falhnP 
 
 <!** 
 
 Gninr OF 
 Miss Sue Dunbar 
 
 University of California Berkeley 
 
APOLOGY 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 I B L E 
 
 IN A 
 
 SERIES OF LETTERS, 
 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 THOMAS PAINE, 
 
 Author of a book entitled 
 
 The Acs of REASON, PART the SECOND, 
 
 i 
 
 BEING AN INVESTIGATION OF 
 
 TRUE AND OF FABULOUS THEOLOGY. ' 
 
 O JT\ ~\T _ - 
 
 Lord Bifhop of Landaff, and Regius Prbfcffor o 
 P in the Univerfity of Cambridge, 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 Second and Chelnut Streets, by 
 
JAS5 
 
 8 
 
 LETTER L 
 
 S I R, 
 
 X HAVE lately met with a hook of your's, 
 entitled -THE AGE OF REASON, part the fe- 
 cond, being an inveftigation of true and of fabu- 
 lous theology ; and I think it not inconfiftent 
 with my ftation, and the duty I owe to fociety, 
 to trouble you and the world withfome obfer- 
 vat ions on fo extraordinary a performance. 
 Extraordinary I efteem it ; not from any 
 novelty in the objections which you have pro- 
 duced againft revealed religion, (for I find little 
 or no novelty in them,) but from the zeal with 
 which you labour to diffeminate vpur OT->> 
 nions, and from the confidence wi 
 you efteem them true. You pcrcci , 
 that I give you credit for your fin 
 much foever I may^ieftign your wiiil-rii, ia 
 writing in furh a manner, on fuch -ft; 
 
 and I have no reluclance in acknowledging, 
 that you poflefs a confiderablc fhare cf energy 
 of language, and acutenefs of invc . n; 
 
 though I muft be allowed to lament, that Itxefe 
 talents have not been applied in a manner more 
 
iifeful to human kind, and more creditable to 
 ycurfelf. 
 
 I BEGIN with your preface. You therein 
 ftate that you had long had an intention of 
 publishing your thoughts upon religion, but 
 that you had originally refer ved it to a later 
 period in life. 1 hope there is no want of 
 charity in faying, that it would have been for- 
 tunate for the chriftian world, had your life 
 been terminated before you had fulfilled your 
 intention. In accomplifhing your purpofe, you 
 will have unfettled the faith of thoufands ; 
 rooted from the minds of the unhappy virtu- 
 ous all their comfortable affurance of a future 
 recompenfe; Jiave annihilated in the minds of 
 the flagitious all their fears of future punifli- 
 xnent ; yon will have given the reins to the do- 
 mination of every pallion, and have thereby 
 contributed to the introduction of the public 
 infecurity, and of the private unhappinefs, 
 ufually and almoft neceflarily accompanying a 
 ftate of corrupted morals. 
 
 No one can think worfe of confeffion to a 
 prieft and fubfequent abfolution, as praftiied in 
 the church of Rome, than I do : but I cannot, 
 with you, attribute the guillotine-maflTacres 
 to that caufe. Men's minds were not pre- 
 pared, as you fuppofe, for the commiffion of 
 all manner of crimes, by any doftrines of the 
 church of Rome, corrupted as I efteem it, but 
 by their not thoroughly believing even that 
 religion. What may not fociety expect from 
 thofe, who (hall imbibe the principles of your 
 book ? 
 
A FEVER, which you and thofe about you 
 cxpefted would prove mortal, made you re- 
 member with renewed fatisfaftion, that you 
 had written the former part of your Age of 
 Reafon and you know therefore, you fay, 
 by experience, the confcientious trial of your 
 -own principles. I admit this declaration to be 
 a proof of the fincerity of your perfuafion, but 
 I cannot admit it to be any proof of the truth 
 of your principles. What is confcience ? Is 
 it, as has been thought, an internal monitor 
 implanted in us by the Supreme Being, and 
 dictating to us, on all occafions, what is right, 
 or wrong? Or is it merely our own judgment 
 of the moral rectitude or turpitude of our own 
 a&ions ? I take the word (with Mr. Locke) 
 in the latter, as in the only intelligible ienfe. 
 Now who fees not that our judgments of vir- 
 tue and vice, right and wrong, are not always 
 formed from an enlightened and difpaffionate ule 
 of our reafon, in the inveftigation of truth ? 
 They are more generally formed from the na- 
 ture of the religion we profefs ? from the qua- 
 lity of the civil government under which we 
 live; from the general manners of the age, or 
 the particular manners of the perfons with 
 whom we affociate ; from the education we 
 have had in our youth : from the books we 
 have read at a more advanced period ; and from 
 other accidental caufes. "Who fees not that, on 
 this account, confcience may be conformable 
 or repugnant to the law of nature ? may be> 
 certain, or doubtful ?-r and that it can be n@ 
 A 2 
 
criterion of moral reftitude, even when it is 
 certain, becaufe the certainty of an opinion is 
 no proof of its being a right opinion ? A man 
 may be certainly perfuaded of an error in rea- 
 foning, or an untruth'in matters of faft. It is 
 a maxim of every law, human and divine, that 
 a man ought never to aft in opposition to his 
 confcience: but it will not from thence follow, 
 that he will, in obeying the dictates of his 
 confcience, on all occafions aft right. An in- 
 quifitor, who barns Jews and heretics ; a Ro- 
 befpierre, who maffacres innocent and harmlefs 
 women ; a robber, who thinks that all things 
 ought to be in common, and that a (late of pro- 
 priety is an unjuil infringement of natural li- 
 berty ; thefe, and a thoufand perpetrators of 
 different crimes, may all follow the diftates of 
 confcience ; and may, at the real or fuppofed 
 approach of death, remember " with renew- 
 ed fatisfaftion" the worft of their tranfaftions, 
 and experience, without difiiaay, " a confcien- 
 tious trial cf their principles." But this their 
 confident ions compofure, can be no proof to 
 others of the reftitncle of their principles, and 
 ought to be no pledge to tbemfelves of their 
 innocence, in adhering to them. 
 
 I HAVE thought fit to make this remark, 
 with a view of fuggefting to you a confidera- 
 tion of great importance whether you have 
 examined calmly, and according to the befl of 
 your ability, the arguments by which the truth 
 of revealed religion may, in the judgment of 
 learned, and impartial men, be eftablifhed? 
 
7 
 
 You will allow, that thonfands of learned and 
 impartial men, (I fpeak not of priefts, who, 
 however, are, I truft, as learned and impartial 
 as yourfelf, but of laymen of the mofl fplendid 
 talents) you will allow, that thoufands of 
 thefe, in all ages, have embraced revealed re- 
 ligion as true. Whether thefe men have all 
 been in an error, enveloped in the darknefs of 
 ignorance, (hackled by the chains of fuperfti- 
 tion, whilft you and a few others have enjoy- 
 ed light, and liberty, is a queflion I fubmit to 
 the decifion of your readers. 
 
 IF you have made the beft examination you 
 can, and yet rejeft revealed religion, as an hn- 
 poflure, I pray that God 'may pardon what I 
 efleem your error. And whether you have 
 made this examination or not, does not become 
 me or -any man to determine. That gofpel, 
 which you defpife, has taught me this modera- 
 tion ; it has faid to me, " Who art thou 
 that judgeft another man's fervant ? To his 
 own mafter he ftandeth or falleth." I think 
 that you are in an error ; but whether that 
 error be to you a vincible or an invincible er- 
 ror, I prefume not to determine. I know in- 
 deed where it is faid " that the preaching of 
 the crofs is to them that perifh fooliflmefs, 
 and that if the gofpel be hid, it is hid to them 
 that are loft." The confequence of your unbe- 
 lief mull be left to the juft and merciful judg- 
 ment of him, who alone knoweth the median- 
 ifin and the liberty of our underftandings ; the 
 origin of our opinions ; -the ftrength of our 
 
o 
 
 o 
 
 prejudices ; the excellencies and the defects of 
 our reafoning faculties. 
 
 I SHALL, defignedly, write this and the fol- 
 lowing letters in a popular manner; hoping that 
 thereby they may Hand a chance of being pe- 
 rufed by that clafs of readers, for whom your 
 work feems to be particularly calculated, and 
 who are the' molt likely to be injured by it. 
 The really learned are in no danger of being 
 infefted by the poifbn of infidelity: they will 
 excufe me, therefore, for having entered as lit- 
 tle as poifible into deep difquiiltions concerning 
 the authenticity of the Bible. The fubject 
 has been fo learnedly, and fo frequently, han- 
 dled by other writer's, that it does not want (I 
 had almoft laid, it does not admit) any farther 
 proof." And it is the more neceflary to adopt 
 this mode of anfwering your book, becaufe you 
 dilclaim all learned appeals to other books, and 
 undertake to prove, from the Bible itfelf, that 
 it is unworthy of credit. I hope to fhevv, from 
 the Bible itfelf, the clireft contrary. But in 
 cafe any of your readers fhould think that you 
 had not put forth all your ftrength, by not re- 
 ferring for proof of your opinion to ancient au- 
 thors ; left they fhould fufpeft that all ancient 
 authors are in your favour ; I will venture to 
 affirm, that had you made a learned appeal to all 
 the ancient books in the world, facred or pro- 
 fane, chriftian, jewifli, or pagan, inftead of lef- 
 iening, they would have eftablifhed the credit 
 and authority of the Bible as the word of God 
 
