upon it make up the entire value or profit of the land, and
one tenth of that is equivalent to three tenths of the annual rent ;
and then he supposes the same land to be stocked with cattle to
the value of two annual rents, so that two tenths of the beasts
upon it came to four tenths of the annual rent. So that the very
same land, is the same year, both completely under tillage, and
under pasturage ; and this is the supposition he makes concern-^
ing the whole country ; which, without pretending to any extraor-
dinary skill in these matters, one may venture to pronounce to be
a great absurdity. But the author is under a necessity, and he
must suppose it, in order to make up his calculation. Another
fault in his calculation is, that he affirms, that the Levites had a
418 THE MOSAIC LAW
tenth of all the beasts, clean or unclean, which is not true; for no
tithes were paid of unclean beasts at all, but only of the flock and
herd, Lev. xxvii. 32. And of these, again, it was only a tithe of
the increase that was paid annually. For the same cattle were not
tithed again every year ; so that it was really a tithe of the young
ones, the calves and lambs, or kids, that were brought forth that
year ; and this is far from being equivalent to a tenth of the grown
cattle eveiy year, or of the whole stock upon the land. To which
it may be added, that what fell short of the number ten, which
might often happen to be the case among the poorer sort that fol-
lowed agriculture, was not titheable; or if they had above ten,
whatever was short of the number twenty, paid only one tithe :
and all these things will very much reduce his calculation. And
then, again, it is very wrong in him to make the first-born of the
beasts to be equivalent to a tenth of all the beasts, or of the whole
stock upon the land in value, or, as he states it, equivalent to
two tenths of the whole annual rent. For it must be considered,
first, that it was only^the first-born males that were to be given to
the priests, which is but one half of the first-born ; and, in the se-
cond place, that the first-born, e. g. of sheep or kine, were only to
be considered as young lambs or calves.* And, I suppose, he will
hardly undertake to prove, that supposing the first-born male lambs
or calves to be a tenth in number of all the lambs and calves, that
they were a tenth in value of the whole stock of sheep and cattle
upon the land. And yet he absurdly accounts them so ; and pre-
tends, it could easily be proved, that it much exceeded the tenth
in value. As to the first-born of unclean beasts, they wei'e allowed
to redeem them, if they pleased, with a lamb, or otherwise to kill
them, if they thought them not worth it ; in which case the priests
got nothing at all. So that the value of the first-born of any of those
creatures that were not to be sacrificed, whether of an ass, which
was the most common in these countries, and is therefore particu-
larly mentioned in the law to this purpose, Exod.xiii. 13 ; "Deut. xviii.
16, or of a horse or camel, or any other creature, that was not to be
sacrificed, was never to be rated above that of a young lamb.
But let us follow our author : he observes, that ' besides this
the tribe of Levi bad a very considerable share of the cities, towns,
villages, and lands themselves, which, by computing from the
places given and allotted to them by law, would seem to amount
to a seventh part, at least, of the whole country ; but I shall put
it only at a tenth ; and this, with what has been computed before,
will make eight tenths of annual rent.' They had indeed forty-
eight cities allowed them, which fell to them by lot. And if we
may judge by what was allowed them out of the tribes of Judah,
Benjamin, and Simeon, whose share came as it is reckoned, Josh.
* On the eighth day they were appointed by law to give the first-born, though not
before, Exod, xxii. 30, that is, when it was eight days old, they might giro it, though
they might keep it longer. And it was a general rule, with regard to all their sacrifices,
whether of bullocks, or sheep, or goats, that they were accepted for sacrifice from eight
days old. Lev. xxii. 27.
DEFENDED. 419
xv. xviii. xix., to 155 cities, out of which the Levites had thirteen
allotted them, Josh. xxi. 4, which amounts to about a twelfth part,
supposing all the cities belonging to those tribes to be expressly
mentioned, which is uncertain ; and if they had more cities than
are there reckoned, the share of the Levites will be still less in pro-
portion. It is true, that the share of the Levites in the other
tribes, seems to be greater in proportion to the number of cities
expressly assigned to these tribes. But it is manifest, and. allowed
by the more judicious commentators, that all the cities belonging
to the several tribes are not distinctly mentioned, but only the
principal. For there are some cities mentioned afterwards as be-
longing to those tribes, that yet are not reckoned at first in the
number of the cities that are expressly named as allotted to those
tribes.* So that we may justly suppose it was pretty much in the
same proportion in all the tribes, especially considering the rule
laid down by Moses, Numb. xxxv. 8, when he appointed that
forty-eight cities should be allotted to the Levites, viz. that from
them that had many cities they should give many ; and from
them that had few cities they should give few ; and that every
one should give of his cities unto the Levites, according to his in-
heritance which he inherited. And, therefore, we may judge that
the cities were given to them out of all the tribes in pretty near
to the same proportion, which maybe reckoned to about a twelfth.
But then it must be considered, that if they had a twelfth, or even
a tenth, of the number of cities allotted them, they were very far
from having a twelfth or even a fiftieth part of the whole land or
country. For the Levites had only the bare cities given them,
and no adjoining towns or villages; as it was in the lots of the
other tribes, where it is still mentioned, that they had such and
such cities given them, with the villages, or adjoining and depend-
ent towns. And most of those cities at that time were very small.
Nor were the cities of the Levites to be afterwards enlarged be-
yond those walls any farther than a thousand cubits, to which they
were expressly confined for the suburbs, and two thousand cubits
for the fields ; and this never to be exceeded,*}- see Numb. xxxv.
4, 5 ; Lev. xxv. 34. So that the whole of the land allowed them,
reckoning from the walls of the city for the suburbs and fields,
was but fifteen yards on every side, which is considerably less
than a mile ; and this they were not to enlarge or exceed. For
all, without those bounds, belonged to the tribe where their lot
lay. So that if there were an accurate computation made, all the
land allowed to the priests and Levites would amount to a very
small part of the country.
He next mentions the stated legal fees, as he calls them, which
he says were very extraordinary : ' as for a woman after her lying-
* See Bishop Patrick on Joshua xviii. 28 ; xix. 7,16, 23, 31, 39.
t The Jews observe, that 'in the Levites' cities thev might not make of a city the
suhurbs, nor of the suburbs a city, nor of the suburbs a field, nor of a field suburbs ; but
they were all to continue as they were, without being altered.' See Maimon. in Jobel,
cap. 13, sect. 4, 5, as cited by Ainsworth in Lev. xxv. 34.
E E 2
420 THE MOSAIC LAW
in, and when she came to he churched, for persons that had been
cured of any foul disease, and many other instances too long to
be enumerated here. And, in any such cases, if a lamb of a year
old had been ordered, and the person could not give it, or was not
worth it, they must give a couple of turtles, two young pigeons,
a tenth-deal of flour, or what they could, if ever so little. So
that if a man was poor, the priest would take all, and could have
no more.' And he adds, that the occasional fines for legal acci-
dental uncleannesses, which might be unavoidable, and almost
innumerable, can be reduced to no certain calculation at all/ p.
138. I shall consider this matter distinctly, that it may appear
how little there is in this writer's general clamours.
As to what he talks about the churching of women, as he calls
it, the richest were to bring no more than a lamb of the first year
(by which we are to understand not a lamb of a year old, as this
author represents it, as if it was necessarily to be a year old when
it was offered ; but the meaning is, that it was never to be above
a year old, but it was fit to be offered from eight days old,
as I have already observed) and a young pigeon. And the
priest's fees in that case were but small. For, as to the lamb,
it was expressly ordered to be consumed by fire ; and of which the
priest was not to eat any thing. And even of the young pigeon
which fell to the priest's share, part was to be consumed on the
altar for a sin-offering, Lev. xii. 6, 8. And this was all the priest
had in this case, even from the rich. As to what he talks about
persons that had been cured of any foul disease ; men or women
that had any disease of uncleanness by issues, were obliged to
bring no more than two young pigeons or turtle-doves. And of
these one was to be for a burnt-offering, and to be all consumed ;
of the other, which came to the priest's share, part was to be con-
sumed on the altar, as in the former case ; see Lev. xv. The case
in which the costliest sacrifice was required from any person that
was legally unclean, was that of a person that had the leprosy,
which was the highest kind of uncleanness : and in this case, the
priest's share came to two lambs, which were to be offered as a sin-
offering and a trespass-offering, some of which was consumed upon
the altar, and the greater part came to the priest. But if the man
was poor, there was only one he-lamb brought for a trespass-offer-
ing, and one young pigeon for a sin-offering. As to the three
tenth-deals of flour, which were then to be offered for a meat-
offering, amounting to about three pottles of flour, it was to be
wholly consumed, and the priest got none of it.
These kinds of uncleannesses that have been now mentioned,
were the only kinds for which sacrifices were offered, as is- evident
from the law itself, and the Jews universally acknowledge. And
with regard to the leprosy, and a distemper by an unclean issue in
man or woman, it is to be presumed that there were many of the
Israelites that never had them at all. And, as to the other kind of
legal uncleanness mentioned, viz. that of a woman in ehild-bed, it
is to be supposed that it seldom came above once in a year, and
DEFENDED. 42 1
for the most part, not so often. In all other cases of legal impurity
and uncleanness, which were many, and which the author pro-
nounces to be ' almost innumerable,' e. g. the uncleanness of touch-
ing any unclean thing, the carcase of an unclean beast, or a human
dead body, &c. they were purified merely by washing or sprinkling ;
which brought nothing to the priest : see Lev. xi. 24, 31. Numb.
xix. 16, 17, 18, 19; and no sacrifices were to be offered on these
accounts at all j except where persons inadvertently came in their
uncleanness into the sanctuary, and did eat of the holy things, i. e.
the peace-offerings, and afterwards came to know it. For of such
persons and cases that passage is to be understood, Lev. v. 2, 3
by the consent of all the Jewish doctors ;* nor indeed can it well
be otherwise understood, if we compare it with the places I have
just referred to. In such cases the richest were to bring no more
than a she-lamb or a she-goat for a trespass-offering and, if they
were very poor, no more was required of them than to bring the
tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, i. e. about a pottle, without
oil or frankincense. See Lev. 6, 7, 11 : so that this was made easy
to the poor. And we may reasonably suppose that this was not a
ease that often happened : for it could only happen when they
came into the sanctuary, which, with regard to the generality of the
Israelites, was but at their great festivals, which were only cele-?
brated three times a year ; and they were then generally very
scrupulously exact in shunning all ceremonial uncleanness. With
regard to many of the other cases in which sacrifices were required
to be offered, e- g. the trespass offerings, Lev. vi. 2 7, it is not to
be doubted, that there were several persons in Israel that seldom
or never committed the crimes for which those sacrifices were ap-
pointed. The peace-offerings were by far the most numerous of
any other ; which were free-will-offerings in acknowledgment of
mercies received, or in accomplishment of some vow they had
made ; but, besides that, these were at the people's own election,
they cannot be properly reckoned among the revenues due to the
priests, who had but a small share of them : the far greater part
of these offerings fell to the people themselves on whose account
they were offered, who feasted upon them with their families. And
as to the burnt-offerings, the priest got nothing but the skin. It
appears from this account of the Mosaical sacrifices, that they were
far from bringing in such vast revenue to the priests, as this author
represents it.
But he has another shift in order to make up his twenty shillings
in the pound paid by the people to the priests ; and that is, * that
there was a very great and enormous poll-tax laid upon the whole
nation, and to be paid in money : every male, from twenty to sixty,
was to pay half a shekel three times a year, when they went up to
the sanctuary. And here the poorest man was rated as high as
the richest ; and no abatement to be made on account of circum-
stances. At the same time no man was to appear before the Lord,
* Concerning which see Amsworth in Lev. v. 2. .
422 THE MOSAIC, LAW
the priest, empty-handed ; but every one was to bring his offering,
or present, with him ; which, besides the loss of time and hindrance
of labour, could not amount to much less than what was to be paid
in money, ' p. 139.
This furnishes us with a new instance how little this writer's re-
presentations are to be trusted, especially where the law of Moses,
or the priests, are concerned. It is, indeed, required in the law,
that at the public festivals, when they came up to the sanctuary,
they were not to appear before the Lord empty, Exod. xxiii. 15.
Deut. xvi. 16. But there is not one word of their making any
present to the priest ; nor did any of the Jews ever understand it
so. Their doctors particularly understand it of a burnt offering,
either of beast or fowl, according as they were best able to do it,
which they were to offer the first day of the feast ;* and this was
consumed by fire; and consequently the priest did not get any
part of the flesh of it to his share. Besides which, the people
commonly offered their free-will-offerings at those feasts ; and these
were left to every man's own inclination and ability, according as
the Lord had blessed him, Deut. xvi. 16; and upon these the
people themselves feasted with their families, and but a small share
of them came to the priest. And, indeed, those were looked
upon as seasons of universal joy and festivity, in which the whole
nation met and rejoiced together, at the same time commemorating
the great things God had done for them ; and the observing these
festivals was looked upon as a_ privilege. And something of this
kind, accompanied with an intermission of their labours, has been
usual in almost all nations.*}' But as to this author's pretence con-
cerning ' the enormous poll-tax, ' as he calls it, which every male,
from twenty to sixty, was to pay three times a year at their solemn
festivals, half a shekel each time, i. e. a shekel and half in the
whole ; this is entirely his own fiction, without any thing either
from the law of Moses, or from any of the Jewish writers to sup-
port it. It was, indeed, the command of God to Moses, that when
he should take the ' sum of the children of Israel after their num-
ber, ' every one of them that was numbered, should give half a
shekel for an offering unto the Lord ; and that this money should
be appointed for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation,
Exod. xxx. 12 16 : which was accordingly executed, chap, xxxviii.
25, 26. But this numbering was not at any of their solemn feasts :
nor was there any appointment made that there should be any an-
nual payment of this kind for the future. All that appears there
is, that it was ordered for the present building the sanctuary. It is
true, that in after times, particularly under the second temple, every
Jew above twenty years old, was obliged to pay half a shekel an-
nually ; and the Jewish doctors found this upon that original ap-
pointment of Moses. But this will not at all answer the author's
design. For first, it was but half a shekel that was paid yearly ;
* See Ainsworth in Exod. sxiii. 15.
f See Arist. lib. viii. ad Nicomach. cap. 2, and a remarkable passage in Strabo to this
purpose, Geograph. lib. x. p. 467".
DEFENDED. 423.
whereas he makes it to have been a shekel and a half; and then it
was not paid, as he pretends it was, at any of their public feasts ;
but was collected by persons appointed for that purpose in their
several cities ; who were to return their payments into the public
treasury by the 25th of the month Adar, which answers to our
February. Nor was it a tax, as he represents it, paid by the peo-
ple to the priests : but the priests and Levites themselves were as
much obliged to pay it, by the Jewish constitutions, as any others ;
and the design of it was for public service. Out of this money
they provided for the expense of the public sacrifices offered in the
name of all the people; both the daily oblations, and those offered
on the sabbaths, new moons, and solemn festivals ; as also salt,
wood, incense for the sacrifices, the sacerdotal vestments, salaries
of several public offices, the reparation of the temple, building or
repairing walls, aqueducts, towers, and other public works which
required a great expense : so that sometimes the money was not
sufficient to defray it. And if any of the money was left, it was
not to be put into the pockets of private persons, but was all to be
laid out in extraordinary burnt offerings, which were called ' the
second sacrifices of the altar. '*
Our author is not content to have forged a poll-tax of a shekel
and a half, and made it part l of the vast revenue of the priests ; '
though it was but half a shekel that was paid, and was a tax upon
the priests, as well as others, for the public service ; but in order to
heighten it, he thinks proper to raise the shekel to four times the
value. He himself owns that it answered by weight to two shillings
and eight pence of our money ; and all those that have made the
most exact computations, have given pretty much the same account
of it :f and yet, presently after, by a pretended comparing it with
other things, he thinks it ought to be valued at twelve shillings of
our money ; but he is so modest as to be willing it should be
reckoned at no more than ten. His reason for thus enhancing the
value of a shekel from half a crown to ten shillings, is, that two
shekels was the price fixed, by the law, for the best fat sacrificial
sheep. But this doth not appear. There is no price fixed, by law,
for such sheep at all ; nor can it be supposed that they were always
of the same price : though if it had been fixed at that rate, it would
only have followed, that sheep were very common in that country,
and very cheap ; which is certainly true. He adds, that ' fifty
shekels was the price fixed for a man slave, and thirty for a woman,*
Lev. xxviii. But that law is not intended at all to fix the prices
at which slaves whether male or female, were to be sold in the
market ; as if no slaves were ever to be sold among the Jews for a
greater price than is there mentioned. They sold them there, as in
other countries, for what they could get, or what they were worth ;
which was sometimes more, sometimes less. Maimonides supposes
* The reader may see all this fully shown, out of the most authentic Jewish writings,
by Mr. Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gent. lib. iv. cap. 5, et De Synedr. lib. iii. cap. 10,
sect. 2, 3, 4.
t See Bishop Cumberland of Scripture weights and measures, cLap. 4 1
424 THE MOSAIC LAW
a servant * might be sometimes worth a hundred pounds, and some-r
times not one. ' See Ainsworth in Exod. xxi. 32. But that law,
Lev. xxvii., relates to the case of persons that had made a singular
vow, as it is called, ver. 2, which was a voluntary thing, to which
no man was obliged, whereby they vowed their own persons, or
their children, or any that belonged to them in property, to be the
Lord's, for the service of his sanctuary, to assist in some meaner
ministrations, &c. In which case they were excused from the
actual performance of the service, and only obliged to pay the va-
luation put upon them ; and this valuation or estimation of their
persons was not arbitrary, left to the pleasure of the priest, but
was fixed by a law at a certain rate never to be exceeded in any
case, in order to prevent any imposition upon them ; though it was
to be diminished if they were poor, and the priest was in that case
to estimate in proportion to the man's ability that had vowed, ver.
8. And the money arising from these estimations did not go to
the private use of the priest, nor was any part of his revemie, but,
like the half-shekel, went to the repairing of the house of God,
and other public uses, 2 Kings xii. 4 10.*
Thus I have distinctly considered every thing our author has
offered to make good his charge of ' twenty shillings in the pound
upon all the lands of Israel,' and by which he undoubtedly intended
to expose the priests and the Mosaic constitution, but has only ex-
posed himself, and shown that he will stick at no artifices or mis-
representations to gain his point. I need not take notice of his
following computations, pp. 140, 141, and which are all built upon
the false and absurd suppositions he had made before. I shall
only observe, that according to his usual way, he repeats what he
had said in his former book, that the ten tribes revolted from Solo-
mon because of the oppression they were under by the law relating,
to the priesthood, and that therefore they never submitted to this
law or priesthood more, p. 140. This is entirely his own fiction ;
since it was the yoke of taxes that Solomon laid upon them which
they complained of; and we find no complaint made by them con-
cerning the priesthood. And though, through the policy of their
kings, they were not suffered to go up to worship at the temple at
Jerusalem, yet the ten tribes had still a priesthood among them to
whom they paid tithes ; and they still continued to offer sacrifices
and free-will offerings as prescribed in the law of Moses. Concern-
ing which, see ' Divine Authority,' p. 192.
In p. 142, he passes by what I had said concerning the nature,
end, and use of expiatory sacrifices under the law, and still declares,
that for his ' life he cannot see that any thing was forgiven by that
law, otherwise than by suffering the penalty prescribed, and thereby
satisfying the law itself.' This, it must be owned, is a strange way
of being forgiven, that is, by suffering the penalty prescribed. But
this, he says, was the difficulty he had urged, that ' there could be
no pardon where no punishment or legal demand is remitted ;' and
* See Maimon. in Crachin. cap. 1, 1. 10.
DEFENDED. . 425
of this, he pretends, I had not been * able to give one instance/ p^
142. But it was plainly shown, that in that constitution sacrifices
were supposed to avert the penalty that would otherwise have been
due. And therefore, in cases where it was necessary for the good
of the community, that the penalty should be actually inflicted for
any particular crimes, sacrifices were never appointed to be offered
for those crimes ; and in cases where sacrifices were appointed, the
penalty that would otherwise have been due was remitted, of which
instances were given.* And upon the man's confessing his fault,
and offering the sacrifice in the manner prescribed, it was declared,
that the ' sin he had committed was forgiven him.' He was thence-
forth clear and free in the eye of the law from the guilt he had con-
tracted. But here, perhaps, I shall be told again, that the sin that
was forgiven the man upon offering his sacrifice was the sin of not
offering his sacrifice, the absurdity of which has been already
exposed. See above, pp. 113, 114.
Our author, who in his former book had asserted, that Moses in
his law made no distinction between morals and rituals ; but urged
all alike merely as the positive will of God, without ever giving any
other reason for it, now is pleased to acknowledge that Moses as
well as the prophets, urges the reasonableness and fitness of the
moral law, though it seems he only did this as a prophet or preacher
of righteousness.t But he denies, that as to the ritual law, Moses
ever urged it from the 'reasonableness and fitness of things, or from
the justice and equity of the ways of God. And he had asserted
in his former book, that the people were never to inquire into the
grounds and reasons for which any of them were appointed. See
Mor. Phil. vol. i. p. 256. But the contrary is evident to any one
that is acquainted with the law of Moses. For with regard to sev-
eral of the ritual precepts, the reasons of appointing them are ex-
pressly declared in the law itself, e. g. in the law of the passover,
Exod. xii. 26, 27, Deut. xvi. 3, and concerning the redemption of
the first-born, Exod. xiii. 14, 15, and in that concerning the Sab-
bath, Exod. xx. 11. xxiii. 12, and in that concerning the offering of
the first-fruits, Deut. xxvi. 1 12, to which many other instances
of the like kind might be added.
This writer has nothing to say for himself in vindication of the
odious representation he had made of the Jews, but that their own
prophets represent them as having been very wicked ; that is, he
applies what was said of them in the time of their greatest degene-
racy and corruption to the whole nation at all times and in all ages.
And whereas I had urged, that the Jews greatly exceeded other
* See Divine Authority, pp. 115, 116. To the instances there mentioned others
might he added : particularly if any person presumptuously and wilfully came into the
sanctuary and did eat of the holy things ia his uncleanness, he was to be cat off from
his people ; that is, as the Jews understand this phrase, he was to be punished by the
hand of God for his presumptuous disobedience, done iu contempt of the law, Lev. vii.
20, 31, Numb. six. 20. But if he did it ignorantly, and came afterwards to know it, a
sacrifice was to be accepted for him, and he was, upon offering it, free from the
penalty. See Ainsworth in Lev. v. 2. 3, &c.
t Concerning this pretence, see what is said above, p, 148.
4*26 THE MOSAIC LAW
nations, in that whilst they governed themselves by their law, they
acknowledged and worshipped the one living and true God, free
from idolatry ; he says, this is a plain proof that I have never read
the history of the Medes and Persians, in Dr. Hyde de Relig. vet.
Persar. And he assures us, as from Dr. Hyde, that the 'Persians
had never, from the very first records of time, fallen into the Sabian
superstition of worshipping idols and tutelar Gods,' p. 144. The
Sabian superstition properly consisted in worshipping the host of
heaven, as the Hebrew word, Saba, from whence it is derived, im-
ports. And this the Persians were guilty of. Though they were
not so corrupted as to lose the knowledge of the Supreme God, yet
they paid adoration to the celestial luminaries. Dr. Hyde himself
acknowledges, that the ' ancient Persians to the primitive orthodox
religion superadded Sabaism, paying too great a veneration to stars
and elements,' cap. i. p. 2. He supposes that the most ancient
Persians were instructed in the true uncorrupted worship of God
by their great progenitors, Shem and Elam, but that afterwards
they lapsed into Sabaism before the time of Abraham, cap. i. p. 3,
4 ; that that patriarch himself was educated in the Sabatical super-
stition, which had then spread generally through the nations, and
that the Persians, as well as others, were involved in it ; but that
Abraham, who had many contentions with the worshippers of the
stars and of fire, introduced a reformation, and with great difficulty
and danger to himself, propagated the true religion in the East ; and
that the Persians probably learned Abraham's religion after his
victory over Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, cap. iii. pp. 84, 86. He
also owns, that after the time of Abraham the Persians relapsed
into Sabaism again, though they still kept themselves free from
image-worship, cap. i. p. 3, 5. He tells us that the Persian priests
in India acknowledge a lawgiver before Zoroaster, whom they call
Poreodekeshangh, who was a teacher of Sabaism, and under whom
there was a diversity of religion from that which afterwards pre-
vailed under Zoroaster, cap. i. p. 17. And after producing a testi-
mony from a Persian writer, in which he affirms, that ' Persse antique
tempore erant de religione Sabaitarum, Stellas colentes, usque ad
tempus Gushtasp filii Lohrasp ;' that ' the Persians in ancient time
were of the religion of the Sabians, worshipping the stars, till the
time of Gushtasp the son of Lohrasp.' The learned doctor makes
this reflection upon it ; ' Tune enim eorum religionem reformavit
Zoroastres ;' that ' at that time Zoroaster reformed their religion;'
that is, he reformed it from Sabaism with which it had been cor-
rupted, cap. iii. p. 87. By this we may see what to judge of the
author's accuracy or sincerity, who represents it as evident from Dr.
Hyde's account, that the Persians never fell into Sabaism from the
first records of their nation.
Indeed Sabaism was the eldest kind of idolatry, and which spread
very early among the Eastern nations. And Moses took particular
cave to guard the Israelites against it, by absolutely forbidding them
to pay any kind of worship to the heavenly luminaries, as was usual
among other nations, and particularly among the Persians. See
.DEFENDED. 427
Deut. iv. 19, ' Lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when
thou seest the sun,' &c.
As to what he farther saith concerning the Jews learning the
doctrine of the resurrection and a future judgment from the Per-
sians, this I had fully considered in my former book ; nor has this,
writer brought any new proof of it, except his confidently affirming
that it is so must pass for a proof. But I shall have occasion to
take notice of this afterwards, for he returns to it again, and insists
upon it more largely in_his seventh section.
CHAPTER VIII.
The oracle of Urim and Thummim not designed to try private judicial causes. The an-
swers of that oracle did not depend on the pleasure of the high-priest. The author's
continued misrepresentation of the story of the Levite's wife, and the war with the
Benjamites, detected." The clear and circumstantial predictions of future events given
by the ancient prophets, a proof of their divine inspiration. Their writings not cor-
rupted by the after revisers and editors. The distinction between the true and the
false prophets asserted against this writer's exceptions. His attempt to vindicate the
charge he had brought against .Samuel. A particular examination of his farther in-
vectives against David.
HE now comes to vindicate what he had said in his former book
concerning the oracle of Urim and Thummim. And he still persists
in it, that it was intended and established by Moses to be the ' ul-
timate resort in all judicial causes, and to decide in private matters
between man and man/ which I had denied. But instead of produ-
cing a proof for this, he only asks the question, ' Why might not
the high-priest consult the oracle privately, in private affairs and
matters of judgment, as well as publicly in public affairs?' The
answer is, because the oracle in its original appointment was not
designed for deciding causes between man and man, but for asking
counsel of God in matters of a public nature. This appears from.
Numb, xxvii. 21. All the Jews with one consent have understood
it so ; all the instances recorded in Scripture in which this oracle
was consulted, are of this kind; not one of them relates to judicial
causes, nor are they once directed in the law to have recourse to
Urim and Thummim, as the ultimate resort in such causes ; but are
directed to the priests and to the judges that should be in these
days. And yet this writer will still persuade us, that to this oracle
was 'the ultimate appeal in all judicial causes, by the establish-
ment of Moses himself.' He finds fault with me for saying that
* it did not depend on the high-priest to give answer by the Urim
and Thummim when he pleased, but depended on the will of God,
428 UIUM AND THUMMIM.
who might withhold his directions, by this oracle, from the chief
rulers or the people, though they applied to him for this purpose.'*
This does not suit his scheme, who makes that oracle nothing else
but the voice of the high-priest himself, who consequently had it
always in his own power. And therefore he denies this, and says
I can produce no authority for it. And whereas I alleged that we
have an instance of this in Saul, who could obtain no answer by
Urim, though he earnestly desired it, he answers, that ' it is no
wonder that neither the priests nor prophets would give Saul any
advice, when they were all in David's interests ; and Saul could
have no other way of consulting with God but by them.' But this
will not do ; for one of the instances wherein Saul consulted the
oracle and could get no answer, was before David was so much as
known or thought of for king. The high-priest whom Saul con-
sulted was in his interests, according to this writer's own represent-
ation, for he was Ahia the son of Ahitub the grandson of Eli, whom
he pretends Saul exalted to the high-priesthood instead of Samuel.
He was then with Saul, and did himself propose consulting God
concerning their pursuing the Philistines ; and it may be gathered
from what is said of this matter, that he would have been glad of
a favourable answer, but could get none at all ; which showed it
was not in his power, nor depended upon his pleasure. And ac-
cordingly Saul himself concluded, that some sin among the people
must have been the cause of it. And what followed plainly showed
that the withholding the answer of the oracle could not be owing to
the high-priest ; for it ended in a discovery that Jonathan had un-
wittingly broken the solemn adjuration or curse which his father
had laid upon all the people, devoting any of them to death that
should eat any thing till evening. The high-priest cannot reason-
ably be supposed to have known this fact of Jonathan's, since none
of the people that saw it would discover it, such was their affection
and esteem for Jonathan ; nor was it otherwise found out than by
casting of lots. Or, if. the high-priest had known it, it would be
absurd to the last degree, to suppose that he who was a friend of
Saul's would have thus contrived to promote the condemnation and
death of his eldest and most beloved son, the favourite of his father
and of the people, and to whom the victory of that day was princi-
pally owing. The whole affair seems plainly to have been under
the immediate direction of divine providence, who ordered it so,
both to show the sacredness of an oath, and to convince Saul of
his great rashness in making such an adjuration. But here is a
plain instance, that the voice of the oracle was a different thing
from the voice of the high-priest, and did not depend upon his
pleasure. See 1 Sam. xiv. 3, 36, 37, &c.
