{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_40978/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_40978","id":"gutenberg_40978","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40978","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Paine, Thomas, 1737-1809. Age of reason","Rationalism","Watson, Richard, 1737-1816. Apology for the Bible"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\nWATSON REFUTED\n\nBEING AN ANSWER TO THE APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.\n\nIN A SERIES OF LETTERS TO THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFF.\n\nBy Samuel Francis, M.D.\n\n     Pudet me humani generis, cujus mentes et aures talia fern\n     potuerunt.\n\n     --Div. Augustin.\n\nLONDON:\n\nPRINTED and PUBLISHED BY R. CARLILE, 55, FLEET STREET\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT.\n\nI had written a considerable part of another work, containing strictures\non religion. The appearance of the Bishop of Llandaff's pamphlet, and\nthe number of editions that have been published for the purpose of\nencouraging its sale among the poorer classes, induced me to take up the\npen expressly in answer to this publication, that I might undeceive\nthe multitude, and show that, under the imposing title of a Bishop,\nDr. Watson has been guilty of the most gross misrepresentations, and,\nwhether intentionally or from ignorance, has deceived his readers,\nwhile, under the pretence of meekness, he triumphs in the detection of a\nfew errors, committed by a man who does not pretend to be a Theologian,\nor to be possessed of any great learning. He has uniformly passed\nover the weighty arguments of the Age of Reason, and stopped at a few\nimmaterial inaccuracies. I hope, in the following sheets, to show, that\nthe learned Professor of Divinity has committed errors in the Natural\nSciences and History, which would be inexcusable in any author; but,\nwhen coming from a dignified Clergyman, who wishes to dictate to the\nnation, their detection cannot fail to show to the public, how necessary\nit is for men to employ their faculty of reason, and not to yield it to\nthose whose profession is to teach things they acknowledge to be above\nreason, and incomprehensible. I shall, as soon as my other avocations\npermit, give the world a tract upon religion in general, with strictures\non the Jewish and Christian systems. For this reason, I shall not, in\nthe present pamphlet, enter deeply into any abstract reasoning, but\nconfine myself chiefly to the detection of the errors contained in the\nApology for the Bible.\n\nS. F.\n\nLondon, Aug. 15,\n\n1790,\n\n\n\n\nWATSON REFUTED\n\n\n\n\nLETTER I.\n\nMY LORD,\n\nYou have thought it not inconsistent with your dignity as a Bishop, to\noppose the _Age of Reason by Thomas Paine_, and I, as a member of the\ncommunity, find myself called upon to expose your reasoning, and stop\nthe career of error. You disclaim controversy; but if your candour\nis any thing more than a vain boast, I entertain hopes of seeing the\ndefender of Christianity again step forward to answer my arguments, if\nhe deems them of sufficient weight to disturb his quiet. I am sincerely\nglad to find a dignified churchman begin a dispute with men, whom\nformerly the pious members of the Church would have deemed fit victims\nfor the fire or the gallows; at the same time, I feel deep regret, that\nthe Bishop has not yet altogether laid aside the clerical passion for\nthe extermination of the heterodox. I hope, says Dr. Watson, that\nthere is no want of charity in wishing, that Mr. Paine's life had been\nterminated long before his publication. This may be consistent with\nChristian charity, but nature and reason teach us ugly unbelievers\nanother doctrine: and, however inveterate I may be against those of\nthe clergy who persecute and deceive the multitude, I confess, that the\ndeath of a person, whom I conceive to be acting for what he thinks the\npublic good, would give me no pleasure; and the Bishop allows the purity\nof Mr. Paine's motives. The wish of the philosopher is, let reason guide\nus, and all parties have freedom of debate. No dogmatical dictates of\nbigotted priests, no passive obedience to the mandates of inquisitors,\nnor to the persecutions so often fomented by churchmen. To the progress\nof letters, during this century, we owe the mildness and condescension\nof clergymen: till philosophy taught us, the clergy never discovered,\nthat persecutions for heresy and witchcraft, or inquisitions and popery,\nwere horrid institutions. Dares Dr. Watson affirm, that freedom of\ninquiry was ever suffered on religious subjects? that people were\nallowed to examine the grounds of the doctrines taught by the Church?\nNo, Sir, your predecessors of all beliefs have ever persecuted\nphilosophers and inquirers into truth, both in science and in religion.\nNeither Galileus nor Rousseau escaped the malevolence of the opposers\nof science; and in the Bible they found authorities for their inveterate\nopposition to the progress of truth and knowledge. The New Testament\ninforms us, that the wisdom of God is foolishness to man, that human\nlearning produces nothing but pride 1, and that the poor in spirit gain\nthe kingdom of heaven.\n\n     1 \"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain\n     deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of\n     the world, and not after Christ.\" Colos. ii. 5, 8.\n\n     \"Cum sit nobis divinis literis traditum cognitiones\n     philosophorum stultas esse, ad ipsum re et argumentis\n     docendum et; ne quit bouesto sapieuti\u00e6 nomine inductus, aut\n     inanis eloquenti\u00e6 splendore deceptus, humanis malet quam\n     divinis credere.\"\n\n     Lactantius, Inst. lib. i. chap. 2.\n\nUnder these and other similar pretences, have barbarous priests led\ntheir credulous followers to massacres in the name of their God; by\nmeans of that touchstone word, _Faith_, they made the multitude forget\nthat their leaders were but men. Now, Sir, we have grown bolder:\nknowledge being no longer confined to clerical seminaries, priests are\nnot kings. The church totters; and a single pamphlet, you say, \"has\nunsettled the faith of thousands.\" Now, that you cannot stifle reason,\nyou pretend to liberality of sentiment.\n\nThe natural historian, or the astronomer, fears not the publication of\nopinions contrary to his own, except from a scholastic habit, learned in\nthe clerical seminaries, which still disgrace almost every country. The\nchemist eagerly peruses all theories; the divine alone refuses to argue\nwith his opponents, and trembles at the very name of reason. I differ in\nmy philosophical opinions from Mr. Paine; my principles extend so much\nfarther than his, that I suspect I come under the class which you are\npleased to call madmen, and every clergyman would affect to despise, but\ndare not argue with, before an unprejudiced tribunal. These, Sir, are\nthe effects of superstition, and the cunning policy of the Church. The\nBible is hardly suffered to be read in Catholic countries. The English\nreformers could not go so far; their revolution sprung from a dawn of\nphilosophy. The English clergy, however, would confine us to the\nreading of that unintelligible farrago, and the still more insufferable\ncommentaries upon it. So did the scholastics with Aristotle; their\nbigotted partiality to this author was nearly of the same force with the\npriestly attachment to the Bible. They retarded science; but the motives\nof the clergy are stronger. By the Bible they live; and it is not\nuncommon to hear the parson deride in private what he preaches from the\npulpit.\n\nBut to your first letter.\n\nAfter the pious wish for Thomas Paine's death, you proceed to state\nhow miserable the adoption of his doctrines would render the \"unhappy\nvirtuous.\" Fear not such a dire event: the _pious_ are few in number,\nand of those, few have the courage to open a book controverting their\nopinions, and which, they are taught to believe, contains nothing but\nblasphemies But, should chance lead them to a detection of their errors,\nthey would only become less devout, and more useful citizens. Freed from\nthe prospect of hell and heaven, they will have leisure to think of\nthis world, in which they live somewhat like hermits, loving only their\npriests, and ready to sacrifice victims to credulity.\n\nYou say, that guillotine massacres were not the effect of the Popish\nreligion, but of the disbelief of this system. This deserves some\nconsideration. It is not true, that the majority of the people of Paris\nwere unbelievers. No, Sir, they swore to the miracles of Abbe Paris,\nand were as ready to give testimony to the wonderful cures and prodigies\noperated by his intercession, as the Jews or Christians have been\nto vouch for theirs. The fact is this: the lively disposition of the\nFrench, the unintelligibility of their religion, and the shameful\nconduct of the priests, turned their attention to the more serious\nobject of politics; but this event could not immediately change the\nnature of the murderers of the Protestants on St. Bartholomew's day.\nDoes your Lordship imagine, that the peasants of La Vendee are models of\nmorality? If you think so, I must undeceive you. Nothing but ignorance\nprevails in that district; like the ancient crusaders, they are led\nsolely by their priests, who, by means of certain words which early\nhabits and superstition have made their followers respect, and, together\nwith want of communication with the rest of France, have inflamed them,\nand driven them to slaughter: even miracles have not been wanting in\nthat part of the country; but in this, as in many other instances, they\nhave disappeared, on the arrival of incredulous troops, whose hearts are\nperhaps hardened by God, like the Egyptians of old. Since God diminishes\nmen's faith in proportion as he gives them human wisdom, let us not\nendeavour to controvert this heavenly will, by endeavouring to make\nthe enlightened people of the eighteenth century so credulous as in the\nformer days of ignorance. The Bishop allows, that the higher classes\nof every country all lean towards infidelity; they are more guided by\nreason, and reason is the avowed enemy of faith, it being the criterion\nof faith, that it contains natural impossibilities. It is unfortunate\nthat so many sects pretend to faith, and differ so much among\nthemselves; and that to explain their faiths, they use the weapons of\nreason against one another. This of itself proves, that faith is but\na cant word, since the faithful argue about what comes not under human\nknowledge. Thus all religious sectaries, whether Christians, Jews,\nMahometans, Boodzoists, or Bramins, as staunchly believe contradictory\ndoctrines, while, in the inquiries that depend on their reason, we find\nthat, wherever men have long been civilized, they have, in astronomy,\nin physics, or ethics, come in general to the same conclusions. The\nlanguage of the philosopher is understood in Pekin as well as in Rome;\nbut the religious fanatics of every country differ in their opinions,\nand consider all but themselves as dreamers and impostors. The Bramin\nlaughs at the story of Noah and the ark, the stopping of the sun, and\nthe incarnation of God; while the Christian shows the same contempt for\nthe incarnation of Vishnu, and other articles of the Braminical\nfaith. The exercise of reason alone shows us the true limits of our\nintellectual faculties. Ignorance of this is the cause of all reveries\nin science, as in religion; it is only superstition that incites men to\nlaunch beyond their conceptions.\n\nYou accuse of infidelity all those who commit crimes against society.\nWhen we answer, that the Jewish and Christian religions have deluged\nthe world with blood, you reply, that it is not as being Jews and\nChristians, but because they were wicked. At the same time, I hope you\nallow, that the Spartans, the Athenians, the Romans, the Chinese, did\nnot commit half the atrocities which disgrace Jewish history, the aera\nof the crusades and the Christian persecutions, of the invasion of\nAmerica, the massacres of heretics, &c. The candid observer must\ntherefore conclude, that right and wrong is not confined to sects; that\nthe Christian religion, whatever its precepts may be, has not been able\nto prevent crimes, while nations who knew not so much as the name of\nMoses or Christ, produced a Confucius, an Aristides, a Socrates, an\nEpaminondas, a Cincinnatus. Among these nations, who knew not the Lord\nJehovah, we find Archimedes, Epicurus, Demosthenes, Plato, Aristotle,\nCicero, while the chosen people of God, and their successors, the\nChristians, borrowed their language, the very names of their gods, and\nthe little science they knew, from these despised infidels. It was not\nthe oracle of Delphos, the augurs, or the sybils, that enlightened the\nGreeks and Romans. The rabble credited them, as the ignorant Jews and\nChristians did their prophets and apostles. In short, morals cannot be\ninvented; there cannot be two systems of morality. The precepts must be\ndirected to principles existing in the heart of man. Ignorance conceals\nfrom nations the rule of conduct, in the same manner that it prevents\nthem from knowing geometry; the moment they study either, they are put\nin the road of truth. No wonder, then, that in the times of the greatest\noppression, when frightened into certain doctrines by the stories\nof nurses and parents, many learned men should not have been able\nto conquer their first prejudices. You certainly know the time when\nastrology and the philosopher's stone were in fashion; the believers\nin these reveries were men of science. Van Helmont, Stahl, Boyle,\nand innumerable others were possessed of this madness. You can be no\nstranger to the numerous wretches that suffered for witchcraft and\nnecromancy, and, upon the very brink of death, confessed they were\nguilty.\n\nThe next reflection the Doctor makes, is respecting gospel moderation,\nfor which purpose he quotes, \"Who art thou that judgest another man's\nservant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.\" Yet has this been\ndone by all Christian rulers; and the clergy are at this moment,\nin express defiance of this maxim, about to send missionaries to\ndisseminate principles that have ever produced internal dissensions, and\nwithout which infidels have lived in perfect happiness. It is, perhaps,\nan excess of piety; but cool observers pretend, that it is the high\npriest, not the High God, that they are going to preach: to fill their\nknapsacks is the first object of these pilgrims, and their God is\nmade subservient. Unluckily for the Bishop, he could not adduce a more\ndetestable maxim, to show his charity, than that which I have just\nquoted: it is the pivot of Oriental despotism; it teaches passive\nobedience to all classes; the father is the tyrant of his children, the\nnabob of his subjects, the emperor of all: it is a maxim whose tendency\nis to root in men's minds, that we are the property of one another, and\nmay be inherited as cattle. To those of my readers who are pleased with\nit, I wish a thorough experience of its effects.\n\nThe remainder of your first letter contains observations to which I\nperfectly accede. Your conclusion against Thomas Paine is perfectly\nfair. Any apparent deviation from moral justice in the world must prove\nas much against the goodness of God, as a similar inconsistency in his\nimmediate actions and commands proves against revealed religion. My\nLord, we are in the abyss of error; your question with Thomas Paine\nis about the comparative absurdity of the two Opinions. The deistical\nnotions of your adversary do not agree with his reasonable tenets; but\nI readily grant, that, to a religious person, nothing is incredible; and\nthat the greater the inconsistencies, the more sublime the system.\nBut let me ask your Lordship, what you conclude against one, who, like\nmyself, is not a Deist? and repeats, with the first philosopher of the\nage, that there are only four possible hypotheses upon the causes of the\nuniverse: 1st. That they are purely good. 2dly. That they are malicious.\n3dly. That they are a mixture of good and evil. And, lastly, That they\nneither possess benevolence, nor any other passions. The two first\nhypotheses are equally contradicted by daily experience, the mixture of\ngood and evil is too apparent: the third is denied, by the steadiness of\nthe laws of nature: the last, then, only is admissible.\n\nYou next proceed to justify several actions of the Jews, which you and\nthe Bible are pleased to call God's commands. I must decline following\nyour reasoning; for the very existence of such crimes as the Jews\nascribe to their enemies, and which, they say, were so repugnant to\nGod, would of themselves prove against the goodness of that Being. His\nfrequent threats, and the extermination of so many miserable nations, is\na poor expedient; like that of a man, who, attempting to make a machine,\nand foiled in his endeavours, gloried in breaking it in a thousand\npieces. How much more ridiculous is that sublime Artificer, who employs\nthe same means which impotence or malevolence give rise to in his\nwretched children. I am glad you have no recourse to the silly causes of\natheism, as given by that illustrious dreamer, Plato.\n\nThe world has too long been imposed upon by ridiculous attempts to\nvilify atheists, and show their nonexistence. That name has been a cant\nword, like Jacobin in France, and Whig and Tory in England, which\nevery person applies to his neighbour as it best suits him. In Catholic\ncountries, all who dare think are heretics; among Protestants, they\nare atheists. Being a word of opprobrium, it has ever been used as a\npowerful engine in the hands of the clergy. The question is upon the\ntruth of systems, not upon the character of those who profess them. If\nthis were the discrimination, and the palm given to that religion that\nhas had the greatest number of honest men, the Christian system would\ncertainly lose the contest.