9 
 
 QUITTING your preface, let us proceed to 
 the work itfelf ; in which there is much repe* 
 tition, and a defeft of proper arrangement. 
 I will follow your track, however, as nearly 
 as I can. The firft queftion you propofe for 
 confideration is " Whether there is fufficient 
 authority for believing the Bible to be the 
 "Word of God, or whether there is not ?" 
 You determine this queftion in the negative, 
 upon what you are pleafed to call moral evi- 
 dence. You hold it impoffible that the Bible 
 can be the word of God, becaufe it is therein 
 faid, that the Ifraelites deflroyed the Canaan- 
 ites by the exprefs command of God : and to 
 believe the Bible to be trtie, we mult, you af- 
 firm, ursbelieve all our belief of the moral juf- 
 tice of God; for wherein, you afk, could cry- 
 ing or imiling infants offend? I am aftonifhed 
 that fo acute a reafoner fhould attempt to clif- 
 parage the Bible, by bringing forward this ex- 
 ploded and frequently refuted objection of Mor- 
 gan, Tindal, and Bolingbroke. You profefs 
 yourfelf to be a deifl, and to believe that there 
 is a God, who created the univerfe, and efta- 
 blifhed the laws of nature, by which it is fiifV 
 tained in exiftence. You profefs that from the 
 contemplation of the works of God, you de- 
 rive a knowledge of his attributes; and you re- 
 jedt the Bible, becauie it afcribes to God things 
 inconfiftent (as you fuppofe) with the: at: 
 butes which you have difcovered to belong to 
 him: in particular, you think it repugnant to 
 his moral juftice, that he ffiould doom to de- 
 
10 
 
 ftruftion the crying or fmiling infants of the 
 Canaanites. Why do you not maintain it to 
 be repugnant to his moral juftice, that he fhould 
 fuffer crying or fmiling infants to be fwallowed 
 up by an earthquake, drowned by an inunda- 
 tion, confumed by a fire, ftarved by a famine, 
 or deftroyed by a peftilence ? The "Word of 
 God is in perfect harmony with his work ; cry- 
 ing or fmiling infants are fubjeted to death 
 in both. We believe that the earth, at the ex- 
 prefs command of God, opened her mouth, and 
 fwallowed up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, 
 with their wives, their fons, and their little 
 ones. This you efteem fo repugnant to God's 
 moral juftice, that you fpurn, as fpurious, the 
 book in which the circumftance is related. 
 When Catania, Lima, and Liibon, were ievc- 
 rally deftroyed by earthquakes, men with their 
 wives, their fons, and their little ones, were 
 fwallowed up alive : why do you not fpurn, 
 as fpurious, the book of nature in which this 
 faft is certainly written, and from the perufal 
 of which you infer the moral juftice of God ? 
 You will, probably, reply, that the evils which 
 the Canaanites differed from the exprefs com- 
 mand of God, were different from thofe which 
 are brought on mankind, by the operation of 
 the laws of nature. Different ! In what ? - 
 Not in the magnitude, of the evil not in the 
 fubjedls of fufferance not in the author of it 
 for my philofophy, at lead, inftrufts me to be- 
 lieve that God not only primarily formed, but 
 that he hath through all ages executed the 
 
II 
 
 laws of nature ; and that he will, through all 
 eternity adminifter them, for the general hap- 
 pinefs of his creatures, whether we can, on 
 every occafion, difcern that end or not. 
 
 I AM far from being guilty of the impiety 
 of queftioning the exiftence of the moral juf- 
 tice of God, as proved cither by natural or re<- 
 vealed religion ; what I contend for is fhortly 
 this that you have no right, in fairnefs of rea- 
 foning, to urge any apparent deviation from 
 moral juflice, as an argument againft revealed 
 religion, becaufe you do not urge >an equally 
 apparent deviation from it, argument 
 
 againft natural religion : yea a^ecf the for- 
 mer, and admit the latter, i^ertii g 
 that, as to your objection, u and or 
 fall together. 
 
 As to the Ganaanites, it is needjefs to enter 
 into any proof of the depraved (late of their 
 morals ; they were a wicked people in the time 
 of Abraham, and they, even then, were de- 
 voted to deftru&ion by God ; but their iniquity 
 was not then full. In the time of Mofes, tiiey 
 were idolaters, facrificers of their own crying 
 or fmiling intants ; devoujrers of human fie/h : 
 addicted to unnatural luft; immerfcd in the fil- 
 thinefs of all manner of vice. Now, I think, 
 it will be impoffible to prove, that it was a 
 proceeding contrary to God's moral juftice, to 
 exterminate fo wicked a people. He made the 
 Ifraelites the executors of his vengeance ; and, 
 in doing this, he gave fuch an evident and ter- 
 rible proof of his abomination of vice, as could 
 
12 
 
 not fail to ftrike the furrounding nations with 
 aflonifhment and terror, and to imprefs on the 
 minds of the Ifraelites what they were to ex- 
 pet, if they followed the example of the na- 
 tions whom he commanded them to cut off. 
 " Ye fliall not commit any of thefe abomina- 
 tions that the land fpue not you out alfo, as 
 it fpued out the nations that were before you." 
 How ftrong and defcriptive this language ! the 
 vices of the inhabitants were fo abominable, 
 that the very land was fick of them, and for- 
 ced to vomit them forth, as the flomach dif- 
 gorges a deadly poifon. 
 
 I HAVE often wondered what could be the 
 reafon that men, not deftitute of talents, fhould 
 be defirous of undermining the authority of re- 
 vealed religion, and ftudious in expofing, with 
 a milignant and illiberal exultation every little 
 difficulty attending the fcriptures, to popular 
 animadverfion and contempt. I am not will- 
 ing to attribute this ftrange propensity to what 
 Plato attributed the Atheifm of his time to 
 profligacy of manners to affectation off] ngu- 
 larity to grofs ignorance, afluming the fem- 
 blance of deep refearch and fuperior fagacity ; 
 I had rather refer it to an impropriety of 
 judgment refpefting the manners, and mental 
 acquirements, of human kind in the firft ages 
 of the world. Moft unbelievers 'argue as if 
 they thought that man, in remote .and rude 
 antiquity, in the very birth and infancy of 
 our fpecies, had the fame diftinft conceptions 
 of one ? eternal, invifible, incorporeal, infinite- 
 
ly wife, powerful, and good God, which 
 they themfelves have now. This I lock 
 upon as a great miftake, and a pregnant 
 fource of infidelity. Human kind, by long 
 experience; by the inflitutions of civil foci- 
 ety ; by the cultivation of arts and fcienccs; 
 by, as I believe, divine inftrii&ipn actually 
 given to fome, and traditionally communica- 
 ted to all ; is in a far more diftmguifhed fitu- 
 ation, as to the powers of the mind, than 
 it was in the childhood of the world. The 
 hiftory of man, is the hiftory of the pro- 
 vidence of God; who, willing the fuprenie 
 felicity of all his creatures, has adapted his 
 government to the capacity of thofc, who 
 in different ages were the fubjefts cf it. 
 The hiftory of any one nation throughout 
 all ages, and that of all nations in th? fame 
 age, are but feparate parts of one great plan, 
 which God is carrying on for the moral 
 melioration of mankind. But who can com- 
 prehend the whole of this immenfe delign? 
 The fhortnefs of life, the weaknefs of our 
 faculties, the inadequacy of our means of 
 information, confpire to make it impoflible 
 for us, worms of the earth ! infeds of an hour ! 
 completely to underftand anyone of it's parts. 
 No man, who well weighs the fubjcft, ought 
 to be fbrpriied, that in the hiftories of an- 
 cient times many things fhould occur foreign 
 to -our manners, the propriety and neceffity 
 of which we cannot clearly apprehend. 
 B 
 
IT appears incredible to many, that God 
 Almighty fhould have had colloquial inter- 
 courfe with our firft parents ; that he fhould 
 have contraftecl a kind of friendship for the 
 patriarchs, and entered into covenants with 
 them ; that he fliould have fufpended the 
 laws of nature in Egypt ; fhould have been 
 fo apparently partial, as to become the God 
 and governor of one particular nation ; and 
 fliould' have fo far demeaned himfelf, as to 
 give to that people a burdenfome ritual of 
 worfhip, ftatutes and ordinances, many of 
 which feem to be beneath the dignity of his 
 attention, unimportant and impolitic. I 
 have converfed with many deifts, and have 
 'always found that the ftrangenefs of thefe 
 things was the only reafon for their dilbe- 
 lief of them : nothing fimilar has happened 
 in their time ; they will not, therefore, ad- 
 mit, that thefe events have really taken place 
 at any time. As well might a child, when 
 arrived at a ft ate of manhood, contend that 
 he had never either flood in need of, or ex- 
 perienced the foftering care of a mother's 
 kindncfs, the wearifome attention of his 
 nurie, or the inftruftiori and clifcipline of his 
 fchoolmafter. The Supreme Being felefted 
 one family from an idolatrous world; nurfed 
 it up, by various acts of his providence, in- 
 to a great nation ; communicated to that na- 
 tion a knowledge of his holinefs, juflice, 
 mercy, power, and wifdom ; difleminated 
 
thern, at various times, through every } 
 of the earth, that they might be a t; leaven 
 to leaven the whole lamp," that they might 
 affure all other nations of the cxiitence of 
 one Supreme God, the creator and preferver 
 of the world, the only proper object of ado- 
 ration. With what reafon can we expect, 
 that what was done to one nation, not out 
 of any partiality to them, but for the gene- 
 ral good, fhould be clone to all? that the' 
 mode of Snflrucftion, which was fuited to the 
 infancy of the world, fhould be extended to 
 the maturity of its manhood, or to the im- 
 becility of it's old age; I own to you, that 
 when I confider how nearly man, in a favage 
 ftate, approaches to the brute creation, as to 
 intellectual excellence; and when I contem- 
 plate his miierable attainments, as to the 
 knowledge of God, in a civilised ftate, when 
 he has had no divine inftru&ion on the lub- 
 jecl, or when that inftruetion has been for- 
 gotten, (for all men have known fomething. 
 of God from tradition,) I cannot but admire 
 the wiiclom and goodncfs of the Supreme 
 Being, in having let himfelf down to our 
 apprehenfions; in having given to mankind, 
 in the earlieft ages, fenfible and extraordina- 
 ry proofs of his exiftence and attributes; in 
 having made the jewifh and chriftian difpen- 
 fations mediums to convey to all men, through 
 ail ages, that knowledge concerning himfelf, 
 which he had vouchfafed to give immediate- 
 