He next comes to the story of the Levite and his concubine,
which he had so basely misrepresented. I considered this fully and
distinctly, and he would fain seem to say something to it, but has
done little more than repeat what he had said in his former book,,
* See ' Divine Authority,' p. 130.
THE LEVITE AND HIS WIFE. 429
without any new force of argument, though with a greater confi-
dence than before.
He had charged the Levite and his wife as having ' raised a mob
about them,' by their ill behaviour when they came into the town
of Gibeah. I had shown that this was a fiction of his own, without
anything in the story to support it. Instead of retracting so
groundless a charge, he still continues to say, that ' this is very
probable by the circumstances of the story/ p. 151, and in the next
page confidently asserts it as if it was a certain fact, but does not
condescend to give the least proof of it, or to answer what[was offered
to the contrary. And whereas he had taken upon him to assert,
that the outrage upon the Levite and his wife was committed in
the middle of the night, with a view to show that the Levite was
carousing till midnight, and that it could not therefore be known
who the authors of the outrage were ; I showed that it may be
concluded from the story, that the outrage happened not long after
the Levite had got into the old Ephraimite's house, which was in
the evening. For the old man found them in the street as he was
returning^ from his work at even, and took them into his house;
where, after having given provender to the asses, they refreshed
themselves, and whilst they were doing so, ' behold the men of the
city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house,' 8cc. Now what does
this writer say to this ? He first supposes me to say that this out-
rage happened in the evening before night, and then sets himself
very gravely to prove, that it must have been night before it hap-
pened, pp. 152, 153. But if he would have said any thing to the
purpose, he should have proved that it was not till midnight, which
he had taken upon him to assert in his former book ; but this he
quietly passes over.
He is pleased to own, that the ' insolence and rage of the mob was
certainly inexcusable, and the guilty ought to have received their
just punishment, could they have been found out and convicted,' p.
151. But he falls heavily upon the Levite for not having taken his
remedy at law, which he assures us was open to him ; and in which
he might have expected the utmost favour, as the supreme power of
the nation was in his tribe. And whereas I had said, there was
then no judge or supreme magistrate in Israel, to whom he might
apply for redress, and for the punishment of so enormous an outrage;
he very boldly pronounces, that this is ' absolutely false, and such a
fiction of my own, that he is astonished at it ; ' and he gives us his
word for it, that since Phineas was high-priest, Othniel or Ehud
must have been judge. I cannot say, that I am ' astonished ' at his
saying this ; but I should have been ' astonished/ if any writer of
credit or reputation had said it : for not only does the historian ex-
pressly declare, that there was no king in Israel, and that every man
did that which was right in his own eyes ; which is as plain a des-
cription as can well be given, that there was then no supreme magis-
trate in Israel, that had the power of the sword ; for by the king
is sometimes understood any single person that had the supreme
authority, Deut. xxxiii. 5. But besides, it appears from all the cir-
430 THE LEVITE AND HIS WIFE.
cumstances of the story, that there was then no judge amongst them,
or any one person that had the supreme power, though there was
an high-priest ; for we find that every thing was done by the elders
of the congregation, as they are called, or the chief of all the people,
or heads of the tribes ; to their direction and appointment every
thing is ascribed from first to last : nor is there the least mention of
any one person to preside over them, or to be their leader, but they
were obliged to consult the oracle to know who should go up first ;
which they needed not to have done, if there had been at that time
a judge, whose office it was to lead and govern them.
There cannot be a more extravagant supposition than that which
this writer has advanced, that the Levite might have had ' a remedy
at law, if he had sued for it; but that he was resolved to make it a
public, national quarrel, and to raise a war upon it, rather than take
any peaceable legal method for redress,' pp. 150, 153. As if a poor
inconsiderable Levite, who does not appear to have been a man of
any note, should form a project of raising a civil war, when at the
same time, he might have had justice done him in a quiet way.
Nor is it a less romantic supposition, that all the tribes of Israel should
engage in his quarrel, when at the same time justice might have
been done, and the injury redressed, in the common legal way. But
he insinuates, that it was because he was a Levite, that there was
such an interest made, and a war raised upon his account ; and that
it is very ' plain, from the whole story, that it was not so much the
injury done, as the person to whom it was done ; that was the great
unpardonable aggravation of the crime,' p. 155. And yet there is
not the least hint of this ; though he says it is very plain from the
whole story. It is the atrociousness of the crime itself, that is re-
presented as the thing which raised so general an indignation in the
people, and not the least stress is laid upon its being an inj ury done
to a Levite.
Our author takes upon him to affirm, with a confidence peculiar
to himself, as if he could certainly prove it, that the ' tribe of Benja-
min were never summoned to come to the assembly of the people,
or to meet the other tribes while they were debating- the matter ;
that they never had an opportunity to confront the Levite, or to clear
themselves, nor time to find out and punish the guilty persons ; yea,
that none of them durst go, and confront, and contradict the Levite,
for fear of being put to the sword.' See pp. 154, 155. All which
are most absurd suppositions, contrary to all reason and common
sense ; as if the Israelites had, from the beginning, resolved not so
much as to hear what the Benjamites had to say for themselves,
and had vowed the destruction of a whole tribe, without giving them
leisure to find out the criminals, when they were willing to have
done it ; though it does not appear that the other tribes, in the be-
ginning of this affair, had the least quarrel or resentment against
the tribe of Benjamin. The Benjamites had notice given them of
the fact itself in the same way that any of the other tribes knew it;
for the Levite sent equally to the twelve tribes of Israel, of which
Benjamin was one. Nor can it, without great absurdity, be sup-
THE BENJAMITISH WAR. 431
posed, that when all the other tribes were summoned to meet at the
general assembly, the tribe of Benjamin should be neglected, that
were most nearly concerned. And besides this, we are expressly
told, that the children of Benjamin heard, that is, they were inform-
ed, that the children of Israel were gone up to Mizpeh, Judges xx.
5. They knew it, but they would not come. Our author's gloss
upon this is very extraordinary : ' Yes/ says he, ' they heard their des-
truction had been resolved upon for an accidental act committed by
night,' p. 152. But this is not true; for their destruction had not
been resolved upon. All that they could hear was, that the tribes
had met to consult and advise upon the matter : and if they had had
intentions to do justice, or showed a just regard to the authority of
the body of their nation, it was their business to have gone too.
And if they had showed a disposition, as this author, without any
proof, would persuade us they did, to find out and punish the cri-
minals ; no doubt this would have satisfied and been very accept-
able to the other tribes, who showed, by their whole proceedings,
how loth they were to break with the Benjamites, and how glad
they would have been to have had them along with them in this
affair. And hence it was, that when the Benjamites did not meet
the other tribes at the general assembly, there was particular care
taken to send special messengers through all the tribes of Benjamin,
to persuade them to do justice, and to deliver up the criminals.
And when they absolutely refused to do this, the tribes came to no
resolution at all to destroy the whole tribe, but only to punish the
inhabitants of Gibeah itself, that were immediately concerned in the
horrid outrage. All this is fully proved in the book this author pre-
tends to answer ;* to which he has nothing to reply, but very wit-
tily would persuade his reader, that ' I am only writing booty, with
a design to betray the cause I would seem to espouse,' p. 152. And
I am persuaded, if this had been the case, or if this author had
thought so, he would have been much better pleased with me than
now he seems to be.
He urges, that it is ' a supposition, not consistent with common
sense, or even with human nature, that a whole city would choose
rather to be put to the sword than give up a few infamous rioters,
had they known them ; or that the whole tribe would have joined
with them, and supported them in this.' pp. 154, 155. And again,
p. 156, he calls it ' a wild supposition, that a whole city and tribe
should choose utter destruction rather than make any reasonable satis-
faction, in their power, for the loss of a single life, and some slight
shown to a private man.' p. 156. Let the reader observe this author's
manner of expressing himself on this occasion, and how tenderly he
speaks. Their offering first to abuse, in an unnatural manner, the
Levite himself, and afterwards abusing and murdering his wife,
* was some slight shown to him.' Thus it is that he is for palliating
so enormous a crime and outrage. As to his pretence, that it is
* See Divine Authority, p. 134, &c.
432 THE BENJAMlTIStt WAft.
absurd to suppose, that the people of Gibeah, or tribe of Benjamin,
would refuse to give up the criminals if they had known them ; this
is directly to contradict the history itself, which assures us, that
they did refuse to deliver up the criminals when demanded, and who
undoubtedly were known well enough.* And supposing them to
have been persons of great interest in Gibeah, and that Gibeah had
a considerable interest in the rest of the tribe of Benjamin; there is
nothing in all this but what is very accountable. It is not indeed
to be supposed that they would have done this, if they had foreseen
the utter destruction that this brought upon them, or had known
that the ' -whole tribe would have been cut in pieces and totally ex-
tirpated,' as this writer expresseth it : but it doth not appear that
they had any apprehension of this. It is plain, from the account
given of them, that the Benjamites were bold and warlike : our au-
thor himself says that they were the ' bravest men and the best sol-
diers in Israel,' p. 158. And they might have such an opinion of
their own skill and courage, as to think themselves a match for the
other tribes, whom they perhaps regarded as an undisciplined, un-
warlike multitude; especially considering the advantageous situation
of Gibeah, which was seated on an eminence, in a mountainous
country. They were in hopes therefore to make them soon weary
of the war ; and this had like to have been the case in fact.
This writer next proceeds, p. 156, to consider the part the oracle
had in this affair ; which is the main thing he ought to prove. I
had shown that there is not the least proof, from the whole story,
that the oracle had any part in any thing that was really wrong or
unjustifiable in this matter. The war itself was undertaken from
a noble principle, and showed a great deal of national virtue, and a
just abhorrence of vice and wickedness : it was strictly justifiable^
as I observed, by the law of nature and nations. Nor has this au-
thor brought any reason, though a great deal of noise to the con-
trary. The utter destruction of the Benjamites and their cities,
that followed the last battle, was indeed very wrong and unjustifi-
able ; but this was done in the heat of blood and resentment, after
the losses they had sustained ; and there is not the least proof that
this was by the direction of the oracle, or that they consulted the
oracle at all about it : on the contrary, the elders, or heads of the
tribes, plainly charged it upon their own rashness, chap. xxi. 2(L
To them also is the destruction of Jabesh Gilead ascribed; who evi-
dently had the power in their hands, and the management of the
whole affair, and not to any direction from the oracle, whom they
did not consult about it. Whatever was wrong therefore in these
matters, was not to be charged upon the oracle, as I plainly showed ;-\
nor has this author been able to return any answer to what was of-
fered on these heads ; yet still goes on to abuse the oracle, and is
resolved that the oracle shall be charged with every thing that was
* See Divine Authority, p. 135, 136.
t Ibid. pp. 136, 137.
THE BENJAM1TISH WAK. -133
done from first to last, and to abuse every body that will not join
with him in charging it too.
As to the question he proposes to me^ p. 157, 'whether the oracle
knew before-hand that the tribes, in the two first attacks, would be
repulsed with the loss of forty thousand men ; and whether he had
then thought of the method he put them in at last, for destroying
the whole city by fire and sword? if he did not know and consider
both these before, he could not be infallible ; and if he did, he
could not be just.' How does this follow? will he pretend there
could be no just reasons why God should see fit to permit that
slaughter of the Israelites, supposing their cause never so just, ex-
cept he knows and is able to assign those reasons ? it is very evi-
dent that in the course of Divine providence, a just cause is often
suffered to be oppressed for a time ; and that wicked men are often
suffered to vanquish those that are much better than themselves.
This author talks as if, whenever any army beats another, it is
a declaration of providence, that the conquerors are in the right.
For he saith, that the great defeat of the Israelites, by the Benja-
mites, seemed to be a plain indication of providence, that the
cause of the Israelites was not just, p. 157. And he has it over
again, in the same page, that this, one would think, must have been
asufficient declaration from providence of the injustice of their cause;
and at that rate, when they overcame the Benjamites in the third
battle, it was a declaration that their cause was just, and Benjamin
in the wrong. So that, according to him, providence declared the
same cause to be both just and unjust. But will this author, in
good earnest, undertake to prove, that it is unjust in providence ever
to suffer an army to be slaughtered that are engaged in. a just war,
and that have the better cause ; or that God can have no reasons
for permitting this, though we find in fact, he frequently permits it?
He concludes what he had said about the affair of the Benjamite
war, with an observation that is exactly of a piece with all the rest,
and every way worthy of himself. I had said, that ' all this is com-
monly and justly thought to have happened between the death of
Joshua and the elders who survived him, and the appointment of
judges ; the first of whom was Othniel.' He pronounces, that this
is a very peculiar conceit. But, says he, ' there was really no such
interval, noris it thus commonly thought or supposed, by any learn-
ed man, that I know of, or by any man acquainted with the present
state of chronology. It is now commonly thought, that the several
intervals of servitude, mentioned in the book of Judges, must be in-
cluded in the reigns of the judges themselves. ' p. 159. This wri-
ter could not more effectually expose himself, than by talking at
this rate. To what purpose is it to talk here of the intervals of ser-
vitude being included in the reigns of the judges, when, at the time
of this war, the Israelites were not in a state of servitude at all?
Sir John Marsham, who is one of the principal authors of the scheme
he mentions, of including the years of servitude in the reigns of the
judges, yet places the war with the Benjamites where I placed it,
before Othniel, the first of the judges ; and I suppose, he will allow
F F
443 DEFENCE OF PROPHECY.
him to have been a learned man, and well acquainted with chrono-
logy. Archbishop Usher does the same ; and I suppose he will be
allowed to have been a good chronologer too.* I might add many
more ; nor do I know any chronologer of reputation, but what is
of this opinion, <-
He next comes to vindicate what he had said concerning the
order of academical prophets, as he calls them ; and, which is plea-
sant enough, he finds fault with me for supposing, that ' schools
of the prophets were public seminaries of learning, like our univer-
sities and academies now;' which he pronounces to be a mere
fiction, p. 161. But the fiction is his own; for I never supposed
any such thing. I supposed them indeed to be employed in sacred
exercises, in the knowledges of the law and of religion ; and that
they were instrumental to instruct the people, who were wont, at
stated times, to have recourse to the prophets for instruction.-f-
And this writer himself here supposes the same thing, p. 161.
But I never imagined them to be professors of divinity, law, or
physic ; nor need he use any arguments to convince me that they
were not so : though he himself, in his former book, had talked of
their being ' devoted to learning, and studying history, rhetoric,
poetry, and the knowledge of nature.' See Mor. Phil. vol. i.
p. 282.
He begs leave to make two remarks before he enters on a parti-
cular consideration of what I had offered with regard to prophecy.
The first is, that he had never denied the punctual circumstantial
accomplishment of some of the prophecies ; and that therefore
what I offer on this head is nothing to the argument, so far as
he is concerned in it. But I believe any one that considers the
passages I had produced from his former book, will be of opinion,
that he was very loth to own that the prophets were very ' particu-
lar and circumstantial in their prophecies as to time, place, per-
sons,' &c, and therefore I thought it proper to produce several
plain instances of such particular and circumstantial prophecies,
and which cannot be accounted for, in the way he pretended to
account for them, by mere human prudence; for he would not
allow, that they had the ' knowledge of things future communi-
cated to them in a supernatural way, 1 See Moral Phil. vol. i. pp.
288, 289. But however, I accept the author's present concession,
and undertake to show, that the predictions I mentioned were of
such a kind, that no human sagacity could have enabled any man
to foretel them ; and that there is no rational way of accounting for
them, but in a way of supernatural extraordinary revelation from
God himself.
Any one that reads the prophetical writings will find that they
every where exhibit the noblest notions of the Deity, of his provi-
dence and perfections, and every where manifest a hearty concern
for the divine glory, for the interests of piety and virtue, and a de-
* See Marsham's Canon Chron. Sacul. si. Usher. Annal. Vet. Testam. p.mihi 42.
t See " Divine Authority," p. 140.
DEFENCE OF PROPHECY. 435
testation of vice and wickedness ; that the uniform tendency of all
their writings, is to promote the cause of God and real religion in
the world; that with an impartial zeal, they reprove the kings,
princes, priests, and the body of the people ; though thereby they
exposed themselves to great sufferings and persecutions. And any
one that considers this, cannot but conceive a high esteem for them
as very excellent persons, filled with a zeal for goodness and right-
eousness ; and when he farther considers that they professed to be
extraordinarily sent of God, and delivered their messages in his
name, and as what they received by immediate inspiration from
him ; and that, at the same time, they were enabled in many in-
stances to give circumstantial predictions of future events, which it
was impossible for human sagacity to foresee, and which could only
be known to him who governs the world, whose eye penetrates
through all ages, &c. This, joined with the other, furnishes an
illustrious proof of their divine inspiration and mission ; that they
were indeed holy men of God, who ' spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost ;' that therefore the highest regard is to be paid to
the messages they delivered in his name, which are to be received
and submitted to as of divine authority* It is nothing to the pur-
pose to insinuate, as this writer does, p. 200, ' that the devil, or evil
spirits, can foreknow things that we are ignorant of;' for though we
may suppose that in many cases, by their greater sagacity and ex-
perience, they may foresee and give a much more probable conjecture
at future events than the wisest of men ; yet there are many of the
predictions uttered by the prophets, which no evil spirits can be
reasonably supposed to foreknow, except we suppose their under-
standing is infinite and capable of taking in the whole complexion
of events ; and that they have the government of the world in their
hands, and can order the affairs of men according to their will.
But besides this, if we should suppose it in their power to foretel
such events, it is absurd to imagine that they would lend their
assistance to give authority to those prophets, and the messages
they delivered in the name of God ; which were all manifestly in-
tended, as has been shown, to restrain men from idolatry and sin^
and to promote the cause of piety and virtue in the world; This
writer himself, in his letter to Eusebius, pp. 61, 62, seems to own,
that they might be ' immediately inspired of God and supernaturally
assisted in the knowledge of future events ; but that this cannot
alter the nature and tendency of doctrines ; that notwithstanding
they might be greatly mistaken, and very erroneous in doctrinals of
great consequence.' But since they delivered their messages as in
the name and as by the immediate authority of God himself, with a
{ Thus saith the Lord,' it cannot consistently be supposed that God
would inspire them in so many wonderful instances with the infal-
lible knowledge of future events, to give an authority to the mes-
sages they delivered in his name, if those messages did not indeed
proceed from him, but were their own invention, abusing his sacred
name and authority ; and therefore what they thus delivered under
his inspiration, must be to be depended on, if the Word of God be
F F 2
436 DEFENCE OF PROPHECY.
so. And a succession of such excellent persons, thus extraordinarily
inspired from God, delivering messages in his name, all concurring
to give a uniform testimony both to the divine authority of the dis-
pensation they were then under, and to prepare men for a future
dispensation that was to succeed, must have been of signal use, and
have tended to give an illustrious atttestation and confirmation to
both.
But our author's second remark is intended to deprive us of the
advantage we might have hoped to make of his seeming concession
in the first ; for he tells us, that ' it is very difficult, it' not impossi-
ble, for us now to distinguish what was really prophetic in those
writings from what is barely historical.' His meaning evidently is,
that we cannot now distinguish the original predictions, as written
by the prophets themselves, from the additions that were inserted
afterwards ; for some persons, when an event was over, might insert
passages in the prophetical writings, which seemed to foretel that
event, on purpose that they might pass for predictions or prophe-
cies. Thus, notwithstanding the concession he had made of the
prophets having given circumstantial predictions of future events ;
yet, according to him, it is impossible to prove that ever they gave
such predictions. But such a loose and general charge as this
proves nothing at all but the author's inclination- to destroy the
authority of all prophecy, which we knew well enough before.
But let us hear what he offers to confirm this. He urges, that
' it is well known to the learned, that most or all of those books
have been revised and altered by after-editors, who took the liberty
to add or supply what they thought fit ; and therefore they might
sometimes supply the particular times and circumstances in prophe-
cies, which at first had been delivered only in general.' But this
is entirely misrepresented. It is true that some learned persons
have been of opinion, that Ezra and the men of the great synagogue,
who revised the sacred books after the return from the Babylonish
captivity, and took care for a full and correct edition of them, did
here and there insert some clauses for the illustration of some par-
ticular passages in those original records.* They sometimes cast
in things by way of parenthesis, for connecting and illustrating the
text, in order to render the Scriptures more plain and intelligible to
the people. Old names that were grown obsolete were sometimes
changed for names that were better known ; and where there were
catalogues or genealogies, something was added, in some cases, to
bring them down to their own times. These insertions are very few
in number, and the sense will be found complete without them. I
shall not at present inquire whether there be a just foundation for
this supposition ; though, as to the instances of this kind produced
by the learned Dr. Prideaux, I think they are far from proving it,
and that they may without much difficulty be otherwise accounted
for. But not to insist upon this, I would observe, that something
* See Prideaux's Connexion, &o. part I. book v. pp. 343, 344, and book viii. pp.
573, 574, 4th edition.
DEFENCE OF PROPHECY. 437
of this kind may be admitted without weakening the authority of
the sacred writings. And the revisers might be supposed to insert
such clauses as these, in an entire consistency with the utmost ven-
eration for those writings, and without intending the least corruption
of them. But this is of a quite different kind from what this writer
here supposes ; who insinuates that the editors of the sacred books
have taken such liberties, that it is impossible to know what was in
those original records. And particularly with regard to the pro-
phetical writings, they have inserted express predictions relating to
particular times,, persons, and circumstances, that were not in the
writings of the prophets themselves. But this must have been by
a designed and wilful corruption, and by forging entire prophecies
after the event ; which is quite a different thing from what those
learned men suppose, under whose authority this writer thinks fit to
cover himself. Thus, e. g. if all the predictions in the prophecies
of Isaiah, that are express and circumstantial, must be supposed
to have been inserted by after-editors, who revised those prophecies,
they must have taken the most scandalous liberties, and have forged
almost the whole prophecy. The seventh chapter of Isaiah, which
contains so particular and express a prophecy concerning the de-
struction of Ephraim and Syria, and fixes the time for it ; and the
account of the child by the prophetess, with the name of the child,
Maher-shalal-hash-baz ; and the reason of it, that before he could
say father or mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Sa-
maria should be taken away by the king of Assyria, chap. viii. ; his
wonderful prophecy concerning Babylon, and its being conquered
by the Medes, and afterwards brought to a perpetual desolation,
chap. xiii. ; his predictions concerning the spoiling of Moab within
three years, and of Kedar within a year, chap. xvi. xxi. and con-
cerning the overthrow of Tyre, and its restoration at the end of
seventy years, chap, xxiii. ; his whole admirable prophecy concern-
ing the sudden destruction of Sennacherib and his army, and the
deliverance of Jerusalem, at a time when there was not the least
likelihood of either, uttered to king Hezekiah, who sent to inquire of
him concerning it, chap, xxxvii. ; the whole account of his foretell-
ing Hezekiah's recovery, and that fifteen years should be added to
his life, chap, xxxviii. ; and his prophecy that king Hezekiah's
treasures and his posterity should be carried to Babylon, so many
years before it happened, and when there was not the least prospect
of such an eveut, chap, xxxix. ; all that is foretold concerning Cyrus,
and the restoration of the Jews by him, with the noble triumphs
made on this occasion over all the heathen deities, as unable to
foretel things to come, in the forty-fifth and several other chapters ;
all these things, that is, a great part of the book, must have been
forged and inserted afterwards. I might observe the same thing
with regard to the prophecies of Jeremiah. A large part of his
book, particularly the xxv. xxvii. xxviii. xxix. xliv. xlvi. xlix. 1. and
li. chapters; all which contain several admirable and circumstantial
predictions of future events, relating to particular persons by name,
and to the fates of nations, of Jude.a, Babylon, Egypt, and other
438 DEFENCE OF PROPHECY.
countries, &c. must, upon this author's scheme, have been added
by the editors. And the same thing might be said with regard to
others of. the prophets, especially Daniel. All the six last chapters
of that book, and most of the former must have been one entire
forgery. And indeed, I think he bad better have carried his sup-
position a little farther, and have supposed the after-editors, as he
calls them, to have forged the whole, and put an entire new body of
prophecies upon the world, under the names of the ancient prophets.
And yet even this would not answer his end. For let him assign
what time he pleases to those editors, I will still undertake to prove,
that there are several passages in those prophecies that contain
predictions concerning events that happened after their time, and
which it was impossible for any human sagacity to foresee.
But the truth is, his supposition is the most wild and arbitrary in
the world. It is perfectly unreasonable, and has nothing to support
it but a determined resolution not to believe. For first, there is no
reason to think that the editors had it in their power to have cor-
rupted the prophetical books in the manner he supposes, if they had
an inclination to do it. Though the prophets had, many of them,
been treated very ill by the princes and the people of the Jews in
their life-time, for their impartial rebuking them for their sins and
vices, and on the account of their foretelling the calamities that
should befal them ; yet afterwards their characters were held in
a profound esteem and veneration by the whole nation, because^they
found their predictions had been punctually accomplished, and they
were convinced that they were indeed excellent persons, who had
been extraordinarily inspired of God. They themselves committed
their own prophecies to writing, and they were looked upon as sa-
cred, and preserved with care. The vision of Isaiah the son of
Amoz is cited in the second book of Chronicles, chap, xxxii. 32,
and appealed to as a book well known and in use. Jeremiah, by
divine command, published all his own prophecies in his life-time :
and when the roll in which they were written was burnt, Baruch
was ordered to write them from Jeremiah's mouth a second time.
See Jer. xxxvi. 2, 4, 32, xlv. 1. Besides which, several of his pro-
phecies were expressly sent by him from Judea, to those of the Jews
who were then dwelling at Babylon. See particularly chap, xxiv.
li. What was said to Habbakkuk, chap, ii, 2, was equally the di-
vine command to the other prophets, ' Write the vision.' And these
writings were spread among the Jews ; and they would be the more
careful to preserve them, especially in the time of their captivity, as
they contained predictions in which they had a near concern. Par-
ticularly, it appears from Daniel ix, 2, that he had Jeremiah's pro-
phecies in his hands, and carefully perused them. The veneration
that was universally had for the prophets, from the time of their
return from the Babylonish captivity, appears from the public
solemn confession made in the name of all the people, when they
were assembled together. Nehem. ix. 30, where they confess that
God had 'testified against them by his Spirit, in the prophets ;' and
acknowledge it as their great guilt, that they had not hearkened to
DEFENCE OF PHOPHECY. 439
them. When therefore Ezra set himself to restore and settle the
Jewish state, by commission from Artaxerxes, and to put every
thing on a proper footing, the writings of the prophets were not
new things, but writings that were already known, and to which
there was paid a great regard. And therefore he could not have
mangled and interpolated the prophetical writings to so strange a
degree as this writer must suppose upon his scheme, but the forgery
and corruption must have been detected and exposed ; especially
considering that Ezra had enemies, and met with considerable op-
position in his intended reformation, even from several of the priests;
And any others that succeeded Ezra would have found it still more
difficult to have altered and corrupted those sacred books, and to
have imposed them upon the Jews, both in Judea and throughout
the Eastern provinces, for the true uncorrupted writings of the
prophets.
But besides, it cannot reasonably be supposed, either that Ezra,
or the men of the great synagogue, could have been capable of a
conduct so little reconcilable to truth and honesty. Ezra, by all
the accounts we have of him, and by the honourable testimony
given of him by the king of Persia himself, was a person of an
excellent character, and has accordingly been regarded by the
whole nation ever since with the highest esteem. The men of the
great synagogue were persons of eminence and worth, and who had
too great a veneration for the sacred writings to be guilty of such,
deliberate forgery. Or, if they were capable of such a design, it
cannot be conceived what inducement they had to attempt it. The
prophetical writings make a disadvantageous representation of the
Jews, whose great corruption and degeneracy, and particularly the
corruption of the priesthood, is there described in the strongest
colours. The faults of kings, princes, priests, and people are im-
partially related ; the folly of relying upon sacrifices and other ritual
parts of religion, to the neglect of substantial piety and righteous-
ness, is strongly represented. The rejection of the Jews is foretold,
and the calling of the Gentiles. It is plainly intimated, that the
Mosaical economy should be abolished, and a new dispensation
introduced. Can it be thought that Ezra, who was a priest, and
the men of the great synagogue, who were many of them priests,
would have taken such pains to forge a great number of passages,
containing express circumstantial predictions, on purpose to
strengthen the authority of writings which were far from giving
an advantageous idea, either of their priesthood or of their nation ;
and which were in many instances contrary to the favourite. preju-
dices and expectations of the people, as well as to what might be
supposed to be the particular interests of the priests ? It might
rather have been concluded, that if they durst have presumed to
lay their sacrilegious hands upon those sacred writings, they would
have corrupted and interpolated them in favour of their own inter-
ests and prejudices, and struck out those passages that had a
contrary aspect ; which yet we find they have not done.