\n\nThe Bishop seems to think, that savages have not so perfect a notion of\nGod as we imagine: religion, he supposes, begins as it were in express\nrevelation. This is but the fancy of a clergyman, unsupported by\nany proofs; but at least it shows, that the Bishop involuntarily\nacknowledges, that reason alone can hardly give us the idea of a ruling\nBeing. The savage, it is true, does not discourse in a metaphysical\njargon; he wants expressions: but I wish the Doctor would inform me in\nwhat our Catechism definition of God is clearer than the notions of the\nrudest savage, who, trembling at the approach of thunder and violent\nconvulsions of nature, or enjoying the genial sun and fertilizing\ninundations, imagines all the world to be animated with his own\npassions. The thunder is a mark of wrath, while the blessings are signs\nof a propitious genius. To conciliate these imaginary beings, to avert\ntheir wrath, is the grand object of superstition. Schoolmen conceal,\nunder their mystical jargon, the real materials which their gods are\nmade of; they conceal that the Supreme Artificer is the offspring of\nfancy, the figurative and unphilosophical symbol of nature, to which\nthey give human dispositions: in all religious systems men are the\ntype of their gods. Your letter concludes with a remark sufficiently\nextraordinary, that most Deists of your acquaintance disbelieve the\nmysterious conversations of God, his miracles, and such other stories,\nbecause they are too wonderful, and against the order of nature. Your\nreply is curious: because we never have seen the like of them, does it\nfollow that they are untrue? Give me leave to tell you, my Lord, that\nyou have forgotten the rules of logic: you know, that in all cases, but\nof demonstration, the philosopher does nothing but weigh probabilities.\nAny thing that is conceivable is possible: but are we therefore to\nbelieve in the existence of witches or necromancers? Are we to give\ncredit to the world having sprung from an egg? That Mahomet divided the\nmoon? That the sun stood still? That astrology is a science? Yet what\nreason have we to disbelieve them? The respective supporters of these\nopinions may say with the Doctor, that nothing can be too wonderful, and\nthat, because these things have not happened in our time, it does not\nfollow they should be untrue. I acknowledge, with the Doctor, that\nmany Deists admit a Being as inconceivable as any religious mystery;\ntherefore it may seem ridiculous in them to stop their credulity; since\nwe call God just, when nothing but a concatenation of causes and effects\ncan be perceived in the world; when we proclaim him benevolent,\nwhile the world is full of vice, while millions perish in misery, and\ncontinual calamities befal mankind; while, in short, most men have the\ngloomy prospect of damnation before them. These are greater miracles\nthan an universal deluge, making a woman from a rib, or God's\ncountenancing the atrocious murders of Jews. He that will believe one\nwonder, has no plea for doubting the rest.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER II.\n\nMY LORD,\n\nYour second letter begins with some nice distinctions between\nauthenticity and genuineness. The whole reasoning seems to amount to\nthis, that a book may be authentic, although not genuine, and _vice\nversa_. To this proposition we were no strangers; but piety makes\nyour Lordship forget some other considerations. When the proofs of\nauthenticity depend in a great measure upon the genuineness of a\nbook, then the authenticity falls to the ground the moment we prove it\nspurious. Thus the Jews strenuously maintained, that the Pentateuch had\nbeen written by an inspired man at a particular time. But if Moses is\nshown not to have written these books, I trust you will not declare\nthem authentic, without other very solid proofs. When a whole nation\nis proved to be mistaken respecting the author of a work, we ought not\nhastily to credit their legends. Moreover, logic teaches us, that in\nproportion as events are incredible, they require a stronger testimony\nto prove that they have actually taken place. A battle may have been\nfought, a city may have been destroyed, but miracles being against the\norder of nature, no testimony can be strong enough to prove them, we\nmust again appeal to faith. It is so much easier for men to be deceived\nor imposed upon, or for persons designedly to mislead their credulous\nfollowers, that unless it were more miraculous that a man should be\nmistaken, than that the miracle happened, we ought not to give credit\nto such fables. If we drop this rule of logic, we shall readily believe\nprodigies of all sorts, whether wrought by Moses, Jesus Christ, Mahomet,\nSt. Antony of Padua, or any modern wonder-workers, witches, magicians,\nastrologers, or magnetisers. Mr. Paine no where asserts, that because\na book is not genuine, it must be false; but certainly he might assert\nthis of the Bible. You say, that if the works of Titus Livius had been\nascribed to another, they would nevertheless be true; how would you\nascertain it? If the whole Roman nation supposed them to have been\nwritten by a particular author at a certain time, and should we be\nenabled to point out many passages evidently written in a posterior\nage, would you, without any other proofs, join in the assent to the\nauthenticity of the history, upon a tradition so vague, and already\nproved false in so material a point? Although I am no Bishop, I would\nonly imagine, that as to probable events contained in such spurious\nbooks, there might have been some grounds for them; but I would receive\nthem with great caution; and, at any rate, never would I establish a\nsystem of history, much less of religion, upon the productions of an\nignorant people: in all cases, events related against the order of\nnature are to be considered as the reveries of dark ages. To elucidate\nyour principles, you mention Anson's voyage, written by Robins, under\nthe name of Walter, to prove that a spurious work may contain a true\nhistory; but, my Lord, do you forget, that this was written at a time\nwhen the whole nation knew that Lord Anson had made such a voyage, and\nevery man in his fleet could testify the particulars of it? But if\nour posterity, four or five centuries hence, should discover a book\npurporting to be written by a Mr. Walters, detailing the voyage of\nAdmiral Anson, and if in that book they should meet a passage speaking\nof the late revolution in France, or of the author's death and burial,\nwould not that strike at the authenticity of the whole? Would any part\nbe believed that was not corroborated by the evidence of respectable\ncontemporary authors? All that could be inferred would be from the\nnature of the events related, such as the accurate description of\ncountries, and such other particulars as marked either the period of the\nobservations, or their truth: in the first case, they might suspect the\nwork to be interpolated; in the second, they would value it only for\nthe accuracy of information. It is different with scientifical and\nhistorical works: a spurious book of science may contain truths, they\nstand for themselves, they are the same at all times and places. Not so\nin history: the truth here depends on the universal consent of nations,\non the testimony of authors of credibility confronted with each other,\nand in all cases relating things probable. When we read in a Chinese\nhistory, that the goddess Amida peopled the world by bearing male\nchildren from under one arm, and females under another, or, in the\nMahometan writers, that the trees spoke to the founder of that sect,\nwould a man credit any circumstance, however probable, related in\nsuch histories, without the strongest collateral proofs? And should\nwe further discover, that these histories detailed events posterior\nto their author's death, would not this make the whole still more\nimprobable? Your remark upon this subject is singular: you say, that if\nJoshua, Samuel, or Moses, declared themselves the authors of the works\nascribed to them, then to prove these books spurious would at once\ndestroy their genuineness and authenticity. I would reason thus: Moses\ndoes not say, that he was the author of the Pentateuch; why then do\nwe believe that he wrote it? You would, no doubt, answer, that the\ntradition of the Jews proclaims him such. I retort, that if the\ngenuineness of a book may be proved by tradition, we ought as much to\nargue against the authenticity of a work, from having proved the general\nbelief of its genuineness to be founded on error, as if the author had\nsaid, I am the author of this book. This we shall, in the sequel, prove\nto be the case with the books of the Old Testament. The addition of\nan express declaration of Moses would add no authenticity to the\nPentateuch, since it is as easy to forge a work where the author speaks\nin the first as in the third person.\n\nYour next remark is concerning miracles. I have already observed, that\nno testimony can give them belief. You maintain, that the degree and\nkind of evidence for the prodigies recorded in the Bible exceeds that\nfor any other wonders. How this happens I am unable to comprehend. I\nknow they are contained in a book composed by the priests of the\nmost credulous and ignorant nation that perhaps ever existed; and the\nauthority of these unknown and obscure persons, is all the evidence\nwe have for crediting their stories. An English Bishop tells his\ncountrymen, that the miracle of the sun standing still is better\nsupported than the prodigies of Abbe Paris, Mesmer, and the late Labre\nat Rome, than the numerous Indian, Chinese, and Popish miracles, of\nwhich a great part are attested by magistrates, divines, physicians, and\nthe most enlightened classes of society; while the wonderful repast of\nthe angels with Abraham, or the marvellous tale of Jonah's three days'\nresidence in the belly of a fish, depends upon the authority of a book\nwhich we shall prove to be spurious, to have been lost for several ages,\nand to be compiled, if not altogether composed, by some Jewish scribes,\nwho were, as they themselves acknowledge, the only men versed in the\nscriptures of the nation. I thought you would have known sacred history\nbetter than at the present day to make such unsupported assertions.\nHave you forgotten the wonders of the magicians of Pharaoh? Do you not\nrecollect the express acknowledgment of Moses himself, that there may\nbe miracles and prophecies performed by men who adored not the Lord\nJehovah? Does he not say, in chap. xiii. of Deuteronomy, \"If there arise\namong you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or\na wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto\nthee, saying, Let us go after other gods, &c.--that prophet, or that\ndreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, _because he hath spoken to you\nto turn away from the Lord your God_.\" It is not because he is a false\nprophet, but because he is not a prophet of Jehovah. Does not this\nat once show the grossness of the conceptions of the Jews, and the\nsophistical mode of arguing of their legislator? For I would ask, How\ndid Moses prove himself the oracle of God? Or how did Jesus Christ\nshow himself the Son of God, but by their pretended miracles? Why then\nbelieve the testimony of a miracle in one instance, and not in another?\nBut the Jews certainly imagined, that there were several gods, and that\nthey quarrelled with each other, as kings are used to do; therefore it\nwas natural that one set of prophets should try to exterminate another,\nand be as inveterate against them as the Lord Jehovah was against Baal,\nor other rival gods. If the reader imagines I speak at random when I\nsay, the Jews believed in other gods, I refer him to Judges, chap.\nxi. ver. 23, 34, where it is said, \"So now the Lord God of Israel hath\ndispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel, and shouldst\nthou not possess it? Wilt thou not possess that which _Chemosh thy god_\ngiveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive\nout from before us, them will we possess.\" There cannot be a fairer\nparallel.\n\nI can hardly imagine a Bishop ignorant of the augurs, oracles, and\nsybils of the Greeks and Romans, and of the implicit belief these\nnations had in them; the truth of their prophecies was fully as well\nestablished as the prophecies of the Jews. Neither were miracles\nuncommon among the heathens. You have, no doubt, read St. Ambrose and\nOrigen, and have found in the works of these and other fathers, that\nthe only difference between the miracles of the Christians and infidels,\nwas, that the former were operated by God, and the latter by the devil;\nand could I be satisfied that Satan took up Jesus Christ to the top of\nthat high mountain, (now unknown to geographers) from whose pinnacle all\nthe world could be seen, this would surprise me as much as to see Jesus\nChrist, or any other wonder-worker, bringing a dead man to life. I am\nashamed to have inveighed so long against silly prejudices; but I\ncould not avoid calling upon your Lordship, to point out the difference\nbetween gospel-miracles and the ridiculous tales believed in all dark\nages, and of which we find so copious collections in the works of the\nfirst fathers. The axiom of philosophers, that no human testimony can\nestablish the credibility, of miracles, you have left unanswered. You\nsay it has been confuted an hundred times: had you given the confutation\nof it, we would have been able to ascertain the truth of your assertion.\nYou are writing for the multitude, and being a dignitary of the church,\nought to furnish the people with arms to oppose reason. Perhaps the\nunsuccessful attempt of Dr. Campbell has deterred you from at least\nrecapitulating the principal answers to this proposition. Till you can\nprove that the great mass of mankind are not very fallible and easily\ndeceived by any impostor, or that they are disposed and capable to\nexamine the truth of reports spread about prodigies, you will never be\nable to persuade men of sense, that events impossible are to be believed\nupon the testimony of those who not only are, but have constantly been,\nthe slaves of credulity in all countries.\n\nYou then show, that Mr. Paine's objections to the genuineness are not\nnew. This is true; and I am surprised you have quoted so few supporters\nof his opinions. Your attempt to prove the genuineness of the\nPentateuch, by direct evidence, is ridiculous. What! Maimonides, ten\ncenturies after the destruction of the Jews, a Jew himself, and writing\nat a period so remote from the supposed date of the books of the\nOld Testament, is, by Dr. Watson, called a direct evidence of the\ngenuineness of the Pentateuch. Juvenal, a poet, who in more than one\nplace ridicules the credulity of the Jews, says, that they believe in\nMoses--so do the Europeans allow that the Indians believe in Brama.--We\nquestion not the general traditions of the Jews, but the credit they\ndeserve; and I shall next proceed to show, that the books of the\nPentateuch are spurious, and undeserving of credit. The name of\nMoses and the Jews were unknown to the famous Phoenician historian\nSanchoniato, of whom Eusebius has preserved us some extracts; he has\nnever mentioned a word about this famous legislator: had he done so,\nEusebius was too strenuous an advocate _for_ Christianity not to have\nrecorded it. The books of the Jews were concealed from all the world\nbefore the famous Greek translation made at the instance of Ptolemy\nPhiladelphia. Josephus himself acknowledges, that no heathen knew\nthe Jewish books, which he endeavours to explain, by some miraculous\ninterference of God to keep them from the impious. It is evident, that\nthe insignificance and ignorance of the Jews were sufficient to screen\nthem for a long time from the search of philosophers. Upon the early\nhistory of the Jewish nation, however, we have the testimony of several\nof the ancient writers. Manetho, and Chaeremon, Egyptian historians,\ngive the most unfavourable account of this nation. Lisimachus does not\nfavour them any more; and, although he differs about the name of the\nking who expelled them from Egypt, yet he agrees in calling them a set\nof men infected with leprosy, and the meanest of the subjects of the\nking of Egypt. Diodorus Siculus is as hard upon these wretched Jews. In\nshort, the opinion of their being the vilest and most ignorant of men,\nhas prevailed among all antiquity. All the writers about them agree in\nstating that they never produced any work in science; indeed, that they\nnever improved any branch of useful knowledge. Many of these authors\nmention Moses as a priest of Heliopolis, who led them out of Egypt, and\ngave them a religion. Diodorus Siculus informs us, that the God of Moses\nwas Jau, or Jahouh, which is the true pronunciation of Jehovah; and\nPlutarch (de Iside) says, that the Thebans adored this God, and had not\nimages in their temples, because Jau signified the general principle of\nlife, the soul of the world.