16 
 
 ly to the firft. I own it is ftrangr, very 
 ftrange, that he ftiould have made an imme- 
 diate manifeftation of hi mil If in the firft 
 ages of the world, but what is there that is 
 not ilrange? It is (tiange that you and I are 
 Lore that there is water, and earth; and air, 
 and lire that there is a fun, an-d moon, and 
 ftars that there is generation, corruption, 
 reproduction. I can account ultimately for 
 none of theie things, without recurring to 
 him who made every thing, I alfo am his 
 workmanfhip, and look up to him with hope 
 of pidervation through all eternity; I adore 
 him for his word as well as for his work: 
 his work I cannot comprehend, but his word 
 hath allured me of all that I am concerned 
 to know that he hath prepared cverlafiing 
 happinefs for thofe who love and obey him. 
 This you will call preachment, I \vill 
 have done with it ; but the fubject is fo vaft, 
 and the plan of providence, in my opinion, 
 fo obvioufly wife and good, that I can never 
 think of it without having my mind filled 
 with piety, admiration, and gratitude. 
 
 IN addition to the moral evidence (as you 
 are pleafed to think it) againft the Bible, 
 you threaten, in the progrefs of your work, 
 to produce fuch other evidence as even a 
 prieft cannot deny. A philofopher in fearch 
 of truth, forfeits with me all claim to can- 
 dour and impartiality, when he introduces 
 
railing for reafoning, vulgar and illiberal 
 farcafm in the room of argument. I will not 
 imitate the example you fet me : but examine 
 what you fhall produce with as much cool- 
 nefs and refpeft, as if you had given the prieils 
 no provocation ; as if you were a man of the 
 mod unblemifhed character, fubjeft to no pre-. 
 judices, actuated by no bad defigns, not liable' 
 to have abufe retorted upon you with fucccfk. 
 
LETTER II. 
 
 BEFORE you commence your grand 
 attack upon the Bible, you wiih to eftabliih 
 a difference between the evidence neceflary 
 to prove the authenticity of the Bible, and 
 that of any other ancient book. I am not 
 furprifed at your anxiety on this head ; for 
 all writers on the fubjeft -have agreed in 
 thinking that St. Auftin reafoned well, when r 
 in vindicating the genuinenefs of the Bible, 
 lie allied, ij * what proofs have we that the 
 works of Plato, Ariftotle, Cicero, Varro, 
 and othej: profane authors, were written by 
 thofe whole names they bear ; unlefs it be 
 that this has been an opinion generally re- 
 ceived at all times, and by all. thofe who have 
 lived finee thtfe authors r" This writer 
 was convinced, that the evidence which ef- 
 tabliftied the gtrr.uinenefs of any profane book, 
 would -efiabliih that of aiacred bock; and ! 
 profefs rnyfelf to be of the fame ephrlor r . 
 jso^ithftaridlng what you have advance:; 
 tig.' contrary.. 
 
IN this part your ideas feem to me to be 
 confufed; I do not fay, that you, defignedly f 
 jumble together mathematical fcience and hif- 
 torical evidence ; the knowledge acquired by 
 demonftration, and the probability derived 
 from teftimony. You know but of one an- 
 cient book, that authoritatively challenges 
 univerfal confent and belief, and that is Eu- 
 clid's elements. If I were difpofed to make 
 frivolous obje&ions, I fliould fay, that even 
 Eaclid r s Elements had not met with univer- 
 fal confent ; that there had been men r both 
 in ancient and modern times, who had quef- 
 tioned the intuitive evidence of (ome of his 
 axioms, and denied the jullnefs of fome of 
 his demonstrations ; but, admitting the truth, 
 I do not fee the pertinency of your ohfcrva- 
 tion. You are attempting to fubvert the 
 authenticity of the Bible, and you tell us- 
 that Euclid's Elements are certainly true. - 
 What then ? Does it follow that the Bible 
 is certainly talfe ? The rnoft illiterate fcri- 
 vener in the kingdom does not want to bs 
 informed, that the examples in his Wingate's 
 Arithmetic, are proved by a different kind 
 of reafoning from that by which he perfuades 
 hioifelf to believe, that there was (uch a 
 perfon as Henry VIII, or that there is-fucb 
 a city as Paris.. 
 
 IT may be of ufe, to remove this ronfufion. 
 ia your argument, to f (late, diftindly, the 
 
T 
 
 2O 
 
 difference between the genuinenefs, and the 
 authenticity, of a book. A genuine book, 
 is that which was written by the peirfon 
 whole name it bears, as the author of it. 
 An authentic book, is that which relates 
 matters of faft, as they really happened. A 
 book may be genuine without being authen- 
 tic ; and a book may be authentic without 
 being genuine. The books written by Ri- 
 chardfon, and Fielding are genuine books 
 though the hiftories of ClarifTa and Torn 
 Jones are fables. The hlflory of the iiland 
 of Formofa is a genuine book; it was writ- 
 ten by Pfalmanazar; but it is not an authen- 
 tic book, (though it was long eileemed as 
 fuch, .and tranfiated into different languages,) 
 for the author, in the latter part of his life, 
 took fhatne to himfelf for having impofed on. 
 the world, and confefled that it was a mere 
 romance. Artfon's voyage may be confider- 
 ed as an authentic book, it, probably, con- 
 taining a true narration of the principal 
 events recorded in it ; but it is not 'a genu- 
 ine book, having not been written by Wal- 
 ters, to whom it is afcribed, but by Robins, 
 
 THIS cliftinftion between the genuinenefs 
 and authenticity of a book, will affifc us in 
 detecting the fallacy of an argument, which 
 you jftate with great confidence in the part 
 of your work now under confederation, and 
 which you frequently allude to, hi ether 
 
21 
 
 parts, as conclnfive evidence againfl the 
 truth of the Bible. Your argument (lands 
 thus if it be found that the books afcribed 
 to Moles, Jofhua, and Samuel, were not 
 written by Mofes, Jofiuia, and Samuel, eve- 
 ry part of the authority and authenticity of 
 thefe books is gone at once. I prefume to 
 think otherwife. The genuinenefs of thefe 
 books (in the judgment of thole who fay 
 that they were written by thefe authors) 
 will certainly begone; but their authentici- 
 ty may remain; they may ft ill contain a true 
 account of real tranfations, though the 
 names of the writers of them fhould be found 
 to be different from what they are generally 
 efteemed to be, 
 
 HAD, indeed, Mofes faid that he wrote 
 the firft five books of the Bible; and had Jo- 
 fliua and Samuel faid that they wrote the 
 books which are refpe&tvely attributed to 
 them; and had it been found, that Mofes, 
 Joflhua, and Samuel, did not write thefe 
 books; then, I grant, the authority'of the 
 whole would have been gone at once; thefe 
 men would have been found liars, as to the 
 genuinenefs of the books; and this proof of 
 their want of veracity, in one point, would 
 have invalidated their teftimony in every 
 other ; thefe books would have been juftly 
 fligmatized, as neither genuine nor authen- 
 tic, 
 
22 
 
 AN hiftory may be true, though it ftuuild 
 not only be afcribed to a wrong author, but 
 though the author of it fhould not be known ; 
 anonymous teftimony does not deftroy the 
 reality of facts, whether natural or miracu- 
 lous. Had Lord Clarendon published his 
 Hiftory of the Rebellion, without prefixing 
 bis name to it ; or had the hiftory of Titus 
 Livius come down to us, under the name of 
 Valerius Flaccus,or Valerius Maximus ; the 
 facts mentioned in thefe hiftories would have 
 been equally certain. 
 
 As to your aflTertion, that the miracles re- 
 corded in Tacitus, and in other profane hif- 
 tofians, are quite as well authenticated as 
 thofe of the Bible it, being a mere afTertion, 
 destitute of proof, may be properly anfwer- 
 ed by a contrary affertion. I take the liber- 
 ty then to fay, that the evidence for the mi- 
 Vacles recorded in the Bible is, both in kind 
 and degree, fo greatly fbperior to that for 
 the prodigies mentioned by Livy, or the mi- 
 racles related by Tacitus, as to juftify us in 
 giving credit to the one as the work of God, 
 and in with holding it from the other as the 
 effect of fuperftition and impofture. This 
 method of derogating from the credibility 
 of Christianity, by oppoiing to the miracles 
 of our Saviour, the tricks of ancient impof- 
 tors, feems to have originated with Hiero- 
 cles in the fourth century ; and it has been 
 
adopted by unbelievers from, that time to 
 this ; with this difference, indeed, that the 
 heathens of the third and fourth century ad- 
 mitted that Jefus wrought miracles; but left 
 that admiffion fhould have compelled them 
 to abandon their gods and become Chriftians, 
 they faid, that their slpol/onius, their Apu- 
 leius ^ their Arifteas, did as great : whilfl 
 modern cleifts deny the fa<t of Jefus having 
 ever wrought a miracle. And they have 
 fome reafon for this proceeding ; they a^e 
 fenfible that the gofpel miracles are fo differ- 
 ent, in all their circumflances, from thofe 
 related in pagan ftory, that, if they admit 
 them to have been performed, they muft ad- 
 mit chriftianity to be true ; hence they have 
 fabricated a kind of deiftical axiom that no 
 human tcftimony can eftablifli the credibility 
 of a miracle. -This, though it has been an 
 hundred times refuted, is ftill infifted upon, 
 as if its truth had never been queftioned, and 
 could not be difproved. 
 