Our author, in order to throw a slur upon the prophets, had con-
440 DEFENCE OF PROPHECY.
founded the true prophets of the Lord with the false ones, In op-
position to which, I observed the remarkable difference the Scrip-
ture puts between one and the other; and that no argument can be
brought from the false prophets to the prejudice of the true. But
he still persists in it, that the one of these were as truly prophets of
God as the other. He urges, that ' the prophets were a regular
fixed society, instituted by Samuel, who were to subsist and hold
together by their own laws and constitution, as the priesthood had
been instituted by Moses ; and while they continued in the same
society and order, without being opposed or expelled by their own
laws and original constitutions, they were true prophets or prophets
of the Lord, as well as the priests were priests of the Lord, though yet
either the one or the other might be very bad men,' pp. 164, 165.
And he talks to the same purpose again, p. 205. But the parallel
lie mentions will not hold ; for as to the priesthood, all that was
necessary by the Mosaical law to denominate a man a priest, was
that he should be of the order and family of Aaron. Those that
were of that family were priests of course, and no others were ad-
mitted to be so. But there is no law or constitution, that all that
were in what he calls the prophetical colleges should be of course
regarded as the prophets of the Lord, and that no others were to be
accounted as such. I wish he had been pleased to tell us where we
are to find the laws and constitutions of the prophetical society that
he talks of. The utmost that can be gathered from the accounts
given us in Scripture concerning those prophetical schools or col-
leges, is no more than this, that there were sacred societies gathered
together under the direction of one or more prophets eminently so
called, where persons were employed in sacred exercises ; and that
to these probably the people had recourse for instruction. And I
observed, that the name of prophets might be sometimes ascribed in
a larger sense to those that abode in those sacred societies, though
they did not pretend to extraordinary inspiration ; as the word pro-
phecy is also sometimes taken in a large sense, where no inspiration
is intended. But if we speak of prophets in the strict and proper
sense, as persons professing to be ex.traordinai'ily inspired of God, it
doth not appear that there was any society or college, in which all
that belonged to it, or were governed by the rules of it, were of
course to be regarded as true prophets of the Lord, as much and as
properly as % all of Aaron's family were to be regarded as priests.
This is the author's own imagination, and of which he is not able
to produce the least proof. For though it might well be, that some
of those that were prepared and educated in those sacred seminaries,
might become prophets in the strict sense, yet neither all that were
thus educated were prophets, nor was it judged necessary to be in
those seminaries in order to persons being accounted true prophets
of the Lord ; of which several instances might be given, and our
author himself owns it. No man was esteemed a prophet in the
proper sense, except he was looked upon to be extraordinarily in-
spired of God. And if he was regarded as thus inspired, he was
looked upon as a prophet, whether he belonged to these colleges or
DEFENCE OF PROPHECY. 441
not. He that really was inspired and sent of God, was a true pro-
phet of the Lord, and he that only falsely pretended to inspiration
was a false prophet. It will be easily acknowledged, that there
were many such false pretenders to prophecy among the Jews. And
if this writer can prove that any of the prophets whose writings we
admit as of divine authority were such, he will say something to the
purpose ; otherwise it is no prejudice at all to the authority of the
true prophets of the Lord, that there were false pretenders to inspir-
ation. Concerning these, it is often expressly declared, that God
did not send them nor speak by them ; that he gave them no com-
mand, and that they ' prophesied a false vision, and the deceit of
their own heart.' Such were Ahab's 400 prophets, who were called
Ahab's prophets, not merely because they were his subjects, as he is
pleased to represent it ; but because they were the court prophets,
prophets not of God's sending, but of Ahab's choosing ; and who
made it their business to attend and flatter the court, and prophesy
whatever they thought would please the king. This writer indeed
seems surprised that I have the front to say, that ' the 400 prophets
who prophesied falsely were not prophets of the Lord, and that if I
credit the historian, 1 must see that they were prophets of the Lord,
and that the Lord himself in this case did deceive them, by sending
out a lying spirit among them, with a commission to give them a
false vision for the destruction of Aliab.' pp. 204, 205. But all
that can be gathered from the account the historian gives of them,
is that that they pretended to be true prophets of the Lord, but
were not so. And as to the parabolical vision of the prophet Mi-
caiah, who is plainly distinguished from those pretended prophets,
and opposed to them, though every expression and circumstance in
representations of this kind is not to be strained to the utmosfe
vigour ; yet the general design is plain, which is to signify, that
they were false prophets acted by a lying spirit, and that God suf-
fered Ahab to be given up to their delusions, as a just punishment
on him for his crimes.* After all, it is not such prophets as these
that our moral philosopher bends his invectives against, and re-
proaches with so much bitterness. It is not the prophets that
caresped and nattered the king and people, that prophesied smooth
* As to what this writer talks of its being an established maxim among them, that if
a ' prophet was deceived the Lord deceived that prophet,' I suppose he refers to that
passage, Ezek. xiv. 9, which evidently relates to the false prophets, that ' prophesied
lies in the name of God,' concerning whom he had been speaking throughout the whole
preceding chapter. And it is manifest that the intention of these expressions was not
to signify, that God himself inspired those prophets with the lying messages they de^
livered in his name. For this he expressly disclaims. He declares that he did not send
them, and had not spoken to them, and that they ' prophesied out of their own heart,
and followed their own spirit, chap xiii. 2, 3, 6, 7, see also Jer. xiv. 13, 14. The only
sense therefore that these words are capable of, is that he gave up these false prophets to
their own delusions, or permitted evil spirits to seduce them, as a just punishment for
their wickedness and for the wickedness of the people who refused to hearken to the
admonitions of the true prophets and followed the false ones, only because they flattered
and countenanced them in their vices. So the apostle Paul, speaking of those that 're-
ceived not the love of the truth that they might be saved,' saith, that God would send
them ' strong delusions that they should believe a lie.' 2 Thess. ii. 10, 11, see concerning-
this, ' Answer to Christianity,' &c. vol. ii. pp. 369 372.
442 DEFENCE OF PROPHECY.
things, and talked of nothing but peace and prosperity to them
whilst they were going on in their wicked courses. These are not
the prophets whom he represents as public incendiaries, the plagues
and enemies of their country ; but it is the true prophets of the Lord
against whom he manifests such an envenomed spite and malice ;
those who with a noble impartial zeal and freedom, reproved the
idolatries and other faults and vices of the kings, priests, false pro-
phets and people, and delivered the messages they received from
God, without regard to their own interest.
As to what he insinuates, that the people had no way of distin-
guishing between the true prophets and the false ones, I showed,
that there were remarkable characters whereby they might be easily
distinguished. And though the princes and people did not pay that
just regard to the true prophets of the Lord that they ought to have
done ; it was not that they were not convinced in their consciences
that they were true prophets sent from God, but it was because
they were strongly addicted to their vices, and could not bear their
impartial reproofs, and liked those best that soothed and flattered
them. With regard to the case the author puts concerning Hana-
niah and Jeremiah, who ' prophesied vehemently one against the
other, and declared in the name of the Lord quite contrary things,'
p. 166, the king and people needed not to have been so much at a
loss as he represents it. For when Jeremiah denounced against
Hananiah, that that very year he should die, because he had taught
rebellion against the Lord ; which was accordingly accomplished,
for he died that year in the seventh month ; this and other things
might have convinced them that Jeremiah was a true prophet of
the Lord, and should have engaged them to attend to his pathetical
warnings, and the solemn messages he delivered to them in the
name of God.
This writer had expressly charged the prophets as being the au-
thors of all the insurrections and commotions in the kingdom of
Israel for three hundred years. He enters upon a vindication of
what he had offered on this subject, with observing, pp. 166, 167,
that the quarrel between him and me is, because he cannot 'believe
the infallibility of the Hebrew historians.' Whereas this is not the
present question between us at all. But what I blame him for is,
because he pretends, from those very historians, to charge the pro-
phets with all the confusions and distractions of the state, directly
contrary to plain truth and fact. Whether he supposes those his-
torians fallible or not, he ought not to represent them as saying
things which they never said, and after feigning history and facts
out of his own brain, to put it upon the reader that he has the
Hebrew historians for his vouchers.
He attempts, p. 168, &c. to vindicate what he had said concern-
ing Saul's being obliged by Samuel to lead a private life twenty
years at least after his first inauguration at Mizpeh. He assures
his reader, that he had ' confirmed this by circumstances of the
history which I could not answer.' And if the reader will take
his word for this, it is well ; but if he will judge for himself, and
DEFENCE OF PROPHECY. 443
compare what our author had said in his former book, p. 294, with
the answer I returned, ' Divine Authority,' p. 157, he will find
that this is as true as this writer's confident assertions generally
are. It was not a wise thing in him to put the reader in mind of
this matter at all, except he could have offered something more to
the purpose than now he has been able to do. But that he may
seem to say something, he represents me as laying a great stress
upon the chronology of Josephus, and then sets himself to prove,
that his chronology is not much to be depended on ; whereas it was
he that had laid a stress upon Josephus' testimony, and I had no
farther occasion to mention it, than to show that if he governed
himself by Josephus' authority, it was against him. As to what he
now adds, that we hear nothing of Samuel's great age when Saul
was first anointed king; whereas when he was confirmed in his
kingdom at Gilgal, he represents himself as grown very old ; it is
certain that before Saul was anointed king at all, Samuel is repre-
sented as old, and therefore taking his sons to assist him in admin-
istering justice to the people, 1 Sam. viii. 1, 5 ; and how long he
lived afterwards, or how old he was when he died, we cannot tell.
Eli, who was judge before him, lived till he was near a hundred
years old.
He enters next upon a digression concerning the revenues of the
high-priest, and the great court he kept, which he assures us * was
more splendid and numerous than any prince in the world had ; and
that therefore it was impossible that any other public, splendid, or
numerous court should be kept by any revennes from the people,
without seizing upon and detaining a considerable part of the legal
rights and dues of the priesthood ;' and that Saul accordingly took
a great part of those revenues to support his own court, &c. pp.
171, 172. This all proceeds upon the supposition of the truth of
what he had advanced before ; that the legal priesthood had above
twenty shillings in the pound upon all the lands- of Israel. But as
this is his own fiction, what he here builds upon it falls to the
ground. It appears, from what has been before observed, that as
the Israelites by their original constitution, had each of them lands
of inheritance, which they occupied, and had no proper landlords to
whom they were to pay rent ; even supposing them to have paid an
annual rent to the priests, as much as those in other nations pay
their landlords, which is the author's supposition, they might still
have it in their power to pay taxes to their kings, as well as people
in other countries both pay rents to their landlords, and many taxes
to the state, besides dues to the priests. But this was not the case ;
the revenues of the priests under the law fell vastly short of this
writer's computation, as I have shown. And the people might pay
taxes sufficient to support the expense and grandeur of the king's
court, and pay all the legal dues to the priests too, without being
impoverished more than other nations. And as kings were their
own choice, if it brought an additional burden upon them more
than was laid upon them by their original constitution, they had
nobody to blame but themselves; and it must be supposed they
444 DEFENCE OF PROPHECY.
were willing to support it, since they were warned of the expense
when they first entered on that form of government.
As to what he says, pp. 173, 174, &c. concerning ' Solomon's
dispensing with the people's paying sacrifices and other church
dues, because they were not able to support the expense, and pay
the taxes to the crown ;' and that this raised the priests against him
with whom the prophets conspired ; and that after his death the
ten tribes revolted from Rehoboam, because he would not promise
or secure to them an ' exemption from the burden of the legal
priesthood ;' it is all pure fiction and romance, without any thing
from the history to support it. Yea, it is directly contrary to the
history, which informs us that what the people complained of, was
the load of taxes and impositions Solomon had laid upon them,
which they wanted to be taken off or mitigated. Whereas, accord-
ing to this faithful relater, it was not the taxes Solomon had laid
upon them that was the cause of their complaint. On the contrary
Solomon had eased them of the burden they groaned under, which
was that of the church dues and legal priesthood ; and all that they
desired of Rehoboam was, only to be continued in the same exemp-
tion from this burden in which Solomon had indulged them. And
is not this a very fit man to be trusted in his representation of facts,
that can thus at pleasure deny the account given in the history,
and forge a quite contrary one, and that with as much confidence
as if it were certainly true, and he could produce authentic memoirs
for it ?
He had said, Mor. Phil. vol. 1, p. 295, that ' it is plain from the
history, that Samuel had taken upon him the priesthood, and had
usurped it from the family of Eli. ' In answer to which, it was ob-
served, that this is his own imagination, and that there is not one
word in the whole history to support it. Nor can I conceive how
Samuel could make such a solemn appeal as he did to the whole
nation, that he had wronged and defrauded no man, if he had
wronged the family of Eli of the high priesthood, and usurped it
for many years, when it did not belong to him. But our author is
resolved still to persist in his charge, and after some observations
upon * false glasses and spectacles,' refers me to several texts, which
he desires me to consult, viz. 1 Sam. vii. 9, ix. 12, x. 8, xi. 14, 15.
I have consulted them, and find not one word about Samuel's high-
priesthood, except his offering sacrifices be allowed as a proof of it,
which any of the other priests could have done as well as the high-
priest. Nor can it be proved, that he himself personally officiated
in offering those sacrifices,* but only that they were offered in his
presence, and by his order. So we find it is afterwards said of
Saul, that he offered sacrifices, and of David, and of Solomon, and
other kings that they offered sacrifices though they did not do it in
person, but did it by the hand of the priests who attended them ;
and for any thing this writer can prove, it might be so with Samuel
too : for it doth not so much as appear, that he was a priest, or of
* 1 Sam. siii. 9, 10. 2 Sam. vi. 17. xv. 12. xxiv. 25. 1 Kings iii. 15. viii. 62, 63, 64.
DEFENCE OF PROPHECY. 445
the family of Aaron ; rather it may be gathered from 1 Chron. vi.
33, 34, that he was of one of the families of the common Levites.
And the great eminency he bore in presiding in the public solem-
nities, which this author urges, was wholly owing to his being an
eminent prophet, and to his having exercised the office of judge of
Israel, which was a distinct thing from the high-priesthood ; nor
had there been any one of the wh~ole number of judges that was an
high-priest, except Eli.
He passes over all he had farther said to defame Samuel, with
only observing, that it was what might naturally be concluded from
the history, though I showed that the very, contrary appears from
it ; and then proceeds to his favourite subject, a declamation against
David, whom he had before represented under the most odious
character possible ; and now, instead of retracting any part of the
infamous reproach he had thrown upon that great prince, abuses
him in a more outrageous manner than before.
I had shown in my former book, that David's conduct towards
Saul was incomparably noble, loyal, and virtuous, and such as
tendeth to form in every impartial mind a high idea of his eminent
virtues, and of the generous and excellent disposition of his soul.
This author, without troubling himself to answer what was alleged
to prove this, continues to charge him with rebellion and treason,
as he had done before. He first accuses him for having got some
persons about him for his defence, though, as Grotius observes, he
never did this till he found by many certain proofs, and by the ad-
vice of Saul's own son Jonathan, that that prince was absolutely
determined to destroy him ; and, which is highly to bis honour,
when he had got that band of men with him, never committed the
least act of violence against his king, or country. And then he
blames him for flying to the Philistines, when he should rather
have found fault with Saul for having by his continual persecutions
forced him to abandon his country. And there could not be a
greater proof of the extreme distress he was reduced to, by the
cruel rage and jealousy of Saul, than that he was obliged to com-
mit himself to the mercy of open enemies, to whom he had done
great mischief, and among whom he run the utmost hazard of his
life. If in that dangerous situation he did things through fear that
were unjustifiable, a candid mind would have pitied the distress he
was reduced to, and have made allowances for the frailty of human
nature in such circumstances. But every fault of David, with this
writer, is a proof of the most determined villany and hypocrisy.
His dissimulation with Achish, king of the Philistines, is exagge-
rated to the highest degree. He represents him as having destroyed
all the south coasts of Philistia, when at the same time he pretended
to king Achish, that he had made an inroad on the south of Judah.
But this is not fairly represented. The nations David invaded were
the Geshurites, and Gezerites (who were both of them, as Grotius
shows, reliques of the ancient Canaanites) and the Amalekites ; and
these nations really Jay to the south of Judah : so that when David
said he had made an inroad 'against' the south of Judah, and
446 DEFENCE OF ^PROPHECY.
against the south of the Jerahmeelites, and against the south of
the Kenites, ' he said nothing but what was true ; for he had in-
vaded the nations that lay to the south of these ; though no doubt
Achish understood him, that he had invaded the land of Judea
itself, and David was willing that he should understand it so. See
1 Sam. xxvii. 8, 9, 10. If David had been a Roman hero, and
his actions had fallen into the hands of their eloquent historians, I
doubt not high encomiums would have been bestowed on his emi fc
nent patriotism and love to his country, even when he was banished
from it ; that no resentment for the unjust and barbarous treatment
he had met with, nor even the necessity he seemed to be then un-
der to please those among whom he resided, and whose protection
he sought, could prevail with him to turn his arms against his
country.
He goes on to assure us, that the ' Philistines now thought them-
selves pretty sure of David,' and represents him as having * pre-
vailed with them to raise a mighty army against Israel; ' as if their
raising an army was owing to his solicitations and interest; (of
which there is not the least hint in the whole account, but the
author's malice against David, must in this and other instances
pass for proof) and yet in the same breath he declares, that the
Philistines would not trust him, and blamed Achish for his good
opinion of this artful fugitive, p. 178. And then, after informing
us of an interview between David and Jonathan, a few days before
the last battle ; though the last interview between them that the
history informs us of was at least two years before ; see 1 Sam.
xxiii. 17, 18. And after most absurdly insinuating that David
sent Jonathan into the army to be killed in battle, as if that brave
person Jonathan was of so mean a spirit, that he would not have
gone to the army to assist his father and his country, if David had
not put him upon it ; he very pertinently observes, that ' this con-
duct towards Jonathan ' (though nothing appears but what was
noble and generous on both sides) ' gives me a true idea of the
sanctity and fidelity of this divine hypocrite.' And I may much
more justly say, that this way of representing things, gives one a
true idea of the candour and integrity of this writer.
He next comes to what he calls ' another instance of his deep
and most detestable hypocrisy,' p. 1 79, and that is> his ordering
the messenger to be slain, who brought him the news of the deaih
of Saul and Jonathan ; and who, according to our author ' migqfe
have expected a vast reward.' And I am persuaded, if David ha;d
either rewarded him, or not punished him, he would have turned
this also to David's prejudice, and made it the matter of a bitter
accusation against him. This fellow had expressly avowed, that
he himself had killed Saul. He that declared this was an Amalekite,
i. e. of a nation that were great enemies to Saul. And might it
not naturally be supposed, that an Amalekite might, in the distress
Saul was in, take the opportunity to kill him, both in revenge for
the slaughter of his countrymen, and in hopes to get a reward
from David, whom he knew Saul had used very ill? His pretend^
DEFENCE OF PROPHECY. 447
ing that this was at Saul's own request, was to pass for nothing,
and could not be admitted as any plea. It might have been
imagined, that Saul might have lived, though sore wounded, and
have escaped out of the battle ; since according to the relation the
Amalekite himself gave, Saul declared, ' that his life was yet whole
within him ; ' see 2 Sam. i. 9. His own armour-bearer refused to
kill him, 1 Sam. xxxi. 4. And yet this Amalekite pretended he
did it. It is true this pretence was false ; for it appears from 1
Sam. xxx. 4, 5, that Saul killed himself, when his armour-bearer
refused to do it : but this Amalekite by charging himself with it,
and bringing the ' crown that was on Saul's head, and the bracelets
that were on his arms to David,' ver. 10, justly brought his own
punishment and death upon himself: and if David had not order-
ed him to be slain, this writer would, I doubt not, have pretended
that David had hired this Amalekite to kill Saul treacherously,
whilst he was engaged in the battle, and wounded, and hard pressed
by the enemy.
Our author next takes notice of David's pathetic lamentation
over Saul and Jonathan. And after repeating it, he exclaims, ' O
heavens ! is human nature capable of such depths of deceit ? ' It
seems this writer is such a stranger to all generosity of mind, that
he had no notion of doing justice to an enemy. Far from this, he
can allow himself to vilify and abuse the brightest characters. But
David was of a nobler soul ; and though Saul had acted a very
unjust part towards him, yet he could do him the justice to acknow-
ledge, that he had been a brave and valiant prince, of great courage
and military skill, and who had been successful against the enemies
of his country. This was what he celebrated in his pathetical
lamentation.
So desirous is this writer of finding fault with David, that he
turns even his virtues to his prejudice. His refusing to kill Saul,
who, with an unwearied malice and industry was pursuing after
him to take his life, when providence had so ordered it, that he had
it twice in his power to have slain him, and was urged to it by
those about him ; even this is turned to his disadvantage. Saul
himself, prejudiced as he was against David, and jealous of him
to the highest degree, yet was touched with it, and regarded it as
a manifest proof of his noble and generous soul, and of the up-
rightness of his intentions. But it seems Saul did not know the
circumstances of the case, and was not wise enough to discern what
this writer, at the distance of 3000 years, is perfectly well acquaint^
ed with, that if David did not take that opportunity to kill him, it
was merely because he durst' not do it ; and because it would have
hindered the design he had of coming to the crown. At this rate
it is easy to vilify the most generous actions in the world ; it is only
to .attribute them, without proof, to some base and sinister view ;
and then the most glorious and heroic actions must pass for crimes,
or at least lose all their praise. But the world is generally so just
in these cases, as to turn it to the disadvantage of the impotent
censurer, who proves nothing by it, but the malignity of his own
.448 DEFENCE OF PROPHECY.
mind. The manner in which he concludes his reflections upon this
part of David's conduct, is remarkable. He assures us, p. 222, that
' David only waited for an opportunity to cut Saul's throat ; ' when
the story itself is the strongest proof to the contrary ; and then
utters this benevolent and decent wish, ' Away with him to the
devil, from whence he came.' If this writer had been hired to ex-
pose himself, he could not have done it more effectually*
He next blames David as if the war he maintained against
Ishbosheth after Saul's death, was a breach of the oath he had
made to Saul, 1 Sam. xxiv. 20, 2]. Whereas in that very oath,
Saul supposed, that David was surely to be king, and that the king-
dom of Israel was to be established in his hand. And therefore
David's securing himself in it, after Saul's death, was no breach of
that oath. And besides, it appears, that that war was carried on
by the interest and ambition of Abner, against the consent and de-
sire of the body of the people, who were for David's being their
king, Vast numbers from all the tribes came to join him, imme-
diately after Saul's death, and continued still to do so till the death
of Ishbosheth which David was so far from encouraging, that he
slew the authors of it. David's giving up Saul's sons to the Gibeon-
ites to be put to death, is also produced as a manifest proof of his
cruelty and treachery, and as a breach of his oath to Saul. He will
have it, that this was only done by consent between David and the
Gibeonites; and that the pretence of the oracle, and the name of
God, was all artifice and falsehood. But if David's giving up
Saul's sons to the Gibeonites, was by the direction of God himself,
in a way of just retaliation for the great cruelty and inhumanity
.Saul had exercised towards that poor people, many of whom he had
slain, and whom he probably intended to have extirpated; and that
in violation of the most solemn covenant, in which the faith of the
nation had been engaged ; I can see no fault at all to be charged
upon David, except obedience to God be so. And this is the repre-
sentation made of it in the sacred histoiy. Nor is there any thing
in this proceeding, unworthy of the wisdom and goodness of God,
as the wise and righteous governor of the world, who took this way
to exhibit an illustrious declaration and monument to all ages of his
displeasure, against such a signal act of perjury and cruelty, and a
breach of a national covenant. Nor is there the least likelihood
that David would have done this of himself. Those children of
Saul were in a private station, not capable of giving him any um-
brage. This happened probably many years after his coming to the
crown, and when he was entirely established ; besides Mephibosheth
was spared, who was the son of Jonathan, Saul's eldest and best be-
loved son ; and who upon that account must be supposed to have
had greater interest with the people, and to have it more in his pow-
er to distress David, than any other of Saul's descendants ; so that
it is plain David did not act in this matter, from the base views
which this writer imputes to him.
But his conduct towards Mephibosheth next falls under our au-
thor's censure. It cannot be denied, that David had shown him
DEFENCE OF PROPHECY. 449
great kindness ; he had given him all that pertained to Saul, and to
all his house, 2 Sam. ix. 9. And had treated him for many years
with particular marks of distinction, as might be expected towards
the son of one for whom he had so great an affection and esteem.
But it is here urged against him, as the highest instance of ingrati-
tude and cruelty, that he hearkened to the calumnies of Ziha, who
had charged Mephibosheth's whole estate ; and afterwards when he
was informed by Mephibosheth of Ziba's perfidy, still ordered the
land to be divided between them, so that Ziba was to have one half
of it. As to David's hearkening to Ziba at first, the story was so
artfully contrived, that it was sufficient to gain credit in the cir-
cumstances David was then in. And the readiness Ziba showed to,
serve him in his distress, and the ample and seasonable relief he
brought him when he was in great want, and at a time when so
many of those, that had pretended to be his best friends had forsak-
en him, certainly deserved a very signal acknowledgment and reward
from David. And perhaps, he was so prejudiced in his favour, by
the readiness he showed to serve him both then and afterwards,
2 Sam. xix. 17, that he might still think there was some truth in
the story he told him ; and therefore ordered him half the estate,
though he would not give him the whole, as he at first designed.
But the account the learned Selden gives of this matter entirely
takes away the very foundation of our author's calumnies. When
David said to Mephibosheth, 1 Sam. xix. 29, why speak est thou
any more of thy matters? I have said, thou and Ziba divide the
land ; the meaning of it is not, as if David had determined, that
Ziba was to have one half of the estate in full property as lord of it,
and Mephibosheth the other; but he refers to the appointment he
had made before, 1 Sam. ix. 10, 11, according to which Mephibo-
sheth was to be the proper lord and proprietor of the land, but Ziba
was to manage it for him; and as he was to bring in the fruits or
product of the land to Mephibosheth, so he himself and his fifteen
sons and twenty servants were to live upon it, and to be maintained
out of it. So that it is as if he had said, ' thou needest say no more
to me about thy affairs, or make any more apologies ; ' what I have
formerly pronounced and determined shall stand good; I have said
it, and I will abide by it, thou shalt have the land in property : and
I have appointed Ziba and his family to take care of it for thee, and
to be maintained out of it, and have share of the profits. And then
the sense of Mephibosheth's answer, nay, let him take all, seeing my
Lord, the king, is come home in peace, is this ; let him have the
whole land in property ; I am content, since the king, that has been,
so kind to me, and to whom I am so much obliged, is returned in
safety and prosperity. See Selden de Success, in bona defunct,
cap. 25. ad finem.
As to what our author adds, p. 185, that David barely spared
Mephibosheth's life, after he had stript him of all, and put him out
of a condition ever to marry, or settle any dowry : this is false, even
upon his own representation of the case ; since Mephibosheth by his
G G
450 DEFENCE OF PROPHECY.
own acknowledgment had one half of the estate allowed him, which
probably was very considerable. And it is certain, that'Mephibosheth
did marry; and. a particular account is given of his descendants,
a numerous progeny, in which the line and family of Saul was pre-
served, compare 2 Sam. ix. 12, with 1 Chiton, viii. 34 40, where
the line of Saul's house is carried down many generations. So that
David kept his oath to Saul, who had obliged him to swear, that
he would not cut off his, Saul's name out of his father's house, 1
Sam. xxiv. 21, 22.
If this writer had any regard to decency or his own reputation,
he would have taken care not to put the reader in mind of what he
had said, concerning David's dancing naked before the ark ; yet
he now repeats it with greater confidence than before, pp. 185, 186.
This whole matter was so particularly considered in my former
book, that it is needless to insist any more upon it. I shall there-
fore refer the reader thither, and then leave him to reflect on the
spirit and conduct of this writer, who can, without blushing or re-
morse, repeat this aspersion, after the incredible absurdity and base-
ness of it had been so fully exposed.
He next finds fault with David for his war against the Edomites.
And here he throws his censure in the dark, since for aught he knows
that war might be both just and necessary, and upon the highest
provocation. And I make no doubt that it really was so. For
David, who would so gladly have maintained a good harmony arid
friendship with the Ammonites, the ancient enemies of his country,
would not have been less desirous to be at peace with the Edomites,
if it had been in his power. And that the Edomites were among
those enemies that had combined together to invade Israel, and had
conspired its ruin, may be plainly gathered from what is said in the
Ixth. psalm ; where the imminent danger Israel was in of being ut-
terly destroyed is represented in a very expressive manner ; and a
noble and pathetical address to God for victory over their enemies,
particularly the Edomites, with a humble confidence in his protection
and defence, from a sense of the justice and goodness of their cause.
Our author goes on to tell us, that David sawed the Edomites asun-
der; for which we have nothing but his own authority; for there is
not one word of this in the account that is given us of this matter
in the history. He adds, that he left none alive but what could
,save themselves by flight. But this is not true. Since it is repre-
sented as the effect of this war, that David put garrisons in Edom,
and all they of Edbm became his servants. Which shows, that he
did not destroy them all, but spared those that were willing to sub-
mit. And that therefore when it is said, that Joab staid six months
in Edom, and slew every male; it is only to be understood of his
killing those in arms, and that refused to submit. But because it
is said that Joab went up to bury the dead, which is probably to be
understood of those of their own army, that had been killed in fight-
ing with the Edomites; and is afterwards added, that he staid six
months in Edom, therefore this sagacious writer wisely concludes
DEFENCE OF PROPHECY. 451
from it, p. 187, that such was the slaughter in Idumea, that Joab
was six months in burying the dead. Compare 2 Sam. viii. 14,
with 1 Kings ix. 15, 16.