\n\nStrabo, in his Geography, book 16, informs us, that Moses, who was an\nEgyptian priest, taught his followers to worship the God Jahouh, without\nrepresenting it by emblems. This was the God of the Thebans, the soul of\nthe world. The Jews have even preserved the name of Tsour, or giver of\nforms, and commonly translated by the word creator in chap. xxxii. of\nDeuteronomy. Herodotus affirms, that the Jews or Syrians of Palestine\nborrowed circumcision from the Egyptians. Diodorus says the same; and\neven Philo and Josephus do not deny it. A great many other rites\nwere copied by the Jews from this nation. It is, therefore, of great\nconsequence to ascertain the age in which the Jewish books were written;\nfor if we can prove that all the fundamental points of their religion\nwere copied from their masters the Egyptians, or borrowed from the\nBabylonians during the captivities, then the reader will judge of\nthe truth of the clerical opinion, that a handful of hordes were the\nfavourite people of God; that a set of ignorant and credulous vagabonds\ntaught science to the Chinese, Indians, and Egyptians, and preserved\nnothing among themselves but some ridiculous accounts of their origin,\nand a collection of absurd prodigies. If we succeed in pointing out\nfrom what sources Jewish mythology is derived, there will be but\nlittle difficulty in unravelling the principal fables contained in the\nPentateuch and other Jewish books. We are pretty well acquainted with\nthe allegories of the heathen mythologies.\n\nI am ready to grant that several of Mr. Paine's objections are not\nvalid, and often trifling; but I declare, once for all, that I do not\nthink myself bound to follow Mr. Paine in every instance. I shall direct\nmy remarks, rather to disprove your reasoning, than to defend every\nobjection of your opponent; at the same time, I shall avoid repeating\nwhat he has advanced, and you have not disproved. The chief proofs\nagainst the genuineness of the Pentateuch have been overlooked by Mr.\nPaine. I shall state them briefly.\n\nFirst. It was believed, by all the best informed old fathers of the\nchurch, that the Jewish books had been absolutely lost during the\ncaptivity, and that Esdras had written them from inspiration; or, that\nhe collected the Pentateuch, and all other canonical books, out of\nwhatever records he could find, and put them together. 1 In either case,\ntheir authority is greatly invalidated; and the more so, as the fourth\nbook of Esdras, adopted by the Greek church, and generally deemed\nauthentic, says expressly, that Esdras dictated the holy books during\nforty successive days and nights, to five scribes, who were continually\nwriting. This tale shows sufficiently the general belief that he was\nthe restorer of the long lost books of the law. In our second book\nof Nehemiah, or, properly speaking, Esdras, it is said, that Ezra, or\nEsdras the scribe, who was above all the people, brought the book of the\nlaw to the people, and then the people rejoiced much in being instructed\nin the law of God, that when they found there the commandment of the\nLord ordering the Jews to perform the feast of the booths, there was\ngreat gladness, \"and all the congregation of them that were come again\nout of the captivity made booths, and sat under booths: for, since the\ndays of Joshua the son of Nun, unto that day, had not the children of\nIsrael done so.\". If the Jews had even forgotten a feast, the memory\nof which every father would transmit to his son, is this not an evident\nproof that they had no books in the captivity? Again, in chap. vii. of\nthe 1 book of Esdras, it is said, that Esdras \"had very great skill,\nso that he omitted nothing of the law and commandments of the Lord, but\ntaught all Israel the ordinances and judgments.\"\n\n     1 Porro Esdram sancti patres docent iostanratorem suisse\n     sacrorum librorum, quod non ita intelligendum est, quasi\n     scriptur\u00e6 sacr\u00e6 omnes perierint in eversione civitatis, et\n     templi Nabuchodonosor, et ab Esdra divinitas inspirato\n     reparat\u00e6 fuerint, ut fabulatur auctor, L, IV. Esdr\u00e6 C. XIV.\n     Sed quod Scripturas Mosis, et prophetarum in varia volimina\n     descriptas, et in varia loca dispenreas, et tempore\n     captivitatis non diligenter conservatas, Esdras summa\n     diligentia collectas ordinaverit, et in unum quasi corpus\n     redigerit. Bellarmin de Script. Ecclesiast. page 22.\n\nCan any man, after this, doubt that Esdras is the compiler of all the\nbooks which the Jews had not known for many centuries? And are we, who\nlaugh at the Catholic councils, to trust to the word of a Jewish scribe?\nit is further stated in 2 Chronicles, chap. xxiv. ver. 15, that Hilkiah\nthe priest found a book of the law of God _given_ by Moses, and sent it\nby Saphan to king Josias, who heard it read, which shows that it must\nhave been very short; and, by the context, it would appear to have\nbeen the law strictly speaking; another proof that these records were\naltogether scattered, and are all without authority, since it was so\neasy to forge them among a people who seemed to preserve no more than\na traditional law. Again, although, in the older Jewish books, such as\nKings and Chronicles, we find the name of Moses often mentioned, yet no\nword answering to the five books of Pentateuch is to be found. The Code\nof laws of Moses seems to have been forgotten; for Solomon ornamented\nthe temple with calves, in express contempt of that law, and this while\nhe was the favourite of God, and the wisest man in the world. The very\nconfusion that pervades the books ascribed to Moses, shows them to\nhave been compilations. Jerome, who was one of the most learned of the\nfathers, confesses that he dares not affirm that Moses is the author\nof the Pentateuch; he even adds, that he has no objection to allow that\nEsdras wrote the books in question. 1\n\n     1 Sive Mosen dicere volueris auctorem Pentateuchi, sive\n     Esdram ejuadem iustauratorem operis, non recuso. Hieronim.\n     Op. Tom. IV. p. 134. Apud Edit. Paris 1706,\n\nSecondly. We know that no canon of books ever existed among the Jew's\ntill the time of the synagogue under the Maccabees. Before their reign,\nthere had never existed among the Jews any such council; and, if the\nword occurs in the Pentateuch, it is a fault of the transcribers and\ncomposers, who lived when there was a synagogue, and is not to be\nunderstood in any other acceptation than a collection of priests. The\nPharisees of the second temple chose the books they thought best among\na multitude of forgeries. The Talmud relates, that this synagogue\nwere about to reject the Book of Proverbs, Ezekiel's prophecies, and\nEcclesiastes, because they imagined these writings contradictory to the\nlaw of God; but a certain Rabbin having undertaken to reconcile them,\nthey were preserved as canonical. A prodigious number of forged Books\nof Daniel, Esdras, and of the Prophets, were then in circulation; and\nto distinguish the genuine from the false works became absolutely\nnecessary. This doubt and uncertainty conspires to render the decision\nof the synagogue very doubtful; particularly, as we shall show in the\nsequel, that many passages of the Prophecies are written evidently about\nthe time of this choice of sacred books, and inserted in them, probably\nby some cunning priest, as the oracles of Sybil were forged to suit\nC\u00e6sar.\n\nThirdly. The similarity of the mysteries of the Jews to those of the\nBabylonians, is too glaring not to let us see the origin of Genesis in\nparticular. The creation in six days is a perfect copy of the Gahans,\nor Gahan-bars, of Zoroaster; the particulars of each day's work are\nliterally the same. The serpent was famous among the Babylonians. The\nmythological deluge of Ogyges and Xissuthrus, are symbols of changes\narising on earth, as they imagined, from the revolutions of the heavenly\nbodies. These, a little ornamented by the historical narration of\nDeucalion's inundation related by Berosus, is the pattern of Noah's\nflood; the ark of Osiris and emblematical dove and raven were Egyptian\nhieroglyphics. The man and the woman in Paradise is a mere copy of\nZoroaster's first pair. The original sin is Pandora's box. The Talmud of\nJerusalem says expressly that the Jews borrowed the names of the angels,\nand even of their months, from the Babylonians. The Elohim, or Gods,\n(not God), are said in Genesis to have created the world. It was not\nJehovah, but the genii or gods that are in the Hebrew called makers of\nthe world. And these are the very genii, who according to Sanchoniatho,\nwere by Mercury excited against Saturn.\n\nFourthly. We ask, in what language was the Pentateuch written, if it\nreally was the work of Moses? It is known that Hebrew is a dialect of\nthe Phenician, and that the Jews spoke Egyptian for a very long time\nbefore they adopted the language of the people among whom they dwelt. In\nPsalm lxxxi. we learn that the Jews were surprised to hear the language\nof the people beyond the Bed Sea. If, therefore, Moses, or any person of\nthat age, is the author of the Pentateuch, it is evident that the\nHebrew books are mere translations. What degree of credit does a nation\ndeserve, who have been able to take for originals books that were in the\nface of them translations? Is it right to persecute men, as priests have\ndone while they had power, for refusing to give credit to this tissue of\ncontradictory and absurd fables?\n\nFifthly. In the books of the Old Testament, we find abundant proofs that\nthey have been written in an age greatly posterior to that of Moses. In\nGenesis, chap. xii. ver. 6, we find these words, \"And the Canaanite was\nthen in land.\" This implies another period when the Canaanite was not\nin the land, which, we learn from the Bible, did not happen till after\nDavid, and could not therefore be written by Moses. The beginning of\nDeuteronomy is certainly not written by him; for he never passed the\nJordan; he died upon Mount Nebo, to the eastward of it. The English\ntranslation has in chap. i. v. 5, of this book, said, \"on this side\nof the Jordan,\" for \"on that side,\" which is in the original. The\ntranslator has taken similar liberties very often. In chap. xxxiii. we\nfind this expression, \"There never was in Judea so great a prophet\nas Moses,\" and such could be pointed out in many places. Here needs no\ncomment to show that such passages could only be written in a posterior\nage, and when there had been several prophets after Moses. Thomas Paine\nmentions many other passages, which I shall consider when I come to your\nnext letter.\n\nThe above considerations would be sufficient to invalidate the\ngenuineness and authenticity of any historical book: but here we find\nthat the credulity of bigots requires less proof for the authority of\na work, which, according to them, is the fountain of faith, than\nfor Ossian's poems, or any other book of no consequence. If a common\nhistorical work contains fables, impossible events, and anachronisms;\nif its age is not ascertained; if we are certain that it was unknown for\nmany centuries; if we are even ignorant whether it is an original or a\ntranslation, who would give the slightest credit to such a book? Yet are\nenlightened nations led by the testimony of the Jews, a people credulous\nbeyond measure, extremely ignorant, almost continually in slavery, and\ndispersed. This is the nation that pretends to give an account of the\ncreation, and, with a vanity peculiar to an insignificant people, to\nassume the supremacy among nations, and arrogate to themselves the\nexclusive protection of Jehovah, and dare make their Adam the common\nstock of mankind. You allow, my Lord, that several passages have been\ninterpolated in the Pentateuch. No person in the least acquainted with\nthe history can deny that it has suffered great alterations; 1 and I\nhave already noticed the opinion of the best informed fathers of the\nchurch upon the non-existence of the Pentateuch, several centuries prior\nto Esdras. I now beg to be informed, how we are to decide, if Hilkiah,\nin the reign of Josias, collected from tradition, or some old book he\nfound in a chest, the precepts of the law? and whether the other famous\nscribe, Esdras, did not compile from hearsay, and some imperfect and\nscattered manuscripts of no authority, together with a great many\nBabylonish traditions, those venerable five books of Moses? We are\ninformed, in one of the books that bears his name, that Esdras was\nthe wisest of his cotemporaries, and therefore a very fit and probable\nperson to write books out of old legends.\n\n     1 Multa in Hebraicis et Gr\u00e6cis codicibus vitia esse\n     ostendimus. Malta mendacia in rebus minutis, eorum pars\n     uliqua non exigua nostra editione vulgata extat.---Marian\n     pr. edit. vulg. cap. 21.\n\nIf the books of the Old Testament were composed at so late a period, no\nwonder then that we find all the mysterious part of them so much like\nthe religion of the ancients, and particularly of the Babylonians, and\nthe historical part made up of heterogeneous matters, which in our days,\nunassisted by any profane writer of that age, we can make nothing of. I\nshall mention a few of the most striking points of resemblance between\nthe Jewish and other mysteries. Abraham, the most famous of their\npatriarchs, has ever been celebrated in India. This they seem to have\nbrought from their native country, Arabia. We have already noticed,\nthat their account of the creation is exactly copied from Zoroaster, who\nsays, that the world was made in six periods of time, called by him the\nthousands of God and of light, meaning the six summer months; in the\nfirst, God made the heavens; in the second, the waters; in the third,\nthe earth; in the fourth, trees; in the fifth, animals; and in the\nsixth, man. The Etrurians and the Hindoos have very similar traditions\nof the highest antiquity, which, though they were emblems at first\nperfectly understood, astronomers afterwards converted them into\nperiods, comprehending as many years as was required for different\nrevolutions of the planetary system.\n\nThus, while the Hindoos and Persians called the days or ages of the\nworld, each of many thousands of years; the Jews, ignorant of astronomy,\nand fond of the marvellous, comprised all within six common days. Their\nfirmament or heaven of crystal, and its windows, are absurdities not\npeculiar to them; the feast of the Pascha, which signifies passage, is\nof Egyptian origin, and was in reverence for the passage of the sun at\nthe vernal equinox: the sacrifices of calves or oxen, the ceremony of\nthe scape-goat, are Egyptian and Indian; the latter, in particular, have\na ceremony altogether the same with that of the scapegoat. It is too\nlong to insert here, but I refer my readers to Mr. Halhed's introduction\nto the code of Gentoo laws for information on this head. The distinction\nbetween pure and impure animals was first made by the Egyptians; the\nladder seen in Jacob's vision, is exactly a copy of that with seven\nsteps in the cave of Milthra, representing the seven spheres of the\nplanets, by means of which souls ascended and descended. It is also the\nmythology of the Hindoos, whose antiquity no man at the present day\ncan venture to deny. The seven candlesticks, and the twelve stones are\nEgyptian, and were emblems of the seven planets, and twelve signs of\nthe Zodiac. The serpent is the most famous Egyptian hieroglyphic; it\nsignifies eternity, or the sum of all things. The fasts before feasts\nare also derived from this nation. The Jewish high-priest, like the\nEgyptian, wore an image of sapphire, being the emblematic picture of\ntruth, upon, his breast: in short, the Egyptians, their masters, gave\nthem the first ideas of mysteries, which, in the course of time, they\nmingled with the Chaldaic; and Manetho informs us, in the extract given\nby Josephus in his first book against Appian, that, in authors of great\nauthority, he found the Jews to have been distinguished in Egypt by the\nname of captive pastors, which Josephus artfully enough has attempted\nto convert into captive kings. These are the men whom sacred historians\npretend to have taught the Egyptians all their arts. These wretches,\ndespised of all nations, were themselves the emphatical admirers of the\nwisdom of the East. Their legislator was an Egyptian priest, and learned\nall that he knew from them; and you would persuade us that a set of\nArabian hordes had founded the Egyptian empire, simply because they,\nlike the Irish, are pleased to say that they were antedeluvians. I\npardon the Jews for their credulity; but Europeans in the 18th century\nought not to think as the inhabitants of Palestine. If we give credit to\nall the reports of the origin of nations, we may give up all pretensions\nto common sense.\n\nThe immortality of the soul is shown, by the learned but superstitious\nWarburton, never to have been mentioned in the Pentateuch; nor the\nnotion of hell, or of future rewards and punishments. There is nothing\nmore certain, however, than that the Pharisees, long before Christ,\nstrenuously maintained the immortality of the soul, and in some measure\nadopted the doctrine of transmigration of souls, which they had got from\nthe Greeks and other nations.\n\nThe Sadducees, founding themselves upon the Bible, fervently denied\na future life. The Essenians, according to Philostratus, were\nPythagoreans, both in their morals, belief, and mode of life, except\nthat a few of the Jewish articles of faith, such as the necessity\nof circumcision, were mingled with their creed. Josephus himself\nacknowledges the similarity between the Essenians and the Plisti among\nthe Thracians, to whom Zamolxis, the disciple of Pythagoras, taught\nhis doctrines: The Therapeutes, the pattern and ori--gin of Christian\nmorals, were reckoned amongst the Jews to be the most holy among the\nEssenians. They sacrificed their passions to God; they never swore,\nbut made simple affirmations; they lived, as it were, in convents; they\ndespised bodily pain: when they entered their state of perfection, they\nabandoned their property, wives, children, and all earthly concerns;\nthey lived upon bread and water and salt; and spent the six days of the\nweek in interpreting the allegorical sense of the Bible. They revered\nthe Sabbath with a most scrupulous exactness; then they assembled in\nplaces set apart for religion, the men ranged on one side, and the\nwomen on the other, separated by a division four feet high, to prevent\ntemptation. Then they sung praises to God, and preached; they obeyed\nall the laws of their country, but never would execute any order to\nhurt another person. They, like the Pythagoreans, thought themselves\npossessed of the gift of prophecy; they, like the Pythagoreans, believed\nin the great year, whence arose the famous millennium of the Christians.