 You " proceed to examine the authenti- 
 city of the Bible ; and you begin, you fay, 
 with what are called the five books of Mofes, 
 Genefis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and 
 Deuteronomy. Your intent ion, youprofefs, is 
 to (hew that thefe books are fpurious, and . 
 that Mofes is not the author of them ; and 
 ftill farther, that they were not written in 
 the time of Mofes, nor till feveral hundred 
 
24 
 
 years afterwards ; that they are no other 
 than an attempted hiftory of the life of Mo- 
 fes, and of the times in which he is faid to 
 have lived, and alfo of the times prior there- 
 to, written by fome very ignorant and fhi- 
 pid pretender to authorftiip, leveral hundred 
 years after the death of Mofes." In thispaf- 
 fage the utmoft force of your attack on the 
 authority of the five books of Mofes is clear- 
 ly dated. You are not the fir ft who has 
 ftarted this difficulty ; it is a difficulty, in- 
 deed, of modern date ; having not been heard 
 of, either in the fyragogue, or cut of it, 
 till the twelfth century. About that time 
 Aben Ezra, a Jew of great erudition, noticed 
 fome paffages (the fame which you have 
 brought forward) in the five firft books of 
 the Bible, which he thought had not been 
 written by Mofes, but inferted by fome per- 
 fon after the death of Mofes. But he was 
 far from maintaining, as you do, that thefe 
 books were written by fome ignorant and 
 ftnpid pretenderto authorftiip, many hundred 
 years after the death of Mofes. I' f \ t-les con- 
 tends that the books of Mofes r-e fo called, 
 not from their having been written by Mo- 
 fes, but from their containing an actount of 
 Mofes. Spinoza fupportcd the fame opini- 
 on ; and Le Glerc, a very able theological 
 critic of the laft and prefent century, once 
 entertained the lame notion. You fee that 
 this fancy has had fome patrons before you ; 
 
25 
 
 the merit or the demerit, the fagacity or the 
 temerity of having afferted, that Moles is 
 not the author of the Pentateuch, is not ex- 
 chT.fi vely your's. Le C/erc, indeed, you muft 
 not boaftof. When his judgment was matur- 
 ed by age, he was afhamed of what he had 
 written on the fubjcft in his younger* yearsi 
 He made a public recantation of his error, 
 by annexing to his commentary on Genefis, 
 a Latin differtation concerning Mofcs, the 
 author of the Pentateuch, and his defign in 
 .compofing it. If in your future life you 
 fhould chance to change your opinion on the 
 fubjeft, it will bean honor to your character 
 to emulate the integrity, and tu imitate the 
 example of Le Clerc. The Bible is not the 
 .only book which has undergone the fate of 
 being reprobated as fpurions, after it had 
 been received as genuine and authentic for 
 many ages. It has been maintained that the 
 hiftory of Herodotus was written in the time 
 of Conftantine ; and that the claffics are for- 
 geries of the thirteenth or fourteenth centu- 
 ry. Thefe extravagant reveries amufed the 
 world at the time of their publication, and 
 have long flnce funk into oblivion. You ef- 
 teem all -prophets to be fuch lying rafcals, 
 that I dare ftot venture to predict the fate of 
 your book, 
 
 BEFORE you produce your main objecti- 
 ons to the genuineuefs of the books of Mo- 
 
 C 
 
26 
 
 fes, you affert that " there is no affirmative 
 evidence that Mofes is the author of them." 
 What ! no affirmative evidence ! In the 
 eleventh century Malmonides drew up a con- 
 feffion of faith for the Jews, which all of 
 them at this clay admit ; it confifts of only 
 thirteen articles ; and two of them have re- 
 fpedt to Moles ; one affirming the authenti- 
 city, the other the gcnuinenefs of his books. 
 The doctrine and prophecy of Mofes is 
 true-r-The law that we have was given by 
 Mofes,-^ This is the faith of the Jews at 
 pr^fent,, and has been their faith ever fince 
 
 : the'.deflruftion of their city and temple : it 
 was their faith in the time when the authors 
 
 to of the New-Teftament wrote ; it was their 
 faith during their captivity in Babylon: in 
 the time of their kings and judges ; and no 
 period can be fhown, from the age of Mofes 
 to the prefent hour, in which it was not their 
 faith Is this no affirmative evidence .? I can- 
 not defire a ftronger. Jojephus^ in his book 
 againft dppion, writes thus 4k We have on- 
 ly two and twenty books which are to be be- 
 lieved as of divine authority, and which com- 
 prehend the hiftory of all ages ; five belong 
 to Mofes, which contain the original of man, 
 and the tradition of the fucceffion of genera- 
 tions, down to his death, which takes in a 
 .compafs of about three thoufand years." Do 
 you confider this as no affirmative evidence ? 
 Why (hould I mention Juvenal fpeaking of 
 
27 
 
 the volume which Mofes had written ? Why 
 enumerate a long lift of profane authors, all 
 bearing teftimony to the fact of Mofes being 
 the leader, and the law-giver of the Jewifh 
 nation ? and if a law giver, furely, a writer 
 of the laws. But what fays the Bible ? 'In 
 Exodus it fays " Mofes wrote all the words 
 of the Lord, and took the book of the cove- 
 nant, and read in the audience of the peo- 
 ple/' In Deuteronomy it fays " And it 
 came to pafs, when Mofes had made an end of 
 writing the words of this law in a book, un- 
 til they were finifhed, (this furely imports the 
 the fin idling, a laborious work,) that Mofes 
 commanded the^Levites which bare the ark of 
 the covenant" of the Loi;d, faying, Take this 
 book of the law, and put it in the fide of the ark 
 of the covenant of the Lord your God, that 
 it may be there for a witnefs againft thee." 
 This is faid in Deuteronomy, which is akind 
 of repetition, or abridgment of the four prc- 
 reding books ; and it is well known that the 
 evvs gave the name of the Law to the firft 
 five books of the Old Teftament. What 
 poiiible doubt can there be that Mofes wrote 
 he books in quellion ? I could accumulate 
 nany other paflages from the fcriptures to 
 his purpofe ; but if what I have advanced 
 ill not convince you that there is affirma- 
 ivc evidence, and of the ftrongeft kind, for 
 lofes being the author of thefe books, no* 
 ling that I can advance will convince you, 
 
 tt 
 
WHAT if I (hould grant all you under- 
 take to prove (the ftupiclity and ignorance 
 of the writer excepted) ? What if I {hould 
 admit, that Samuel, 6r Ezra, or fonie other 
 learned Jew, com poled thefe books, from 
 public records, many years after the death 
 of Mofes? Will it follow, that there was no 
 truth in them ? According to my logic, it 
 will only follow, that they are riot genuine 
 books ; every fal recorded in them may be 
 true, whenever, or by whomsoever they 
 \V-ere written. It cannot be faid that the 
 Jews had no public records ; the Bible fur- 
 infhes abundance of proof to the contrary. 
 I by no means admit, that thefe books, as to 
 the main part of them, were not written 
 by Mofes; but I do contend, that a book 
 may contain a true hiflory, though we know 
 not the author of it ; or though we may be. 
 miftaken in afcribing it to a wrong author. 
 
 THE firft argument you produce againft 
 Mofes being the author of thefe books is fo 
 old, that I do not know its original author; 
 and it is fo miferable an one, that I wonder 
 you {hould adopt it " Thefe books cannot 
 be written by Mofes, becaufe they are wrote 
 in the third perfon it is always, The Lord 
 faid unto Mofes, or Mofes laid unto the 
 Lord. This, you fey, is the ftyle and man- 
 ner that hiftorians ufe In fpeaking of the per- 
 fon whofe lives and actions they are writing.' 1 
 
This obfervation is true, but it does riot ex- 
 tend far enough ; for this is the ftyle and 
 manner not only of hiftorians writing of 
 other perfons, but of eminent men, fuch as 
 Xenophon and Jojefhus^ writing of them- 
 felves. If General t7ajhington fhonld write 
 the hiftory of the American war, and fhould, 
 from his great modefty, ipeak of himfelf in. 
 the third perion, would you think it reafon- 
 able that, two or three tho.ufand years hence, 
 any peribn (hould, on that account, contend, 
 that the hiftory was not true ? Gfffar writes 
 of himfelf in the third perfon it is always, 
 Csfar made a fpeech, or a fpeech was made 
 to Caefar, Csefar eroded the Rhine, Caefar 
 invaded Britain ; but every fchool-boy knows, 
 that this circumftance cannot be adduced as a 
 fcTious argument againft Caefar's being the; 
 author of his own commentaries., 
 
 BUT Mofes, you urge, cannot be the au- 
 thor of the book of Numbers, becaufe he 
 fays of himfelf " that Mofes was a very 
 meek .man, above all the men that were on. 
 the face of the earth." If he had faid this 
 of himfelf, he was, you fay, " a vain and 
 arrogant coxcomb, (fuch is your phrafe!) 
 and unworthy of credit and if he did not 
 fay it, the books are without authority. " 
 This your dilemma is perfectly harmleis; 
 it has not an horn to hurt the weakeft logi- 
 cian, If Mofes did not write this little vcrfc 
 