He concludes his account of David with charging him with the
venereal disease, which he pretends is described in the xxxviiith.
psalm, and very civilly invites me to publish a volume of sermons
upon it. But he hopes I will not allegorize it all, and says that
this was the state not of David's body, but of his soul, p. 188. And
if I should say this, I am in no fear that this author would be able
to confute me. Any one that is acquainted with David's stile, can-
not but know that he often signifies the anguish and sorrow of his
mind, by expressions that literally relate to some pain or distemper
of body. As in the 1th Psalm, 8th verse, ' Make me lo hear joy and
gladness, that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.' And
Ps. xxxii. 2, 3, 4, 'When I kept silence, my bones waxed old, through
my roaring all the day long. For day and night thy hand was
heavy upon me : my moisture is turned .into the drought of sum-
mer.' Which expressions are designed to signify the grief and an-
guish of his mind, under a sense of the divine displeasure, from
which he was freed upon his penitent acknowledgment of his sins,
and humble and earnest applications to God for mercy, see ver. 56.
Our author observes on this occasion, that any one that reads and
considers the account Moses has given of the plague of leprosy,
must see that it was venereal.* If so, I am sure Moses could not
show a greater disapprobation of it than he has done, since this
was regarded in his law as the highest kind of uncleanness ; on the
account of which persons were to be kept separate, as unfit for hu-
man society, till they were cleansed from it. And it may justly be
concluded, that if David had the leprosy, we should have been told
of it, .since it must have occasioned his being separated from society
and the affairs of government for a while, as well as debarred from
the house of God, and the congregation of the people.
He concludes his invective against David, .with accusing him of
fearfulness and cowardice ; and declaring that he has nothing of
the mainly bravery of a soldier. This charge is of a piece with the
rest and is designed to finish David's character, in which he is re-
solved not to allow so much as one good quality ; and then he gives
us the .reason why he has been the more particular on David's life
and character ; it is because he is the saint-errant of spiritual scho-
* He seemed tobe of another opinion in his former boot, where he reckons the leprosy
with the itch, scab, and other cutaneous foulnesses ; for which he tells us, the people of
Israel were very remarkable and famous. And that nothing was more beneficial and
effectual in this case than cold-bathing. And that this was one principal reason, why
their great law-giver interwove this practice with the very genius and constitution of
their religion. And then he adds, that if a fresh and clear skin, a good complexion, a
freedom from cutaneous diseases, a system of well braced nerves, and all that strength,
activity, and vigour which the body can communicate to the mind ; if these things are
of any value or consideration, cold-bathing deserves to be enjoined under the strongest
religious sanctions. Mor. Phil. vol. i. pp. 109, 110. So that here we see our author
himself has found out a good reason, for several of the ritual injunctions and purifications
required in the law of Moses, which according to him must have been very wisely ap-
pointed.
G G 2
452 DEFENCE OF PROPHECY.
lastics, and school-divinity cannot stand without him. But he
hopes to show, that Christianity can be no loser by this. This wri-
ter, to be sure, is mightily concerned for the honour of Christianity,
and has its interests nearly at heart! We are noway obliged to vin-
dicate any of David's faults, which are not concealed or disguised
in Scripture ; but he had also many eminent and noble qualities,
and has been always spoken of with great regard by the whole na-
tion : our Saviour and bis apostles still mention him with honour,
not only as a great king, but as an illustrious prophet ; who was
honoured to be the penman of a veiy valuable part of the sacred
writings ; which I doubt not is the true cause of this writer's venom,
and determined malice against him.
CHAPTER IX.
His vindication of what he had said against the prophets, and particularly concerning
Elisha's management with Hazael considered. What he farther offers to show, that
the prophets were the principal fomenters of the warhetween Israel and Judah, proved
to be false and groundless. The difference between the Baalitish idolatry and that of
Jeroboam shown. The heathen idolatry, not merely the worship of the one true God,
by the mediation of inferior Deities. Our author's account of the ancient Persians
considered. Their doctrine of two principles, not the same with that of the Jews and
Christians. They were worshippers of the sun, and of fire. His accountof Zoroaster's
doctrine, concerning the future punishment of the wicked. His pretence that our
Saviour's doctrine, concerning the resurrection and a future judgment, was a tran-
script from the second book of Esdras, considered. That a future state was believed
among the ancient Jews, vindicated against this writer's exceptions.
OUR author begins his viith section, p. 190, &c. with repeating
.what he had saidbefore, that the burden of the Mosaical priesthood
was the cause of the revolt of the ten tribes from Rehoboam, which
I have shown to be all pure fiction and romance. He next represents
me as denying that Solomon, during his whole reign, was in alli-
ance with Eiiypt, p. 192, when I had said no such thing. But
whereas this writer had represented, that it was his foreign alliances,
and particularly with Egypt, that secured him against the conspir-
acy, which he pretends was formed against him by the priests and
prophets, at the latter end of his reign ; see Mor. Phil. vol. i. p. 301.
I showed that this is a mere imagination, and that at the latter end
of his reign, Egypt, instead of giving assistance to Solomon, rather
gave encouragement to his enemies. Instances of this were pro-
duced, which he is pleased to take no notice of.
He proceeds, p. 193, to a repetition of what he had said more
largely in his former book, concerning the prophets being the causes
DEFENCE OF PROPHECY. 453
of the several revolutions in the kingdom of Israel, but entirely
passes over what was fully and distinctly offered to the contrary.
At the same time he exclaims against me for representing him as
justifying Jezehel in destroying the prophets of the Lord ; and de-
clares, that he had not justified or approved of it. But if any man
can read what he said in his former book, pp. 312, 314, and think
he has not justified or approved of Ahab and Jezebel's conduct, in
endeavouring to destroy the prophets of the Lord, I shall wonder at
it. He again gives us his word, that the very constitution and pro-
fession of the prophets was founded on the principles of persecution ;
and that the Mosaic law was a scheme of persecution, superstition,
and false religion. And then thinks fit to represent me, as judging
of men's commission and authority from God by their own preten-
sions to it, and declarations concerning it, as if I was for taking
men's own word, as a sufficient evidence of their divine mission,
without any farther proof. And he assures his reader, that though
I admit miracles as a proof in case of Moses, &c. I would not admit
them, as proofs in case of Mahomet or Zoroaster. And when he
can give us as good reason to believe that Mahomet * or Zoroaster,
wrought signal miracles in proof of their divine mission, as we have
to believe those of Moses or Jesus Christ, it will be time enough to
consider them. All these are poor insinuations that prove nothing,
and are brought in to make up for a great deficiency in reason and
argument.
I had urged that the illustrious miracles wrought by Elijah and
Elisha, sufficiently proved the divine authority and commission of
those prophets. To which he replies, that first I cannot prove the
certain truth of the facts, but must take them entirely upon trust
from the historians. And then, that if true, they would not prove
any commission they had to anoint Jehu, &c. To the first I an- ,
swer, that we have the same proof that the prophets wrought those
miracles, that we have that they had any hand in anointing Jehu.
And in judging of the legality of the fact, as it is represented in the
history, we must take the whole fact in all its circumstances, as
there represented. And I am still of opinion, that supposing those
facts true, the divine commission of those prophets is very evident.
Nor can I believe, that God would have enabled them to confirm
their mission by so many illustrious miracles, far transcending all
human power, and some of them, e. g. raising the dead, probably
that of all created beings ; if all the while they had only cloaked the
designs of their own ambition, by a false pretence to inspiration
from God, and were for sanctifying treason and murder with an hy-
pocritical appearance of zeal for his holy name. And yet all along
* Mahomet, though often called upon by the Arabians to prove his divine mission by
miracles, as Moses and Jesus Christ had done, never durst attempt to work any before
them. Ignorant as they were, he had no hope of being able to impose upon them in
such things, of which all their senses must have been witnesses. And, therefore, en-
deavoured to persuade them that there was no need of miracles to prove his mission,
See Prid. life of Mahomet, pp. 27, 28, &c.
454' DEFENCE OF PROPHECY.
to the very last, be gave them the most illustrious testimonies of
his acceptance and approbation.
P. 197, he comes to vindicate the story of the prophet Elisha's
pretended management with Hazael, which he had strangely misre-
presented. He still insists upon it, that the present Hazael gave the
prophet in the name of Benhadad, was designed to bribe the pro-
phet in his own favour ; though it appears plainly from the text that
it wsis by Benhadad's order, that Hazael went to the prophet, and
made him that present. But he most absurdly argues from the
greatness of the present, as if that was a proof that the king did
not send it, but the captain gave it of himself. Whereas it is vevy
accountable, that the king might order this magnificent present on
his own account, when he sent to inquire of the prophet about the
recovery of his health ; especially, as he might probably entertain
some hopes, that he might be able to heal him, and that his pray-
ers might prevail for his recovery. But no reasonable account can
be given of this present on the author's scheme, who supposes that
because it was so large, the captain intended it as a brihe. Indeed,
if the prophet could by his interest among the Syrians have intrigued
with the great men and people there, as he supposes him to have
done in Israel, and so have helped to raise Hazael to the throne by
his influence, there would have been some sense in his endeavouring
by large presents to bribe him to his party, and engage him to em-
brace his interests. But to suppose that Hazael should take such
pains, and be at such expense to gain a stranger to help him to the
crown in a foreign country, where he had no acquaintance nor in-
terest, is an imagination that would scarce have entered into any
man's head but this author's.
I had urged the great absurdity of supposing that Elisha would
contribute to fix Hazael upon the throne of Syria, when the pros-
pect of it gave him the greatest trouble and sorrow ; and he certainly
knew that Hazael would prove a greater plague to Israel than all
the other kings of Syria before him. And I had taken notice of the
unfairness of this writer, who, in order to elude this, had changed
the prophet's words ; and whereas he said to Hazael, I know the
evil which thou shalt do unto the children of Israel, &c. had repre-
sented it as if he only had said, I fear, &c. as if it was a thing of
which the prophet was uncertain. Wow what does our author say
to this? instead of vindicating himself against this charge of misre-
presentation, he goes on in it ; and still insists upon it, that he only
feared it, though the prophet expressly declares that he knew it,
and speaks of it as of a thing abolutely certain.
But he urges, that he should have advised Hazael against mur-
dering his king, if he had any notion of it; as if he could have hoped
that his advice could have any influence on a man governed wholly
by ambitious views, and who lie well knew would stick at no villany
to gain a crown ; and when he had obtained it, would go on in a
course of the greatest oppressions and cruelties. Nothing can be
more evident, than it is from the whole story, as recorded 1 Kings
viii. that the prophet would have been very far from doing any thing
DEFENCE OP PHOPHECY. 455
to promote Hazael's advancement to the throne of Syria, had it been
in his power ; and that though he foreknew and foretold it, as a
thing that would certainly come to pass, yet it was a thing high-
ly disagreeable to him, and which he would gladly have prevented
if he could have done it. And it may as justly be said, that our
Saviour was the author of Judas's treason, because he foretold it, as
that the prophet was the cause of Hazael's invading the throne of
Syria, because he foretold that he would be king.
He proceeds, p. 200, to take notice of the prosperity of Jerobo-
am's reign, and says, he had given the true reason of it, and that I
had coined a reason ; because I had attributed it to the divine
mercy and indulgence towai'ds Israel, to try if his goodness would
lead them to repentance ; to which it is expressly ascribed, 2 Kings
xiii. 23 ; xiv. 25, 26, 27. He had alleged, that ' Jeroboam was as
great an idolater, or supporter and encourager of idolatry, as any
that had been before him.' And from thence most absurdly in-
ferred, that the prosperity of his reign showed, that idolatry had
not been the cause of any of the evils or calamities that had hap-
pened to the kings or people in former reigns. And at that rate
it might be proved, that God never punishes wicked princes or
nations for their crimes, because he often suffers wicked princes to
prosper, and bears with a guilty people, and treats them with
mercy and indulgence for a time. But besides it was shown, that
Jeroboam the Second fell into the sin of Jeroboam the son of
Nebat, which consisted in worshipping the true God after a wrong
manner, yet he and the other princes of the house of Jehu did not
fall into the Baalitish idolatry, as the house of Ahab had done,
which was an express and open revolting from the God of Israel.
But for this I am corrected by this writer, who represents it as a
very absurd thing in me to suppose, that there were two sorts of
idolatry in Israel. Whereas according to him, there was only one
kind of idolatry, which both Jeroboam and the house of Ahab were
guilty of, the inferior worship of tutelar deities ; only Jeroboam wor-
shipped the tutelar deities of the Egyptians, and Ahab of the Sidoni-
ans. But it is evident, from the accounts given us of this matter in the
sacred history, that the Baalitish idolatry is there represented, as
of a worse kind than that of Jeroboam, and as carrying idolatry
to a greater and more criminal height than the other. Hence it is
said of Ahab, that ' as if it had been a light thing to him to walk
in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he served Baal,
and worshipped him.' And on this account it is, that be ' did more
to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger, than all the kings of
Israel that were before him,' 1 Kings xiv. 31, 33 ; see also 2 Kings
iii. 2, 3. Accordingly, when Jehu contrived to abolish the worship
of Baal, he said, ' Come see my zeal for the Lord,' 2 Kings x. 16.
And the worshippers of Baal are there distinguished from the
other Israelites, who are called ' the servants of the Lord,' as pro-
fessing to worship the true God, ver. 23. And yet it is observed
concerning Jehu, that though he destroyed Baal out of Israel,
' yet he took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel
456 DEFENCE OF PROPHECY.
with all his heart ; for he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam
the son of Nebat,' ver. 31. Jeroboam the First did not pretend to
fall from the worship of the Lord Jehovah, the God of Israel. He
said in his heart, ' If this people go up to the house of the Lord at
Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again to the
house of David.' Whereupon he took counsel, and made two
calves of gold, and said unlo the people, ' It is too much for you to
go up to Jerusalem : behold thy gods, O Israel, or as it might be
justly rendered, ' behold thy God, O Israel,' which brought thee
up out of the land of Egypt.* And he set the one in Bethel, and
the other in Dan, 1 Kings xii. 26 30. From which passage it
is evident, that Jeroboam did not intend, as this writer represents
it, to worship the Egyptian tutelar gods, but to worship the God
that brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, which is the
character under which the Lord Jehovah is frequently described,
see Exod. xx. 2 ; Ps. Ixxxi. 10 ; Hos. xiii. 4. And indeed it could
not be supposed, that the Egyptian tutelar gods would bring the
Israelites out of Egypt to the destruction of the Egyptians. He
professed to worship the same God that was worshipped at Jeru-
salem, but only told the people that it was too much for them to
go up to the temple there, and therefore erected temples of his
own, to which they might go for divine worship ; and there placed
golden calves, as symbolical representations of the Divine presence.
This was a great sin, as being an express breach of the second
commandment, which forbade the worship of God by images. And
it tended to lead the people wrong, and gradually to debase and
corrupt their notions of the Deity, and to prepare the way for
other kinds of idolatry ; when once they had forsaken the worship
which God himself had appointed. But afterwards Ahab went
farther, and established the worship of other gods. It is probable
several of the people might have fallen into the worship of Baal,
&c. before, and were connived at by the former kings. But now
the worship of Baal, as the proper deity, was established the
allars that were erected to the Lord Jehovah were thrown down ;
and those that worshipped him were persecuted, 1 Kings xix. 10.
This was an express and open revolt from the true God, and there-
fore brought the house of Ahab under a peculiar guilt and ven-
geance.
But our author represents the matter, as if, in worshipping
Baal, they still intended to worship the true God, but only were
for worshipping him by the mediation of Baal, as an inferior deity.
And he positively pronounces, that the worship they paid him
was all subordinate mediatorial worship. But though there were
inferior deities called Baalim (though some suppose these are only
to be understood of the different images of Baal) yet it seems
evident, from the whole account given us, that there was a chief
god, who is still called Baal by way of eminency, and spoken of
in the singular number ; and whom they regarded as the principal
* See concerning this what is said above, p. 374.
DEFENCE OF PROPHECY. 457
object of their worship. There is not the least hint, that they
looked higher to any superior deity ; but in Baal their views ter-
minated, whilst the true God was neglected. By Baal, it is most
probable they intended to worship the sun.* Him the ancient
Phoenicians acknowledged to be fiovov ovpavov Kvpiov, the only
lord of heaven.f And they honoured him with the name of Baal,
which properly signifies lord. This writer indeed takes upon him
to affirm, that ( the idolatry of the heathens was all of the same
kind ; the worship of God by the mediation of subordinate, na-
tional, residential, and tutelar deities/ p. 201. As if the heathens
still had their views ultimately fixed upon .the one living and true
God ; and only intended to worship the supreme Lord of the uni-
verse by the mediation of inferior deities. But whatever notions
some of their philosophers and wise men might have of this mat-
ter, there is no proof that this was the worship established in their
respective states by their legislators, or practised by the people.
The Platonists indeed talked of genii or demons, whose oflice they
supposed it to be to carry our prayers to the gods, and to bring
from them oracles, and divine gifts to us. See Plutarch. De Isid.
et Osirid, and Apuleius de Deo Socrat. But then it is to be ob-
served, that these mediators or intercessors were supposed to inter-
vene, not between men and the one supreme God, but between
men and the celestial deities, of whom there were many whom
they acknowledged and worshipped; nor did they invest those
whom they called celestial deities, with this mediatory office.
Plato himself, whatever notions he had of the first principle and
cause of all things, yet in his books of laws, which were designed
for the people, did not prescribe to them the worship of the one
supreme God, because he looked upon him to be incomprehen-
sible ; and that what he is, and how he is to be worshipped, is
not to be described or declared ; nor were the vulgar capable of
forming a just notion of him. But he appointed twelve solemn
festivals to be observed to the twelve principal gods ; and proposed
the worship of the heavens and stars, whose divinity he recom-
mended. See his eighth book of laws ; and his Epinomy or ap-
pendix to his book of laws. Indeed, the vulgar among the hea-
thens did in many places worship many gods' in conjunction ; and
though they had a notion of one chief god above the rest, he
whom they regarded as such was generally only an idol, of the
same kind, though of greater eminence than the rest. Hence we
find all the gods often joined together, and worshipped in con-
junction with Jupiter at the head of them. They usually speak of
fod and the gods promiscuously, because they considered their
eities collectively, as making up one system. They had a temple
dedicated to all the gods both at Rome and Athens, and they were
all honoured with one common festival called SEO| e'vta ; and they .
had altars consecrated to all the gods and goddesses, with such
* See Calmet's Dissertation on the Phoenician Deities. And Vossius de Idol. lib.
2, cap. 4. 6.
t See the Fragments of Sanchoniathon in Euseb. de Prep. Evangel, lib. v.
458 DEFENCE OF PROPHECY.
inscriptions as these, ' Dis deabusque omnibus/ and 'dibus dea-
busque omnibus/ and the like. When they invoked any particular
deity, it was usual for the priests, afterwards, to add an invocation
of all the deities in general, as Servius notes upon that of Virgil,
" Dii deseque omnes studium quibus arva tueri."
In many nations the sun was the deity whom they principally
adored.* And Job represents this kind of worship, as a ' denying
the God which is above/ Job xxxi. 28. Among some, universal
nature was the one supreme deity, and the several parts of the uni-
verse were worshipped as parts of the divinity.t In Greece and
Concerning this see Vossius at large, de Idolatria, lib. 2. cap. 3. ad cap. 18 ; Ma-
crobius Saturnal. lib. 1., takes a great deal of pains to prove that the sun was the on uni-
versal deity, who was adored under several names. This plea he manages with a great
deal of wit and learning in the person of Vettius Prsetextatus. And he concludes all
with a double citation ; the one is of a short invocation, which he tells us the heathen
theologists made use of ' in Sacris/ in their devotions or sacred ceremonies ; the form
whereof runs thus, ' ijXie iravriKparop Kotrpov TrvEvp.a, Koapov Bvvapis, Kotrpov <j>G>t;.
O sun omnipotent, the spirit of the world, the power of the world, the light of the
world.' The other is taken out of the verses of Orpheus, in which the sun is called
Jupiter, the Father of the sea and land ; and the generation of all things is ascribed to
him.
By some the heaven or circumambient ether was esteemed Jove or the chief god.
Remarkable to this purpose is the verse Cicero cites from Ennius. ' Aspice hoc sublime
candens quern invocant omnes Jovem.' And he cites Euripides to the same purpose,
speaking of the ether, ' Hunc summum perhibeto divum, hunc perhibeto Jovem. Cic.
de Nat. Deor. lib. 2. And in his fourth book of Academic Questions, he observes con-
cerning several of the Stoics, that they supposed the ether to be the chief God, being
endowed with a mind whereby all things are governed; and that Clean thes, a principal
Stoic, and scholar of Zeno, looked upon the sun to be lord of all, and as having the su-
preme dominion. From whence he infers, according to the manner of the academics,
that by this disagreement among the wise we are constrained to be ignorant who is our
Lord ; for we know not whether to pay our service to the sun or ether. Plato in Cray
tylo supposes that the worship of the heaven and stars was the most ancient religion
of the Pagans. Jt seems to me, says he, that the first inhabitants of Greece anciently,
as well as many of the barbarians now, esteemed these only to he gods, the sun and
moon, and earth, and stars, and heaven. Qaivovrat fioi, oi Trpiaroi riav avBpiaTTiav
ruv Trepl TO.V E\XJ)5a, rovrovg fiovovg 6tov riyiiaOcu, laairip vvv iroXAoi riav /3api-
apuv, f/Xtov, KO.I GsXqvijv, Kal yriv, Kal aarpa, KO.I oiipavov. And Aristotle to the
same purpose observes, that it hath been delivered to us by those of very ancient
times, both that the stars are gods, and that the Divinity containeth the whole of na-
ture, Arist. Metaph. lib. 11, cap. 8. Maimonides saith concerning the Zabians, whose
sect, he tells us, did overrun a great part of the earth, that they all held the eternity
of the world ; and that the heavens and stars according to them are the Deity. Mor.
Nevoch. par. 3, cap. 29.
t Plutarch observes concerning the Egyptians, rbv wpurov Qtov r<3 iravn rov
avrbv vofil^ovai. That they account the first or chief god to be the same with the
TO Trav, the world or the universe. And he mentions this as a proof of their piety and
just sentiments of the Divinity. See Plut. de Isid. et Osirid. In the theology gene-
rally received among the Stoics, the world or the one animated mundane system was
God. They considered souls as parts of God, the soul of the world ; and visible and
corporeal things, ts parts of his body. And upon this principle they vindicated and
accounted for the Pagan idolatry, and worshipped the several parts of the universe,
under the names of the popular deities. But whilst they thus pretended to worship
one God under different names and manifestations, they really d_ejfied the several parts
of the material world, and the several powers and virtues diffused through the whole ;
and, instead of curing the popular polytheism, only established it; and as Plutarch ob-
serves, they filled the air, heaven, earth, and sea with gods. Plut. de communi notit.
adversus Stoicos. These sentiments of the Stoics, Cicero represents thus, ' Quoniam
hunc mundum esse sapientem, habere mentem, qua et se, et ipsum fabricata sit, & om-
nia moderetur, moveat, regat, erit persuasum etiam, solem, lunam, stellasque omnes,
DEFENCE OF PROPHECY. 459
Rome, where polytheism, or the worship of many gods, was esta-
blished, Jupiter had a supremacy over the rest. But this Jupiter,
who was regarded as the chief of the gods, the Thunderer, and the
father of gods and men, was confounded with that Jupiter whom
the poets sung, and of whom the mythologists told and the people
believed such strange fables. So that it may be justly said, that
the only true God was to them in a great measure an unknown
God, vyhom they neglected and disregarded, whilst their worship
was paid to idol deities. So vain were they become in their ima-
ginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. It was to pre-
vent this, that all manner of worship of inferior deities was strictly
forbidden in the law of Moses, whereby it was gloriously distin-
guished from other laws and constitutions, and they were expressly
commanded to worship the one true God, and him only. While
among other nations, where the worship of many gods obtained,
and was countenanced by their laws, men soon began to worship
them more than the Creator ; and lost the knowledge and wor-
ship of the one living and true God, amidst a multiplicity of idol
deities.
This writer had in his former book asserted, that there was a
most bloody war carried on between Israel and Judah, under the
pretence of religion, for the space of about 260 years ; that Judah
was the aggressor in this war ; and the prophets had the chief hand
in carrying it on. But on the contrary it was shown, that the
prophets had no hand in fomenting the war between Israel and
Judah, but rather dissuaded and discouraged it ; that it does not
appear that Judah was the aggressor in this war; and that the
war was so far from being continual and uninterrupted, as he is
pleased to represent it, that we read of no wars between them
for a hundred years together, and afterwards for fourscore years
more.* Now what does this writer say to this ? It is not his way
to acknowledge, that he has been wrong, let it.be proved ever so
plainly upon him. But in order to throw dust in the eyes of his
readers, and to put an appearance of saying something, he enters
upon a long dull detail from p. 202 to p. 210, most of which is
nothing at all to the point in question, and the few things that
niight be so are entirely misrepresented. Thus e. g. as to the
war between Baasha and Asa, he not only supposes that Judah
was the aggressor in this war, though it appears from the history,
that Baasha king of Israel begun it, see 2 Chron. xvi. 1 ; but in
a manifest contradiction to the account there given us, will have
it, that the prophets put Asa upon making an alliance with Ben-
hadad king of Syria. He expressly asserts, that the prophets of
the Lord approved of this alliance, and justified it in Asa, and
engaged a foreign idolatrous power to do their work for them,
p. 203, whereas the very contrary to this is true. For the prophet
M
terrain, inare, Deos esse, quod quadam animali, iDtelligentia per omnia penneat, et
transeat,' Quest. Accad. lib. 4. Varro, the most learned of the Romans, had the same
notion, as appears from August, de Civit. Dei. lib. 7, cap. C.
* See Div. Author, pp. 192, 193.
460 DEFENCE OF PROPHECY,
Hanani came to Asa in the name of God, and reproved him for
this alliance, which so enraged the king, that he put the prophet
in prison, 2 Chron. xvi. 7 10. So signal a falsification of the
history furnisheth a new proof to the reader, who has had several
proofs of it before, that this writer, who is pleased to honour him-
self with the title of Philalethes, the lover of truth, will stick at
nothing, how false soever, that he thinks will serve his cause, or
tend to expose the prophets or priests. And then he goes on to
insinuate, that it was because Asa had entered into this alliance
with the idolatrous Syrians, that he is so highly extolled by the
historians, and that Jehoshaphat is blamed by them for entering
into an alliance with Ahab for the defence of his country. But it
is certain that Jehoshaphat had a better character given him by
the historians, than Asa himself; though he is blamed for entering
into affinity with the house of Ahab, which produced many mis-
chiefs to his posterity. Our author after this, and repeating what
he had said before concerning Ahab's four hundred prophets,
which has been already considered, hath nothing further to offer
to fix the charge of all ' the commotions and revolutions in the
state upon the prophets ;' and yet very gravely tells his reader,
that ' any man must see this, who will read the history with his
own natural eyesight, and without systematical spectacles,' p.
206.
He had advanced it as a charge against all the prophets that
lived before the Assyrian captivity, and afterwards against all the
prophets in general, that they declaimed only against idolatry, and
scarce ever meddled with the other vices and immoralities of the
people. The falsehood of this charge was clearly shown.* He finds
himself unable to justify it, and yet is unwilling to retract it. He
observes, that Isaiah, Hosea, and Micah, whom I had particularly
mentioned, as strongly inveighing against all manner of vice and
immorality, were all living and prophesying at the last Assyrian
captivity; but it is also certain, that they had been living and
prophesying a considerable time before it. And most part of
Isaiah's prophecies, and probably all those of Hosea and Micah
were delivered before that captivity ; and they are all of the same
strain, everywhere reproving the people for their vices and sins,
and calling them to repentance. As doth also the prophet Amos,
who prophesied before the Assyrian captivity, in the reign of
Jeroboam, when the Israelites were in great prosperity. Our author
is pleased to take no notice of this, though 1 had mentioned it, but
contents himself with calling upon his reader to ' see the justice and
candour of this systematical writer ;' and if he can persuade his
reader, after considering what I offered, that there is any justice or
candour in his representation of this matter, I will readily own that
he is a very lucky writer.
He falls heavily upon me for representing it as an absurd thing,
to suppose that the Jews should learn their religion and aversion to
* See ' Dm Author.' pp. 194196.
DEFENCE OF PROPHECY. 461
idolatry from the Persians, the adorers of the sun and of fire. He
is astonished that any man that pretends to learning should at this
time of day believe this groundless story and abuse of the Persians,
a calumny which has been cast upon them by the Greek historians,
who knew nothing of the Persians or their religion ; and refers me
to Dr. Hyde, as having fully confuted this, and proved, beyond all
contradiction, that the Medes and Persians, from their very first
records, had never been idolaters. But Dr. Hyde himself owns, as
hath been already shown, that they had fallen into Sabaism before
the days of Abraham, and after being reformed by him, relapsed
into it again ; and Zoroaster brought in another reformation among
them in the days of Darius Hystaspes. But, after all, the account
Dr. Hyde gives of the religion of the ancient Persians is far from
being so authentic and unexceptionable as this writer represents it.