\nThe three sects of Jews--Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenians, lived all\nin perfect harmony; the incredulous Sadducees not being considered as\nheretics, but often attaining the dignity of high-priests. This suffices\nto show, that the Jews borrowed from other nations those very mysteries\nwhich the ignorance of writers has misled mankind to consider as the\nspecial revelations of Jesus Christ.\n\nI have insisted so much upon this circumstance, because there is not a\nsingle article of Christian morals, nor one religious tenet, contained\nin the New Testament, that was not known before Jesus Christ was born.\nAnd the Christian religion, like that of the Jews, is a corruption of\nthe mythologies of the nations they brand with the name of infidels.\n\nI return to your book. It is now needless to answer your logical\ninference, that if Esdras is the compiler of the books of the\nPentateuch, they may still be true. I have already said, that we are not\nto sacrifice our reason to the compilations or works of a Jewish scribe,\nwho borrowed evidently so much, and who pretended to divine inspiration\nand conversations with the angels. When I began to read your book, I\nwas impressed with the idea of your candour; sorry am I to see\nthe malevolence with which you treat Mr. Paine, and how much you\nmisrepresent his just aspersions on the conduct of Moses. Your language\nalmost persuades me that you do not differ from the gentlemen of your\nprofession. Could Moses affirm, as you pretend he might, that he never\npersecuted any man? What! that monster, who, although married with a\nMidianite, ordered thousands of his credulous followers to be murdered,\nbecause one of them had slept with a Midianite, whom Josephus states was\nhis wife! What! when his brother and coadjutor makes a golden calf to\nthe people, this impostor, instead of punishing him, orders 3,000 men to\nbe murdered, and appoints Aaron his successor! Because Korah, Da-than,\nand Abiram, could not suffer to see him usurping all the power, he\nmurders them, although Korab was the descendant of Levi. This is Moses,\nwho says, like Bishop Watson, that he \"was a very meek man!\" Were these\ncontinual murders necessary to instruct ignorant idolaters who followed\nthe example of their priests? Have not the founders of our faith been\nthe most cruel murderers? But all this we are told was the immediate\norders of the Lord Jehovah, a merciful God. How feeble appears the power\nof this great God! He is continually repenting, and always obliged to\nrenew his covenants with a set of wretches, who, although they enjoyed\nhis special protection, always forsook him, and only fulfilled his\ncommands strictly when they were ordered to massacre. They might have\nbeen the favourite people of God, but I am sure they were the disgrace\nof men. You talk of idolatrous nations sunk in vice. I know of none so\nbarbarous as the Jews, whose legislator was obliged to fly from Egypt\nfor murder, a perfect assassin. The laws concerning paternal power,\nwhich you support, are horrid. Their having been adopted by many\nnations, is a proof of the general prevalence of superstition,\nignorance, and despotism. I have nothing to answer to your discourses on\ntythes. The Bible is preached up, because it teaches passive obedience,\ndonations to the church, and such other acts of _public utility_.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER III.\n\nAfter what I have observed above, it will be useless to say much as to\nyour third letter, in which you examine minutely the passages Thomas\nPaine has pointed out to prove the Pentateuch not genuine. First, As to\nthe objection taken from the name of Dan, I never thought it specious.\nThis is not the case with the very next one, which is of very great\nweight. The writer, after enumerating a number of Arabian names,\nconcludes in these words, \"These are the kings that reigned in Edom,\nbefore there reigned any king over the children of Israel.\" Contrary\nto my expectations, you acknowledge this to have been written after\nthe Jews had kings. Many of your brethren have attempted to deny it by\nquibbles! but you say that this does not invalidate the authority of the\nbook: wonderful! if your _alma-mater_ taught you, that an evident lie\nor contradiction in any book, particularly of remote antiquity, and\nrelating histories unsupported by impartial authors, does not create\na suspicion, which approaches to certainty, that the book is not\nauthentic; if you think so, I must give up arguing with you. It may be\nan interpolation, you observe. How did you learn this? You will at least\nleave, me the right to suppose, and you cannot deny that the presumption\nis against you, an absurdity in a book is a reason for distrusting\nthe rest. I have probability on my side; for the Jew who forged this\npassage, either from piety or ignorance, might have forged the whole\nbook, or so interpolated it, as to destroy its credibility. At any rate,\nthe detection of falsehood in a history, is not a motive to suppose it\ntrue. It requires an excess of piety to break through all the rules of\nlogic and common sense. How does it happen, that the Lord Jahovah does\nnot provide better against such mistakes creeping into the book of\nthe law of his favourite people? It could seem as if he had done it\non purpose to create incredulity, and enjoy the pleasure of punishing\nunbelievers, as of old, he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he might have\na pretext to inflict calamities on him and his people.\n\nMy Lord, what credit would we give to a history of William the Conqueror\nthat had the following sentence, after naming different persons, _And\nthese were the names of the Kings of England before George the Third\ncame to the throne_; for what purpose could any person insert such a\npassage? He must have been absolutely mad. It could only get into the\nwork from its being compiled during the reign of George the Third,\nand arising from a forgetfulness of the writer, or ignorance of the\ntranscriber: in no case could it be inserted in a book, which you say\nwas kept in the public records, and over whose purity the whole Jewish\nlearned men would watch; you must either give up your argument from the\npublic records of this people, and no longer deem them great authority;\nor, if you persist in it, I leave you to reconcile the most palpable\ninterpolations and forgeries with the scrupulous attention with which\nyou suppose the Jews preserved the word of God. But what is most curious\nin this passage is, that we find it verbatim in 2 Chronicles, chap. i.\nver. 43, and you seem to glory in discovering this similarity of the\npassages. \"Why might not,\" you say at the end of your fourth letter,\n\"the author of the book of Chronicles have taken them, (meaning\nthe names of the kings of Edom, &c.), as he has taken many other\ngenealogies, supposing them to have been written in the book of Genesis\nby Samuel?\" Another acknowledgment of more interpolations in Genesis.\n\nBut, Sir, who gave you the right, you who exclaim so much against the\nunsupported assertions of Thomas Paine, to suppose that the author of\nChronicles copied an interpolation from Genesis, knowing, as he must\nhave done, that it was interpolated by Samuel?\n\nWould he not rather, to make the book consistent, expunge it? Could he\nbe so ignorant as not to see the contradiction? What is more strange,\nhow came Samuel to introduce such a passage? The tendency of it could\nonly be to weaken the authority of Genesis; but, allowing all your\ngroundless suppositions to be true, do you not see that they only prove\nthe ignorance of Samuel and of the Jewish history writers, and at once\ndestroy the superstructure you have in your following letters raised\nupon the supposed accurate records of the Jews? The supposition of\nSamuel being the author of the interpolation, is like an historian,\nwho, to the history of Charles the First, should add some accounts,\nconcluding with observing, that all this took place before George\nthe Second, or should even venture further, and instruct us in some\nprominent features of the French revolution: yet this is the case with\nthe passage in question; for it is unquestionable that the Jews had\nnever a king till the time of Saul; that, under Moses and the Judges,\nthey held kings in detestation. The fact is very plain. In Chronicles,\nthe passage has an obvious and clear sense; for there an account of\nthe kings of Israel is given, and the sentence now under consideration\nprecedes it. Indeed, the whole chapter xxxvi. of Genesis is almost\nliterally the same with chapter first of Chronicles; and every unbiassed\nman will conclude, that the former is copied from the latter. That\nlittle concluding expression, before _there reigned any king over\nIsrael_, certainly marks its date; and there is nothing more probable,\nthan that when Esdras and the scribes compiled these books, they should\ninsert in Genesis the posterity of Esau, as far as the history of\nGenesis went, and that this unlucky passage should by mistake be copied\ntoo. I acknowledge, that an interpolation, when we can prove the period\nof its insertion, does not destroy the validity of a book, if the rest\nof the facts are consistent, and supported by collateral proofs; but the\nBible is an unconnected rhapsody, written by we know not whom, without\norder, arrangement, or a shadow of method. Besides, it is the word of\nGod; and what, in a profane writer, would be a slight error, is here a\nmost material fault; if our future happiness depends, as you suppose, on\nour believing this book, which certainly can never take place while such\nreasons for scepticism remain. In proportion to the importance of an\nevent, so we must be careful in examining the grounds upon which it\nstands, or else we must be like those whimsical men, who will require\nthe best evidence for the truth of a trifling report, but find no\nrepugnance in crediting the most marvellous events upon trust.\n\nMr. Paine properly concludes, that Genesis is a book of stories, fables,\ntraditions, or invented absurdities, or downright lies; and this I not\nonly affirm with him, but will prove to my readers, that it is in no\nrespect deserving of more credit than the fabulous and early history of\nall nations. Next follows your rhapsody upon the beauty of the Bible and\nthe truth of it. Pardon me if I think it like a madman's reveries. Even\nthe men of your profession have long ago given up such a ridiculous\nconceit. Whoever has read eastern literature, or the late translation\nfrom the Shanscrit, will find that the same style with that of the Bible\npervades all eastern compositions. In all of them we find the frequent\nuse of allegory, and a quaint and formal manner of expression. Divest\nthe Bible of its Oriental garb, and put it into common language,\nyou will find, except the episode of Joseph, and two or three other\npassages, it is absolutely illegible. I have already shown the\nPentateuch to have been a very modern work, and the Jews to have\nborrowed every thing from other nations. No wonder then that the _Abram_\nshould resemble the _Brama_ of the Hindoos, or that a few names in the\nsupposed genealogies of the Jews should be like those of the Assyrians,\nMedes, &c. Genesis gives a description of creation truly beautiful! We\ndid not spring from grasshoppers, nor the world from an egg; but the\nwise Moses informs us, that we were made of clay and a little breath.\nThis may be sublime to you; but the philosopher is never elated by\nfables so absurd. It is not true that Genesis is the oldest, nor a very\nold book. Sanchoniato, the Hindoo books, those of the Egyptians and\nChinese, are of much higher antiquity than Moses. In vain has Mr.\nMaurice struggled to dazzle our understandings with his incoherent\nsuppositions, to prove that the Hindoos borrowed their religion from the\nJews, from a set of Arabian hordes, from the slaves of the Egyptians,\nfrom a petty nation, who, as Julian says, never produced a single work,\nand whose credulity has ever been proverbial. The astronomical records\nof the Chinese prove, that there were men and astronomers in that\ncountry at the time when the wretched Jews would make us believe\nthe world was inundated from the windows of heaven, and no creatures\nexisting but Noah, his family, and the beasts in the ark. Further,\nSouciet mentions an eclipse of the sun recorded in the Chinese history,\nwhich happened 2155 years before Christ, which is but 236 years after\nthe Deluge; a time when, the Bible informs us, the earth was only\ninhabited by the sons of Noah, while Egypt was then so peopled, that\n90,000 cities could not contain the inhabitants, and China was not\nless so. The Hindoo astronomical observations, as far as they have been\nexamined by the most learned astronomers of the age, such as Baillie,\nLe Gentil, and others, carry their antiquity between four and five\nthousands beyond our \u00e6ra; for a proof of which, I refer you to Mr.\nPlayfair's excellent paper, in the second volume of the Edinburgh\nPhilosophical Transactions. The Hindoo religious books contain, besides,\na great many of the ideas afterwards adopted by the Jews. The long lives\nof antedeluvians, in particular, are the exact copy of the Iogues of\nthe Indians. The Dwapaar Iogue, the latter part of which answers to the\nperiod of Noah, was when men's lives were limited to a thousand years;\nand Methuselah we know did not live so long. They have, too, their\nmythological deluge, or the incarnation of Vishnu into a fish. For\nan account of which I refer my readers to Volney, and to Mr. Maurice\nhimself. The former gentleman is a good judge of ancient literature;\nhe pretends that he can prove, that most of the chapters of Genesis,\nsupposed to contain names of persons, are mythological: the posterity of\nNoah is, according to Volney, no more than a geography of the world\nas known to the Jews. I have not read Mr. Volney's memoir which I\nunderstand he has published on this subject; but, when I consider the\nlate period when Genesis and the other books were composed, and how\nmuch the Jews borrowed from the Egyptians and Babylonians, how much the\ndeluge of Noah and his ark resemble the emblems of Osiris; in short,\nwhen I reflect on the unintelligibility and apparent absurdity of\nGenesis, on the impossibility of the Deluge, and of the not less\nabsurdity of the population of the world so soon after that calamity, I\nconfess I am much inclined to despise the whole performance. There have\nbeen various suppositions upon the meaning of the names mentioned in\nGenesis. Adam has been said to signify, in many parts of Asia, the first\nday of the week; and Enoch, the seventh successor of Adam, to be the\nsame with Saturn, or the seventh day. Thus Assur, Elam, Lud, Madai,\nJavan, and Tiras, which are said to be the founders of the Assyrians,\nthe Elamites, the Lydians, the Medes, the Ionians, and the Thracians,\nmay very probably be nothing else than the enunciation of the names of\nthese countries; for, between Assur and Assyria, or Lud and Lydia,\nthere is not a very great difference. We know that Egypt is by the Arabs\ncalled _Masr_, which has the same consonants with the Hebrew _Misraim_,\nwhose plural termination implies properly the inhabitants of Egypt.\nIn the Bible, _Misraim_ is called the founder of that kingdom. We also\nknow, that Syria is called _Barr-el-sham_, or the country to the left.\nThe inhabitants of Thebaid are called the sons of Cush. Again, we\nfind several names of towns very much resembling those of the supposed\nfounders of these monarchies; Sur, or Tyre, is not unlike Assur. These\nare conjectures; I pretend to found nothing upon them; but, at least,\nthey are probable. Your Genesis, on the contrary, as it is commonly\nexplained, contains palpable lies. It supposes a deluge, which neither\ndid nor could take place; it destroys the human race, when we know that\nnations were then in existence. Lastly, it talks of the founders of\nnations, which existed long before that period. But, even had Genesis\nbeen written at the time of Moses, it might be worth while to\ninquire into the import of his genealogies; but, being a very modern\ncompilation, collected by an ignorant people, partly from tradition,\npartly from scattered and mutilated records, it does not deserve the\nserious attention of the philosopher.