 C 2 
 
3 
 
 if it was infertcdlDy Samuel, or any of his . 
 countrymen, who knew his character, and 
 revered his memory, will it follow that he 
 did not write any other part of the book of 
 Numbers ? Or if he did not write any part 
 of the book of Numbers, will it follow that 
 he did not write any of the other books of 
 which he is ufually reputed the author ? 
 And if he did write this of himfelf, he was 
 jufdfied by the occafion which extorted from, 
 him this commendation. Had this expreffion 
 been written in a modern flyle and manner, 
 it would probably have given you no offence. 
 For who would be ib faftidious as to find fault 
 with an illuftrious man, who, being calum- 
 niated by his neareft relations, a:, guilty of 
 pride, and fond of power, fhould vindicate his 
 character by faying, My temper was natu- 
 rally as meek and unaffuming as that. of any 
 man upon earth? There are occafions, m 
 which a modeft man, who fpeaks truly, may 
 fpeak proudly of himfelf, without forfeiting 
 his general character; and there is no occa- 
 fion, which either more requires, or more 
 excufes this conduft, than when he is repel- 
 ling the foul and envious afperfions of thofe 
 who both knew his character and had expe- 
 rienced his kindnels : and in that* predicament 
 flood Aaron and Miriam, the accufers of 
 JMofes. You yourfelf have, probably, felt 
 the ft ing of calumny, and have been anxious 
 ta remove the iinprcljion. I do not call you 
 
a vain and arrogant coxcomb for vindicating 
 your character, when in the latter part of 
 this very work you boaft, and I hope truly, 
 " that the man does not exift that can fay I 
 have perfecuted him, or any man, or any fet 
 of men, in the American revolution, or in 
 the French revolution; or that I have in 
 any cafe returned evil for evil." I know not 
 what kings and priefts may fay to this ; you 
 may not have returned to them evil for evil, 
 becaufe they never, I believe, did you any 
 harm; but you have done them all the harm 
 you could, and that without provocation, 
 
 I THINK it needlefs to notice your obfer- 
 vation upon what you call the dramatic ftyle 
 of Deuteronomy ; it is an ill-founded hypo- 
 Ihefis. You might as well a(k, where the 
 author of Caefar's commentaries got the 
 fpeeches of Cxfar, as where the author of 
 Deuteronomy got the fpeeches of Mofes- 
 But your argument that Mofes was not the 
 author of Deuteronomy, becaufe the reafon 
 given in that book for the obfervation of the 
 iabbath is different from that given in Exo- 
 dus, merits a reply. 
 
 You need not be told that the very name 
 of this book imports, in Greek, a repetition 
 of a lav/ ; and that the Hebrew doctors have 
 called it by a word of the fam? meaning. In 
 the fifth verle of the firft chapterit is faid in 
 
our Bibles, " Moles began to declare this 
 law ;" but the Hebrew words, more proper- 
 ly tranflated, import that Mofes 4i began, or 
 determined, to explain the law." This is 
 DO fhift of mine to get ever a difficulty ; the 
 words are fo rendered in moft of the ancient 
 verfions, and by Fagius, Vetablus, and Le 
 C/:*T, men eminently /killed in the Hebrew 
 language. This repetition and explanation 
 of the law, was a wife and benevolent pro- 
 ceeding in Moies ; that thofe who were ei- 
 ther not born, or were mere infants, when 
 it was firft (forty years before) delivered in 
 Horeb, might have an opportunity of know- 
 ing it ; efp-rcially as Moies their leader was 
 foon to be taken from them, and they were 
 about to be fettled in the midfi of nations 
 given to idolatry and funk in vice. Now 
 where is the wonder, that fome variations, 
 and fome additions fhould be made to a law, 
 when a legislator thinks fit to rejjublifli it 
 many years after its firft promulgation ? 
 
 WITH refpeft to the fabbith, the learned 
 are divided in opinion concerning its origin ; 
 forne contending, that it was fanflified from 
 the creation of the world ; that it was ob- 
 ferved by the patriarchs before the flood ; 
 that it was neglefted by the Ifraelites during 
 their bondage in Egypt ; revived on the fal- 
 ling of manna in the wildernefs; and enjoin- 
 ed as a pofitive law, at Sinai. Others eitccm 
 
55 
 
 its inftitution to ])ave been no older than 
 the age of Mofes ; and argue, that what is 
 faid of the fanftification of the fabbath in the 
 book of Genefis, is faiclby way of anticipa* 
 tion. There may be truth in both thefe ac- 
 counts. To me it is probable, that the me* 
 inory of the creation was handed down from 
 Adam to all his pofterity ; and that the fe- 
 venth day was, for a long time, held facred 
 by all nations, in commemoration of that 
 event; but that the peculiar rigidrfefs of its 
 obfervance was enjoined by Mofes to the If- 
 raelites alone. As to there being two rea- 
 fons given for its being kept holy, one, that 
 on that day God relied from, the work of 
 creation the other, on that day God had gi- 
 ven them reft from the fervitude of Egypt 
 I fee no con tradition in the accounts. If 
 a man, in writing the Hiftory of England, 
 fhould inform his readers, that the parliament 
 had ordered the fifth of November to be kept 
 holy, becaufe on that day God had delivered 
 the nation from a bloody-intended maflacrc 
 by gun-powder ; and if, in another part of 
 his hiflory, he (hould affigri the deliverance 
 of our church and nation from popery and 
 arbitrary power, by the arrival of King Wil- 
 liam, as a reafon for its being kept holy ; 
 would any one contend, that he was not juf- 
 tified in both thefe ways of expreffion, or 
 that we ought from thence to conclude, that 
 he was not the author qf them bpth ? 
 
54 
 
 You think " that law in Deuteronomy 
 inhuman and brutal, which authorifes pa- 
 rents, the father and the mother, to bring 
 their own children to have them floned to 
 death for what it is pleaied to call flubborn- 
 neis." Yo'u are aware, I fuppoie, that pa- 
 ternal power, among'!! the Remans, the Gauls , 
 the Per/2 am ^ and other nations, was of the 
 mod arbitrary kind; that it extended to the 
 taking away the life of the child. I do not 
 know wjiether the Israelites in the time of 
 Mofes excrcifecl this paternal power; it was 
 not a cuflom adopted by all nations, but it was 
 by many; and in the infancy of fociety, be- 
 fore individual families, had coalcfced into 
 cornmunkies, it was probably very^ general. 
 Now Moles, by this law, which you efleern 
 brutal and inhuman, hindered fuch an extra- 
 vagant power from being either introduced 
 or exercifed amongft the Israelites. This law 
 is fo far from countenancing the arbitrary 
 power of a father ever the life of his 
 child, that it takes from him the power 
 of accuiing the child before a magiftrate 
 - the father and the mother of the child mufl 
 agree in bringing the child to judgment 
 and it is not by their united will that the 
 child was to be condemned to death ; the el- 
 ders of the city were to judge whether the 
 accufation was true ; and the accufation was 
 to be not merely, as you iniinuate, that the 
 child was ftubborn, but that he was " fti b- 
 born and rebellious, a glutton and a drunk- 
 
ard." Confidercd in this light, you mirft 
 allow the law to have been an humane reftric- 
 tion of a power improper to be lodged with 
 any parent. 
 
 THAT you may abufe the priefts, you aban- 
 don your fubj eft " Priefts, you (ay, preach 
 up Deuteronomy, for Deuteronomy preach- 
 es up tythes." I do not know that priefts 
 preach up Deuteronomy, more than they 
 preach up other books of fcripture ; but I 
 do know that tythes are not preached up 
 in Deuteronomy, more than in Leviticus, in 
 Nu-nbers, in Chronicles, in Malachi, in the 
 law, the hiftory, and the prophets of the 
 Jewifh nation. You go on tfc it is from this 
 book, chap. xxv. ver. 4., they have taken 
 the phrafe, and applied it to ty thing, " Thou 
 (halt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth 
 out the corn -;" and that this might not efcape 
 obfervation, they have.noted it in the table of 
 contents at the head of the chapter, though it 
 Is only a fingle verfe of lefs than two lines. O 
 priefts! priefts! ye are willing to be compared 
 to an ox for the fake of tythes!" 1 cannot call 
 this reafoning and I will not pollute my 
 page by giving it a proper appellation. Had 
 the table of contents, inftead of fimply fay- 
 ing the ox is not to be muzzled laid 
 tythes enjoined, or priefts to be maintained , 
 there would have been a little ground for 
 your cenfure. Whoever npted this phrafe 
 
36 
 
 at the head of the chapter, had better rea* 
 fan for doing it, than you have attributed to 
 them. They did it, becanfe St. Paul had 
 quoted it, when he was proving to the Co- 
 rinthians, that they who preached the gof- 
 pel had a right to live by the gofpel ; it was 
 Paul, and not the priefts, who firft applied 
 this phrafe to tything. St. Paul, indeed, 
 did not avail himfejf of the right he con- 
 tended for ; he was not, therefore, interefted 
 in what he faid. The reafon, on which he 
 grounds the right, is not merely this quota- 
 tion, which yon ridicule; nor the appoint- 
 ment of the law of Mofes, which you think 
 fabulous; nor the injunction of Jefus, which 
 you defpife ; no, it is a reafon founded in 
 the nature of things, and which no philofo- 
 pher, no unbeliever, no man of common 
 fenfe can deny to be a folid reafon ; ir amounts 
 to this that " the labourer is worthy of 
 his hire." Nothing is fo much a man's own, 
 as his labour and ingenuity ; and it is entire- 
 ly confonai.t to the law of nature, that by 
 the innocent uie of thefe he fhould provide 
 for his fubfiftence. Hufbandmen, artifts, fol- 
 diers, phyficians, lawyer?, all let out their 
 labour and talents for a ftipulated reward : 
 why may not a prieft do the fame ? Some 
 accounts of you have been published in En- 
 gland ; but, conceiving them to have pro- 
 ceeded from a defign to injure your charac- 
 ter, I never read them. I know nothing of 
 