The authorities he produces are chiefly from modern Persian or
Arabian writers, scarce any of them above five or six hundred years
old, or from the declarations of the present priests among the
Gaures or modern worshippers of fire, or from the liturgies and
books now in use among them ; which carry in them many marks
of mixtures taken from the Jews, Mahometans, and Christians.
And these authorities can scarce be judged, in the opinion of any
impartial unprejudiced person, to preponderate those of the ancient
Greek and Roman writers, who gave an account of the religion
of the Persians in the times in which they lived; and who,
considering the correspondence between the Greeks and Persians,
before and after the conquest made by Alexander, and afterwards
between the Romans and Parthians, could hardly be supposed so
ignorant or so misinformed, concerning the Persians and their
religion, as the learned doctor supposes. And, though there may be
some variation among them, yet it is observable, that they are for
the most part very uniform in the accounts they give of the religion
of the ancient Persians. Mr. Chapman very j ustly observes, that
by Dr. Hyde's own acknowledgment, we know nothing of the
Persian religion while Media and Persia were in subjection to the
Assyrian for above a thousand years together ; and that after the
Medes had shook off the Assyrian yoke, the first lawgiver in
religion among them after Zoroaster was Keyomaras; and what
system of religion his was, the doctor could inform us from no better
an authority than Sharisthani, a modern Arabian. And all that
Sharisthani himself knew of it was from modern Persians or
Indians ; and how much their accounts are to be depended upon,
we may conclude from their supposing Keyomaras to be the first
man Adam, see Euseb. p. 430. And if what our author himself tells
us be true, that the Cuthites or Samaritans, the people whom
Assarhaddon had placed about Samaria, were Persians, transplanted
thither out of the northern provinces of Persia,* see Lett, to Euseb.
* Dr. Hyde himself observes, ' de Relig. vet. Persar.' cap. i. p. 16, ' That Esarhaddoii
transplanted into Samaria the Medes, Shushanites, and Elamites or Persians ; and in-
deed these are expressly mentioned as transplanted thither, Ezra iv. 9 ; and by comparing
402 DEFENCE OF PROPHECY.
p. 52. Here is a proof that the ancient Persians were idolaters ;
since it is manifest, from the account given of them, that those
colonies were so, 2 Kings xvii. 30, 31, 33. And it was by acquain-
tance with the Jewish law that they were turned from their ido-
latry, and at length had as great an aversion to it as the Jews
themselves.
This writer very positively pronounces that every word that I
had said about the Persian and Magian religion is false. And
whereas I had observed, that the main principle of the Magian
religion was the acknowledgment of two principles, the one good
and the other evil,* both of which they acknowledged to be gods,
and to both they paid their adorations : he answers, that their
notion of the two principles was no other than the ' current doctrine
among Jews and Christians concerning God and the devil. I will
grant this, if he can prove that the Jews or Christians worshipped
the devil, as the Persians did the evil god Arimanius.f A noted
instance we have of this in Xerxes, who, as Plutarch informs us in
his ' Life ofThemistocles,' prayed to Arimanius, that all his enemies
might ever be of the same mind with the Greeks, to abuse and
expel the bravest men among them. Or, if he can prove, that the
Jews or Christians held the being of two chief causes, good and
evil, out of the mixture of which all things were made, and that
there is a perpetual struggle between the good and evil principles,
sometimes the one prevailing, sometimes the other ; though, it is
true, they held that the good principle will finally be victorious,
and the evil principle be overcome. Zoroaster indeed, according to
Dr. Prideaux,^ introduced a superior principle above these two.
But this was a reformation in the religion of the Magians. And if
so, it may be justly supposed that he had learned it from the Jews,
with whose sacred writings, according to the account given of him,
he was well acquainted.
Another thing I had said concerning the ancient Persians and
the Magi was, that they worshipped the sun and fire. The author
absolutely denies this, and affirms that they worshipped the one
true God and him only. But I scarce know any thing in which the
best ancient writers that give any account of the Persians and their'
religion, are more universally agreed in than this, that they paid
an adoration to the sun and to fire. Herodotus had travelled over
this with 2 Kings xvii. there is a more authentic proof of their being addicted to idolatry
in those ancient times than any testimony that can be produced relating to that time to
the contrary.
* Dr. Hyde acknowledges that many of the Persians maintained that these two prin-
ciples were co-eternal, ' De Relig. vet. Pers.' pp. 164, 295, and, probably from them,
Manes, who was a Persian, derived his doctrine.
t Plutarch expressly affirms, as from the Persians themselves, that they were taught
to sacrifice not only to the god Oromazes but to the evil one Arimanius ; to the one for
' obtaining good things, to the other for averting evil. See ' Plutarch de Isid. et Isirid."
| Prideaus's Connection, part i. book iv. p. M. 214, 215.
Dr. Hyde himself, notwithstanding all his prejudices in favour of the Persians,
owns enough to fix the charge upon them of paying an undue idolatrous veneration to
the sun and planets. He acknowledges, that to the true religion they added Sabaism,
DEFENCE OF PROPHECY. 463
several of the Persian provinces to collect materials for his history ;
and his accounts of the ancient Persians and their religion in his
time are much more to he depended on than those of the modern
Persian writers, who are extremely inaccurate, and full of blunders
and inconsistencies in what relates to the ancient history and
chronology of the Persians. And he expressly affirms that they
worshipped the sun ; and that they sacrificed not only to the sun,
giving too much veneration to the stars and elements, see ' De Relig, vet. Pers.' cap. i.
p. 2, and cap. viii. p. 154. He observes from Sharistani, that there were two sorts of
Sabians, the one better, viz. the worshippers of the planets or stars, the other worse, viz.
the worshippers of idols or images, and that the Persians were of the former sort, cap. i.
p. 5, cap. iii. p. 88. He saith that the worship the Persians paid the planets was imme-
diate, and not by images as the Sabians ; where be owns the Persians paid a worship to
the planets, though he calls it a civil worship, cap. iii. p. 98. He observes, that though
Xerxes destroyed the other Grecian temples and altars, yet he spared the Delian temple
of Apollo and the temple at Ephesus ; because the former was dedicated to the sun, the
latter to Diana or the moon, cap. iii. p. 98. He owns that in the military processions of
the Persians they carried the image of the sun, and did not march till after sun rising,
that they might first pay a due respect to the sun, whose favourable aspect they thought
might be of advantage to them, p. 121. He acknowledges that they prostrated themselves
before the fire, and paid a great veneration to it, as a pure' thing, representing the planet
Mars in colour and God in purity, and therefore the holy fire, kept in their temple, was
called the fire of Mars, p. 11. It is true he affirms, as I have just now observed, that
the worship they paid to the fire arid to the sun was only a civil worship ; but I cannot
see how this can be defended, for it was not upon a civil, but upon a religious account,
that they worshipped the sun and the fire. The worship they paid them was in their
solemn sacred ceremonies and acts of religion. All that can be gathered from the
account the doctor gives us is, that they did not regard them as the only or supreme
deity ; and that the worship they rendered to them was a relative worship, or a subor-
dinate religious worship. And if this be allowed to be an excuse, it will excuse the
worship paid by other heathens to images, as well as the worship paid by the Persians
to the fire ; since the more learned among them made use of the very same pretences to
defend themselves, see ' Mro. Tyr. Dist.' 38, 'Julian. Oper.' pp. 537, 5,39, ' Varroapud
August, de Civit. Dei.' lib. vii. cap. 5, and I cannot but think the reflection of Clemens
Alexandrinus a veryJBSt one; who, after having observed that the Magi and Persians
worshipped fire, and that they look upon water and* fire as the only images of the gods,
blames them for their ignorance. Whilst they think they flee from error, says he, they
fall into another delusion. They do not suppose wood and stones to be images of the
gods as the Greeks, nor the Ibis Ichneumon, as the Egyptians-; but fire and water, as
the philosophers. And then he observes that, in process of time, they worshipped images
in a human form, see ' Clem. Alex. Protrept.' p. 43, edit. Paris, 1641. We learn from
Plutarch, that Artaxerxes Mnemon prostrated himself before the statue of Juno, and
offered up prayers, and caused many rich offerings to be made to her for the recovery of
Atopa. And he also tells us of a temple at Ecbatana, in which Aspasia, by the order of
Artaxerxes, was made a priestess to Diana Anitis, see ' Plut.ip Artaxer.' And he there
also informs us of a temple in the city of Pasargatis, dedicated to a goddess who pre-
sides in war, whom he does not name, but conjectures to be the very same with Minerva,
into which temple the Persian kings were wont to enter before they were crowned by
the priests. Dr. Hyde indeed will not allow that the Persians worshipped either Juno
or Diana, though the contrary seems plain from many testimonies of the ancients con-
cerning Diana Persica, and from several inscriptions on coins : but by Antis, whom
Plutarch mentions, he says is to be understood the planet Venus. He acknowledges that
Artaxerxes ordered the statue of Venus to be worshipped, and temples and priests to be
consecrated to her ; aud that the worship of Venus continued among the Persians beyond
the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. He goes on to tell us the Persian names of Venus,
and says he has not found that they had any other statues than that of Venus, see ' Hyde
de Relig. vet. Xers.' cap. iii. pp. 90 93.
By all these things we may judge whether the ancient Persians were such enemies to
idolatry as our author represents them ; and whether it be likely that it was from them
that the Jews learned their utter aversion to all idolatry ; all the different kinds and
forms of which, and those in use among the Persians as well as the rest, were strictly
forbiddenin the Jewish sacred writings, and represented as highly displeasing to God.
464 DEFENCE OF PROPHECY.
but to the moon, earth, fire, water, and the winds, and had done
so from ancient times. 'Herod.' lib. i. cap. 131. And he introduces this
account by saying, Hepo-a? oiSa VO/JLOKTI TOHTI icpEWjulvoe * I know that
the Persians use these laws or customs.' And again he concludes
his account of the Persian customs, with saying, ' That these
things he knew to be true, and could undoubtedly affirm.'
Xenophon, who had been in Asia, and attended Cyrus the
younger, and who was no stranger to the Persian customs, in his
ascent of Cyrus, speaks of horses dedicated to the sun, lib. iv.,
and many ancient writers mention the same custom among the
Persians. And this had been of long standing among those that
paid an idolatrous worship to the sun, of which we have an
instance, 2 Kings xxiii. 5 11, where we read of horses dedicated
to the sun by some of the idolatrous kings of Judah, which, with
the priests that burnt incense to the sun, were exterminated by
that reforming king, Josiah. The same Xenophon, in his ' Cyropaedia
tells us, that horses were sacrificed to the sun, and certain victims
killed to the earth, according to the directions of the Magi ; and
represents Cyrus as sacrificing on the summit of a mountain,
according to the custom of his country, to Jove paternal, and the
sun, &c. and as offering a prayer to him. Strabo, in his account of
the Persians, affirms, that they worshipped the sun and that they
prayed to the fire. And concerning the Caramanians, or inhabitants
of Kerinan, a province of Persia, observes that they sacrificed an
ass to Mars, ' Geograph.' lib. xv. Dr. Hyde indeed denies this,
because the Persians do not think Mars a god, ' de Rel. vet.
Persar.' cap. 3 p. 89. This may be very true of the modern
Persians ; but he produces no authority to show that the ancient
Persians did not look upon Mars as a deity. And it appears from
his own account, that they had a particular veneration for the
planet Mars, and called their holy fire the fire of Mars. Q. Curtius,
therefore, speaks very agreeably to the ancient customs of the
Persians, when he represents Darius, before his battle with
Alexander, as invoking the sun, moon, and the eternal fires. The
account Suidas gives of the Persians in what the ancient writers
generally agree in, that they thought the sun to be Mithras, to
whom they offered many sacrifices. That the Persians worshipped
the sun under the name of Mithras was so well known, that the
Comans, who frequently adopted the worship of other nations, did,
in imitation of them, pay a religious worship to the sun under the
name of Mithras. Hence there are altars and coins with inscriptions
to ' god the sun, the invincible Mithras ;' to ' the sun, the invincible
Mithras ;' to ' the most holy sun,' &c. ' Deo Soli Invicto Mithrse ;
et soli invicto Mithras; et sanctissimo soli, &c. et numini invicto
soli Mithrse Ara.' Some of the Persian kings, particularly Sapores,
persecuted the Christians because they refused to worship the
sun ; and Sozames informs us concerning Ushazanes, who had for-
merly been preceptor to Sapores, that having in compliance with
the king, worshipped the sun, he afterwards fell into a deep sorrow
on the account of it; and being asked by the king the reason of
DEFENCE OF PROPHECY; 465
his sadness, he said to him, ' It grieves me that I live and see the
sun, when I deserved to have died long ago ; since for thy sake,
against the judgment of my own mind, I have worshipped the sun,
rbv ri\iov irpoo-eKwvTjcra.' See Sozomen Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. cap. 8,
' Niceph. Hist. Eccles. lib. viii. cap. 36. Dr. Hyde indeed expressly
denies that the Persians ever called the fire or the sun Godj or
that they ever prayed to it or worshipped it with intention as God.
* De Relig. vet. Pers.' cap. 1, p. 14. But he owns that by Mithras
they understood the sun ; and that the Persians regarded Mithras
as a god, comes to us with as concurring an evidence as any thing
in all antiquity. Nor has the learned doctor any authority to
produce against it but the testimony of th'e modern Gaures and
Persian priests, who deny that they worship the sun or any but
God alone, cap. 1. pp. 5, 9, 12, cap. 4. p. 108. But we are not to
confound the religion of the modern Gaures with that of the
ancient Persians or Magians, as several learned persons are of
opinion Dr. Hyde has too much done. It seems manifest, as I
have already hinted, from the accounts given us of the Gaures, that
there are several things in their religion, considered in its present
state, which have been taken from the Jews and Christians, ac-
cording to the account Dr. Hyde himself gives us of that Zoroaster,
from whom they pretend to derive their religion ; he had read the
Jewish Scriptures, and his religion had in it a great mixture of
Judaism, because he mixed some of the Mosaic rites and usages
with the religion of the Magians. But if he did so, it only proves
the high veneration he had for the law of Moses. And it may rea-
sonably be concluded that from that law he derived more excellent
notions of God and of his worship, and was thereby enabled to
reform the notions the Persians entertained of the Deity, and to
bring them from their grosser idolatry to a greater refinement in
their worship.
This writer will have Esdras the prophet, whom he tells us Zo-.
roaster served, and whom he supposes to be the author of the
second book of Esdras, to be a different person from Ezra the scribe.
But it is manifest, that the author of the second book of Esdras
pretends to be the same with Ezra the scribe, as appears from the
account he gives of himself, 2 Esdras i. 1,2, compared with Ezra
vii. 1, &c. I would observe by the way, that our author pretends
here to have a very good opinion of the second book of Esdras ;
and he tells us, p. 212, that ' Zoroaster, as all the Persian and
Arabian writers agree, had been a servant in his younger years to
the prophet Esdras.' This indeed is carrying it too far ; for it is
not true that all the Persian and Arabian writers agree in this;
Some of the Persian writers tell us, that Zoroaster was a disciple of
the prophets Elijah and Elisha. Others say that it was one of the
disciples of the prophet Jeremiah with whom he served. And Dr.
Hyde, with whom agrees Dr. Prideaux, thinks it is most likely that
he served the prophet Daniel.* But allowing our author's account,
* Concerning this^ the reader may consult Dr. Prideaux's Connection, part I, book
iv. pp. 224, 225.
H H
466 DEFENCE OF PROPHECY.
that he had been a servant to Ezra, then it may be justly concluded,
that Zoroaster learned many things in his religion under Ezra, that
great restorer of the Jewish state. So that, according to this ac-
count, instead of pretending that the Jews learned their religion
from the Persians, it may with much greater reason be alleged,
that the Persians learned their religion from the Jews in these
points, in which Zoroaster reformed the ancient religion of the
Magians.* Our author seems aware of this, and therefore, though
he sometimes speaks with great respect of Zoroaster, as an eminent
reformer and law-giver, yet at other times he thinks fit to represent
him as having rather corrupted than reformed the ancient Magian
religion ; he had mentioned it before, p. 145, as if it was a genuine
prophecy written about 400 years before Christ. And the reason is
very evident ; it is because he would insinuate, that our Lord Jesus
Christ and his apostles learned their doctrines concerning the resur-
rection and the last judgment, and a state of future rewards and
punishments, from that book ; and that they have revealed nothing
to the world on these heads, but what was as plainly and expressly
contained in that book before. And accordingly he tells us, that
'the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth chapters of St. Matthew's gos-
pel are a plain transcript out of this prophet, and a great part of it
almost verbatim,' p. 212. The reader could not but know before
this how little this writer's confident assertions are to be depended
upon, and here is another manifest instance of it. As to the twen-
ty-fifth chapter of Matthew, there is not the least foundation for
this pretence. There is something said concerning the future judg-
ment, 2 Esdras vii. 30 36 ; but it is so far from being almost
verbatim the same with the account given of it by our Saviour,
Matt. xxv. that it is as different from it as any two passages relating
to that future judgment can well be supposed to be. And though
there are some passages in this apocryphal book, chap. vi. 24 28,
ix. 3, xiii. 29 38, that bear a likeness to some expressions made
use of by our Saviour in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew,
* Dr. Hyde, who is our author's oracle, plainly affirms, that the religion of the Per-
sians agrees in many things with the Jewish, and that a considerable part of it was
takeu from it. It is part of the title of his tenth chapter ; ' Persarura religio in multis
convenit cum Judaica, et magna ex parte ab ea desumpta fuit.' And indeed this is in-
contestably true, if understood of the Persian religion as laid down in the book Ziend,
which they believe was compiled by Zerdnsht or Zoroaster ; concerning which, the
reader may consult the account Dr. Prideaux gives of it from Dr. Hyde. See Prideaux's
Connect, part I. book iv. A. M. 225. But I must own, I cannot think the religion
taught ic that book was the religion of the Persians so long since as the days of Darius
Hystaspes, in whose reign it is pretended this Zerdusht lived and wrote this book. If
this was the case, I cannot see upon what foundation Hainan could procure a decree from
Artaxerxes, for extirpating the Jews, under a pretence that they were a people 'whose
laws were diverse from all people, 5 Esther iii. 8 ; since, according to this account, the
religion of the Persians, and which was professed by the king and court and all the no-
bility (see Prid. ibid. p. 223), had before that time adopted- most of the Jewish rites
and institutions, whereby they were peculiarly distinguished from other nations. It
seems therefore to me, that the book is not of such antiquity as is supposed ; or at least
the religion there contained did not become the national religion of the Persians till
long after ; and that therefore no certain argument can be produced from that book,
much less from the authority of the modern Persians, to show what was the religion of
the Persians in the most ancient times.
DEFENCE 0V PROPHECY. 467
yet to pretend that the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, and our
Saviour's admirable predictions there concerning the destruction of
Jerusalem and the calamities that were coming on the Jewish na-
tion, is plainly a transcript out of the second book of Esdras, will
appear to any one that carefully compares them, to be so wild and
extravagant an assertion, that few but this writer would have ven-
tured upon it. The compiler of the second book of Esdras has
indeed manifest allusions to several passages in the New Testament,
not only in the Evangelists, but in St. Paul's epistles, and in the
Revelations of St. John ; and it is evident to any one that reads that
book, that it was forged after the time of our Saviour, see particu-
larly chap. vii. 28, 29. And this apocryphal piece, which is of
no authority, which never was known or acknowledged among the
Jews, as it must have been if it had been the genuine work of
Esdras ; which has several absurdities and falsehoods in it, and is
rejected by all the learned as spurious ; this is what our author, in
his great kindness to Christianity, would put upon the world as an
original, from whence the gospel-doctrines taught by our Saviour
concerning the resurrection, a future judgment, &c. are taken.
But to return to the account he gives us of Zoroaster, he observes>
that he thought ' the punishment of the wicked would only be be-
tween death and the resurrection ; at which time he supposed, that
being thoroughly purged and cleansed from their sins, they would
be restored to happiness, pp. 2, 14. I do not know any occasion he
has to mention this here, but that he may vent his spleen against
Christianity with respect to the endless punishment of the wicked
in a future state. This is a doctrine taught by our Saviour, who
has expressly declared that the wicked ' shall go away into everlasting
punishment.' But this writer thinks fit to represent this doctrine
as a piece of diabolism, and as owing to the malice of the Jews,
who it seems invented this ' eternal, implacable, and inexorable
revenge, and herein worshipped the devil more effectually than ever
the Persians did.' And he calls it an ' establishing the eternal
dominion of the devil in hell over the far greater part of God's crea-
tures.' An odd way this of establishing the devil's dominion, to
say, that he shall be eternally punished, and be distinguished above
others by the greatness of his punishment, as he is by his crimes.
But we are never to expect a fair representation from this writer of
any fact or any doctrine where revelation is concerned. I do not
wonder at the aversion some people show to the doctrine of the
perpetual punishment of the wicked, which is what no good man
needs to be afraid of. But this we rnay plainly see, that our au-
thor's pretended zeal for the doctrine of a judgment to come, and a
state of future retributions with which he makes a mighty parade
when it is for his purpose to do so, come to very little ; since he
takes care to reduce the punishment of the wicked within such
narrow bounds, as if generally believed, would tend in a great mea-
sure to free them from their terrors ; in which, what real advantage
he can propose to mankind or to the cause of virtue, is hard to see.
H H 2
468 DEFENCE OF PROPHECY.
Celsus himself, as I had occasion to observe,* was so sensible of the
usefulness and importance of that doctrine which our author sets
himself to expose, that he was loth Christianity should have the
honour of it, but asserted it as a common notion that obtained al-
most among all mankind. Nor is it true that Zoroaster himself
absolutely denied the everlasting torments of the wicked. He taught,
as Dr. Prideaux informs us from the Persian writers, that at the
end of the world after the judgment, the angel of darkness and his
disciples should go into a world of their own, where they shall suffer
in everlasting darkness the punishment of their evil deeds.f And
this writer himself, though here he thinks fit to give it as the doc-
trine of Zoroaster, that the punishment of the wicked would only be
between death and the resurrection ; at which time they would be
restored to happiness ; yet in his letter to Eusebius, he represents
it as the doctrine of Zoroaster, from whom the Jews and Moham-
med received it, that some of the wicked at least would be ' pun-
ished in hell for ever, or to all eternity.' See Let. to Euseb. pp. 43,
444
He had expressly affirmed in his former book, that from the days
of Moses to the time of Ezra, which was a period of about eleven
hundred years, the ' whole nation of the Jews had been deistical
materialists or Sadducees ;' and that they never embraced the doc-
trines of the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body,
a final judgment, and a future state of rewards and punishments,
till they received them from the Persians after the captivity. I
showed the contrary from several testimonies in the sacred writings.
He has not thought proper to consider any one of those testimonies,
but pronounces very magisterially, that all ' that I have offered on
this subject is such a run of poor systematical stuff, that it deserves
no notice, p. 215. But I doubt not he had a much better reason
for taking no notice of it, and that is, that he found himself not
able to answer the evidence that was brought. It will be easily
acknowledged, that the immortality of the soul and a future state
is not so clearly and expressly revealed and inculcated in the Old
Testament, as it is under the New ; but it does not follow that
therefore it was not known or believed at all ; which yet seems to be
the course of this writer's argument. And as to what he adds, that
David would not have been at such a loss to account for the pros-
perity of the wicked and the sufferings of good men in this life, had
he known any thing of a future state of retribution, this is not a
necessary consequence . For even allowing a future state of retri-
* See Divine Authority, p. 282.
t Prid. Connect, part I. book iv. pp. 21, 4.
J Dr. Hyde, in his preface to his book, ' de Relig. vet. Pers.' speaking of the book
Sadder, which he represents as a book of great authority, extracted out of the works of
Zerdusht or Zoroaster, and containing an authentic account of his doctrines, observes,
' that it appoints hell and eternal damnation as the punishment for all sins.' See also to
the same purpose, cap. xxxiii. pp. 402, 439, where the reader may find a passage in the
book Sadder, in which those who have done evil works are represented as kept in a 'state
of confinement and punishment to all eternity.'
DEFENCE OF PROPHECY. 469
butions, there will still be a great and real difficulty in accounting
for the present dispensations of divine providence. The grievous
calamities that often befal good men, and the prosperity of tyrants
and unjust oppressors, have often puzzled contemplative persons
that have firmly believed future retributions. And under the Mo-
saical economy, where there were more express promises of temporal
blessings to the righteous, the difficulty was considerably height-
ened. But that David did believe a future state, and comfort him-
self with the prospect of it, appears from the testimonies I pro-
duced, and to which this writer has nothing to reply. With respect
to the celebrated passage in Job, which he mentions, it cannot,
without the utmost constraint, be interpreted of a mere restoration
to his former temporal prosperity. The expressions are as strong
to signify a resurrection of the body as can well be supposed ; nor
do I see any expressions he could have made use of to signify this,
but what might have been as easily evaded as these.*
Our author concludes this section with telling us what mighty
things he could do if he pleased, to destroy the authority of the
book of Daniel. But it seems ' the errors of that book are too
many and too gross to be insisted on ;' and therefore he passes
them over in his tenderness, as it is to be supposed, to the authority
of the sacred writings. Only he gives us a hint, that the Daniel
that was taken captive the first of Nebuchadnezzar, could not be
the same person with that Daniel who decided the case between
Susannah and the elders seventy-seven years after. Those that
stand up for the authority of that story, suppose it happened at the
veiy time of the Babylonish captivity, many years before the time
this writer is pleased to fix for it. But if that story of Susannah
be inconsistent with what is said in the book of Daniel, it proves
nothing against the authority of that book ; it only proves that that
story is not to be depended on, which is of small authority, and
never was acknowledged by the Jews as belonging to the book of
Daniel.
* See concerning this, Bishop Sherlock's Use and Intent of Prophecy, dissert. 2, and
Alb. Schulten's late very learned commentary on Job.
470
CHAPTER X.
The restoring the kingdom to Israel in a temporal sense, and the bringing all nations
into subjection to tbe Jews, not an essential character of the Messiah according to
the prophets. What he offers to prove that the apostles were not under an infal-
lible guidance examined. His account of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost,
and especially the strange and absurd representation he makes of the gifts of tongues,
considered and exposed. Concerning the power of working miracles in the aposto-
lical age. It did not depend upon those that had this power, to make use of it as
they themselves pleased for the propagation of error as well as truth.
OUR author begins 'his eighth section, with assuring his reader
that my ' twelfth chapter, and almost every thing that follows to
the end of the book, is little more than one continued rant.' And
he had better have contented himself with some such general
answers as this to my whole book, which would have been very
near as enlightening to the world, as the book he has now written.
But after abusing me for near a page together, he comes to vindi-
cate what he had said concerning Jesus's disclaiming his being the
Jewish prophetic Messiah. He had expressly declared, that Jesus
renounced his being the Messiah in the sense of the prophets, and
that he died upon that renunciation. I shewed, on the contrary,
that Jesus did all along, during the whole course of his personal
ministry, on all proper occasions, declare himself to be the Christ
or Messiah : that he commended the faith of those who owned him!
to be such : that at his death he avowed it in the most solemn
manner before the high priest, and the whole Jewish council : that
it was a truth which he sealed with his blood : that after his resur-
rection he inculcated this upon his disciples : and that whereas
.they were commissioned to preach the gospel to all nations, this
was one great article of the gospel which they preached to the
world, under the direction of his Spirit. There is nothing in all
this but what every man knows to be true who has ever read the
New Testament. And yet this writer still insists upon it, that not
only* Jesus was not the Messiah according to the prophets ; (for if
he had said no more than this, he had acted the part of an unbe-
lieving Jew, which we should not have much wondered at) but
would face the world down by dint of assurance, contrary to plain
fact that Jesus himself disclaimed and renounced his being the
Messiah foretold by the prophets. The only argument he brings
for it is this, 'that the Messiah, according to the prophets, was to
be a great temporal prince, and to restore the kingdom to the
house of David ; whereas our Saviour Jesus Christ disclaimed all
such temporal power, and declared before Pilate that his kingdom
was not of this world.' But it doth not follow from our Saviour's
declaring, that 'his kingdom was not of this world,' that therefore
he disclaimed his being the Messiah foretold by the prophets,
when we have his own most express declarations that he was so.
RESTORATION OF ISRAEL. - 471
All that follows from it is this, that since it was manifest that he
all along to his death, declared himself to be the Christ foretold by
the prophets, and yet did also declare, that his kingdom was not
of a worldly nature, and that he was not a temporal prince in op-
position to Csesar ; and therefore, if our Saviour may be allowed to
be a good judge of the true sense and intention of these prophecies,
the Messiah there spoken of was not to be merely a temporal
prince, nor his kingdom to be like the kingdoms of this world,
established for secular worldly purposes. It is true, that the Jews
did then generally understand the prophecies in a different sense.
They expected a Messiah, that was to be a national deliverer of
Israel, and to raise them to a mighty degree of power and domi-
nion above the Gentiles. And our author in this takes the part of
the Jews against our Saviour. In his language, to be the Messiah
in the Jewish national sense, and in the prophetical sense, is the
same thing. See Mor. Phil. Vol. I. p. 331. To be the Messiah,
and to be the 'national Deliverer and Saviour of the Jews, and the
restorer of the kingdom to Israel,' in a temporal sense, are with him
terms of the same signification, pp. 349, 350. And accordingly he
affirms over and over, that the Jewish .Christians universally be-
lieved in Christ only as 'their national restorer and deliverer,' p.