\n\nYou next attempt to justify the conduct of God towards the Canaanites,\nwhose great crime was to defend their own country, and to adore their\nown gods instead of the God of the Jews. When a man makes an apology for\nsuch conduct, we only can answer by an appeal to the feelings of men,\nfrom which alone we derive notions of humanity. It was natural for the\nadorers of a Phenician Jehovah to be the enemies of the Babylonish Baal:\nboth these gods sprang from the wild fancies of men. The jealous God of\nthe Jews, the all-wise, omnipotent, and benevolent, could not convert\nthe worshippers of another god, without exterminating whole nations,\neven to the little children; but this barbarous mandate came from the\npriests, who have in all countries, and all systems of Religion, adopted\nthis method of conversion. You state, that Moses \"gave an order that\nthe boys and women should be put to death; but, that the young maidens\nshould be kept alive for themselves;\" and, that you \"see nothing in the\nproceeding, but good policy combined with mercy. The young men might\nhave become dangerous avengers of what they would esteem their country's\nwrongs; the mothers might have again allured the Israelites to the\nlove of licentious pleasures, and the practice of idolatry, and brought\nanother plague upon the congregation; but the young maidens, not being\npolluted by the flagitious habits of their mothers, not likely to create\ndisturbance by rebellion, were kept alive:\" and you add, that \"the\nwomen children were not reserved for the purposes of debauchery, but\nof slavery; a custom (you acknowledge) abhorrent from our manners, but\nevery where practised in former times, and still preserved in countries\nwhere the benignity of the Christian religion has not softened the\nferocity of human nature.\" Is extermination an example of the mercy of\npriests and their gods, \"whose justice is subservient to mercy,\" \"whose\npunishments originate in his abhorrence to sin,\"--and whose commands\nto massacre, to butcher, and to exterminate, \"are only benevolent\nwarnings?\"--You dare Mr. Paine to prove, that the young women were kept\nfor debauchery; and you triumphantly add, \"that if he does, you will\nallow Moses to be the horrid monster he describes him, and the Bible a\nbook of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy.\" Do you think, that consigning\nto slavery thirty-two thousand maids, is consistent with the benignity\nof God? I do not hesitate to consider this worse than merely making them\nthe partners of licentious pleasures. But, in what consisted the wonted\nwisdom of a God, whom you describe as ever solicitous to lessen the\ninfluence of sin? Let me ask you, if the young women were not as liable\nto incite the passions of the Jews as their mothers, and whether their\nslavery would not increase the opportunities for debauchery? Could it\nbe consistent with humanity, much less with the mercy of an all powerful\nGod, to put to death all the boys of a nation, merely because they might\nin time revenge the insolent invaders of their country? Were all the\nmale children already polluted from their birth? It would have been easy\nfor them to convert them to another religion, but to your God it was\nimpossible. The bloody invaders of America pursued not another plan,\neven after \"the benignity of the Christian religion softened the\nferocity of human nature.\" Have these Christian invaders any where\nrespected the chastity of women when they made them slaves? And have\nthe Jews, God's chosen nation, at any period, either while under his\nprotection, or since he abandoned them, shown themselves more virtuously\ninclined than other people; were they ever prevented by the striking\nmanifestations of his mercy, his power, and his justice, from going away\nto adore other gods, and falling into all sorts of wickedness? In\nshort, if the Bishop rests his defence of Moses and the Bible upon this\npassage, I am willing to appeal to the judgement of all mankind. If any\nperson can believe it consistent with the benevolence of omnipotence, to\nsacrifice whole nations to be massacred and plundered by a few hordes of\nbloody Jews; if he can think this to be part of a grand scheme for\nthe good of mankind, he must give up all pretensions to reason, common\nsense, and humanity. But it is time the world should see, that this holy\nbook the Bible, \"which, in weight of authority, and extent of utility,\nexceeds all the libraries of the philosophers,\" contains pretences for\nall bad actions, and stifles the laws of humanity and morality. Upon\nthis book have inquisitors, crusaders, and religious men, founded\npretences for the most diabolical persecutions, avowedly undertaken for\nthe express purpose of unrooting infidelity, and for the glory of the\nLord. Every man who reads the word of God is warranted to reason thus:\nGod has ordered murder and robbery; he has instigated his favourite\npeople to exterminate whole nations; therefore I can do no better than\nto imitate the Almighty; and every crusader may pretend to have the same\nauthority from God as Moses; and miracles are never wanting to prove it.\nBecause Abraham was a pimp, and his wife a prostitute, so may any person\nbe, without losing the patronage of the God of Abraham. Every man, in\nshort, may imitate the meek Moses, the humane David, without fearing\nto incur the displeasure of the Almighty. Thus Ravaillac thought he was\ndoing as holy a deed, when he attempted the life of Henry; as Dominic,\nor Torquemada, when butchering the wretched heretics, who had the\nmisfortune to fall a prey to their bloody zeal. The whole Old Testament\nis so filled with barbarous stories, that if they did not excite\nlaughter by their improbability, they would freeze the blood in, the\nveins of any man endowed with humanity. What an irksome task have those\nundertaken, who have attempted to reconcile the horrible crimes of the\nJews with the mercy and wisdom of the Creator? Has ferocity forsaken\nChristians as you insinuate? Have the modern religious fanatics yielded\nin cruelty to the Jews? Those two religions have successively inundated\nthe earth with the blood of innocent victims. Have not the followers of\nChrist constantly preached passive obedience to the church, have they\nnot frequently relieved the people of their oaths, and have they not\nfomented most of the civil wars that laid waste all Europe? It is well\nthat priests have not been able to persuade mankind of late, that the\nminister was the oracle of God. The pride and foolishness of science has\nput this out of their power; they cannot lead nations as they did the\nJews; we are not so easily persuaded of the immediate manifestations of\nGod's commands to the priest. We know science too well to believe that\nthe pillar of fire that went before the Israelites was God himself. We\nmight have shown the people, that a pan with red-hot substances would\nhave the appearance of a fire by night, and a cloud of smoke by day, a\ncustom practised, from time immemorial, by the caravans. Although, my\nLord, the wisdom of God may be foolishness to man, I acknowledge I am\nneither fond of crediting absurdities, nor have I so much faith as to\ntake the work of priests for supernatural mandates of Providence; when\nthey speak in their usual senseless and unintelligible language, I\nconclude that it is either to dazzle the ignorant multitude, or I look\nupon their dreams as the consequence of dire superstition, the first\neffect of which is to make us unacquainted with ourselves, under the\nimposing aspect of familiarising us with imaginary beings. At the\nconclusion of my remarks upon the Old Testament, I shall give a few\nextracts from those books, wherein my readers may see the character of\nthe Jews and their God in glaring colours, and judge whether any honest\nman would not tremble at the thoughts of having done as much injustice,\nand committed such atrocities as this Jehovah.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER IV.\n\nYou enter again upon your favourite topic, genuineness and authenticity.\nI shall not repeat what I have already said. I confess my great surprise\nat your laying such stress upon the most trifling and false of your\narguments. You now strive to prove, that a book may contain a true\nhistory, although it should be anonymous. Pray, my Lord, do you think,\nthat to prove a book spurious, when it is believed to be genuine, is a\ndemonstration of the truth of the contents? You thus leave us uncertain\nwhether Joshua be a genuine book. You have sadly confused yourself in\nthe maze you have created. To put it beyond a doubt that the sun stood\nstill, you appeal to the book of Jasher, which Joshua mentions in the\nfollowing words, \"Is not this written in the book of Jasher?\" And in\nlike manner, you refer to other books frequently quoted as authorities\nin the Bible. Does your zeal blind you so far as not to let you\nperceive, that this very argument may with redoubled strength be\nretorted against you? for if an author, who is said to write his own\nhistory, appeals to another book for a proof of his actions, that\nbook must be of much greater authority than his own: we cannot avoid\nbelieving the writer of the work alluded to had better information. In\nshort, the book appealed to contains the only authentic testimony. Now,\npermit me to ask you, who could be better authority than Joshua himself,\nwriting at a time when we must suppose many of his soldiers who had\nwitnessed the miracle were alive? What is this anterior book which\nJoshua respects so much? Was it written by himself, then it would\nbe idle to quote it; and, at any rate, whoever had written it, it is\nevident that the author of the book of Joshua has no proofs of his\nown, but rests solely upon the book of the Holy, or of Jasher. This\ncircumstance proves clearly, that the writer of the Book of Joshua\ncomposed his book out of some more ancient memoirs, which being lost, we\ncan say no more of their authority than for that of any old tales. You\ntalk of the public records of the Jews as confidently as a Member of\nParliament speaks of the papers in the Tower. Do you know at what period\nthe Jews began to keep written records, and do you also know, whether\nthose that were kept existed when the books of the Old Testament were\ncompiled? Had you been instructed in these particulars, and had you\nbeen not altogether divested of candour, you might have informed your\nreaders, that, previous to the time of kings, we have not a shadow of\nproof of the existence of any historical records among the Jews. We, no\ndoubt, read, that there was a book of the law of Moses, in which Joshua\nwrote something too respecting the renewal of a covenant. This seems to\nbe the only written record among the Jews, and it contained nothing\nbut religious precepts, or the law, strictly speaking. In Joshua, chap.\nviii. ver. 31, we read, \"As Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the\nchildren of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses\nand ver. 32, He wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses,\nwhich he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel and ver. 35,\nHe read all the words of the law, the blessings, and curses, according\nto all that is written in the book of the law of the Lord, and there was\nnot a word of all that Moses commanded which Joshua read not before the\ncongregation of Israel.\" We know, likewise, that this law was written\nin the circumference of an altar composed of twelve stones. This is the\nonly book either Moses or Joshua were ever said to have written; the\nwriters of the Pentateuch, and of the other books, certainly never meant\nto inscribe them to Moses, Joshua, &c.; they bore the names of books of\nMoses, of Joshua, Judges, &c. because they treated of these personages.\nWhat then do you infer from the quotation of books by the Bible authors,\nexcept that they all wrote in very modern times, when they wanted the\ncorroboration of more ancient books, whose date and authority we are\nequally strangers to? This book of the law, which you so triumphantly\nmention as a book written and existing a few years after Moses, turns\nout to be nothing more than what is contained in Exodus, chap. xx. to\nchap. xxiv. to which Joshua added some detail about the third covenant\nof God.\n\nI beg the reader will observe, that the writer of the Book of Joshua\ndoes not mention the second, third, or any other book of Moses, but\nsimply notices the book of the law of God. Now this great book\nwas written upon twelve stones, and in Exodus we find the precise\ncommandment of Moses to build the altar, and to read the commandments at\nthe feast of tabernacles; so that it contained not one line of history,\nand could have no authority. It was a law written upon stones, which\nMoses, in Exod. chap. xxiv. v. 7, is said to have read to the people:\n\"And he took the book of the covenant, and read it in the audience of\nthe people.\" This covenant, and particularly the repetition of it after\nthe disobedience of the Jews, is the only part of the Scriptures that\nMoses ordered to be preserved with a religious care. Nothing of the most\nimportant parts of Genesis or the other five books is ever mentioned in\nthe commandments of the law of God: the writer of the law certainly knew\nnot that the Pentateuch existed. Had Moses written such a work, would he\nhave failed to recommend to the Levites to keep the precious records of\nmankind, the sublime account of the creation? Did not the whole of the\nfaith of the Jews depend on their being acquainted with the history of\ntheir forefathers, who were under the immediate protection of God? The\nten commandments every person knows from the light of nature; no nation\nhas ever mistaken them; but the origin of mankind is a subject of great\ndarkness, and which the Jews ought to have preserved most carefully.\nCertain, however, it is, that excepting a few rites, the Jews lost not\nonly their books, but even the recollection of their feasts, during\ntheir captivity. The other books referred to in the Bible prove, that\nthose left are mere collections of borrowed stories, and pretended\nabridgements of books of greater authority, which are unfortunately\nlost, and leave a wide field for scepticism, particularly upon\nimprobable or contradictory accounts. As to the belief that the books of\nthe Old Testament are inspired, it is a tale, which, after what we have\nstated, even a child would laugh at.\n\nYou next seriously endeavour to corroborate the ridiculous miracle of\nthe sun and moon standing still. You are as unsuccessful in historical\nas in scientifical arguments. The story in question is so stupid, that\nthe bare mention of it marks a man's credulity, so as to render him the\nobject of compassion. That an ignorant fanatic should attempt to defend\nsuch absurdities, would be a matter of no surprise; but to witness a\nRegius Professor of Divinity, a natural philosopher, bring forward facts\nfrom profane history to prove the truth of so bare-faced a lie, denotes\nat least your want of prudence. I cannot persuade myself that you\nseriously believed what you wrote; I cannot think you capable of falling\nat once into the most gross astronomical and historical error. I shall\nstate the matter briefly. There was a tradition in all antiquity, and\nparticularly among the Egyptians, relating to that motion of the\nearth's axis which has been observed by astronomers, and whose complete\nrevolution round the four cardinal points takes up no less than\n9,160,000 years. In the course of this revolution, it necessarily\nhappens, that the sun will rise where it sets, that north will be south,\nand so on. The Egyptian priests pretended that this revolution had\ntaken place in their country without changing the climate, while the\nBabylonians maintained, in the time of Alexander, that 140,000 years had\nelapsed since their first astronomical observations. This, no doubt, was\nthe time that must have elapsed since the earth moved north and south.\nThe Egyptian priests, long before Herodotus, had lost their knowledge\nof astronomy, which accounts for their mistake. It is evident, that the\ndisplacement of the earth's axis must be accompanied by the heaviest\ngravitating matter, and, therefore, what is now land, has been and will,\nin the course of ages, become sea. Now, my Lord, what has the Egyptian\ntradition to do with the sun stopped by the robber Joshua? What\nconnection has the stoppage of the sun, or rather the earth's motion,\nwith the sun rising where it sets? Were the thing possible, the sun\nwould nevertheless rise in the east. Besides, does Joshua say the sun\nchanged its course? Had this been the case, (I am ashamed even of the\nsupposition), how could the earth change its axis in an hour, without\nshattering the whole globe, without inundating vast tracts of country,\nand tearing others asunder to reestablish the equilibrium of gravity?\nStudy and consider; do not attempt to ridicule the little learning of\nThomas Paine, when you fall into such absurdities. Read Chinese history,\nand you will find that their careful astronomers did not perceive the\nlong day and night. It was probably the sun of Judea only that altered\nits course; they did not seem to be enlightened by the same luminary.\nThose who believed that heaven was made of crystal, could find no\ndifficulty in crediting this silly story. I have insisted so much upon\nthis, because you ought to know the common principles of astronomy, and\nsomewhat of history. Here again you appeal to the book of Jasher:\nit deserves no more consideration. To deem an appeal to a lost book\nevidence of a prodigy, because the author affirms it, is a degree of\ncredulity which may gain the kingdom of heaven; but, in the republic of\nletters, such believer will pass for a very contemptible reasoner.\n\nThese are the miracles, and the histories, better attested than the\nHistory of the Twelve Knights Of Charles the Great, and such other\nfoolish tales. Surely, none can believe that 19,000 men fought against\nthe Midianites, and murdered a prodigious number, without having lost a\nman, and disbelieve the famous battles of the knights, in many of which\nsix men fought several thousands; the conversation of the devil with\nCromwell, or the miraculous appearance of God to almost all the knights\nand warriors among the Catholics. The sacred phial of Rheims, and the\nchapel of Loretto, were both conveyed in a manner you know well, and\nwhich few men in the two countries dare controvert. They too appeal to\ntheir books of Jasher. The tale of making the sun stand still has not\neven the merit of novelty; this luminary had long before stopt his\ncareer, out of respect to Bacchus. Neither is the shower of hail-stones\nnew, for Jupiter of old sent a shower of hail upon the rebellious sons\nof Neptune.