57 
 
 your parentage, your education, or condition 
 in life. You may have been elevated, by 
 your birth, above the neceffity of acquiring 
 the means of fuflaining life by the labour ei- 
 ther of hand or head : if this be the cafe, you 
 ought not to defpife thofe who have come 
 into the world in lefs favourable circum- 
 ftances. If your origin has been lefs fo;tu- 
 nate, you mufl have fupported yourfelf, ei- 
 ther by manual labour, or the exercife of 
 your genius. Why fnould you think that 
 conduit difreputable in priefts, which you. 
 probably confider as laudable in yourfelf? I 
 know not whether you have not as great a 
 difiike of kings as of priefts ; but that you 
 may be induced to think more favourably of 
 men of my profeffion, I will juft mention to 
 you that the payment of tythes is no new* 
 inftitution, but that they were paid in the 
 moil ancient times, not to priefts only, but 
 to kings. I could give you an hundred in- 
 ftances of this : two may be fufficient. Abra- 
 ham paid tytbes to the king of Salem, four 
 hundred years before the law of Mofes was gi- 
 ven. The king of Salem was prieft alfb of 
 the moft high God. Priefts, you fee, exift- 
 ecl in the world, and were held in high efti- 
 mation. for kings were priefts, long before 
 the irnpoftures, as you eileem them, of the 
 jcwifli and Chriftian difpenfations were heard 
 of. But as this inftunce is taken from a book 
 which you call " a book of contradictions 
 D 
 
and lies" the Bible ; I will give you ano- 
 ther, from a book, to the authority of which, 
 as it is written by a profane author, you 
 probably will not objeft. Diogenes Laerti- 
 us, in his life of Solon, cites a letter of Pifi- 
 fir at us to that lawgiver, in which he fays 
 46 I Pififtratus, the tyrant, am contented 
 with the ftipends which were paid to thofe 
 who reigned before me ; the people of Athens 
 fet apart a tenth of the fruits of their land, 
 not for my private ufe, but to be expended 
 in the public facrifices, and for the general 
 good." 
 
LETTER III. 
 
 A V I N G done with what you call 
 the grammatical evidence that Moies was not 
 the author of the books attributed to him, 
 you come to your hiftorical and chronologi- 
 cal evidence ; and you begin with Gcneiis, 
 Your firft argument is taken from the {Ingle 
 word Dan being found in Genelis, when 
 it appears from the book of Judges, that the 
 town of Lai fii was not called Dan till above 
 three hundred and thirty years after the death 
 of Mofes ; therefore the writer of Genefis* 
 you conclude, mull have lived after the town 
 of Laifti had the name of Dan given it. Left 
 this objection fhould not be obvious enough 
 to a common capacity, you illuftrate it in the 
 following manner; " Havre-de-Grace was 
 called Havre-Marat in 1793; fli u ld then 
 any datelefs writing be found, in after-times, 
 with the name of Havre-Marat, it would be 
 certain evidence that fuch a writing could 
 
4 o 
 
 pot have been written till after the year 
 jygg." This is a wrong conclufion. Sup- 
 pofe fome hot republican ihould at this day 
 publifh a new edition of any old hiftory of 
 France, and infceacl of Havre-de-Grace fhould 
 write Havre-Marat; and that two or three 
 thoufand years hence, a man, like'yourfelf, 
 ihould, on that account, reject the whole 
 hi (lory asfpurious, would he be juftified in fo 
 doing? Would it not be reafonable to tell 
 him that the name Havre-Marat had been 
 inferted, not by the original author of the 
 hilloiy, but by a fubfequent editor of it ; and 
 to refer him, for a proof of the genuineness 
 of the book, to the teftimony of the whole 
 French nation? This fuppofition fo obvioufly 
 applies to your difficulty, that I cannot but 
 recommend it to your impartial attention. 
 But if this folution- does not pieafe you, I 
 dedre it may be proved, that the Dan, men- 
 tioned in Genefis, was the fame town as the 
 Dan, mentioned in Judges, I-defire, further, 
 to have it proved, that the Dan, mentioned 
 in Genefis, was the name of a town, and not 
 of a river. It is merely faid Abraham pur- 
 fued the enemies of Lot, to Dan. Now a 
 river was fall as likely as a town to flop a 
 purfuit. Lot, we know, was fettled in the 
 plain of 'Jordan ; and Jordan, we know, was 
 cornpofed of the united ftreams of two ri- 
 vers, called Jor and Dan* 
 
4 i 
 
 YOUR next difficulty refpefts its being 
 faid in Genefis 4k Thefe are the kings that 
 reigned in Edom before there reigned any 
 king over the children of Ifrael: this paflV 
 age could only have Keen written, you fay, 
 (and I think you fay rightly), after the firft 
 king began to reign over Ifrael; fo far from 
 being written by Mofes, it could not have 
 been written till the time of Saul at the leaft." 
 I admit this inference, but I deny its applica- 
 tion. A fmall addition to a book does not 
 deftroy either the genuinenefs or the authen- 
 ticity of the whole book. I am not ignorant 
 of the manner in which commentators have 
 anfwered this objection of Spinoza, without 
 making the conceffion which I have made; 
 but I have no fcruple in admitting, that the 
 pafTage in qucftion, colififtihg of nine verfes, 
 containing the genealogy of fome kings of 
 Edom, might have been inferted in the book 
 of Genefis, after the hook of Chronicles 
 (which was called in Greek by a name im- 
 porting that it contained things left out in' 
 other books) was written. Thr learned 
 have (hewn, that interpolations have hap- 
 pened to other books , but thefe infertions by 
 other hands have never been considered as in-- 
 validating the authority of tliofe book", 
 
 TAKE away frcni Genefis,'' you fay,. " ths" 
 the author, on wh \ciV- 
 re belief that it is the v 
 
 D 2 
 
4 2 
 
 God has ftood, and there remains nothing of . 
 Genefis but an anonymous book of ftories, 
 fables, traditionary or invented abfurdities, 
 or of downright lies.'.' What ! is it a ftory 
 then, that the world had a beginning, and 
 that the author of it was God ? If you deem 
 this a ftory, I am not difputing with a deift- 
 ical philofopher, but with an atheiftic mad- 
 man. Is it a ftory, that our firft parents 
 fell from a paradiilacal ftate that this earth 
 was deftroyed by a deluge that Noah and 
 his family were preferred in the ark, and that 
 the world has been re-peopled by hisdefcen- 
 dants ? Look into a book fo common that 
 almoft every body has it, and fo excellent 
 that no perfon ought to be without it Gro- 
 tius on the truth of the Chriftian religion 
 and you will there meet with abundant tef- 
 timony to the truth of all the principal facts 
 recorded in Genefis. The teftimony is not 
 that of Jews, Chriftians, and priefts; it is the 
 teftimeny of the philofophers, hiftorians and 
 poets of antiquity. The oldeft book in the 
 world is Genefis , and it is remarkable that 
 thofe books which come neareft to it in age, 
 arc thofe- which make either the moft diftinft 
 mentkm, or the moil evident allufion to the 
 'facts related in Genefis concerning the for- 
 mation of the world from a chaotic mafs, the 
 .vueval innocence- and fubfequent fall of 
 o,. the longevity of mankind- in the flrll 
 *.,-_,. of the world, the dc^/avity of the an- 
 
45 
 
 tedeluvians, and the deftruftion of the world. 
 Read the tenth chapter of Genelis It may 
 appear to you to contain nothing but an un- 
 interefting narration of the deicendants of 
 Shem, Ham, and Japheth ; a mere fable, an 
 invented abfurdity, a downright lie. No, 
 fir, it is one of the mod valuable, and the 
 moft venerable records of antiquity. It ex- 
 plains what all profane hiitorians were' igno- 
 rant of the origin of nations. Had it told 
 us, as other books do, that one nation fprung 
 out of the earth they inhabited ; another 
 from a cricket or a grafshopper ; another from 
 an oak;, another from a mufhroo-m; another 
 from a dragon's tooth ; then indeed it would 
 have merited the appellation you, with fo 
 much temerity, beftow upon it. In (lead of 
 theft abfurdities, it gives fuch an account of 
 peopling the earth after the deluge, as no other 
 book in the world ever did give ; and the 
 truth of which all other books in the worlcf y 
 which contain any thing on the fubjeft, con- 
 firm. The I aft verie of the chapter fays 
 " Thefe are the families of the fons of No- 
 ah, after their generations, in their nations: 
 and by thefe were the nations divided in the 
 earth, after the flood." It would require 
 great learning to trace cut, preciitly, either 
 the aftual fit nation of ail the countries in 
 which thefe founders of empires fettled, or 
 to ^certain the extent of their dominions/ 
 This, however,, has been done by various 
 
44 
 
 authors, to the fatisfa&ion of all competent, 
 judges ; fo much at lead to my fatisfaction, 
 that had I no other proof of the authenticity 
 of Genefis, I fliould coniider this as fufficient. 
 But, without the aid of learning, any man 
 who can barely read his Bible, and lias but 
 heard of fuch people as the Affyrlans^ the 
 Elamhes^ the Lydians, the Medes, the loni- 
 ans, the Thracians, will readily acknow- 
 ledge that they had 4ffur^ and Elam, and 
 Lud, and Madai, and Jovan, and Tiras, 
 grandfons of Noah, for their refpetive foun- 
 ders; and knowing this, he will not, I hope, 
 part with his Bible, as a fyftem of fables. I 
 am no enemy to philofophy ; but when phi- 
 lofophy would rob me of my Bible, I muft 
 fay of it, as Cicero faid of the twelve tables,. 
 This little book alone exceeds the libra- 
 ries of all the philofophers in the weight of 
 its authority, and in the extent of its utility. 
 