367, and as 'the hope and salvation of Israel only, or as the re-
storer of their kingdom.' p. 377. This was the idea he gave of the
Messiah and his kingdom in his former book ; and he frequently
repeats it in this. He expressly again and again declares it to be
an essential character of the Messiah, according to the prophets,
that he was to be a conquering prince of the house of David, and
the founder of a glorious temporal kingdom; that he was to subdue
all other nations, and bring them into subjection to the Jews to
rebuild the temple in a more splendid magnificent manner than
ever ; and to restore their ancient priesthood and sacrifices, and the
whole legal economy, and to extend this to all nations.* And
now it is easy to see what an idea this worthy writer intends, as
far as it is in his power, to convey to the world of our Saviour
Jesus Christ. It is incontestably evident, that he himself claimed
to be the Messiah foretold by the prophets, and persisted in this
declaration to his death ; and that all the apostles that preached
the gospel in his name, and the apostle Paul as much as any of
them, taught the same thing. And yet our author denies, that
Jesus was or could be the Messiah foretold by the prophets; for
he expressly declares, and insists upon it, that he wanted an essen-
tial character of the Messiah. And if this be not to justify the
Jews in condemning our Lord, for falsely assuming the character
of the Messiah, Matt., xxvi. 63 66. Luke xxii. 70, 71, it is hard
to know what can be accounted so.
But as to the main point this writer should have proved, this he
passes over as so evident, that it needs no proof at all. 'That the
Jewish Messiah,' says he, 'according to all the prophecies con-
* See pp. 225,- 251, and Letter to Euseb. pp. 18, 23, 30, 31, 34, 36.
4<72 CHARACTER OF THE MESSIAH.
cerning him, was to be a great temporal prince, and to restore the
kingdom to the house of David (viz. in a literal carnal sense) is so
very evident, that I should scorn to dispute with a man who would
deny it,' p. 220 ; this is pleasant enough. That is, he scorns to
dispute with any man, that will not yield him the point in ques-
tion. And if he had scorned to write on this subject at all, or to
have troubled the world either with his former book or this, it
would have been no loss to mankind, and no disadvantage to his
own reputation. In the books he has undertaken to answer, it
was shown, that the kingdom attributed to the Messiah in the
prophets, was not like the kingdoms of this world in its nature
and designs, but created for far nobler purposes : that the principal
benefits of it, and in which the glory of it is described as chiefly
consisting, are spiritual and divirie. And whereas this writer had
represented, that he was to be a national deliverer and Saviour of
the Jews only, and that St. Paul's preaching him up as the author
of a new dispensation, and as the Saviour of all men, Jews and
Gentiles, was a renouncing the plain sense of the prophets ; it was
shown from the prophecies themselves, that the Messiah was to
be the introducer of a new and spiritual dispensation ; that
his kingdom was to be an universal blessing, and that the benefits
of it and the salvation of which he was to be the author,* should
hot be confined to the Jews, but should extend equally to all na-
tions without distinction. Those passages upon which the notion
of the Messiah's being a temporal prince, and a national deliverer
of the Jews seems to be principally founded were considered and
it was shown, that the narrow sense the Jews would put upon
them, to accommodate them to their own prejudices and carnal
views, is contrary to the plain design of the prophecies, when duly
considered and compared together in their just connexion and har-
mony. Our author is pleased to pass all this by, without notice.
He is apprehensive, that I may 'blame or censure him, f6r not
having taken particular notice enough of my argument in this
chapter :' but he adds, 'the candid reader, I am sure, will have
good-nature enough to forgive my not doing what I could not pos-
sibly do.' p. 226. And I am of opinion, the reader will easily be-
lieve, that if he did not take 'a particular notice of the argument'
so as to answer it, it was because he could not do it.f
, * See Div. Author, cap. xii. Euseb. cap. vi.
t In his letter to Eusehius, pp. 19,20, 21, he has a long quotation out of the sixtieth
chapter of Isaiah. And he thinks a 'higher state of temporal felicity and glory cannot
be conceived or expressed, than what Isaiah here describes and promises with regard
to that nation ; nor could any thing be more suitable to their vain hopes and carnal
wishes.' He triumphs in this, as if it were alone sufficient to decide the controversy,
and introduces it, with observing that Isaiah has. here ' collected and put together the
whole character of the Messiah, &c., as it had been delivered occasionally by himself
and other prophets before this.' But this is not true, for there are several parts of the
Messiah's character, delivered by Isaiah and other prophets, which are not touched in
this chapter. I shall not so far enter on the province of that learned gentleman, to
whom the author addresses this part of his book, as to enter on a particular examination
of this passage. I shall only observe, that the universal extent of the church under
the Messiah, and the conversion of the Gentiles, is there described in noble and mag-
THE APOSTLES' INFALLIBILITY. 473
He proposes, p. 226, to come to the argument of my thirteenth
chapter. He had asserted, that the apostles never so much as pre-
tended to be under the guidance of an infallible Spirit ; that
though this 'has been liberally granted them by our Christian
zealots and system-mongers, yet it was what they themselves never
claimed,' see Mor. Phil. vol. I. pp. 80, 81. In opposition to this
it was plainly proved from many express testimonies, that if by in-
fallibility is meant their being under an unerring guidance of the
Holy Spirit, so as to be kept from error or mistake in delivering
and teaching the doctrines and laws of Christ, it is certain that
this was what they claimed.* Our author takes no notice of these
passages ; but first repeats what he had said in his former book,
and which I had fully considered and obviated, that the difference
and divisions among the apostles, must have exposed and confuted
any such pretence ; and then observes, that if ever they had been
under the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost, one would have ex-
pected it when they met in council at Jerusalem, to debate on a
point of vast importance to the whole church. And 'yet we find no
such unerring Spirit among them ;' which he proves, because ' had
they been infallible, they must have been all of one mind, and no
such heats, differences, and disturbances could have arisen in the
riificent, but figurative expressions. Their accession to the true church, and becoming
the members of it, is described by their coming to Zion, and bringing their riches and
glory thither ; as is their conversion to the worship of the true God, by their bringing
presents, silver and gold to the house of the Lord, and their offering sacrifices on his
altar. This, as is usual with the prophets, is spoken in allusion to the way of worship
that obtained under the Mosaical law ; though it appears from other passages, both in
Isaiah and other prophets, that economy should be abolished under the Messiah. Con-
cerning which, see Div. Author, pp. 209, &c. The peace, the purity, the vast
diffusion of the church, signified here and in several other prophecies by the name of
Zion, is there also described in the pompous figures of the prophetical style. That the
words Zion, Jerusalem, &c., in the prophetical writings, are not always to be taken in
the narrow sense the author would put upon them, is well shown, Euseb. pp. 509, 510,
&c., see also Div. Author, p. 213. But all the expressions are no more to be under-
stood in the strict literal sense, than when it is there said, that 'the gates of Zion shall not
be shut day nor night ; that the sun should be no more her light by day, nor for bright-
ness should the moon give light unto her ;' and that her ' sun should no more go down,
nor her moon withdraw itself/ verses 11, 19, 20. All that can be justly gathered from
the figurative representation, is, that a time is foretold when the church should enjoy a
state of great peace, as well as purity and righteousness ; and the obstinate enemies of
Christ's kingdom should be destroyed, or not have it in their power to harass and perse-
cute as before. And it seems plainly to relate to the time the apostle Paul speaks of,
when 'the fulness of the Gentile should be brought in,' and 'all Israel should be savedy
and which he represents as a happy time of universal joy, and as it were, 'life from the
dead,' Rom. xi. 15, 25, 26, 31, 32. This is a state of things highly to be desired, and
the prospect of which cannot but give pleasure to every well disposed mind. Nor is
there any thing in this inconsistent with the nature of Christianity, as this writer in-
sinuates. For though our Saviour taught his disciples to expect sufferings and perse-
cutions, to which he knew they would be exposed after his death : this does not prove
that there should never be a time, when any of his disciples in particular, or his church
in general, should be in a state of external rest and prosperity, andfreefrompersecution.
And it appears from the revelation he gave to his servant John, that such a time there
shall be. This writer may ridicule this if he pleases, and call it enthusiasm, but no
man of sense will think one jot the worse of it, for the censure he is pleased to bestow;
upon it.
* See Divine Authority, pp. 217, 218.
472 CHARACTER OF THE MESSIAH.
cerning him, was to be a great temporal prince, and to restore the
kingdom to the house of David (viz. in a literal carnal sense) is so
very evident, that I should scorn to dispute with a man who would
deny it/ p. 220 ; this is pleasant enough. That is, he scorns to
dispute with any man, that will not yield him the point in ques-
tion. And if he had scorned to write on this subject at all, or to
have troubled the world either with his former book or this, it
would have been no loss to mankind, and no disadvantage to his
own reputation. In the books he has undertaken to answer, it
was shown, that the kingdom attributed to the Messiah in the
prophets, was not like the kingdoms of this world in its nature
and designs, but created for far nobler purposes : that the principal
benefits of it, and in which the glory of it is described as chiefly
consisting, are spiritual and divine. And whereas this writer had
represented, that he was to be a national deliverer and Saviour of
the Jews only, and that St. Paul's preaching him up as the author
of a new dispensation, and as the Saviour of all men, Jews and
Gentiles, was a renouncing the plain sense of the prophets ; it was
shown from the prophecies themselves, that the Messiah was to
be the introducer of a new and spiritual dispensation; that
his kingdom was to be an universal blessing, and that the benefits
of it and the salvation of which he was to be the author,* should
hot be confined to the Jews, but should extend equally to all na-
tions without distinction. Those passages upon which the notion
of the Messiah's being a temporal prince, and a national deliverer
of the Jews seems to be principally founded were considered and
it was shown, that the narrow sense the Jews would put upon
them, to accommodate them to their own prejudices and carnal
views, is contrary to the plain design of the prophecies, when duly
considered and compared together in their just connexion and har-
mony. Our author is pleased to pass all this by, without notice.
He is apprehensive, that I may 'blame or censure him, f6r not
having taken particular notice enough of my argument in this
chapter :' but he adds, 'the candid reader, I am sure, will have
good-nature enough to forgive my not doing what I could not pos-
sibly do.' p. 226. And I am of opinion, the reader will easily be-
lieve, that if he did not take 'a particular notice of the argument'
so as to answer it, it was because he could not do it.f
, * See Div. Author, cap. xii. Euseb. cap. vi.
t In his letter to Eusebius, pp. 19,20, 21, he has a long quotation out of the sixtieth
chapter of Isaiah. And he thinks a ' higher state of temporal felicity and glory cannot
be conceived or expressed, than what Isaiah here describes and promises with regard
to that nation ; nor could any thing he more suitable to their vain hopes and carnal
wishes.' He triumphs in this, as if it were alone sufficient to decide the controversy,
and introduces it, with observing that Isaiah has here ' collected and put together the
whole character of the Messiah, &c., as it had been delivered occasionally by himself
and other prophets before this. 5 But this is not true, for there are several parts of the
Messiah's character, delivered by Isaiah and other prophets, which are not touched in
this chapter. I shall not so far enter on the province of that learned gentleman, to
whom the author addresses this part of his book, as to enter on a particular examination
of this passage. I shall only observe, that the universal extent of the church under
the Messiah, and the conversion of the Gentiles, is there described in noble and mag-
THE APOSTLES' INFALLIBILITY. 473
He proposes, p. 226, to come to the argument of my thirteenth
chapter. He had asserted, that the apostles never so much as pre-
tended to be under the guidance of an infallible Spirit ; that
though this 'has been liberally granted them by our Christian
zealots and system-mongers, yet it was what they themselves never
claimed,' see Mor. Phil. vol. I. pp. 80, 81. In opposition to this
it was plainly proved from many express testimonies, that if by in-
fallibility is meant their being under an unerring guidance of the
Holy Spirit, so as to be kept from error or mistake in delivering
and teaching the doctrines and laws of Christ, it is certain that
this was what they claimed.* Our author takes no notice of these
passages ; but first repeats what he had said in his former book,
and which I had fully considered and obviated, that the difference
and divisions among the apostles, must have exposed and confuted
any such pretence ; and then observes, that if ever they had been
under the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost, one would have ex-
pected it when they met in council at Jerusalem, to debate on a
point of vast importance to the whole church. And 'yet we find no
such unerring Spirit among them ;' which he proves, because ' had
they been infallible, they must have been all of one mind, and no
such heats, differences, and disturbances could have arisen in the
riificent, but figurative expressions. Their accession to the true church, and becoming
the members of it, is described by their coming to Zion, and bringing their riches and
glory thither ; as is their conversion to the worship of the true God, by their bringing
presents, silver and gold to the house of the Lord, and their offering sacrifices on his
altar. This, as is usual with the prophets, is spoken in allusion to the way of worship
that obtained under the Mosaical law ; though it appears from other passages, both in
Isaiah and other prophets, that economy should be abolished under the Messiah. Con-
cerning which, see Div. Author, pp. 209, &c. The peace, the purity, the vast
diffusion of the church, signified here and in several other prophecies by the name of
Zion, is there also described in the pompous figures of the prophetical style. That the
words Zion, Jerusalem, &c., in the prophetical writings, are not always to be taken in
the narrow sense the author would put upon them, is well shown, Euseb. pp. 509, 510,
&c., see also Div. Author, p. 213. But all the expressions are no more to be under-
stood in the strict literal sense, than when it is there said, that ' the gates of Zion shall not
be shut day nor night ; that the sun should be no more her light by day, nor for bright-
ness should the moon give light unto her ;' and that her ' sun should no more go down,
nor her moon withdraw itself.' verses 11, 19, 20. All that can be justly gathered from
the figurative representation, is, that a time is foretold when the church should enjoy a
state of great peace, as well as purity and righteousness ; and the obstinate enemies of
Christ's kingdom should be destroyed, or not have it in their power to harass and perse-
cute as before. And it seems plainly to relate to the time the apostle Paul speaks of,
when ' the fulness of the Gentile should be brought in,' and ' all Israel should be saved*;'
and which he represents as a happy time of universal joy, and as it were, 'life from the
dead,' Rom. xi. 15, 25, 26, 31, 32. This is a state of things highly to be desired, and
the prospect of which cannot but give pleasure to every well disposed mind. Nor is
there any thing in this inconsistent with the nature of Christianity, as this writer in-
sinuates. For though our Saviour taught his disciples to expect sufferings and perse-
cutions, to which he knew they would be exposed after his death : this does not prove
that there should never be a time, when any of his disciples in particular, or his church
in general, should be ina state of external rest and prosperity, andfreefrompersecution.
And it appears from the revelation he gave to his servant John, that such a time there
shall be. This writer may ridicule this if he pleases, and call it enthusiasm, but no
man of sense will think one jot the worse of it, for the censure he is pleased to bestow
upon it.
* See Divine Authority, pp. 217, 218.
474 GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT.
council.' p. 227. There might be some pretence for urging this, if
it was alleged that all the private Christians or believers in the
church of Jerusalem, were tinder the unerring guidance of the
Holy Spirit. It is evident, that in that council not merely the
apostles were convened, but many others : that among the rest, the
Judaizing- teachers and Pharisees that had opposed St. Paul, were
there as well as St. Paul and Barnabas. And it was but proper
to hear what the one had to say as well as the other. It is also al-
lowed, that many of the Jewish Christian converts still laboured
under great prejudices. And it was agreeable to the will of God,
that they should be treated in a mild and condescending way, and
that their prejudices should be gradually removed. But there is
nothing in the whole account from whence it can be made to ap-
pear, that the apostles were not under the unerring guidance of
the Holy Ghost in that council. The only apostles of whose
speaking in that council we have any account, besides St. Paul,
were St. Peter and St. James. And they entirely harmonized
among themselves, and with the truth. It is perfectly consistent
with the supposition of an infallible guidance, that there should be
reasoning and deliberation in considering the point before them ;
and then that God should so direct and influence their delibera-
tions, as to guide them unerringly upon the whole. And accord-
ingly the decision they came to was wise, and just, and moderate.
This author would have me explain the particular manner in which
the apostles were inspired or illuminated ; as if it were any argu-
ment against the truth or reality of their being inspired, that we
cannot distinctly explain the manner in which this revelation was
communicated to their minds. The impertinency of this I had oc-
casion to observe above, chap. ii. It is sufficient, that as the
apostles did profess to be unerringly guided in delivering the doc-
trines and laws of Christ, so God himself bore them witness that
this pretence was true, by confirming the gospel they taught by
the most illustrious and extraordinaiy attestations.
After some farther abuse, which this writer plentifully bestows
upon me, he proceeds, p. 228, to consider what I had offered, con-
cerning the extraordinary gifts and powers of the Spirit. He had
said, that they who were endued with those gifts and powers might
make either a good or bad use of them, as much as of any natural
faculties or talents. But now he blames me for imagining, that he
supposed, that all or any of them were permanent standing qualities,
like the natural powers and faculties of the mind. The contrary to
this, he says, is evident enough, and that he very well knew it,
though he did not then choose to speak it out, p. 229. It seems that
in his former book it best served his purpose to express himself, as
if he looked upon them to be permanent standing habits ; and now
it will best answer his end to deny that any of them were permanent
standing habits at all. But let us consider the matter, as he is now
pleased to represent it, and see what he can make of it.
P. 229, &c. he runs out into a very remarkable excursion on the
6IFTS OF THE SPIRIT. 475
gifts of tongues. Here he throws off all disguise, and does all that
is in his power to expose Christianity, and the proofs of it, to the
contempt and derision of mankind. The whole of what he says on
this head tends to show, that this gift was only a mad enthusiastic
impulse : that those that had or exercised this gift ' could not speak
those languages at all with any sense, coherence, or consistency : '
that ' they were exactly the same with our modern French prophets :'
that ' some of those tongue-gifted people, by practice and strength
of imaginations, could work themselves up into those raptures, ex-
tasies, and strange preter-natural motions, and thereby lose their
reason and senses almost at any time ; but others could not, and
therefore were not so much favoured by the Spirit : ' that whilst they
were ' under this mechanical power and operation of the Spirit, they
had no reason or understanding left of their own.' He expressly
calls them 'frantic fits,' and declares that they 'were mad, or out of
their wits for the time,' pp. 229 233.
The judicious reader cannot but observe here the strange incon-
sistency of this author. He first supposes that there were extra-
ordinary gifts and powers of the Spirit poured forth in the apostoli-
cal times, and that they who had them were at liberty to use them
either to good or bad purposes ; and that whenever they had those
gifts and powers, they were left to a discretional use of them, p.
229. And yet immediately after represents those gifts, particularly
the gift of tongues, as ' frantic fits' of enthusiasm, in which they quite
lost the use of their reason and senses, and had no reason or under-
standing left of their own, and were mad or out of their wits for the
time. But it is hard to find any sense or consistency in this way
of talking. This writer is one of the first that hath supposed that
a frantic fit may be used with discretion ; and that when a man
happens to be in such a fit, and is mad or out of his wits for the time,
and has no reason or understanding left, yet he is capable of making
a discretional use of that fit of madness, as much as any man in his
senses can make use of any natural faculty or habit.
But let us examine more particularly the account he is pleased to
give us of the gift of tongues. He first pretends to consider the
original account that is given of it in the second chapter of the Acts
of the apostles, The representation he makes of what happened
on the day of Pentecost, is to this purpose. That those on whom
the Holy Ghost fell, uttered ' some incoherent words ' in different lan-
guages, 'but no man could tell in any language, what they were talk-
ing about, or what they aimed at in such a confusion of voices.' And
thus ' the whole company stood either wondering or laughing, till
Peter stood up, and in a rational coherent discourse, let the people
into the design of all this.' And ' upon the whole,' he says, ' it seems
very plain, that while the hundred and twenty were talking all to-
gether in different languages, no man in any language could make
any thing of it, or understand any thing by it,' pp. 229, 230.
First he asserts that there were ahundred and twenty who all spoke
together in different languages, as if the text expressly said this.
But there is no proof that there were a hundred and twenty on whom
476 GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT.
the Holy Ghost fell, on the day of pentecost,* or if there were, that
all the hundred and twenty spoke at once. How many of them
spoke, and in what order we cannot tell ; whether they spoke one
after another in different languages, or divided themselves among
the multitude ; in which case several of them might speak to differ-
ent persons at the same time. And any one that considers the vast
numbers of persons that were convened at Jerusalem at their solemn
feasts, may easily conceive, that many of them might speak at once
to different parts of the crowd without. confusion. But whoever they
were that spoke, it is not true which he so confidently avouches to
be very plain, that 'while they were talking in different languages,
no man in any language could make any thing of it, or understand
any thing by it.' For we are expressly told, that-the multitude that
were met together, of different nations, said, 'We dohear them speak
in our tongues the wonderful works, or wonderful things TO. jueyaXEta
of God.' From whence it is evident, that they did understand them,
and found that they discoursed about excellent and divine things,
worthy of God. There were others indeed that mocking said, These
men are full of new wine. These probably were such as did not
understand the languages they were speaking in, and to whom,
therefore, it must appear barbarism and confusion ; for those that
understood them spoke and thought otherwise. Then Peter rose
up, and this author himself owns, that this discourse was rational
and coherent. He addressed himself particularly to the men of
Judea, and among other things told them, that Jesus whom they
crucified, ' being risen from the dead, and by the right hand of God
exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy
Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear;' Would
not this have been a fine thing to appeal to, as a demonstrative evi-
dence, that Jesus was risen and exalted at the right hand of God,
and that God had made him both Lord and Christ : if his disciples
had only been, as this writer represents it, like a company of mad-
men, all talking together a kind of gibberish ; and uttering some
incoherent words without meaning or connexion, and with such a
confusion of voices, that no mortal could make any thing of what
they said ? the effect that followed upon it, the conversion of three
thousand persons, who continued stedfastly in the apostle's doctrine,
was an undeniable proof of the greatness and wonderfulness of the
* We read indeed of an hundred and twenty disciples who met together, Acts i. 15,
but it is not likely that all these were continually together, and especially early in the
morning. In the last verse of the preceding chapter, we read of Matthias's being num-
bered with the eleven apostles ; and in the next words we are told, thit when the day
of Pentecost was come, they were altogether in one place ; which may well be under-
stood as relating to the apostles, that had been mentioned just before. And accordingly
in the xivth verse, where we have an account of Peter's beginning to speak, we read
only of Peter standing up with the eleven, which makes it probable that they were only
the twelve apostles that were then together. And indeed it was to the apostles, that
the promise of being baptized with the Holy Ghost within a few days, was particularly
made by our Saviour ; and it was to them that the command was directed to stay at
Jerusalem, and wait for the accomplishment of that promise, as is manifest from Acts i.
2, 4, H. Though afterwards the Holy Ghost was poured forth on many others, see
Acts iv. 31, vi. 3. . .
GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT. 477
event, and what a mighty impression it made upon those that were
witnesses to it ; since it brought, so many at once to acknowledge a
crucified Jesus as the Christ, contrary to all their prejudices; that
is, to acknowledge one for the Christ, or true Messiah, who but a
little before had been condemned as a deceiver, and put to an igno-
minious death by the influence of the chief priests and Sanhedrim,
whose authority and decisions were of so vast a weight with all of
that nation.
The account this writer next pretends to give of the gift of tdngues
in the church of Corinth, pp. 231, 232, is equally unfair and scan-
dalous. He represents them as a parcel of mad enthusiasts met to-
gether, that did not speak 'any consistent sense that could be under-
stood or interpreted by any one present ; and who by practice and
strength of imagination wrought themselves up into those raptures
and ecstasies, in which they had no reason, or understanding left.'
He represents it as a mechanical power and operation of the spirit,
an extraordinary powerful and blind spirit, and that they were out
of their wits for the time.
By the way I cannot but observe, what a strange idea our author
would give the world of the apostle Paul ; for whom yet he frequent-
ly pretends a high veneration both in his former book, and in this.
That apostle begins his epistle to the Corinthians, with declaring,
that he thanked God continually on their behalf, for the grace of
God which was given them by Jesus Christ : that in every thing
they were enriched by him in all utterance, and in all knowledge,
so that they came behind in no gift. And that thereby the testi-
mony of Christ was confirmed in them, 1 Cor. i. 4 7. And through-
out the whole xiith chapter of this epistle, he reckons up a diversi-
ty of extraordinary gifts that were poured forth in that age, in a
wonderful variety upon the professors of Christianity ; all which he
ascribes to the divine Spirit, and to the special operation of God him-
self, who had appointed them all for the good of his church ; and
that he divided these gifts to every man severally according to his
will. And among these gifts he reckons that of tongues, and the
interpretation of tongues. Whereas it seems these gifts of the Spirit,
of which the apostle speaks in such high terms, and upon which he
so often lays a great stress, as yielding an illustrious attestation to
Christianity, were only frantic fits of enthusiasm, wholly owing to
the strength of imagination, and certain mechanical operations. So
that when the apostle urges them, chap. xiv. 1, to desire spiritual
gifts, it was only to desire unaccountable fits and motions of enthu-
siasm. And when he thanks God that he spoke with tongues more
than they all, v. 18, it must be understood, as signifying that he
excelled them all in these frantic fits ; and had a greater faculty
than any of them had of working himself into those raptures and
ecstasies, and thereby losing his reason, and uttering words without
sense, or coherence. Such is the idea our author gives of that
great apostle of the Gentiles, who by his account must have been
one of the wildest enthusiasts that ever lived, and so mad, that he
took those fits of frenzy for extraordinary operations of the divine
478 GIFTS' OF THE SPIRIT:
Spirit. And this is he whom this same writer at other times repre-
sents, as the great free-thinker of his age, the bold and brave de-
fender of reason against authority.*
I think all that have ever carefully read that apostle's writings,
must allow that he had his reason and senses ; and if so, he must
be acknowledged to be a competent judge of the matter of fact,
that is, that he himself had, and that there were several persons in
the church of Corinth that had the gift of discoursing in languages
which they had never learned. Whether our author supposes this
to be a permanent habit, or only an occasional power of doing it
when the afflatus was upon them, it is impossible to account for it
in a natural way, or by any strength of imagination, or powers of
mechanism. If it was done at all, it must have been by a super-
natural power. They must have been inspired by some spirit
besides and above their own. And it can hardly be supposed that
an evil spirit, supposing it in his power, would have taken such
pains to give attestation to Christianity, the manifest design and
tendency of which was to destroy the heathenish superstition and
idolatry, to reclaim men from vice and wickedness, and to engage
them by the most powerful motives to live soberly, righteously, and
godly in this present world.
Indeed if this gift of tongues were no more than a knack of
uttering a few words of senseless gibberish, that did not properly
belong to any language, there would not be much in it. And this
seems to be the representation the author gives of it. And what is
very odd, he would fain bring in the apostle Paul for a voucher ;
who, he tells us, speaks of this gift, not as a speaking with different
tongues, but as an ' uttering different sounds and voices, and com-
pares it to muttering, grumbling, piping, harping, and trumpeting,
rather than talking in any articulate language.' I leave it
to the reader to judge of the candour and sincerity of this writer,
who can make such a representation as this of the apostle's sense ;
as if he supposed that those that had this gift did not really speak
any language at all, but only made a senseless noise, which it was
impossible for themselves or any other person to understand. And
so when he blesses God in the passage already cited, that he could
* speak with tongues more than they all,' the meaning is, that he
thanked God that he could ' mutter, grumble, and pipe, and speak
unintelligible gibberish,' and make a confused inarticulate noise
more excellently than any of them.
But this is all gross misrepresentation and abuse. It is extremely
evident to any one that impartially reads that chapter, that the
apostle all along supposes the gift of tongues to be a real extra-
ordinary gift or power of speaking in different languages ; that the
languages spoken by the persons that exercised that extraordinary
gift were intelligible to such as were acquainted with those lan-
guages; and that what they said was in itself good and excellent;
but what he blames some among the Corinthians for is an unsea-
* Mor. Phil. vol. i. p. 71.
GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT. 479
soriable ostentation of that gift, by using it in the public assemblies
before persons that had not the knowledge of those languages, and
therefore could not be profited by what was spoken. This he illus-
trates and confirms by many good reasons. He observes, that even
with respect to the sounds of inanimate things, such as pipe, harp,
trumpetj they can be of no use, except people can distinguish the tune
or sound ; much more in languages or articulate sounds, which are
properly designed for communicating persons' thoughts and sen-
timents to one another, care should be taken that the words
should be such, that those to whom they are spoken may under-
stand their meaning, which they cannot be, if they be uttered in a
language that those that hear it are strangers to. ' There are,' says
he, ' so many kinds of voices, i. e. of languages in the world, and
none of them is without signification.' They are all significant to
those that are acquainted with those languages ; bat to others they
appear barbarous. If I know -not the meaning of the voice, I shall
he unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speak eth shall
be a barbarian unto me/ vers. 10, 11. This is evidently the course
of the apostle's reasoning. And then speaking of such as ' blessed
and gave thanks to God in a strange tongue ;' he urges, that he
that ' occupied the room of the unlearned could not reasonably say
amen to it ;' and adds, ' thou verily givest thanks well,' KaAwe,
excellently, ' but' the other, i. e. the unlearned, that doth not
understand it, is not edified,' vers. 16, 17. He shows, ver. 22, that
those tongues ' were for a sign, not to them that believed, but to
them that believed not.' Those that were already established in the
Christian faith did not need this sign to convince them, and
therefore there was no need of the exercise of this gift in their
ordinary stated assemblies, where the faithful met together for
their mutual edification and instruction. They were properly in-
tended for a ' sign to unbelievers,' to those that were yet strangers
to the Christian faith, that when they saw such, extraordinary gifts
poured forth upon the professors of Christianity, they might be
convinced of its divine original. But though the right use of that
gift of tongues might be of signal advantage to Christianity, and
tend to the conviction of unbelievers ; yet, if not used prudently
and in an orderly manner, it might create confusion in their assem-
blies ; and this would expose them to their adversaries, who, if they
should come into their assemblies, and hear several of them talking
in strange languages which they knew not the meaning of, might
be ready to say they were mad, ver. 23. He therefore gives direc-
tions that not above two or three should speak in the church in a
strange language, and that by course, and that one should interpret
what was said. But if there was no interpreter, he that was for
speaking in the strange tongue was to keep silence in the church,
vers. 27, 28. This is the sum of what the apostle saith on the
subject; by which we may see how different it is from the repre-
sentation this writer is pleased to give us of it.
As to his pretence, that those that had this extraordinary gift of
tongues did not understand what they themselves said, and that
4-80 GITTS: OF THE SPIUI.T.
they had no reason or understanding left of their own, whilst they
were exercising that gift; this appears to be false, from the account
the apostle gives of this matter ; for he expressly saith, ver. 4, ' That
he that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he
that prophesieth edifieth the church :' where it is evident that he
puts this difference between speaking in a public assembly in a
strange tongue, and prophesying, or giving public exhortations and
instructions, in a language known to the hearers ; that in the former
case a man only edified himself, because he himself only under-
stood what he said ; but did not edify others, because others did
not understand him ; whereas, in the latter case, he edified others
as well as himself. And therefore he saith, ver. 14, ' If I pray in
an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is
unfruitful,' i. e. bringeth forth no fruit, and is of no advantage to
others. He therefore declares, ' I will pray with the spirit, and will
pray with the understanding also ;' that is, I will so pray with the
spirit, that my meaning may be understood by others. And accord-
ingly he adds, ver. 19, ' In the church I had rather speak five
words with my understanding than ten thousand words in
an unknown tongue.' And what he means by speaking ' with his
understanding' he explains in the words immediately following,
' that I might teach others also.' And for this reason he gives it as
a rule that he that had the gift of tongues should ' keep silence in
the church' if there were none to interpret. ' And/ says he, ' let
him speak to himself and to God,' i. e. let him address himself to
God silently in acts of devotion for his own edification ; where he
again supposes that he had the exercise of his reason, and very well
understood what he himself was to say, though, as others could not
understand it, it was better for him to keep silence in the church,
and revolve it secretly in his own mind.
But our author insinuates, that if a man understood the language
himself, he might interpret it ; whereas the apostle mentions the
gift of speaking and of interpreting tongues as two different gifts.
Upon which this writer makes this reflection, that ' one man was to
speak in a language which he did not understand, and could not
interpret ; and another was to interpret a language which he could
not speak.' It is probable he thinks this a very smart observation.
But the former part of it I have already shown to be false. For the
apostle here plainly supposes that those that had the gift of tongues
did themselves understand what they spake. And it is as plain that
those that interpreted what was spoken did understand what they
interpreted. But it is very conceivable on the one hand, that a man
may speak a foreign language very well, and yet not be happy in
rendering it readily and properly into the vulgar tongue. And, on
the other hand, a man may not be able to speak a foreign lan-
guage readily and fluently, and yet may understand it so as to be
able to give the sense of it readily and happily in his own. These
are really different, and the difference between them is easily
conceivable in a natural way. And it is as conceivable, supposing
these gifts to be communicated in an extraordinary and supernatural
GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT*. 481
way, that God might so order it, that some persons might have
the gift of speaking readily and fluently in a language which they
never learned, and yet not be able readily and immediately to
interpret and explain it to advantage in the vulgar tongue. And on
the other hand, other persons that had not the gift of speaking so
readily in those strange languages, might yet have a happy gift
communicated to them of readily interpreting, in apt and proper
expressions, the sense of what was thus spoken. These two gifts
were indeed frequently found in the same persons, as is evident
from ver. 5, * For greater,' i. e. more useful to the church, ' is he
that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he
interpret, that the church may receive edifying.' Where it is plainly
implied, that the same persons that spoke with tongues did some-
times at least also interpret. And therefore he exhorts, ver. 13,
' Let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may
interpret ;' that is, let him pray to God to give him also the gift of
aptly and readily interpreting what he spoke in the vulgar tongue,
that the other might be rendered more useful ; which manifestly
supposes that these gifts often met together in the same persons ;
though it is plain they did not always go together, but were dis-
tributed to different persons, see chap. xii. 10, 30, xiv. 28. And
there might be wise reasons for this, that might render it proper
that those gifts should be sometimes separated, though we do not
well know those reasons at this distance, because we are not well
acquainted with the circumstances of the case. It is evident, from
the account the apostle Paul gives us in the xiith chapter of the
Epistle to the Corinthians, that it pleased God in that first age to
distribute those extraordinary gifts with great variety, ' giving to
every man severally according to his will.' And it might be so
ordered to prevent their being too much elated on the account of
those extraordinary gifts, which, as human nature is constituted,
even good men themselves might be in danger of; and to make
them more deeply sensible of their continual dependence upon God,
who alone made them to differ from one another; and that they
might in their several ways be useful and necessary to each other,
and to the church ; and so their mutual harmony might be strength-
ened. The apostle illustrates this with regard to this very case of
different spiritual gifts, communicated to different persons, by an
elegant similitude, drawn from the different uses and functions of
the members of the body, see 1 Cor. xii. 14 31.
Thus I have gone through what this writer offers with regard to
the gift of tongues ; for as to his invective against ' the lying monks
of the fourth century,' as he calls them, for pretending to give an
account of the apostle's propagating Christianity as far as India,
&c. by the help of the gift of tongues, we need not trouble ourselves
much about it. Though we have no authentic account of the
apostles' travels or preaching, yet it cannot reasonably be doubted,
that they did take pains to propagate Christianity in distant coun-
tries. Christ's commission to them was express ' to teach all na-
tions, and to go through all the world, and preach the gospel to
i i
482 GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT.
every creature ;' and it can scarce be thought, that they who had so
profound a veneration for our Lord Jesus, would entirely neglect
the commission he gave them. It does not appear that ' all the
apostles of the circumcision kept together in and about Jerusalem,
as he pretends, during all St. Paul's travels.' There is no proof
that they were all of them together there at any one time when St.
Paul came thither, not even at the council at Jerusalem. Or if
they were, it no more proves that they were there continually, than
St. Paul's being there at those times proves that he was always
there. The only apostle that there is any reason to think resided
constantly at Jerusalem is St. James, who alone is mentioned at
St. Paul's being the last time at Jerusalem, Acts xxi. 18 ; and Luke's
silence about the travels and labours of the other apostles, which
this author urges, is no proof at all ; since he did not intend to
write down the Acts of all the apostles, but chiefly of St. Paul,,
whose companion he was ; and after his conversion he takes not
much notice of any other. We find from Gal. ii. 11, that St. Peter
was at Antioch, and from his own epistle, that he was at Babylon ;
whether that be to be understood of Babylon properly so called,
or of Rome, as some suppose ; yet St. Luke takes not the least
notice of either of these ; so that no argument can be drawn merely
from his silence. As to what he farther urges, ' that it is not to be
supposed that these men, who were rigidly strict to the law, should
thus disperse themselves among the heathen nations, where they
could neither eat nor drink with any body ;' he can neither prove
that the apostles were so rigidly strict to the law as he supposes,
the contrary to which has been shown ; nor if he could, would it
prove, that they would not travel among the heathen nations for
their conversion. Since it is an undeniable fact, that those Jews who
were most strict in the observance of the law, did yet go among the
heathen to proselyte them, and did actually, from time to time, turn
many of them from their idolatry. So that this writer might have
spared his reflections here, except he could have brought some
better arguments to support them. That Christianity made a vast
progress, even in the apostolic age, is certain, not only from several
passages in Scripture,* as well as in Christian writers, much elder
than the fourth century,-)- but from the testimony of heathen writers
themselves, particularly^ Tacitus with regard to the apostolic age,
and of Pliny for that immediately following. And considering that
* See Rom. xv. 19, Col. v. 6, 23, ii. 1, 1 Peter i. 1, v. 13.
t I shall mention particularly that of Justin Martyr, who flourished in a little more
than a hundred years after the death of our Saviour. In his dialogue with Trypho,
upon occasion of that text in Malachi, chap. i. after having observed, that though the
Jews were much dispersed, yet there were some nations among whom none of them'ever
yet dwelt ; he adds, oiiSi tv yap O\UQ tarl TO yivoe avSptairtav elre J3apa.po>v firs
f\\riv<av, &c. ' There is no nation of men, whether barbarians or Greeks, or by what-
ever name they are called, &c. among whom prayers and thanksgivings are not offered
to the Father and Maker of all things, through the name of a crucified Jesus.' Allowing
these expressions to be a little hyperbolical, they show that Christianity had then made
a very wide progress in different parts of the world.
. $ Tacit. Annal. lib. 15. Plin. Epist. lib. 10. Epist. 97, ad Trajan.
GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT. 483
it had no worldly advantages to attend it, that it had the artifices
and influence of the priests, the bigotry and superstition of the
vulgar, the inveterate prejudices both of the Jews and Gentiles, and
the vicious appetites and passions of men engaged against it ; and
considering the weakness and meanness of the instruments by
whom it was first propagated, and the persecutions to which the
professors of it were exposed, it is impossible to account for the
amazing progress it made, without supposing the truth and evidence
of those facts on which it is founded, and especially of the extraor-
dinary gifts poured forth in the apostolic age ; among which that of
tongues was very remarkable, and particularly fitted to promote the
spreading of Christianity in different nations. And if all these
apostolical gifts had been no more than frantic fits of enthusiasm,
and the primitive Christians were such a parcel of madmen as this
writer thinks fit to represent them, I am persuaded that Christianity
and its professors would soon have sunk into the same obscurity
with the French prophets, to whom he is pleased to compare them.
I had observed, that among other gifts of the apostolical age, one
was the gift of wisdom and knowledge, whereby they had their
minds extraordinarily enlightened in the knowledge of spiritual and
divine things, and that it cannot be pretended that this was one of
those gifts that were capable of being abused to propagate error
and falsehood ; 'since it is a contradiction to suppose, that any
person should, by the exercise of this gift of divine wisdom and
knowledge, that is, by the very actual exercise of the knowledge of
truth, and by declaring and imparting to others the knowledge he
himself had of the truth, promote and propagate false doctrine and
upon himself. The suppositior
his former book, concerning the extraordinary gifts in the apostolic
age was this, ' that those that were endued with those gifts might
make either a good or bad use of them, as much as of any natural
faculties or talents ;' where he evidently runs a parallel between
natural faculties and talents and the apostolical gifts, and supposes
them to be alike in this, that they were equally capable of being
applied to good or ill purposes. This will easily be allowed with
regard to natural faculties and talents. For when a man uses those
talents, e. g. his judgment, fancy, sagacity, eloquence, to promote
error and vice, he as really uses his faculties and talents, as if he
employed them in the cause of truth and virtue, only he makes a
wrong or bad use of them. But the case is different with regard to
some of the apostolical gifts. They were not like natural faculties,
which may be really used and exercised, and in that use and exer-
cise be applied to promote error as well as truth ; but they were of
such a nature, as if really used and exercised at all, could only
serve the cause of truth. Of this kind I reckoned the gift of divine
wisdom and knowledge, which included the illuminating of their
minds with the actual knowledge of divine truth. Now it is mani-
fest, that whenever this gift was really exercised, it could only serve
i i 2
484 GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT.
the cause of truth. Knowledge may be used to promote error, but
the knowledge of truth cannot. And the contrary supposition is
absurd and self-contradictory.
P. 235, he allows that the power of working miracles was not a
permanent abiding habit to be exercised at any time, and at mere
will and pleasure ; that it was not constant, but occasional ; yet he
asserts, that ' whenever they had this power and could exercise it,
as they were free agents in it, they might make a good or bad use
of it, as much as of any natural power they had, and in the exercise
of which they were free,' p. 236. But if the apostles did not work
miracles by their own power, but by the immediate impulse and
agency of the Divine. Spirit, and could never perform those miracles
at any time but when he thought fit to enable them to do them ; it
is absurd to the last degree to suppose that they could exercise that
power for such purposes as they themselves pleased, contrary to the
mind of the Spirit by whom they were at that time enabled to
exercise it. If therefore they should have attempted at any time to
work such miracles in confirmation of falsehood, they must have
immediately failed in the attempt; except we suppose the Spirit
himself, by whose influence these miracles were wrought, and on
whose will it depended when they should work them, intended to
confirm falsehood, and lent his power for that purpose. To suppose
which of a good Spirit, which is the present supposition, is a mani-
fest inconsistency. As to his insinuation, p. 235, as if the efficacy
of the miracles depended on the ' faith of healing,' which he thinks
' madmen and lunatics might have in a higher degree than others,
as they had the greatest force of imagination ;' I would know when
the dead were raised, as Eutychus was by the apostle Paul, and
Dorcas by St. Peter, whether the faith and imagination of these
dead persons did also co-operate to their being raised again ? Or,
did the faith of the impotent man that had been lame from his
mother's womb, i. e. his belief that the apostles would give him
money, for this was all he expected from them j did this imagi-
nation of his enable them in an instant, by a word speaking, to
restore him to the perfect use of his limbs ? Acts iii. 4 8, But I
shall say no more of this here, having taken notice of it before ;
and besides, our author is pleased afterwards to own, p. 236, that
' the cure of a fever, or any common distemper, by a touch or
word of command, must be allowed to be very extraordinary and
miraculous.'
485
CHAPTER XI.
The Author's attempt to vindicate what he had said concerning the Apostle's preaching
different Gospels, shown to be vain and insufficient. His censures on the Apocalypse
considered. The doctrine of Christ's satisfaction farther vindicated against his ex-
ceptions. His concluding attempt to prove that there are plain marks of imposture
in the law of Moses, and particularly that it was calculated to advance the carnal
worldly interest of the politician, and that it gave- a large indulgence to personal
intemperance, and the lusts of uncleanness. The 'strange representations he makes
of the law of jealousy. The injustice of his reflections upon it shown. The Con-
clusion.
THIS writer had, in his former book, made a mighty noise about
the different gospels preached by the apostles. He had given a
formal account of the Jewish gospel, which he pretends was taught
by all the apostles but St. Paul. This pretended Jewish gospel
was shown to be entirely his own fiction.* It highly concerned
him, therefore, since he had laid so great a stress upon it, to vin-
dicate what he had offered on this head, if he had been able to do
it. And he assures us, in the contents of his ninth section, which
I am now going to consider, that he has proved that there was a
real separation between Peter and Paul, ' occasioned by the dif-
ferent gospels they preached.' One would, therefore, have expected
here some vindication of his Jewish gospels, but nothing of this
appears. He crys out, as his custom is, against systems and
school divinity, which to be sure is very pertinent to the point in
debate. And then he answers all that I had said by asking a few
questions, which he supposes must * take me three or four volumes
more to answer.' One of them relates to the long and warm de-
bates in the Jerusalem council ; but how this will prove a difference
among the apostles is hard to see ; since it appears that there was
an entire harmony among them,- and that they all concurred in
condemning the false Judaizing teachers, as subverting men's souls,
and in absolving the Gentiles from the observation of the law of
Moses. He next mentions Paul's withstanding Peter to the face,
and ' charging him with prevarication and inconsistency.' But this
doth not prove that they preached different gospels. On the con-
trary, it appears evidently, from that very passage, that St. Peter
did not believe the absolute obligation of the ceremonial law more
than St. Paul; that the difference between them was not about
any point of doctrine ; but because Peter, for fear of giving offence
to some of the Jews that came from Jerusalem, declined eating
openly with the Gentiles as he had done before ; for this he was
blamed by St. Paul. And this apostle, in what he saith to him on
that occasion, proceeds upon it as an uncontested truth, in which
See Div. Author, pp. 231232.
486 APOSTOLIC PREACHING.
he and St. Peter were agreed; that we are justified, ' not by the
works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ,' Gal. ii. 15, 16.
Our author's next question supposes, that James ' sent down his
Jewish zealots to Antioch, after the decree of the council, to insist
upon circumcision and obedience to the whole law. But this
cannot reasonably be supposed, since we find that James himself
was one of the principal of those that in the council of Jerusalem
argued for exempting the Gentiles from those things, and joined in
branding those as troublers of the churches, and subverters of
men's souls, that insisted upon it. And afterwards we find him
representing it as a fixed point, agreed and concluded upon, that
the ' Gentiles should observe no such things,' Acts xxi. 25. Our
author's following questions go upon these suppositions : ' that
Peter and Paul broke upon this, and a schism in the church hap-
pened upon it during the whole apostolical age ;' the absolute
falsehood of which was clearly and fully shown iu my former book,
to which he has not been able to make the least reply.* That St.
Paul, ' long after this, in his Epistle to the Galatians, mentions
Peter personally, and by name, five or six times, as the head and
ringleader of those Judaizers ; and that he openly and plainly
charges the Judaizing apostles and teachers,' by which this writer
means all the apostles of our Lord, except St. Paul himself, ' as
false apostles and teachers, and for usurping the ministry, which
had been wholly left to him. All this is purely fiction, since, on
the contrary, it is evident from the account St. Paul himself gives,
that there was an entire harmony and agreement between him and
the other apostles, of whom St ; Peter was one of the chief. That
they approved his doctrine, and owned his divine mission ; and he
plainly distinguishes between the apostles, and those whom he
calls 'false brethren/ who came in ' privily to spy out their liberty,'
Gal. ii. 2 10. Thus I have gone through the author's questions,
which, with the invectives he is pleased here to bestow very plen-
tifully upon me, and which it is neither worth my while nor the
reader's to take the least notice of, is all that he offers to show
that the apostles preached different gospels; and must pass for
a full answer to the clear and direct proofs I have brought to the
contrary.
He goes on, p. 240, &c., to say something again about the
Jerusalem council, and repeats what he had said in his former
book, ' that the Jerusalem council enjoined the law of proselytism
upon the heathen Gentile converts ; and this law of proselytism he
explains to be a total absolute separation from the rest of the
world, with regard to eating, drinking, cohabitation, intermarriages,'
&c. He should have told us from what memoirs he comes to
know that the Jerusalem councils enjoined this upon the Gentile
converts. For it is certain there is no mention of any such in-
junction in the account given us of that council, in the Acts of the
Apostles, nor of the difference and schism between them and St.
* See Div. Author, pp, 236, 248, 249.
APOSTOLIC PREACHING. 487
Paul, which he assures us this was the occasion of. But there is
one part of this pretended decree, which, if it had been made in
that council, that apostle certainly would not have been against,
and that is, the forbidding intermarriages between the Christians
and the idolatrous Gentiles. For it is evident from what he saith,
2 Cor. vi. 14 16, that he very much disapproved and condemned
those marriages between believers and unbelievers.
Pp. 241, 242, he feigns a state of the case at that council, that
is neither true in fact, nor, if it were, would be any thing to the
purpose at all. He represents it as if the occasion of the council
was, that the Judaizing teachers, who urged circumcision and the
observation of the law upon the Gentiles, were willing that those
among the Gentiles that had been ' proselytes of the gate/ at
the time of their conversion to Christianity, should be admitted
into the church and to all its privileges equally with the Jews,
without being circumcised. But that they would not admit those
that had been converted to Christianity, from being idolatrous
Gentiles, to come into the church without circumcision. But this
is entirely his own imagination. Those Judaizing teachers that
came to Antioch laid it down as an universal rule concerning all
the Gentile converts, ' that except they were circumcised after the
manner of Moses, they could not be saved.' This they urged upon
the brethren at Antioch, a church that had been originally founded,
not by St. Paul, but by some that came from Jerusalem ; and
which seems to have been chiefly gathered out of such as had
been ' proselytes of the gate ;' see Acts xi. 20, 21, 22, 25 ; though
no doubt there were also many among them that had been idol-
atrous Gentiles at the time of their conversion. Accordingly, the
question before the council proceeded concerning all the Gentile
converts without distinction. And Peter, in his arguings upon it,
puts them in mind that God had chosen him long before, < that
the Gentiles should hear by his mouth the word of the gospel,
and believe, and put no difference between them and the Jews,' Acts
xv. 7, 8, 9, where he calls Cornelius and those that were with him,
though they were proselytes of the gate, and not idolaters, ' Gen-
tiles;' and St. James, speaking of the same thing, calls them
' Gentiles too,' v. 14. Indeed all the proselytes of the gate had
been once idolatrous Gentiles, and after being turned from their
idolatry were still called Gentiles ; and were not taken at all into
the peculium of the Jews, nor regarded as belonging to their body,
without being circumcised. And therefore the Judaizing teachers
were not for having them, or any other from among the Gentiles to
be taken into the Christian church without being circumcised.
They were for having the observation of the law urged as necessary
upon all the Gentile converts without exception. And the council
was for having all the Gentile converts, without distinction, ex-
empted from it. In this all the apostles and elders agreed, and
passed a severe censure upon those false teachers that had urged
the necessity of circumcision ; so that what was done at that
council, instead of proving that there were differences among the
488 THE APOCALYPSE.
apostles, or between the other apostles and St. Paul, which is what
the author brings it for, furnishes a manifest proof that there was
an entire harmony among them. Nor has this writer been able to
produce any thing to the contrary ; but after repeating what he
had said before, and what has already been considered, concerning
St. Paul's blaming Peter at Antioch, flies into some wild talk con-
cerning Peter's infallibility, when he denied his master, &c. ; see
pp. 243, 244. And then leaves his argument concerning the dif-
ference between the apostles and the different gospels they preached
to shift for itself, as well as it can.
He next proceeds to vindicate what he had said with regard to
the apocalypse, and represents me as undertaking to prove that it
is not the Christian Revelation ; as if I denied it to be a Sacred
Book of the New Testament ; because I would not allow it to be
the whole of the Christian Revelation, as he had absurdly in-
sinuated, because it has the words, * Revelation of Jesus Christ,' in
the title.
What he offers here is so strangely loose, that the difficulty lies,
not in confuting it, but in reducing it to any thing that can look
like argument. He had asserted that that book teaches the me-
diatorial worship of saints and angels, and prayers for the dead :
that the Christian Jews soon fell into gross idolatry, and set up a
great number of mediators and intercessors with God instead of
one. And this he pretended to prove from the apocalyse; and the
proof he brought was, because the twenty-four elders, whom he
supposed to be the ' principal angels,' are represented as having
' golden censors in their hands full of incense, which is the prayers
of the saints.' But it was shown that those elders were not to be
understood of the angels, nor of departed saints ; but that it was
designed as a figurative representation of the state of the church
on earth, and the prayers offered up to God there. And it is
evident to any one that hath considered that book, that heaven,
and the temple, and altar there, often signify in this prophecy, the
visible Christian church on earth, and the worship there performed.
Our author hath nothing to offer against this ; but to fly out
against the prophetic language and style, as something that cannot
be made common sense of. But though the style be figurative,
and he that would take all the expressions of that hook literally,
would show himself as absurd as this writer has done ; yet it doth
not follow but that by a careful comparing one thing with another,
and considering the genius of the prophetic style, we may come to
know the design of those expressions. And many learned men,
every way superior to this writer, and much better judges of good
sense than he can reasonably pretend to be, have very profitably
employed their pains this way, and found not only a good, but a
sublime and useful sense. And notwithstanding the obscurities of
this book, there have been many noble discoveries made from it,
that affords an illustrious proof of the extent of the divine fore-
knowledge, and of the truth and reality of prophecy.
This writer makes himself merry with my having said, that the
THE APOCALYPSE. 489
' word angel admits of so many senses in that book, that no argu-
ment can be drawn from it.'* The plain design of which was, that
no argument can be drawn merely from that word, as if whenever
it occurs in that book, it is to be understood literally of angels
properly so called, since it is evident, that this expression is often
used, where angels, properly so called, are not intended to be re-
presented by it, of which I gave some instances. Bnt though that
word is there taken in very different senses, yet for the most part,
by a careful consideration of the circumstances of the context
where it is used, we may come to know the meaning of it ; and if
in some particular passages we cannot be certain as to the precise
meaning of it, it will only follow, that no argument can be drawn
from it, as used in those passages ; which may be safely allowed,
since there are many passages in that book, that we do not pre-
cisely know the meaning of ; and yet this doth not hinder, but
that there are other passages plain enough, and of special use.
One of which I take to be that of the angel forbidding John to
worship him, though it could only be an inferior worship that
John intended. And it is an odd thing for this writer to attempt
to prove the worship of angels from that book, in which it is as
clearly forbidden as in any one passage in the whole Scripture.
As to prayers for the dead, he pretends I have admitted of it so
far as he had urged it from the authority of the apocalypse. I had
shown that what this author would put upon us as a proof of
prayers for the dead, has nothing in it but what is very agreeable
to reason, and what no understanding Protestant ever denied.
And now he does not so much as undertake to show the absurdity
of it ; but talks of the primitive Christians in the first ages, as
supposing the souls of the departed saints, to be ' hovering about
their tombs and sepulchres,' in which he abuses them as well as
St. John ; since though they did not suppose them to be admitted
into the full glory of heaven, till the resurrection, yet they sup-
posed them to be in a paradise, a state of rest and peace.
He had asserted, that the author of this book confines salvation
to the Jews only, and that according to him, not one Gentile was
to be saved. Mor. Phil. vol. i. p. 372. The contrary to this was
plainly proved by express passages out of the book itself, to which
our author has nothing to answer ; but according to his laudable
custom, still persists in affirming what he had said before. He de-
clares that the whole Jewish nation excluded even the devout
Gentiles, or proselytes of the gate, from any possibility of salva-
tion, till they became proselytes of righteousness, and conformed
to the whole law , and that the Christian Jews made the entrance
still narrower, and excluded all from hope of salvation, who did
believe Jesus to be the true national prophetic Messiah ; that is,
' a mighty conquering prince of the house of David, who was to
subdue all other nations under them.' And so he goes on after his
way, to assert that this was the idea under which the prophets re-
presented the Messiah, see pp. 250, 251, which he had said several
times before, and which has been already considered.
* See Divine Authority, pp. 252, 263.
490 CHRIST'S SATISFACTION.
He concludes this section with assuring his reader, that by my
own acknowledgment the prophetic style and language are unintel-
ligible ; and then urges, that it is impossible to convince the Jews
that they mistook the prophets ; whereas it is both certain that
great numbers of the Jews, at the first promulgation of the gospel,
were convinced by those prophecies ; and that many of the Jews
since have been convinced by them, of some of which Mr. Chap-
man has given him a particular account. As to what he adds,
that it is impossible for me, by all my shifts and evasions, to con-
vince him that he has mistaken the prophets, p. 254, I will rea-
dily agree, that it is impossible to make him own that he is con-
vinced, or that he has ever been in the wrong, in any one thing he
has advanced ; but I am satisfied that it is very easy to convince
the rest of the world of this.
In his last section, he proposes to consider what I had offered
concerning the satisfaction of Christ. He saith this is ' a turning
point, and almost the hinge of the whole controversy, and that
therefore he will more particularly consider all that I had offered
about it.' One would expect after this, that he should have en-
tered on a distinct examination of the argument, and yet he passes
it over without so much as taking off the force of anything I had
offered in answer to his objections.
He again represents it as a ' perfect inversion of all order and jus-
tice, that the innocent should suffer for the guilty ; that merit and de-
merit are incommunicable adjuncts, and not transferrable from one
person to another; that it is impossible to urge the doctrine of
Christ's satisfaction in any way whatsoever, so as not to have a
mischievous effect, as not encouraging presumption, quieting men
in their sins, and bearing off repentance.' These things he had
urged more largely and strongly before ; and they have been par-
ticularly considered ; and as he has not vouchsafed to take the
least notice of what was offered on these heads, I shall refer the
reader to my former answer.
He still insists upon it, that he had fully proved, that ' there
were no vicarious sacrifices under the law of Moses ; and that a
man's offering a sacrifice did not exempt him from any other
mulct, fine, or penalty in law.' And he is the more sure of this,
because I have not been able to give any instance to the contrary.
And yet I showed, that in cases where sacrifices were appointed
to be offered, a man was always exempted from any fine, mulct, or
penalty. That the sacrifice under that constitution was always
supposed to avert the penalty, which would otherwise have been
due. But he urges, that sacrifices were a part of legal obedience,
and therefore they could not possibly typify and represent any real
propitiation or sacrifice for sin, p. 261. That 'what was called
making the atonement by the priest's sprinkling the blood, could
signify nothing but declaring the atonement, or giving this open,
public, and legal notification of it, that the person's sacrifice was
accepted, and that by this personal act of obedience to the law, he
stood acquitted in law. It was in the nature of a legal discharge,
CHRIST'S SATISFACTION. 491
that the law by such an offering or personal act was satisfied to
that time.' p. 263. It will easily be acknowledged, that the offer-
ing the sacrifice, in cases where sacrifices were appointed by the
law to be offered, was an act of obedience to the law ; and that
upon offering the sacrifice in such cases in the proper manner, the
person was acquitted and discharged in law from the guilt he was
supposed to have contracted, and the law was satisfied. But does
this prove, that therefore there was no atonement supposed to be
made by those sacrifices ? It proves the very contrary. And it is
a strange way of reasoning, that because the law required a sacri-
fice to be offered as an atonement, in order to the obtaining legal
remission, and upon offering the sacrifice, a man did obtain legal
forgiveness ; therefore the sacrifice made no legal atonement, or
was not supposed to make an atonement in law ?