\n\nAs to Joshua having written the book that goes under his name, we\nhave, besides what has been stated, the strongest evidence against the\ngenuineness of this performance. The death of Joshua is recorded in\nchap. xxiv. and it is related exactly in the same style as what precedes\nit. The writer even mentions several events posterior to the death of\nthe son of Nun. You have passed over the arguments of Thomas Paine drawn\nfrom this passage, \"The Jebusites dwelt with the children of Judah at\nJerusalem unto this day.\" It was natural for you to overlook a passage,\nwhich demonstrates that the book of Joshua was not written until after\nDavid, when, and not before, the conquest of the Jebusites took place.\nIt is beyond a doubt, that they never dwelt with the Jews in the time of\nJoshua, since, in the first part of the above quoted passage, he says,\n\"As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of\nJudah could not drive them out.\" How then did the Jews inhabit Jerusalem\nin the days of Joshua? I refer the reader to the Age of Reason, and to\nan answer to it by Mr. David Wilson, for further information, on this\nhead. In the latter, he will be amazed at the weak subterfuges used by\nthe author to evade the strength of the objection by Mr. Paine. But this\nis not the only event related in Joshua, which did not take place till\nsome time after his death. Almost the whole of chap. xvii. contains\nfacts of this nature. Where the portion of Manasseh is described, it is\nsaid, in ver. 12, \"Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the\ninhabitants of those cities, but the inhabitants would dwell in that\nland.\" It is added, \"And it came to pass, when the children of Israel\nwaxed strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute; but did not\nutterly drive them out.\" Now this certainly did not take place during\nthe life of Joshua, for in the very same chapter, he promises those of\nthe tribe of Manasseh success against the Canaanites. In the preceding\nchapter, v. 10, there is a passage of the same kind, \"And they (the\nEphraimites) drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the\nCanaanites dwelt among the Ephraimites unto this day, and some under\ntribute.\" This needs no comment: let any person ask himself when this\ncame to pass, and they will at once find out the credit due to books\ncontaining such shameful anachronisms and falsehoods. In chapter first\nof Judges, purporting to contain the history of the Jews after Joshua,\nthe reader will find a faithful copy of the passages quoted, not\nexcepting the taking of Jerusalem. Let himc ompare ver. 8, 27, 28, 29,\nand following, with the detail of distribution of lots to the tribes,\nin chap. xvi. and xvii. of Joshua the same events are told in the very\nwords, and apply to two different periods. This is a strong instance of\nthe disorder that pervades the whole of these books, and how undeserving\nof credit, even in the most probable events, is what you call sacred\nwrit. We are constantly reading over accounts of the same events,\nsometimes said to be written by dead men, and never marking time; for\n_it came to pass_, which is the Bible phrase, does not fix the period\nwhen the event took place. These books bear all the marks of being the\nproductions of some persons at a very late period, and to have suffered\ngreat interpolations. Joshua is, in the face of it, a continuation of\nDeuteronomy, Judges of Joshua, and so on through the remainder.\n\nYou pass on to Judges. It requires neither great knowledge nor ingenuity\nto discover, that this book is an unconnected farrago put together by\nsome unknown person. You do not attempt to say any thing in its favour.\nSad falling off from the paths of faith! Formerly it would have been\na heresy to assert that Judges was a book of no authority: now, even a\nBishop has nothing to say in its defence. You then proceed to Ruth,\nand endeavour to blot out the apparent infamy of her conduct, with what\nsuccess, I leave the reader to judge, after he has perused her\nhistory. Next follow your subtle distinctions between the inspired and\nnon-inspired part of the Bible, which may be very intelligible to an\ninspired Bishop, but cannot fail to appear a mere dream to a man in his\nsenses. Notwithstanding Austin and your other brethren, this distinction\nrests upon nothing but fancy. Your request is very moderate. \"Receive\nthe Bible,\" you say, \"as composed by upright and well-informed, though\nin some points, fallible men, (for I exclude all fallibility _when they\nprofess to deliver_ the word of God), and you must receive it as a book\nrevealed to you in many parts by the express will of God, and, in other\nparts, relating to you the ordinary history of the times.\" Bravo!\nA Catholic is as reasonable in his demands. He only asks a little\ncredulity to believe the inspired when _they profess to be so_. It is\ntruly a childish request, begging the question at every word. To believe\nthe Bible to be inspired is the grand point. The reasoning you employ is\nin perfect consonance with the absurdity of your wishes. You disbelieve\na history if you find it inconsistent, but revere it, and swear by the\nauthor, if he wrote by inspiration. Swedenburgh could not wish more\nfaith in his adherents. You say _receive it_, as the inquisitors said\n_imprimatur_; but philosophers weigh the ground of their belief; they\ndetect the Bible writers, prophets, and inspired men, in palpable\ncontradictions in history; and you will obstinately insist on our\nbelieving the most improbable of all their stories, because their\nabsurdity persuades the faithful that they were revealed by their God in\ndreams.----You have acknowledged yourself, in a subsequent letter, that\nthe history and mystery of the Bible are so interwoven, that if one\nfalls the other cannot be maintained. Why did God mingle his important\nand sublime precepts with such ridiculous trash, so as to induce mankind\nto disbelieve them both? Suppose I should meet a peasant coming from a\nfair, pretending he had seen the king with his guards, and if I should\nfind this to be untrue, would I not deserve to be laughed at, if I\ncredited that he had wrestled with a spirit, or that he was carried up\nto heaven? This, however, is the case with the Bible. Here we are told\nthat the sun stood Still to protract the bloodshed of that villain\nJoshua, while, in another place, we read that a city was taken 370 years\nbefore that event. Your vaunted prophets were soothsayers, psalmists,\nand orators, who were generally employed in writing the public records.\nIt is a word applied in the Bible to holy men. These prophets, like the\naugurs of the heathen, were often detected in falsehoods, and, in the\ntime of Samuel, it would appear, by the Bible itself, that to raise\nghosts was a trade as common as that of tailors in our days.\n\nYou now come to Samuel. You are candid enough to acknowledge with\nHartley, that he could not have been the author of the second book,\nnor of most of the first that go under his name, yet this has been the\nopinion of the church; and I know of no direct proofs that he wrote the\nremainder: by what logic do you or Hartley conclude, that Samuel wrote\nany part of the books ascribed to him? An author is proved not to have\nwritten most part of a work ascribed to him, who then would, without\ndirect proofs, proclaim him the writer of some small passage, or any\nparticular part of the work? Who but a clergyman would build a system\nupon a mutilated, spurious, and insignificant collection of absurdities\nand wonders? It is, I allow, probable that Samuel wrote something: your\nquotations prove no more; but what this was, we are, I presume, equally\nunacquainted with. That the scribes also composed some records of the\nlives of their kings, I will not deny. The question is, what degree of\ncredit does the mutilated, contradictory, and fabulous collection, said\nto be made out of these records, deserve?\n\nIn the time of Charles the Great, some persons probably recorded his\nactions. Is this a reason for any man to believe the fabulous legends we\nhave of him, written in the dark centuries? The legends of the Egyptian\nand Greek gods, and their collection of oracles, were not only credited\nby whole nations, but proclaimed true by councils much wiser than the\nsynagogue. The records of the saints were undoubtedly made few years\nafter their death, in ages far more enlightened, after the invention of\nthe press, written by the then most learned men of society, (the monks),\nwho certainly were not inferior to the Jewish scribes, yet these legends\ncontain often nothing but collections of absurdities and miracles. Read\nthe _Flores Sanctorum_ of the Romish church, and you there will find\nmiracles in every page, and the lives of saints a tissue of prodigies. I\nneed not add, that very few learned men among the Papists give credit to\nthe absurdities contained in these books. It is even the opinion of the\nbest informed men, that the monks have written lives of saints who never\nexisted.\n\nYou acknowledge the wickedness of the kings of Israel and Judah; but\nyou take care to observe, that this was not owing to their religion.\nImpertinent assertion! Was not Saul dethroned because he was humane\nenough not to cut Agag in pieces? Did not the Lord Jehovah love the man\nafter his own heart, who put the miserable inhabitants of Rabah\nunder saws, axes, and arrows of iron; who made them pass through the\nbrick-kiln? Did not this Jehovah approve the base murder of Adonias? Was\nit the same Jehovah who said to Jonah, that he was not so unjust as to\nsacrifice the whole city of Nineveh for their sins, because there were\nthousands in it who did not know between good and evil; and who yet, the\nJews tell us, commanded the extermination of whole nations, without\neven sparing the little children? Did not the plagues which he sent to\nPharaoh and David fall upon thousands of innocent individuals? At least,\ndo not the Jewish books affirm it? Such horrors could only be respected\nby the Jews; such absurd miracles could only be credited by the most\nignorant of men. You pretend, that the partiality of God to the Jews\nproceeded from their being the only nation that believed in the unity of\nGod, and who have preserved their belief on this head unshaken till\nthe present day. Are you in earnest, can you assert this before men of\ncommon information? Do you take Englishmen for idiots to be deceived by\nyour assertions? Are you ignorant of the adoration of the Ethiopians? Do\nyou forget that the wise men among the heathens said, _Colitur forma\npro Jove?_ Did you never peruse any account, of the Chinese, or of the\nHindoos? Do they not admit one supreme agent, an all-wise, intelligent,\n&c. being, and whose inferior agents they represent by symbols? The\nHindoos have even all the metaphysical refinement of our divines; and\ntheir definition of God is fully as perspicuous as that given in our\nCatechism. I have avoided to give long extracts in this pamphlet; but,\nthat the authority of an English Bishop may not be a presumption to many\nthat I am making false assertions, I shall transcribe a passage from\na commentary upon the Reig Beid, a book unquestionably of the remotest\nantiquity.\n\n\"Glory be to Goneish! that which is exempt from all desires of the\nsenses, the same is the mighty Lord. He is simple, and than him there\nis nothing greater. Brehm, (the spirit of God), is absorbed in\nself-contemplation; the same is the mighty Lord who is present in every\npart of space. Brehm is one, and to him there is no second; such is\ntruly Brehm. His omniscience is self-inspired, and its comprehension\nincludes all possible species,\" &c. It is true, we are not here told\nthat God is a jealous God, that he visiteth the iniquities of the father\neven unto the fourth generation. I could adduce fifty passages from the\nGreeks and others to prove my position, but it is needless. The point\nis still to know whether these notions make men better, whether they are\nfounded on truth, and, indeed, whether all gods are not the work of the\nfancy of man, nature allegorised. _Primus in orbe Deos fecit timor_,\nsays the philosopher; can you disprove it? I suspect not, and that all\nthe subtle reasoning of divines destroy themselves. The world is the\nultimate of human reason. We adore the idols either of our hands or\nof the brain, and mistake them for existences. The region of chimeras\nexists beyond the universe; our prattling upon it is but a play of\nwords. Jehovah himself, when he said, I am that I am, called himself\npretty plainly Pan, or the great whole.\n\nBut if the unity of God be the only gracious belief in the eyes of\nthe Creator, I do not see that Christians are entitled to his favour,\nbecause they make him three. What was the belief of the Jews? Had\nthey any very refined ideas of their God? They thought him corporeal,\nincessantly speaking and moving among men, jealous, revengeful,\npowerful, whose angels ate with Abraham, who himself strove to kill\nMoses in a public house; they imagined him repenting of his deeds; and,\nin all respects, a poor contemptible being, the offspring of Jewish\nfancy. He is throughout the Bible an Asiatic Sultan, who, like the\nmerciful God of Mahomet, puts to the sword, and smites with plagues\nthousands, as a tribute to his infinite mercy. I refer the reader to\nthe collection of extracts from the Bible, in a subsequent letter, for\nproofs of my assertions. The Jews admitted, besides other gods, such as\nChemosh, several beings subordinate to God, but superior to man, as\nthe serpent which tempted the mother of mankind. They had exterminating\nangels and cherubims, the Elohim or Genii that made the world, &c.\nBut why dwell upon such topics, when it is evident that all the Jewish\nmythology is of Chaldean origin, and our theology a copy of that of\nPlato?\n\nYou proceed in your attempt to reconcile the justice of God with his\ngoodness, and, in the height of your reverie, you imagine that the\nsufferings of the Jews were parts of a grand scheme for the general\ngood of mankind. What, and when are we to see the good effects of their\nbarbarities? We may see reason counteracting the evil of superstition,\nrendering men humane; but I apprehend, that, if your reasoning was\ngenerally adopted, every highwayman would be much inclined to think\nhimself sent by Providence for good and wise purposes, and if chance\nshould bring about a happy event at the end of his career, which he\nthought the consequence of his deeds, he would triumph in his crimes,\nand, like Moor in the Robbers, exclaim, \"If for ten I have destroyed,\nyou make but one man blest, my soul may yet be saved!\" This has been the\nlanguage of persecutors. They destroy mankind to make them happy in the\nnext world--tortures, burning, and beheading, are but purifications. The\nworst is, that the famous divine scheme of general good, has never been\none jot more advanced than when the Jews were enduring the greatest\ncalamities, and committing atrocities. I count not the effects of\nreason, for faith is alone the godly faculty; reason destroys it. I\nclose my observations upon this subject with repeating the old question\nof Epicurus, which your brethren have as yet left unanswered; either\nGod can prevent evil and does not choose it, or he chooses it and wants\npower to avert calamities from his creatures. In the first instance, he\nis a malevolent despot, a character we ought to abhor; in the second,\nwe see him an impotent and secondary being, which raises our contempt.\nReconcile this with his infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, and show\nus that he is not formed after the image of man, or else let unbelievers\nhold their opinions in peace.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER V.\n\nYour fifth letter begins with stating the importance of the concession\nof Thomas Paine, that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are genuine. You\ntriumph, and think it a silent acknowledgment of the reality of the\nprophecies mentioned in those books. Stop, my Lord, your _alma-mater_\nsurely has not taught you to draw such conclusions. In a genuine book\nthere may be contained incredible events, as in Tacitus, Suetonius,\nand almost all existent histories. It is your duty to prove that the\nprophecies there related are not among those popular stories which\nare apt to gain general credit, whether they are or are not forgeries\nwritten after the events. Before we know when Jeremiah wrote, and what\nis the meaning of the writings under his name, no man is warranted to\ntriumph at the testimony of the Jews after the captivity; since it is\na point, in which all parties agree; that their canon and books were\ncompiled at that period, and nobody ever questioned the credulity of\nthe Jews. You proceed to state your notions of the history of the Old\nTestament; it is all a matter of opinion; and, as you do not support it\nby any proofs, we must still continue to regard the contradictions and\nimpostures contained in the Old Testament as proofs of its having\nbeen the work of ignorant fanatics. I pass over your effusions: that\nmetaphysical disquisitions teach us the limits of our faculties, I\nstrenuously maintain; and if you mean nothing else, we are agreed. That\nour notions of time and place are not the bugbears which the scholastics\nwould persuade us, is to me unquestionable; that both in science and\nreligion we affix no ideas to many words, I grant; that certainty in\nphilosophical disquisitions is not easily found, I also allow; but, that\na man tired with the arduous task of reasoning, of discerning between\ntruth and falsehood, should seek in polemics or superstition a\nconsolation for his ignorance, I consider as a proof of the impaired\nstate of his faculties; he is like the thirsty traveller, who, burnt\nby the scorching sun, seeks to relieve his distress by drinking of the\nfirst water he meets, without regarding its purity. Your acknowledgment\nthat it is possible even for a Bishop to err in matters of religion,\ngives me real pleasure. To consider our creed as a matter that admits of\ndoubt, is a great step in the road of truth. You say, \"May God forgive\nhim that is in an error.