 FROM tire abufe of the Bible, you proceed to 
 that of Mofes, and again bring forward the 
 fabjed of his wars in the land of Canaan. 
 There are many men who look upon all war 
 (would to God that all men faw it in the 
 fame light) with extreme abhorrence^ as af- 
 fiifting mankind with calamities not necefla- 
 ary, fliocking to humanity, and repugnant to 
 reafou. But is it repugnant to reafon that 
 God fhould, by an exprefs- acl of his Provi- 
 dence, deflroy a wicked nation ?' I am fbn.cl 
 
5 
 
 of confiderlng the goodnefs of God as the 
 leading principle of his conducl towards 
 mankind, of confidering his juflice as fubfer- 
 vient to his mercy. He punifhes individuals 
 and nations with the rod of his wrath ; but 
 I am perfuaded that all his punifhments ori- 
 ginate in his abhorrence of fin ; are calcula- 
 ted to leflen its influence : and are proofs of 
 his goodneis ; inafmucb as it may not be pof- 
 iible for Omnipotence itfelf to communicate 
 fupremehappinefs to the human race, whilfb 
 they continue flrvants of fin. The deftruc- 
 tion of the Canaanites exhibits to all nations, 
 in all ages,' a fignal proof of God's difpleafore 
 againft fin ; it has been to others, and it is to 
 ourfelvcs, a benevolent warning. Mofes 
 would have been the wretch you reprelent 
 him, had he aled by his own authority alone : 
 but you may as reafonable attribute cruelty 
 and murder to the judge of the land in con- 
 demning criminals to death, as butchery and 
 maffacre to Mofes in executing the command 
 of God. 
 
 THE Midianites, through the counfel of 
 Balaam, and by the vicious inftrumentality 
 of their women, had feduced a part of the If- 
 raelites to idolatry ; to the impure worfliip 
 of their infamous god Baalpeor : for this 
 offence, twenty-four thoufand Ifraelites had 
 perifhed in a plague from heaven, and Mofes 
 received a command from God " to finite 
 
^^ 46 
 
 the Medianites who had beguiled the people/ 
 An army was equipped, and fent againft Mi- 
 dian. When the army returned victorious, 
 Mofes and the princes of the congregation, 
 went to meet it ; " and Mofes was wroth 
 with the officers." He obferved the women 
 captives, and he afked with aftomfliment, 
 " Have ye faved all the womeR alive ? Be- 
 hold, tliefe caufed the children of Ifracl, 
 through the connfel of Balaam, to commit 
 trefpais againft the Lord in the matter of 
 Peor, and there was a plague among the con- 
 gregation." He then gave an order that the 
 boys and the women ftiould be put to death, 
 but that the youno; maidens fhould be kept a- 
 livefor themfelv'es. I fee nothing in. this pro- 
 ceeding, but good policy, combined with 
 mercy, The young men might have become 
 dangerous aver; what they would cf- 
 
 teem their country's wrongs ; the mothers 
 might have again aliurecl the llraeiM : s to the 
 love of licentious pleafures, and ihr practice 
 of idolatry, and brought another plague up- 
 on the congregation ; but the young maidens 
 not being polluted by the flagitious habits of 
 their mothers, nor likely to create difturb- 
 ancg. by rebellion, were kept alive/) You 
 give a different turn to the matter ; you fay 
 "that thirty-two thoufancl women-children 
 were conflgned to debauchery by the order of 
 Mofes." Prove this and I will allow that 
 Mofes was the horrid monfter you make 
 him prove this, and I will allow that 
 
47 
 
 the Bible is what you call it u a book of 
 lies, wickednefs, and blafphemy" prove this, 
 or excufe my warmth if I fay to you, as Paul 
 laid to Elymas the forcerer, who fought to 
 turn away Sergius Paulus from the faith, 
 " O full of all fubtilty and of all mifchief, 
 thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all 
 righteoufnefs, wilt thou not ceafe to pervert 
 the right ways of the Lord ?" I did not 
 when I began thefe letters, think that I 
 ihould have been moved to this leverity of 
 rebuke, by any thing you could have writ- 
 ten ; but when fo grofs a mifreprefentation 
 is made of God's proceedings, coolnefs would 
 be a crime. The women-children were not 
 referved for the purpoies of debauchery, but 
 of flavery ; a cuftom abhorrent from our 
 manners, but every where praftifed in for- 
 mer times, and ftill praftifed in countries 
 where the benignity of the chriflian religion 
 has not foftened the ferocity of human na- 
 ture. You here admit a part of the account 
 given in the Bible refpefting the expedition 
 againft Midian to be a true account ; it is 
 not unreafonable to defire that you will ad- 
 mit the whole, or fhew fufficient reafon why 
 you admit one part, and rejeft the other. I 
 will mention the part to which you have 
 paid no attention. The Ifraelitifh army con- 
 fided but of twelve thousand men, a mere 
 handful when oppofed to the people of Mi- 
 dian ; yet, when the officers made a mufter 
 of their troops after their return from the 
 
4 8 
 
 war, they found they had not loft a fingle 
 man ! This circumftance ftruck them as fo 
 decifive an evidence of God's interpofition, 
 that out of the ipoils they had taken, they 
 offered an oblation to the Lord, an atonement 
 for their fouls." Do but believe what the 
 captains of thoufands, and the captains of 
 hundreds, believed at the time when thefe 
 things happened, and we fhall never more 
 hear of your objections to the Bible, from its 
 account of the wars of JVJofes. 
 
 You produce two or three other objecti- 
 ons refpeting the genuinenefs of the firfi five 
 books of the Bibie. I cannot flop to notice 
 them : every commentator anfwers them in 
 a manner iliited to the apprehcnfion of even 
 a mere Englifh reader. You calculate, to 
 the thoiiiar.dth part of an inch, the length 
 of the iron bed of Qg the king of Bafhan ; 
 but you do not prove that the bed was too 
 big for the body, or that a Patagonian would 
 have been loft in it. You make no allowance 
 for the fiz.e of a royal bed ; nor ever fufpeft 
 that king Og might have been poffefTed with 
 the feme kind of vanity, which occupied the 
 mind of king Alexander, when hfe ordered 
 his foldiers to enlarge the fiz,e of their beds, 
 that they might give the Indians, iniucceed- 
 ing ages, a great idea of the prodigious ftjj- 
 ture of a Macedonian. In many parts of 
 your work you fpcak much in commendation 
 
49 
 
 ef fcience. I join with you in every com- 
 mendation you can give it: but you fpcak 
 of it in fuch a manner as gives room to be- 
 lieve, that you are a great proficient in it ; 
 if this be the cafe, I would recommend a 
 problem to your attention, the folution of 
 which you will readily allow to be far above 
 the powers of a man converfant only, as 
 you reprefent priefts and bifhops to be, in 
 hic^ h&c, hoc. The problem is this To 
 determine the height to which a human bo- 
 dy, preferving its liinilarity of figure, may 
 be augmented, before it will perifh by its 
 own weight. When you have folved this 
 problem, we (hail know whether the bed of 
 the king of Bafhan was too big for any giant ; 
 whether the exiftence of a man twelve or 
 fifteen feet high is in the nature of things im- 
 poffible. My philofophy teaches me to doubt 
 of many things ; but it doe3 not teach me to 
 re j eft every tcftimony which is oppofite to 
 my experience: had I been born in Shetland, 
 I could, on proper teftimony, have believed 
 in the exiftence of the Lincolnfhire ox, or 
 of the largefl dray-horfe in London ; though 
 the oxen and hories in Shetland had not been 
 bigger tlian maftiffs. 
 
LETTER IV. 
 
 CAVING iinifhed your objections to 
 the gcnuinencfs of the books of Mofes, you 
 proceed to your remarks on the book of jo- 
 fhua; and from its internal evidence, you en- 
 deavour to prove, that this book was not 
 written by Joihua -What then ? what is 
 your conclulion ? u that it is anonymous, 
 and without authority." Stop a little ; your 
 conciufion is not connected with your pre- 
 inifes ; your friend Euclid would have been 
 afhamed of it. " Anonymous, and therefore 
 without authority !" I have noticed thisfo^ 
 leclim before ; bat as you frequently bring it 
 forward, and, indeed, your book ftands much 
 in need of it, I will fubmlt to your confider- 
 a.tion another obfervauon on the fubjeft. 
 The book called Fleta is anonymous ; but it 
 Js not on that account without authority. 
 Domefday book is anonymous, and was writ- 
 ten above fevcn hundred years ago ; yet our 
 
Courts of law do not hold it to be without 
 authority, as to the facts related in it. Yes, 
 you will fay, but this book Iras been preferred 
 with fingular care amongft the records of 
 the nation. And who told you that the 
 jews had no records, or that they did not 
 preferve them with fingular care f* Jofephus 
 fays the contrary : and, in the Bible itfelf, 
 an appeal is made to many books, which 
 have perilled : fuch as the book of Jaflier, 
 the book of Nathan, ofAbijah, of Iddo, of 
 Jehu, of natural hiftory by Solomon, of the 
 afts of Manafieh, and others which might 
 be mentioned. If any one, having accefs to 
 the journals of the Lords and Commons, to 
 the books of the treafury, war-office, privy 
 council, and other public documents, (liould 
 at this clay write an hiftory of the reigns of 
 George the firft and fecond, and fhould pub- 
 lifh it without his name, would any man, 
 three or four hundreds or thoufands of years 
 lience, queftion the authority of that book, 
 when he knew that the whole Britifh nation 
 had received it as an authentic book from 
 the time of its firft publication to the age in 
 \vhich he lived ? Thisfuppofition is in point. 
 The books of the Old Teftament were com- 
 pofed from the records of the jewifli nation, 
 and they have been received as true by that 
 nation, from the time in which they were 
 written to the prefent day. Dodfley's An- 
 nual llegifter is an anonymous book, we only 
 
52 
 
 know the name of its editor ; the New An- 
 nual Regifter is an anonymous book ; the Re- 
 views are anonymous books ; but do we, or 
 will our posterity, efleem thefe books of no 
 authority ? On the contrary, they are admit- 
 ted at prefent, and will be received in after 
 ages, as authoritative records of the civil, 
 military, and literary hiftory of England 
 and of Europe. So little foundation is there 
 for our being ftartied by your afftrtion, " It 
 Is anonymous and without authority." 
 