As to what he adds, p. 264, that " in like manner, Jesus Christ,
by his obedience to death, and shedding his blood upon the cross,
gave a public authentic declaration, or notification, of the accept-
ableness of such personal obedience, as the true righteousness
that God would accept or reward,' I do not see how Christ's
suffering and dying could be said to be a notification of the accep-
tableness of his obedience and death ; it was his resurrection and
glorification that was the proper notification of this; and there-
fore if his death or shedding his blood, is represented as a propi-
tiation, on no other account than that it publicly notified the ac-
ceptableness of his obedience, his resurrection may be more justly
called a propitiation or atonement, which yet it never is in Scripture.
But he urges, p. 260, that ' there is not one word in Scripture of
Christ's dying to reconcile God to us, or to dispose him to be mer-
ciful to penitent sinners ;' nor do those systematical divines, over
whom he triumphs on all occasions, suppose that Christ died to
dispose God to be merciful to us ; but it was because he was dis-
posed to be merciful to us, that he sent his son Jesus Christ to die,
and give himself a sacrifice for our sins. He adds, that there is
not one word in Scripture of Christ's dying to procure merit or
pardon upon our repentance, or to manifest and display the justice
and righteousness of God, and his hatred of sin. But we are told
in Scripture, that Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins ;
that in him we have redemption through his blood, even the re-
mission of sins ; that his blood cleanseth from all sin ; that God
hath set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,
to declare his righteousness in the remission of sins, that God
might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus;
that God hath made him to be sin, or a sin-offering for us, that
we might be made the righteousness of God in him ; that is, that
we might be justified through the redemption that is in Jesus
Christ, as it is elsewhere expressed : that Christ hath redeemed us
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. And many
other passages might be produced to the same purpose. And what
sense can be made of these and such like expressions upon our
author's scheme, I cannot see.
492 CHRIST'S SATISFACTION.
But the most formidable objection is still behind. He has a
good deal of talk, pp. 259, 260, to show how much the world
must be ' obliged to the ignorant and wicked Jews upon the medi-
atorial scheme ; and how hard it is to censure or condemn them
for doing a thing, that was necessary to be done for the salvation
of mankind ; and which God had before ordained and appointed
to be done.' But this sagacious writer does not reflect, that if
this way of talking were just, it would bear as hard upon the
scheme he .pretends to espouse, as upon that which he thinks fit
to oppose. He himself says, that it is clear and intelligible enough,
how a whole nation, or the whole world, may derive vast advan-
tages from the sufferings and hardships of a particular person,' p.
259. And will he say, that upon such a supposition, the world
would be obliged for these vast advantages to them that inflicted
those sufferings and hardships upon that person ? He had in his
former book mentioned several advantages, arising from the death
of Christ ; and particularly, that it was of great benefit, as he was
a glorious martyr, that died to confirm the truth of his doctrine,
and as he thereby exhibited an admirable and useful example.
And must we thank the Jews, and own our great obligation to them
for all this ? This, it must be owned, is a very extraordinary way
of talking. And so whenever God, in his infinite wisdom, over-
rules the wickedness of mankind, which he perfectly foresaw, but
of which he is not the author and the cause, and brings the most
eminent good out of it, the thanks must be given to the wicked
.actors, though they were prompted to what they did, merely by
their own malice, rather than to that supreme wisdom and good-
ness, which, contrary to their intention, brought so much good
out of that evil. But he asks, if Christ had not suffered from the
Jews, must the whole world have been damned ? This goes upon"
the modest supposition of God's prescience being disappointed,
and then what would have been done next ? 1 will not pretend
to say what might have been done, or what method God, in his in-
exhaustible wisdom, might have fixed upon for dispensing his
mercy towards sinful mankind : but as he has taken this way of
doing it, I am satisfied that it is best, and most wisely and fitly
ordered. And it does not prove that God did not take this me-
thod, because if he had not taken this method he would have fixed
upon another. It does not prove, that Christ did not suffer and
die to make atonement for our sins, because if he had not suffered
and died, he had made no atonement for our sins by his sufferings
and death : but such is our author's admirable reasoning. And at
this rate it must be said, that Christ did not die to leave us an ex-
ample, which yet this writer pretends to own he did, because if
he had not died, he had not left us an example by his death. But
I need say no more on this head of Christ's satisfaction, which
was so largely considered in my former book, and which this wri-
ter here so slightly passes over.
He concludes this section and his book, so far as I am concerned
in it, with a virulent invective against the law of Moses, which he
THE LAW OF MOSES. 493
assures us has all the marks and characters of imposture, mentioned
by Dean Prideaux in his Letter to the Deists, and applied by him
to the religion of Mahomet. And first he affirms, pp. 265, 266,
that ' the whole plan and contrivance of this polity was calculated
and directed for the temporal carnal interests, wealth, and power
of the politician, by securing the government for ever in his own
tribe and family.'
As to Moses's own family, I think he gave the greatest proof of
his disinterestedness, and how far he was from any worldly am-
bitious views ; since, notwithstanding his vast authority and interest
with the people, though he left two sons, he did not raise either of
them or their children to any dignity at all, but left them to con-
tinue undistinguished among the common Levites, whose business
was only to minister about the sanctuary, in inferior offices under
the priests. And accordingly they and their descendants continued
in obscurity, nor do we find they made any figure at all. It is
true the priesthood was vested in the family of Aaron by that con-
stitution, who was Moses's brother ; but if Moses had been acted
by a spirit of ambition, and a desire of advancing the power and
grandeur of his family, as this writer represents it, was it not
natural to expect that he should have in the first place taken care
of his own immediate progeny ? Or, if he had admitted Aaron and
his family to a share of the priesthood, that he would not have
excluded his own for ever from it, which yet we find he did ? But
Moses, in the constitutions he made, was only governed by the
directions he received from God, and was ' faithful to Him that
appointed him,' without any regard to his own private interests. As
to what this writer so often insinuates, as if the government was
vested in the tribe of Levi by the Mosaic constitution, this has
been shown to be false. When Moses appointed judges, who were
to discharge the office of magistrates among the people, both the
inferior judges, who were to determine lesser matters, and the
seventy elders, that were appointed for causes of a higher nature,
in neither of these appointments was there any peculiar regard to
the tribe of Levi ; but they were chosen out of all the tribes.
When he died, he did not leave the chief government either in his
own or brother's family, or in his own tribe, but left it in the hands
of Joshua, whom he appointed to succeed him, and in whom the
supreme power was vested. Nor was there any direction in the law
that the succeeding governors should be of the tribe of Levi ; and,
in fact, none of the judges were ever chosen out of that tribe,
except Eli and Samuel. And as to their kings, all the direction
Moses gives as to their choosing them is, that they should choose
' one from among their brethren,' without confining them to any
particular tribe, Deut. xvii. 15. And, by the prophecy he mentions,
of dying Jacob, he seems plainly to fix the chief authority in the
tribe of Judah, Gen. xlix. 8, 10. And, in fact we find, that when
they came to have kings, they were not taken from among the
priests, as it was in Egypt, where their kings were usually priests.*
* See Plutarch de Isid. et Osirid.
494 THE LAW OF MOSES.
As to what he farther adds here, concerning the legal revenues of
the priesthood, amounting to ' an annual rent, or a third part of
the whole produce of the land ; and that the tribe of Levi alone
must have been almost double in wealth and power to all the rest
of the tribes together, and able to maintain a war against them ;'
this depends upon the truth of his own calculations, the unfairness
and absurdity of which hath been sufficiently shown.
The author's next observation, to prove the marks of imposture
in the law of Moses is, because, by the constitution of that law, the
tribe of Levi were to be dispersed through the whole country. But
this is a proof of nothing but the strong prejudices he hath against
the priests and Levites. For if the law was excellent, and fitted to
make the people happy, and to direct them in the true worship of
God, and the practice of universal righteousness, as it certainly
was ; and, if the proper business of the priests and Levites
was to instruct the people in the knowledge of the law, as is
evident from many passages,* then it was a very wise and good
constitution, that the priests and Levites should be dispersed
through the several tribes, for the instruction of the people. As to
what he adds, p. 267, concerning the law for punishing idolatry
with death, and concerning the worship of the local tutelar God of
Israel, this hath been fully considered.
But he farther argues, p. 267, that the ' indulgence given under
this economy to personal intemperance, especially the most pre-
dominant and prevailing lusts of the flesh, drunkenness and carnal
concupiscence, or the excessive use of wine and women, is another
strong and glaring mark of worldly carnal policy.' And he observes,
p. 271, that as ' the priesthood must have been very burdensome
and expensive to the nation, it was but reasonable and fit that they
should be indulged in some carnal liberties and peculiar personal
enjoyments, the better to reconcile them to and make them the
more easy under such a divine economy.' Any one that was to
judge of the Mosaic constitution by this writer's representation of
it, would be apt to think, that in that law there was an allowance
for intemperance and debauchery, in order to make the people easy
under their other burdens. But I doubt not the reader is before
now fully convinced how little stress is to be laid upon any thing he
affirms, though with never so great confidence. As to drunkenness,
he himself seems in this very book to acknowledge that Moses
condemns it, and denounces the judgments of God against it ;
though he pretends he does this, not as a lawgiver but as a prophet
and preacher of righteousness. And whereas he says, ' a man
might be as drunk as he would, and as often, without incurring a
legal punishment ;' it is certain, that in the case of the rebellious
son, brought by his parents before the magistrates, his being a
glutton and a drunkard is particularly mentioned, as a reason of
the severe punishment that was to he-inflicted on him, Deut. xxi.
* See Lev. x. 11, Deut. xxxiii. 10, 2 Chron. Xvii. 8,9, xxx. 22, Neh. viii. 7, 9,
Mai. ii. 4, 7.
THE LAW OF MOSES. 495
20, 21. With regard to the encouragement he pretends was given
in that economy to carnal concupiscence, he represents it as if a
man were allowed by law to ' keep as many wives and concubines
as he thought fit, and turn them off again at pleasure ; to take fresh
ones, and glut his lust with the greatest variety.' But this also is
very unfairly represented. In the Mahometan law, indeed, it is
expressly allowed to every man to have four wives, besides which
they are allowed to lie with their maid-servants as often as they
are pleased, see Alcor. chaps, iv. Ixvi. And accordingly, ever
since the time of Mahomet, it hath been an established law among
them to keep as many women-slaves for their lust as they think
fit to buy, and the children of the one are as legitimate as the
children of the other. And this is not to be wondered at, since
Mahomet himself was noted for lust and impurity, and forged
revelations from God, expressly approving his adulteries, and
allowing him to indulge his lusts without control, and to marry as
many wives as he should think fit, and those even of his near
relations, the daughters of his brother or the daughters of his
sister, see Alcor. chap, xxxiii. But Moses was of a quite different
character. He could never be charged with the least stain of
impurity. Nor is there any encouragement given to it in his law,
but much to the contrary. Great care is there taken to curb and
restrain men's exorbitant lusts. Adultery is forbidden in the
strongest manner, and under the severest penalties, Lev. xx. 10,
Deut. xxii. 22 24. So are all rapes, Deut. xx. 25, 27. And where
a person enticed a virgin that was not married, though he did not
force her but prevailed with her to consent, he was obliged to marry
her, if her father pleased ; and if not, was to give her a dowry,
Exod. xxii. 16, 17. All fornication is expressly forbidden in that
law ; whereas it was generally indulged and allowed in the laws of
other countries. There was to be no ' whore of the daughters of
Israel.' And the reason is given, ' lest the land should fall to
whoredom, and become full of wickedness.' And, to show how odious
this was in the sight of God, 'the hire of a harlot was expressly
forbidden to be brought into the house of the Lord for any vow.'
And it is declared, that ' this is an abomination unto the Lord,' see
Lev. xix. 29, Deut. xxiii. 17, 1 8. So that the priests were not
allowed to receive the money or offerings that were the price of
whoredom. Nor was there any expedient in that constitution for a
lewd woman's pretending to compensate for her wickedness by
making a present of a part of her gains to the church. And how
different was this from the heathen customs, among whom, in many
places, whoredom and impurity made a part of the worship of their
deities ! There were women that prostituted themselves kept in the
public temples, and the rewards of their impurity were offered to
their gods.* Under the Mosaic constitution, no man was allowed to
* Sextus Empyricus informs us, that among many of the Egyptians it was tvK\se
glorious for women to prostitute themselves, Pyr. Hyp. lib. iii. cap. 24. Strabo ac-
quaints us, that at Corinth there was a temple that maintained more than a thousand
496 THE LAW OF MOSES.
abuse his slaves to his lust, as in the Mahometan law. Even with
regard to captives taken in war, they were not permitted to violate
them. But if an Israelite fell in love with a beautiful captive, he
was obliged to take her home and many her, after having allowed
her a proper space to bewail her father and mother, Deut.
xxi. 1015.
With regard to polygamy, some very learned persons have been
of opinion that that passage, Lev. xviii. 18, is designed to prohibit
it. And thus the Caraites understand it, a sect of Jews that are for
keeping close to the letter of the law. But not to insist upon this, if
it be not prohibited in the law of Moses, yet it is certain that there
is nowhere any express allowance for any man to have more wives
than one as there is in the law of Mahomet. Nor is this practice
ever mentioned with the least approbation in that law ; yea, there
are several things that seem fairly to imply a disapprobation of it.*
Moses, in the account he gives of the creation of Adam and Eve,
and the original institution of marriage in paradise, leads them to
conclude that one man was originally designed for one woman ;
that this was the primitive constitution in a state of innocence, and
what God designed at man's first creation. And there are several
excellent regulations in that law, to remedy the inconveniences of
the contrary practice, which had then obtained, and as circum-
stances then stood, could scarce be entirely prevented. It is
provided in that law, that if a man had more wives than one, he
should be obliged to treat them equally with kindness and
humanity, and 'not, out of a greater affection to one, to use the
other ill, or to show a partial regard to the children of the one
rather than to those of the other, see Exod. xxi. 9, 10, Deut. xxi.
15 17. The obliging him to provide for them all, with respect to
their food, raiment, and duty of marriage, and not to diminish this
with regard to the former wife upon his taking another, was
designed to prevent the multiplying of their wives. And whereas a
king might be supposed to have it more in his power than others to
maintain a great number of wives, and might look upon them as a
piece of grandeur and royalty, he is expressly commanded ' not to
multiply wives to himself,' Deut. xvii. 17. The proposing these
regulations cannot in reason be construed into an approbation of
that practice, but rather fairly implies a disapprobation of it, and
shows the disadvantages attending it.
With respect to divorces, the author represents, that according
to that law, a ' man might turn off his wives at pleasure to take
fresh ones, and so glut himself with the greatest variety ; and might
discharge her from him without giving a reason for it.' But this is
whores, hpodov\ n vi; iralpag, ' whores consecrated to the service of the goddess,'
Geogr. lib. viii. And he tells us, that at Comana, a city of Cappadocia, there were
whores consecrated to the moon, whom they there worshipped, lib. xii. And Herodotus
observes, concerning the Babylonians, that there were many women that sat at the gates
of the temple, and prostituted themselves for hire, and that the money that was thus
obtained was wout to be dedicated to sacred uses, Herod, lib. i. cap. 199.
* Concerning this, see Reflect, on Polyg. Dissert, iii. 4,
LAW OF DIVORCE. 497
far from being a fair representation of the Mosaic law relating to
that matter. The law relating to divorces is, Deut. xxiv. 1 4,
' When, a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to
pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found
some uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorce-
ment,' &c. Here it is evident that Moses does not allow a man to
divorce his wife merely at pleasure. There ought to be a reason for
it, and the reason here assigned is some matter of uncleanness.
This the school of Saramaij a noted set of doctors among the Jews*
understood of some weighty important cause. And some of the
later Rabbles, particularly the famous Abarbanel, understood it of a
light indecent behaviour that rendered her- suspected of impurity.
To which they add, as another reason for divorces, a difference and
contrariety of temper, that was not likely to be cured, so that they
hated each other's company, and lived in perpetual contention
What is expressed, ver. 1, by ' her not finding favour in his eyes/ is
expressed in ver. 3, by his ' hating her.' In this case the man was
permitted to give her a bill of divorcement. This law was designed
to prevent worse consequences ; and in many cases was really an
advantage to the woman, who was hereby delivered from a domestic
tyrant and a man that hated her, and left at liberty to marry
another with whom she might live more happily. And if this
author were to argue this point on the foot of the law of nature,
he might probably find it no easy matter to answer Milton's books
on that subject. Yet it is plain this law was not designed to
encourage frequent divorces. It seems rather to have been intended
to check and regulate them which probably had been in use before ;
for Moses refers to them before the giving of that law in Deut.
xxiv. 1 4. See Lev. xxi. 14, xxii. 13, Numb* xxs. 9. By this
law they were not to send them away but for some weighty cause,
and that not without a bill of divorcement* And the formality
necessary in this bill of divorcement gave time for consideration.
But especially what is said, v. 4, is plainly designed to show a dis-
approbation of such divorces. For in order to discourage them it
is ordered, that if the woman should marry again, and the latter
husband should divorce her or die, ' her former husband which sent
her away may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is
defiled ; for that is abomination before the Lord, and thou shalt
not cause the land to sin.' Where it is supposed, that though she
was allowed after her divorcement ' to go and be another man's
wife,' because otherwise the divorcement would have been a much
greater hardship and grievance to the divorced woman, yet she was
looked upon as defiled to her first husband by the second marriage.
And as the man that had first divorced her was the cause of it, he
was never to marry her again ; and let him repent ever so much of
the usage he had given her, and though his affection should return
to her, or it might otherwise be of great advantage to him to take
her again, it was never permitted upon any pretence whatsoever.
And this had a great tendency to prevent rash divorces for sudden
K K
498 LAW CONCERNING JEALOUSY.
quarrels or slight causes,* and tended to make them consider well
before they did it. It is probable that for a long time there were
few instances of divorces among the people of Israel. Mr. Selden
observes, Ux. Hebr. lib. iii. cap. 19, that there is no instance of
that kind recorded, nor arty mention made of divorces at all, from,
the days of Moses till the time of Isaiah, who alludes to it, chap.
1. 1, and so does Jeremiah, chap. iii. 1 6. And by the way I
would observe, that in this passage of Jeremiah, it is hinted in the
allusion, that the bill of divorcement was in those times given for
weighty causes, and particularly on the account of light immodest
behaviour. Divorces, indeed, became very common in the latter
times of the Jewish state ; especially when the school of Hillel had
interpreted that law in a very loose sense, contrary, as is probable,
to the opinion of their ancient doctors. And therefore our Saviour,
to prevent the excesses and abuses that were committed in this
matter, revoked the permission that had been allowed, and brought
the ties of marriage to the original strictness.
But what our author cries out most against is the law concerning
the trial of jealousy. He says, that 'a man moved with a jealous
mind, whether with or without a cause, or whether real or only
pretended, could put his wife to the trial of jealousy, and procure
a priest to poison her, if he thought fit, and had received a valuable
consideration for it,' p. 268. And so he goes on to make a very
scandalous representation of the nature and design of that law.
I shall first make some general observations concerning this law
for the trial of jealousy, and then answer this writer's exceptions
against it.
As to the general ends of this law, they were good and excellent.
Jealousy is a furious and unreasonable passion, and often produces
the most dismal effects. And by the account the wise man gives
of it, it is not improbable that in those countries it was particularly
raging, Prov. vi. 34, 35, Cant. viii. 6. The general design of this
law was to restrain the rage of jealousy,, and hinder it from flying
out into those furious excesses and resentments that it might other-
wise produce. According to this law, the husband was not to take
the punishment into his own hands, but to leave the cause to God,
who would signalize his justice upon the woman if she was really
guilty ; and on the other hand, if she escaped the expected ven-
geance, he was to regard it as a declaration from heaven of her
innocence ; than which nothing could have a greater tendency to
calm and satisfy his mind, and remove the suspicions he had con-
ceived. So that by this law there was provision made for appeasing
a cruel jealousy, for clearing suspected innocence, or for punishing
* Mr. Selden observes the remarkable difference in this respect between the law of
Moses and that of Mohammed, who allows the busband that had divorced his wife to
take her again, though he had divorced her three times, and she had each time been
married to another, Seld. Ux. Heb. lib. i. cap. 9, lib. iii. cap. 21. And yet this author
represents it, as if the Mahometan law were preferable to that of Moses, with regard
to arbitrary divorcement and the multiplicity of wives and concubines, and had reformed
very much npon-it. See Letter to Eusebins, p. 43.
LAW CONCERNING JEALOUSY. 499
secret adulteries. And it had a manifest tendency to restrain the
women from indecent liberties, and oblige them to a modest'con-
duct, when there was such a law as this, whereby they might be
called to a strict trial of their innocence, and. in which they were
taught to expect the most dreadful punishments from heaven in case
they were guilty. These were the general ends of this law, and
they were certainly valuable and important. And if for such ends
as these, it pleased God to appoint such a law, and to interpose
extraordinarily in execution of it, among that people and under
that dispensation, when in so many instances he saw fit to interpose
in an extraordinary manner ; it must be owned to be a wonderful
instance of the divine condescension ; but I can see nothing in it
that can be proved to be unworthy of the wisdom, the goodness,
and justice of the Supreme Being. And if, as some learned persons
think highly probable, there had been before this some extraordinary
trials of innocence that had obtained among other nations in those
early ages, and which were made subservient to the promoting of
idolatry, it might seem fit to God to indulge something of this kind
to his people, that they might not be under a temptation to have
recourse to idols for these purposes, in conformity to the customs of
other nations.*
As to the particular rites made use of on this occasion, they were
all so contrived as to render the whole action more sacred and
solemn, and to impress the minds of the people with a stronger
sense of the divine interposition. Hence it was appointed, that this
trial should only be at the sanctuary ; the priests who had the
management of sacred ceremonies in a peculiar manner committed
to them, had the-cognizance of it. There was a particular sacrifice
appointed to be offered.t The water that was to be drank by the
woman that was suspected, was to be holy, that is, as the Jews
understand it, taken out of the laver that stood in the sanctuary,
and which was employed in sacred uses ; there. was to be some dust
scattered upon it taken off the floor of the sanctuary, and the drink-
ing of this water was to be accompanied with a solemn adjuration.
All these ceremonies, though this writer is pleased to ridicule them,
tended to give a greater solemnity to the whole action, which was
in the nature of an extraordinary appeal to heaven. And when
once these ceremonies were divinely appointed, the effect could not
be expected, if these ceremonies had not been observed.
Let us now consider what this writer offers against this law.
One objection is, that 'if a man only pretended jealousy, he
might put his wife to this trial ; and was not obliged in this case
to name the person suspected, nor to declare the grounds of his
* See concerning this, Dr. Spencer de Leg. Hebr. Ritual, lib. iii. diss. I. cap. ii.
sect. 3.
f Lest this writer should say this sacrifice was contrived for the benefit of the priest,
I would observe, that the offering was only to be the tenth part of an ephah of barley,
which is about the quantity of our pottle ; without oil or frankincense ; part of which
was to be consumed upon the altar, so that the priest could get no great matter by it.
500 LAW CONCERNING JEALOUSY.
suspicion.' But by the unanimous consent of all the Jewish wri-
ters, before a man could bring his wife to this trial of jealousy, he
was obliged to produce witnesses, both that he had given her warn-
ing not to be in secret with such a man, and that after this his
warning or prohibition, she had been in secret with that man for
some time. Each of these things he was to prove by two witnesses,
or he could not be admitted to put his wife to this trial. See this
proved by Mr. Selden, from the best Jewish authorities, Ux. Hebr.
lib. iii. cap. 13.
But the chief objection is, the hand that the priest was to have
in the whole management of this affair. The man was to bring his
wife to the priest, who was to prepare the draught, and to. sprinkle
some of the dust of the sanctuary into it. And he thinks the hus-
band might procure the priest to poison her, if he thought fit, and
had received a valuable consideration for it. Besides, he observes,
that f - the law has made no provision what must be done, supposing
the priest himself had been the suspected person ; and then he
would doubtless have cleared the woman, and proved her innocency
upon such a trial. So that a married woman could not be safe in
playing the whore with any but a priest, and then she might be sure
of being brought off upon any trial of jealousy in her husband.'
And he thinks ' it is very plain, that such a law must have put every
man's wife into the power, and left them at the devotion, of the
priest.' pp. 268, 269.
All that this shows, is the author's forwardness to throw dirt upon
the priests, and to suppose them guilty of the greatest villany and
wickedness ; though in this instance he has nothing but his own
unreasonable prejudices and malice against them, to support the
charge. :
One would be apt to think, according to his representation of the
matter, that there was a particular priest fixed by that constitution,
in every village or parish; and that if a man was jealous of his
wife, he was obliged by law to apply to that particular priest to
try his wife, even though the priest himself happened to be the sus-
pected person ; in which case it might be expected, he would endea-
vour to manage it so as to bring her off upon the trial. Or if the
man had only a mind to get rid of his wife, whether he suspected
her or not, he had nothing to do but to hire the parish-priest to put
poison into the water, upon pretence of sprinkling dust upon ; and
as this matter was very privately transacted, it might easily be done
without danger of discovery.
But these are ridiculous suppositions, that proceed upon an entire
ignorance, or wilful misrepresentation of that constitution. That
trial of jealousy was not to be in a private way in the man's own
country or town, but only at the sanctuary, where there were always
considerable numbers of the most eminent persons ; and where the
chief council of the nation generally met and determined causes.
Nor was it in the power of any particular priest, supposing he had
a special interest in it, to procure that trial to be bro.ught before him
CONCLUSION. 501
when he thought fit. For the several families, or courses of priests,
officiated in their turns ; and the particular priests belonging to each
course, had their several services or offices assigned them by lot.*
And supposing any particular priest to be the person suspected, as
this writer puts the case, it is contrary to common sense to imagine
that the man that was jealous, would bring his wife to be tried
before that priest whom he suspected, when there were so many
other priests ministering in their several courses, to whom he might
bring her. The trial was not a secret thing, but done in a very
public manner. For there were always considerable numbers of
priests and Levites waiting and ministering at the sanctuary at the
same time. And the Jews affirm, that the woman was not to drink
the water, but in the presence of the great council ; * who first did
all they could to persuade her to acknowledge the fault, if she was
guilty ; which, if she did, she was put away from her husband with-
out a dowry. And the priest that should attempt to poison the
woman in such circumstances, and before such numbers of persons,
must, instead of being thought politic and cunning, be supposed out
of his senses ; as well as the man that would attempt to put him
upon it, since it was scarce possible to escape a discovery. Besides
that, it would have been to no purpose for a man to attempt to
bribe any particular priest, except he could have bribed the whole
course at once, which was very numerous, to join in the design of
poisoning the woman ; since he could not know that that particular
priest would be the person to whose lot it would fall to do that
piece of service. Yet upon the strength of these absurd and wild
suppositions, this writer triumphs, as if he had absolutely demon-
strated the Mosaic economy to be an imposture. And so he takes
his leave of this subject and of me, after insinuating, that I do not
believe that men are to be judged by God at the last day, according
to their works ; and that I make the repentance to which pardon
is promised in the gospel to consist only in some death-bed vows,
professions, and promises ; though he knows if he has read the
book he pretends to answer, that I most expressly declare the con-
trary, see Div. Author, pp. 279, 280. These insinuations only show
how gladly he would catch at any thing, which he thinks might
tend to expose his adversaries, though, as it usually happens in such
cases, he has only thereby exposed himself. I have now done with
our author and his book, in which he sets up for a vindicator of
moral truth and reason ; but never were the sacred names of truth
and reason more prostituted and abused, than they are by this writer.
There is some pleasure in managing a controversy upon a subject
of importance, with a person of learning and candour, where the
debate is carried on with a regard to decency, and by fair reason
and argument. But to have to do with one that can allow himself
* Concerning this, see Liglitfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Luke i. 8, 9.
t See Selden, Ux. Hebr. lib. iii. cap. 15.
502 CONCLUSION.
in gross misrepresentation and abuse, in low buffoonery, and confi-
dent assertions of plain falsehoods, is one of the last employments
a man would choose. And therefore I hope I shall be excused, if
I shall not think fit to meddle with this writer any more, except he
should happen to offer something that looks like fair candid reason-
ing, which, if one may judge from what he hath hitherto done, there
is little reason to expect.
355S-4063B
72T
J, UADDON, PRINTER, CASTLE-STREET, FINSBURY.
CHICAGO
44 753 957
BL
2773
.M8L5
ISLAND
The divine authority of
~tKe~OXcl and New~Testa-'
Apr ,27*
1971 bindery
SWIFT
BL
2773
.M8L5
LELAND
The divine authority of
the Old and New Testa-
ment asserted
11*150
THE UNIVERSITY. OF CHICAGO LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11