\" Your wish is humane; but, if God be the\nCreator of mankind, he cannot be offended at the conclusions we may\ndraw, after having employed the faculties he has given us. I wish too\nthat mankind should forgive them that are in an error; but, I hope,\nthey will recollect the long sway of superstition, and its danger to\nmankind; may they decide in favour of that system which is conformable\nto reason, and has the greatest tendency to improve society!\n\nYou next proceed to show the propriety of the angel ordering Moses to\npull off his shoes, which you say is a mark of reverence to God. Is it\nthen by such ridiculous customs that you reconcile your omnipotent\nand all-wise God? Too long have men substituted rites for morality. O\nsuperstition! that makes the Asiatics eat the excrements of the lama,\nthe Papists devour their God; that persuades all Christians that water\nwasheth away sin; and, that if a child happens to die before his face is\nsprinkled, he must inevitably suffer everlasting torments: led by\nthis, men despise society, and tremble at ceremonies invented by their\npriests.\n\nI shall not go at great length into the particular contradictions which\nare found in the enumeration of the families that returned from Babylon.\nThere certainly are great mistakes in the sums; and where precision was\nto be expected more than in any thing preserved in the record of the\npeople of God, we find them committing the most gross errors, even when\nthey attempt to be peculiarly exact. It is curious, that the individual\nsums are altogether different in the different accounts, and, therefore,\nthat there must have been a much greater number of errors than you would\npersuade your readers.\n\nYou come to the book of Job; and confine your remarks to disprove the\nobjection of Mr. Paine, drawn from the name Satan, which, he says, is\nthere for the first and only time mentioned in the Bible. Your answer,\nthat it is repeatedly to be found elsewhere in the Old Testament, is\njust but it certainly does not prove Job to be a Jewish book. We know\nthat _Sathan_, as well as the names of all the angels, are Chaldean; and\nas I have already shown, that the Scriptures are compilations written\nafter the captivity, it is not wonderful that this name, together with\nmany others, should be found in the Hebrew Bible. As you say nothing in\nfavour of the book of Job, I shall only observe, that it is not only the\nopinion of Abenezra, but even of Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, that\nit is not a Hebrew book, the idiom being in many instances altogether\ndifferent from the style of that language, and very frequently bearing\nmarks of its Arabic and Syriac origin, as the reader may see in his\npreface to Job in the Vulgate edition of the Bible. The resemblance\nbetween Job's Satan and Momus is so striking, that we cannot help\nrecognising the author to have been a Gentile; and thus are the Jews\ndeprived of a book, which, at least, contains no murders, and shows\nmore knowledge than that nation ever possessed. Your remark as to\nthe generality of the belief of a benevolent and a malevolent being,\ncertainly does not prove that the Gentiles borrowed this notion from the\nJews; you ought to have known history better, and that the wars of\nthe Gods and angels formed part of the creed of many nations, not only\nbefore a book of the Bible existed, but even before the birth of Moses.\nDionysius and Osiris had already fought against the evil genii: the\nfamous Vishnu has been from the highest antiquity the enemy of Chiven.\nThat the numerous mythological systems which have ever existed, sprang\nfrom the report of the fathers of the Jewish nation, may appear probable\nto a clergyman; it is but a pious whim; to me it is a proof, that all\nreligious systems have sprung from the fancy of men. The philosophers\namong the heathens understood by the evil and bad genii nothing more\nthan the influence of the good or bad seasons, which, personified\nby ignorant or cunning priests, have by the vulgar been deemed real\npersonages. Besides, where do you find in the Pentateuch any accounts of\nthe Devil? I only see the serpent, an emblem I have already said, copied\nfrom the Egyptians, but by the Jews considered a real snake, which\ntalked and walked upright. It was but a poor imitation of the Ahrimanes\nof Zoroaster.\n\nConcerning the utility of prayers, and the tendency of those of the\nJews, I shall say nothing. It is a certain fact, that Solomon, the\nwisest of men, and who made excellent prayers, killed his brother; while\nmany of those heathen tribes, abhorred by the Jews, had no other crime\nthan to adore images; and, if superstition among them sometimes produced\nthe abominable practice of human sacrifices, they never carried their\npiety so far as to exterminate whole nations. Besides, the Jews had\nnot even a pretence to despise their neighbours for offering human\nsacrifices. The case of Jephtha shows plainly that this barbarity was\ncommon among God's people. I am utterly surprised at your misplaced\nexclamations upon the morality of the heathens. Far be it from me to\nstand forward as the patron of heathenish superstition; it is the mother\nof ours, and I abhor the common stock; but, my Lord, you ought not\nto confound the rites of the Greeks with their morals. The Athenians\npossessed virtues which we in vain look for among the despicable Jews.\nThey possessed knowledge, and their philosophers had more sense than\nto believe the tales of the priests. Epicurus taught peaceably, and was\nrevered by all, while the vulgar of his country firmly believed their\nmythology. Such an instance never happened among the Jews. Jehovah would\nquickly have sent a plague among Epicurus and his followers, or ordered\nhis priests \"to kill every one his neighbour and his friend, and hang\nthem up before the sun.\" Your holy brethren would think nothing of a\nburning match on the occasion; if it were in your power, atheists would\nnot exist long. But you talk so confidently of the adoration of\nimages among the Gentiles, that we would imagine the Jews were all\nphilosophers. Do you forget their reverence to the holy of holies, which\nnone could approach; the ark of the covenant, and the calves? Or has the\nstory of the five golden mice, for looking at which fifty thousand and\nthree score and ten Israelites were smote by the Lord, escaped you?\n\nYour rhapsody upon the sublimity of Bible composition, and its\nsuperiority to all profane writers, is a proof of the strength of early\nimbibed prejudice. I lament to see a man of your learning think so much\nlike an old woman. The proverbs, to be sure, are wonderful compositions,\nand prove the great gift of wisdom bestowed by God upon Solomon! What\nindeed can be more sublime than the following, which I beg leave to\nadd to the specimens given by your Lordship! \"The horse leech hath two\ndaughters, crying, Give, give. There are three things that are never\nsatisfied, yea four things say not it is enough; the grave, and the\nbarren womb, the earth that is not filled with water, and the fire that\nsaith not it is enough.\"--\"There be three things which are too wonderful\nfor me, yea four which I know not; the way of an eagle in the air, the\nway of a serpent upon the rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the\nsea, and the way of a man with a maid.\"--\"There be three things which\ngo well, a greyhound, an he-goat also, and a king.\"--\"It is the glory\nof God to conceal a thing, but the honour of kings is to search out a\nmatter.\"--\"When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently\nwhat is before thee, and put a knife to thy throat if thou be a man\ngiven to appetite.\"--\"Buy the truth, and sell it not.\"--\"A whore is a\ndeep ditch, and a strange woman is a narrow pit.\"--Excellent Solomon!\nHear also this wise king in Song of Songs. \"How beautiful are thy feet\nwith shoes, O prince's daughter! The joints of thy thighs are like\njewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman; thy-navel is like a\nround goblet which wanteth not liquor; thy belly is like a heap of wheat\nset about with lilies; thy two breasts are like two young roes that are\ntwins; thy neck is as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the fish pools\nin Heshbon, by the gate of Bath-rabbim; thy nose is as the tower of\nLebanon, which looketh towards Damascus.\" Whether this alludes to one\nof Solomon's concubines, or our mother, the church of Jesus Christ,\nthe expressions are equally applicable, beautiful, and simple; they are\nworthy of a man \"wiser than Ethan the Ezrehite, and Heman, and Chalcol,\nand Darda, the sons of Mehol,\" who, I dare say, were wise men. Upon the\nwhole, I agree with you, that Solomon, the illustrious offspring of the\nman after God's own heart and the virtuous Bathsheba, was not \"a witty\njester.\" As to what you call his \"sins and debaucheries,\" these holy\nbooks were certainly not written with a view to make us avoid them.\nSolomon is set before us as a pattern of wisdom and goodness; and the\nnumber of his wives and concubines is exultingly recorded as a proof of\nhis greatness, as much as his treasures, which exceed all conception,\nand the number of his horses, which exceed all belief.\n\nYour pious belief in the inspired prophecies of Isaiah, is natural to a\nsuperstitious and credulous mind. The philosopher who doubts before\nhe gazes, sees in what you call prophecies nothing else but scraps of\nhistory or legend. He receives with diffidence all predictions. He is\naware of the great ease with which forgeries may be passed among the\nvulgar for prophecies. When pretended predictions are made, they are\naltogether overlooked; even the ignorant think not of them till they are\nsaid to be accomplished; the learned despise them in both instances;\nand it is not till after their authenticity has gained a sort of general\nbelief, that the philosopher thinks of enquiring when and how they were\nmade. At this period he can find no evidence of their history, but from\nthe credulous who have been imposed upon by them. Besides, no prophecy\nis ever direct, it always has an equivocal meaning, and is explained to\nsuit the events which have happened. Religious enthusiasts write in such\na mystic language upon the sins of mankind, and the judgements that are\nto come upon them, and in so general and ambiguous terms, that it is\neasy for a subtle interpreter, or a visionary fanatic, to explain them\naccording to his own system. Have not the bears of the Apocalypse\nbeen made to signify by turns, the Pope and the Devil? Has not the New\nJerusalem been sometimes taken for a real flying town, seen in the air\nby the first fathers of the church, as Tertullean informs us? Do not\nother divines tell us that it means the kingdom of heaven? Have not\nscripture divines, even in the first ages of the church, pretended that\nthe verses of Virgil, _Jam redit et Virgo, redeunt Sa-tumia regna, jam\nnova progenies ccelo demittitur alto;--natte mets vires, mea magna\npotentia solus, and talia perstabat memorans, fixusque manebat_, were\nclear prophecies of the Virgin Mary, and Jesus Christ? It might be worth\nenquiring at this time, whether the Roman Bard was inspired by the\nHoly Ghost? Lastly, I may ask, does your Lordship believe in the many\nprophecies that have of late appeared of the French revolution?\n\nBut we have more reasons to declare the pretended clear prophecies of\nthe Bible to be fables. In many instances they are so accurate, and so\nunlike these passages which we know to have been written previous to the\nevents to which they are applied, or those which are not yet\nfulfilled, that no philosopher can pronounce them to have been written\nhistorically. Thus, we find Jacob announce to his twelve sons, the\nheads of the twelve tribes of Israel, the fate of their posterity; the\nsituation of the district to be occupied by the Israelites in the land\nof Canaan, two hundred years before Joshua parcelled out this land in\nlots to the Israelites; the kind of life the different tribes would\nlead; the small number of the posterity of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, as\nwell as the power of Judah; all which are related as exactly as if the\npatriarch had seen the throne of David and Solomon with his own eyes.\nSome of the supposed predictions of Isaiah and Daniel, are even more\nminutely correct. You have treated the question of the genuineness and\ndate of works very lightly; you think it is of no great consequence to\nascertain the genuineness of the different books of the Bible. Let us\nfor a moment suppose, that by some accident, the age of Virgil had been\nforgotten, or the sixth book of his \u00c6neid been ascribed to a writer of\nthe age of \u00c6neas; would not the Romans be entitled to regard, as a most\nwonderful prophecy, the lively representation given by Anchises of the\nfuture heroes of the republic, the two C\u00e6sars, and the young Marcellus?\n\nTo resume our subject: I remind you of the passage already quoted from\nBellarminus, that it was the opinion of the fathers of the church, that\nthe Prophets, among other books, had been collected and arranged\nby Esdras. I have also stated the selection of genuine works by the\nsynagogue, during the reign of the Maccabees, when the Talmud says that\nthe forgeries of Daniel, Esdras, &c. were prodigious. The destruction\nby Antiochus Epiphanus of the already broken Jewish books, written by\nEsdras, may be collected from what is said in Maccabees, chap. i. ver.\n56 and 57. \"And when they had rent in pieces the books of the law which\nthey found, they burnt them with fire, and whosoever was found with\nany of the books of the Testament, or if any consented to the law, the\nking's commandment was, that they should put him to death.\"\n\nIt is without reason that you triumph at the application which Thomas\nPaine makes of the prophecy of Isaiah, in chapters xliv. and xlv. No\nman that reads the passage can hesitate for a moment to declare it a\nnarrative of the deliverance of the Jews by Cyrus, after the seventy\nyears captivity. Cyrus is mentioned by name, as well as his command to\nrebuild Jerusalem, and his victories over the nations, above one hundred\nyears before the event. Will you then, without any proofs of Isaiah\nhaving written this book, insist upon calling it a prophecy? And have\nnot sceptics been justified in their disbelief of the genuineness\nof such books? Mr. Paine, however, has overlooked a more remarkable\nprophecy in this book, which has been tortured into an application to\nChrist. This is contained in chapter lxiii. ver. 1. \"Who is this that\ncometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious\nin his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that\nspeak in. righteousness, mighty to save.\" And again, in chap. ii.\n(talking of the supposed Christ) Isaiah says, \"And he shall judge among\nthe nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their\nswords into plough-shares.\"--\"And the idols he shall totally abolish.\"\nCan this possibly allude to Christ? Did he come from Edom in mighty\npower, in rich garments? Was his march so terrible? Was he the man who\ntrampled all in his fury; who with his own arm brought salvation to\nhimself, and was upheld by his fury; as also mentioned in chap. lxiii.?\nDo not these pretended prophecies also apply to Judas Maccabeus, who\ndelivered the Jews from the tyranny of Antiochus Epi-phanus? And is it\nnot also a proof of the mutilated state of the works of the prophets\nto see details about Cyrus intermingled with others applying to Judas\nMaccabeus? I say nothing of Daniel, for his _prophecy_ I shall consider\nparticularly afterwards, and show its true meaning; at present, it may\nbe sufficient to say, that the similarity between the book of Ezra and\nDaniel proclaim them to be from the same hand; but both have evident\nmarks of having been considerably mutilated. When philosophers cannot\nascertain the age of pretended predictions, they consider their\nclearness as a demonstration of their being histories. Who tells you\nthat the books which the synagogue, like the Nicene council, chose, were\nnot either altogether written, or considerably interpolated, to adopt\nthem to the times? The great question is always, what authority had the\nsynagogue to decide, and whether their decision ought to influence men\nof sense, any more than the determination of the Popish councils.\n\nAs a proof of the absurdity of the application of prophecies, I shall\nhere quote one, which is apparently clearer than any in the whole\nBible, and is adduced by the most famous divines as an unquestionable\nprediction of Christ. It is in Micah, chap. v. ver. I. \"Now gather\nthyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us;\nthey shall smite the Judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. But thou\nBethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among thousands of Judah, yet\nout of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in Israel;\nwhose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.