 IF I am right in this reafoning (and I pro- 
 left to you that I do not fee any error in it,) 
 all the arguments you adduce in proof that 
 the book of Jofhua was not written by Jo- 
 fliua, nor that of Samuel by Samuel, are no- 
 thing,, to the purpofe for which you have 
 brought them forward ; thefe books may be 
 books of authority, though all you advance 
 againft the genuinenefs of them fhould be 
 granted. No article of faith is injured by 
 allowing that there is no fuch pofitive proof, 
 when or by whom thefe, and fome other books 
 of holy (cripture, were written, as to exclude 
 all poffibility of doubt and cavil. There is 
 no neceffity, indeed, to allow this, The 
 chronological and hiftoricaldifficulties, which 
 others before you have produced, have been 
 anfwered, and as to the greateft part of them, 
 fo well anfwered, that I will not wafte the 
 
55 
 
 reader's time by entering into a particular 
 examination of them. **X 
 
 You make yourfelf merry with what you 
 call the tale of the fun (landing dill upon 
 mount Gjbeon, and the moon in the jv alley 
 of AjafojnTpand you fay that " the ftory cle- 
 
 :s itfelf, becaufe there is not a nation in 
 the world that knows any thing about it." 
 How can youcxpcft that there fhould, when 
 there is not a nation in the world whofe an- 
 
 ""'. ... . XXWHM****" -^.^*^<^<- 
 
 nals reach this sera by many hundred years r 
 
 J vmv&i&J ji iflWHjilimaMBii J "-;. 
 
 It happens, however, that you are probably 
 
 mi (taken as to the faft ^^2Si^- ^ r ^i2l^LLf 
 concerning this miracle/^ncTTTimilar one in 
 the time o[ -.Ahaz, when the fun went bach 
 
 i "11 " ; * ; V i ^-^ n_ 
 
 ten degrees, has been prefers 7 ;d araongit one 
 'of the mod ancient nations, as we are inform- 
 ed by one of the mod ancient hiftorians. 
 Herodotus, in his Euterpe, fpcakino; of the_ 
 
 **fc*Vrti^afc#v n r* jp**fl*w*^ *"** *^k 
 
 Egyptian pncf^, ^Lfc ^ *"".ey told njp } 
 
 "'"that the funTad four times deviated fr. 
 
 . .^^^ *w*#* 
 
 liss courie, having twice riien wnere he uni- 
 
 "v --^^9-.-? i' >WMM - 7 I 
 
 formly goes down, and t^jjyice gone dcv> a ./ 
 J^ k he uniformly rifes.^This hov/evcr 
 liad produced no alteration in the climate of 
 Egypt ; the fruits of the earth 9 and the phe- 
 nomena of the Nik had always been the 
 fkme." "(Beloe's Tninfl.) The"lafi ]:art of 
 this cbiervation confirms the ccnjccUue r 
 that this account of the Egyptian prku-; had 
 a reference to tr.c two miracles 
 
54 
 
 the fun mentioned in fcriptnre ; for they 
 were not of that kind, which could intro- 
 duce any change in climates or feafons. You 
 would have been contented to admit the ac- 
 count of this miracle as a fine piece of po- 
 etical imagery ; you may have feen fome 
 Jewifh doctors, and fomeChriftian commen- 
 tators, who conficier it as fuch ; but impro- 
 perly, in my opinion. I think it idle, at 
 Jeaft, if not impious, to undertake to explain 
 how the miracle was performed; but one 
 who is not able to explain the mode of doing 
 a thing, argues ill if he thence infers that the 
 thing was not done. We are perfectly igno- 
 rant how the fun was formed, how the pla- 
 nets were projected at the creation, how 
 they are ftill retained in their orbits by the 
 power of gravity ; but we admit, Botwith- 
 ftanding, that the fun was formed, that the 
 planets were then projected, and that they 
 are Pull retained in their orbits. The ma- 
 chine of the univerfe is in the hand of God; 
 he can ftop the motion of any part, or of the 
 whole of it, with lefs trouble and lefs clanger 
 of injuring it, than yon can ftop your watch. 
 In teftimony of the reality of the miracle* 
 the author of the book fays " Is not this 
 written in the book of Jaflier ?" No author 
 in his fenfes would have appealed, in proof 
 of his veracity,- to a book which did not ex- 
 ift, or in atteftation of a fact which, though 
 ic did exLftfcWas. not recorded in it ; we 
 
55 
 
 fafely therefore conclude, that; at the time 
 the book of Jofhua was written, there was 
 fuch a book as the book of Jalher, and that 
 the miracle of the fun's ftanding ftiil was re- 
 corded in that book. Bat this obiervation, 
 you will fay, does not prove the face of the 
 fan's having (lood (till : I have not produced 
 it as a proof of that fal; bat it proves that 
 the author of the book of Jofhua believed 
 the faV, that the people of Ifrael admitted 
 the authority of the book of Jafher. An ap- 
 peal to a fabulous book would have been as 
 fenielefs an infult upon their underftandiug, 
 as it would have been to our's, had Rapin ap- 
 pealed to the Arabian Night's Entertainment, 
 as a proof of the battle of Haftings. 
 
 I CANNOT attribute much weight to your 
 argument again ft the genuinenefs of the book 
 of Jofhua, from its, being faid that ;fc Jofliua 
 burned Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even 
 a defolation unto this day" Jofhua lived 
 twenty-four years after the burning of Ai : 
 and if he wrote his hiftory in the latter part 
 of his life, what abfurdity is there in faying* 
 Ai is, (till in ruins,, or Ai is in ruins to this 
 very day ? A young man, who had feen the 
 heads of the rebels, in forty- five, when they 
 were firft ftuck upon poles at Temple-Bar, 
 might, twenty years afterwards, in attefla- 
 tion of his veracity in fpeaking; of the fat, 
 have juftJy fakl And they are there to this 
 
56 
 
 very day. Whoever wrote the eofpel of St. 
 M3tlhew.it was written not mi y cc.ii .::rics, 
 prohoiy (I had almoft fliicl certainly) no; a 
 c.'irler of one century after the death of 
 Jeihs; yet the author, (peaking of the pot- 
 ter's field which had been purchafed by the 
 chief priefts with the money they had given 
 Ju.hs t:> betray his matter, fays, that it was 
 therefore called the field of blood unto thr; 
 day ; and in another place he fays, that the 
 ftory of the body of Jefus being ftolen out 
 of the fepulchre was commonly reported 
 among the Jews until this day. Mofcs, in 
 his old age, had made ufe of a fmiilar ex- 
 preHion, when he put the Ifraelites in mind 
 of what the Lord had done to the Egyptians 
 in the reel fea, " The Lord hath destroyed 
 them unto this day. (Deut. xL 4.) 
 
 IN the laft chapter of the book of jofliua 
 it is related that Jofhua afletnbled all the 
 tribes of Ifrael to Sbechem ; and there, in 
 the prefence of the elders and principal men 
 of Ifrael, he recapitulated, in a ftiort fpeech r 
 all that God had done for their nation, from 
 the calling of Abraham to that time, when 
 they were fettled in the land which God 
 had promifed to their forefathers. In finiili- 
 ing his fpeeeh, he faid to them " Choofe 
 you this day whom you will ferve, whether 
 the gods which your fathers ferved, that 
 were on the other fide of the flood, or th^ 
 
57 
 
 gods of the Amorites, in whofe land ye 
 dwell: but as for me and my houfe, we will 
 ferve the Lord. And the people anfwered 
 and faid, God forbid that we fhoulcl forfake 
 the Lord to ferve other gods." Jofhua ur- 
 ged farther, that God would not fuffer them 
 to worfhip other gods in fellowfhip with 
 him; they anfwered, that " they would 
 ferve the Lord." Jofhua then faid to them, 
 " Ye are witnefles again ft yourfelves that ye 
 have chofen you the Lord to ferve him. 
 And they faid, We are witnefles" Here 
 was a folemn covenant between Jofhua, on 
 the part of the Lord, and all the men of If- 
 rael, on their own part. The text then 
 fays " So Jofhua made a covenant with the 
 people that day, and fet them a ftatute and 
 'an ordinance in Shechem, and Jo/Jiua wrote 
 thefe words in the book of the law of God" 
 Here is a proof of two things firft, that 
 there was then, a few years after the death 
 of Moles, exifting, a book called The Book 
 of the Law of God ; the fame, without 
 doubt, which Mofes had written, and com- 
 mitted to the cuftody of the Levites, that it 
 might be kept in the ark of the covenant of 
 the Lord, that it might be a witnefs againft 
 them fecondly, that Jofhua wrote a part at 
 leaft of his own tranfaHonsin that very book, 
 as an addition to it. It is not a proof that he 
 wrote all his own tranfaftions in any book ; 
 but I fubmit entirely to the judgment of every 
 

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