\" Here even\nthe birth-place of Christ is mentioned, the insults offered to him, his\nexistence from everlasting, and his coming to save Israel. And Matthew,\nchap. ii. ver. 6, and John, chap. vii. ver. 43, both expressly refer to\nthat passage as a prophecy. Hear now what follows in ver. 5, of the same\nchapter of Micah: \"And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrians\nshall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then\nshall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.\"\nCan this apply to Jesus Christ? Were the Syrians in the land when he\ncame? Were not the Romans masters of Judea? Your rules of belief\nare admirable: a little faith, wherever you meet contradictions,\nabsurdities, or wonders, is an invaluable prescription, common to the\nBramin, the Musselman, and the Christian. Do but believe that Mahomet is\na prophet, that he went up to heaven and saw the eternal Father, and\nyou will go through the other articles of the Mahometan faith without\ndifficulty. Do but admit the gospel of Barnabas where Mahomet is\npredicted, and we have no reason to say that it is less authentic than\nour gospel, and the work is done; but, I may say with you, \"Proof, proof\nis what I require, and not assertion.\"\n\nWe will not relinquish our reason in obedience to the despotic mandates\nof the credulous.\n\nYou allow that the miracles of the Jews fall to the ground, if the\nhistory of that nation is proved false. I beg you to observe, that if\nit is true, it does not follow that the miracles are. If you can believe\nthat the history of the Jews is well authenticated, and without numerous\ncontradictions, and if you can exculpate the writers from bad motives,\nand a desire to deceive, and if you can rely upon their wisdom, you then\nwill really prove yourself a Christian, a man of uncommon faith.\nThe history of the Jews, every where confused, containing prodigies,\ndeserves no more credit than their antedeluvian tale. Even Chinese\nhistory, supported by astronomical observations, is beyond a certain\nperiod rejected by all men, from the fables it contains. If you are\ndisposed to believe, I advise you to read the fabulous history of China\nand of Hindostan, in the holy books of the respective nations, which\nare adopted by whole nations, and are, at least, more beautiful than the\nJews.\n\nI have purposely omitted to speak of Ecclesiastes. I find here several\nEpicurean notions, a disbelief of a future life, the propriety of\nenjoying themselves in this life, and other sensible remarks; which\nprove that the writer enjoyed more common sense than most of his\ncountrymen.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER VI.\n\nYou begin your sixth letter by attempting to disprove the arguments of\nThomas Paine upon Jeremiah. You acknowledge the disorder that prevails\nin the writings of this prophet; and you modestly assure us, that you\ndo not know the cause; no more do I: and whatever incidents might have\noccasioned it, I am certain that, as it stands, it deserves no degree of\ncredit. In a former part of your pamphlet you grant, that the history of\nthe Jews is so connected with the prophetical part, that if the former\nwas done away the latter could not stand; and now you inform us, \"that\nprophecy differs from history, in not being subject to an accurate\nobservance of time and order.\" This you think a matter of no importance,\nbut, in my opinion, it is very material to know if a prophecy is written\nafter the events it alludes to. I shall not follow far, either your\nLordship or Mr. Paine, in proving several of the prophecies of the Bible\nfalse; but if they are not prophecies, why should we trouble ourselves\nwith disproving them. If they are scraps of history, we know that of\nthe Jews to be so contradictory, imperfect, so completely without order,\nthat one historical extract, of prophecy, will often contradict another;\nbut much more generally these prophecies are strict enough, being copied\nfrom history, and embellished with a little of the figurative style of\nprophecy. As to Jeremiah, the works that go under his name, as well\nas those of Isaiah, appear on the face of them to be a collection of\nextracts from different historians.\n\nWhile we know so little of the history and genuineness of these\nwritings, we cannot possibly draw any conclusion concerning them, except\nthat they are in the utmost disorder, and that when writers intermingle\nhistory with prophecy, we are at a loss to know which is which. I cannot\nforbear to mention the ludicrous story of Elisha, the children, the\nbears that devoured the children of men, as you are pleased to call\nthem. Whether Elisha did this as a prophet, I cannot but declare my\nabhorrence at your approbation of such abominable cruelty, to murder\nindividuals because they bestowed the appellation of Baldhead on\nanother. According to the laudable custom of the church, you appeal to\na miracle, and conclude, that if God wrought a miracle it must have been\njust. I suppose this comparatively as when he destroys whole cities for\nthe sins of a few; but this is the very ground on which every crusader\nsupported his massacres; and every man may imitate the conduct of Ahod,\nthe treacherous murderer, patronised by Jehovah, without incurring the\nblame of a Bishop. Whether the ridiculous tale which you take for a\nsign of God, most probably of his cruelty, converted any person, is not\nknown; but as the event most undoubtedly never happened, you may suppose\nwhat you please. To murder them is not the way to ingratiate ourselves\nwith our fellow-citizens. If any person set a few bull-dogs on some\nchildren, and pretended to do so by authority from heaven, he would most\nundoubtedly be taken up by our officers of justice. In what respect do\nthese brutal prophets differ from Mahomet, who decided all disputes by\nthe sword? Their business was to exterminate and murder by the direct\ncommands of God.\n\nThe writings of Ezekiel are considerably truncated. The very beginning\nof his prophecies shows it. The conjunction and texture of the whole\nwork refers to something that ought to have preceded it. He begins\nsaying, \"That in the 30th year the heavens opened, and he saw visions of\nGod.\" And in ver. 5, he adds, \"That the Lord had inspired him often\nin Chaldea,\" which refers to some prophecies written in that period.\nBesides, Josephus's work, book 10, chap. ix. of the Jewish antiquities,\nsays, \"That Ezekiel had prophecied that Zedekiah should never see\nBabylon.\" This is no where found in Ezekiel, but, on the contrary, in\nchap. xi. and xii. he says, \"That the king would be carried a prisoner\nto Babylon.\"\n\nAs to Daniel, I have already noticed the great similarity between the\nfirst book of Esdras and his, and the probability that they came from\nthe same author. The seven first chapters, except the first, were\nwritten in Chaldean, and are by the most learned thought to be taken\nfrom Chaldean chronologists. It is also thought by men of great\nlearning, that the books of Esdras, Daniel, and Esther, were altered a\nlong time after Judas Maccabeus, because it appears evident that Esdras\ncould not have written the whole of them, since Nehemiah carries the\ngenealogy of Jesuhga, the sovereign Pontiff till Jaddua, the sixteenth\nin number, who after the defeat of Darius went to meet Alexander. And\nNehemiah, ver. 22, \"The Levites, in the days of Eliashib, Joiadah,\nand Johanan, and Jaddua, were recorded chief of the fathers; also the\npriests, to the reign of Darius the Persian.\" We have no reason to\nbelieve that Esdras or Nehemiah could survive fourteen kings of Persia,\nCyrus having been the first who gave the Jews permission to rebuild the\ntemple, from whom to Darius there are 230 years.\n\nI now come to the famous prophecy of the seventy weeks of Daniel, which\nyou exultingly mention as the most wonderful, and, at the same time, the\nmost incontrovertible prediction in existence, one which never can fail\nto confound the most perverse unbeliever. If I prove, that so far from\nbeing the surprising prophecy you pretend, it has altogether a different\nmeaning, and can nowise apply to the coming of Christ, I shall think\nmyself fully excused, if I do not go through every individual prediction\nin the Bible. The passage alluded to is in Daniel, chap. ix. ver. 24, to\n27, as follows: \"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon\nthy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins,\nand to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting\nrighteousness, and to seal up the vision, and prophecy, and to anoint\nthe most holy. Know, therefore, and understand, that from the going\nforth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, unto the\nMessiah, the prince, there shall be seven weeks; and threescore and two\nweeks the streets shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous\ntimes. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but\nnot for himself; and the people of the prince that shall come, shall\ndestroy the city, and the sanctuary, and the end thereof shall be with\na flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he\nshall confirm the covenant with many, for one week; and, in the midst\nof the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease; and for\nthe overspreading of abominations, he shall make it desolate, even\nuntil the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the\ndesolate.\"\n\nThis passage is generally applied to the coming of Christ. The seventy\nweeks are supposed to mean weeks of years, or seven years each. Now\nit is evident, that it cannot apply to Jesus Christ; for if from going\nforth of the commandment in the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus, until the\ncoming of the Messiah, there were to be seven weeks or forty-nine years,\nhow does this agree with what follows? \"After threescore and two weeks\n(or three hundred and seventy-four years) shall Messiah be cut off.\"\nAnd again, \"He shall confirm the covenant with many for a week.\" Did\nthen Jesus Christ live four hundred and twenty-three years, or are there\ntwo Messiahs predicted? Dr. Frideaux acknowledges that some parts of\nthis prophecy are so injudiciously printed in the English translation of\nthe Bible, that they are quite unintelligible; his alteration is in the\npunctuation, and according to it we read, that, _from the going forth\nof the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, to the Messiah, the\nPrince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks_; and in verse\n27, he puts the half of the week, instead of the midst. The explanation\nof the prophecy as thus altered, he gives as follows. From the\ncommandment given to Ezra by Ar-taxerxes Longimanus, to the\naccomplishment of it by Nebemiah forty-nine years, or the first seven\nweeks; from this accomplishment to the time of Christ's messenger John\nthe Baptist sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years; from\nthence to the beginning of Christ's public ministry, half a week, or\nthree years and a half; and from thence to the death of Christ, half\na week, or three years and a half; in which half week he preached and\nconfirmed the gospel with many; in all, from the going forth of the\ncommandment, till the death of Christ, seventy weeks, or four hundred\nand ninety years.\n\nIn the first place, we confidently assert that Dr. Prideaux followed his\nfancy, not the original Hebrew, when he altered the punctuation. He is,\nhowever, justified in the alteration of half of a week; but, granting\nall, let us see how it applies. Did the Messiah come after seven weeks\nfrom the commandment of Ar-taxerxes Longimanus? The explanation only\nsays, that Nehemiah finished the work which Ezra began. What has this\nto do with the Messiah coming at the end of the first seven weeks? The\nprophet says, that after threescore and two weeks, the street and the\nwall shall be built. Again, and previously, that after the commandment\nfor the city to be built, the Messiah shall come in seven weeks. The\nlearned divine, on the contrary, makes Daniel say, that John the Baptist\nbegan to preach the kingdom of the Messiah sixty-nine weeks after\nthe commandment, and in the first seven weeks he talks of nothing but\nbuilding the temple. Again, how does the oblation cease in half a week?\nIn fact, the same objection occurs here, as to the passage as it is\nwritten in our Bibles. Daniel speaks quite clear, when he says, that\n\"from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem,\nunto the Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks.\" If we find,\nin whatever explanation of the prophecy, that Christ did not come\nforty-nine years after this commandment, and that he did not live four\nhundred and thirty-four years afterwards, the whole must be an\nuntruth. And, if the first period of seven weeks is united with that of\nthreescore and two, that is, if the period of rebuilding the city, and\nof the coming of the Messiah be the same, then let divines inform us\nwhether this really came to pass, and reconcile it with what follows, in\nver. 26, that the city is to be destroyed at the same time. Did Christ\nconfirm any covenant with many for seven years?\n\nLet us attempt to unriddle this enigma. The passage evidently talks of\ntwo Messiahs, or makes one live upwards of four hundred years; and is\naltogether unintelligible as it stands. For the better understanding of\nit, I shall quote some previous part of the same chapter, ver. 1. \"In\nthe first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the\nMedes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans. 2. In the\nfirst year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood by books, the number of\nthe years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet,\nthat he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.\n3. And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayers and\nsupplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes. 4. And I prayed\nunto the Lord my God, and made my confession, and said.\" After this\nfollows his prayer, until the 20th verse; and, in the 21st the angel\nbegan to unfold a prophecy to Daniel, which begins in verse 24, and he\npromises to explain the mystery that had so much grieved Daniel, that\nis, the prophecy of Jeremiah; then follows the passage I have quoted:\nthe alterations I conceive ought be made in the reading of which, I\nnow proceed to mention. In verse 25, the sentence stops after the seven\nweeks, as it is in the English Bible, because in the original we find\nhere the stop Atnach. In verse 26, instead of, _shall Messiah be cut\noff?_ we ought to read, _the oblation shall cease_. This is the real\nmeaning of the expression in the original, according to Tertullian,\nEusebius, and Theodoretus. Eusebius says, _Unctum (vel Christum) nihil\naliud esse quam successionem Pontificum, quos unctos nominare S.\nLiterae consueverunt._ The Hebrew properly signifies _perdetur unctio_.\nTheodoretus understands by this word, the same as _sacerdotes uncti.\nExcidetur unctus,_ signifies the same as the _oblation shall be\nabolished_; for the verb _excido_ does not always signify to kill, but\nis applied to whatever falls into disuse that was once in practice, or\nany thing that perishes. It is in this sense used in many parts of Kings\nand Chronicles. Samuel says, _excidi de altare_. In Jeremiah,\nchapter xxxvii. ver. 18, the verb is used in the same sense, _non\nde sacerdotibus Levitis excidet ur homo coram me_, which is given in\nEnglish, \"neither shall the priests, the Levites, _want a man_ (or\ncease to have a man) before me.\" In verse 27, \"and he shall confirm the\ncovenant with many for one week,\" means no more than the exemption of\ncalamities, and is tantamount to, _he shall let many remain in peace_,\nas in Genesis, chap. vi. ver. 18, it is used in this sense.\n\nTo understand the real meaning of this pretended prophecy, the reader\nwill remember, that Daniel mourned for the 70 weeks of captivity\nprophesied by Jeremiah; the vision of Daniel took place in the\nfirst year of Darius, King of Chaldea, that is, in the year 162 of\nNebuchadnezzar; but, in chap. x. of Daniel we learn, that he ate no\npleasant bread, neither came flesh and wine into his mouth, till three\nwhole weeks were fulfilled. Now, the term weeks is used in the Bible\nindiscriminately for weeks of years, or of days; here it appears clear\nit signifies the former, particularly as the whole relates to the 70\nyears of Jeremiah; and the angel, in chap. x. ver. 14, tells Daniel, in\nthe same figurative style, \"Now I am come to make thee understand what\nshall befall thy people in the latter days, for yet the vision is for\nmany days.\" If then Daniel wept three weeks of years, or 21 years, from\nthe destruction of the temple, in the year 141 to the time of the vision\nin 162, (the angel, chap. x. ver. 13, says, that the prince of Persia\nwithstood him 21 days, or years), it is easy to see what Daniel means.\nJeremiah had prophesied a captivity of 70 years, of these, three weeks\nor 21 years were past; therefore Daniel, after entreating God to tell\nhim \"how many more years were wanting,\" received for an answer what\nfollows, \"At the beginning of thy supplications, the commandment came\nforth, and I am come to show thee.\"--\"Seventy weeks are determined\nupon thy people to seal up the vision and prophecy,\" that is to complete\nthe prophecy of Jeremiah; and we find,-therefore, that from the issuing\nthe commandment to restore the Jews, and to build Jerusalem, or more\nproperly from the revelation of the angel, (exitu Verbi), promising that\nJerusalem should be rebuilt, ver. 23, to the coming of the Messiah, the\nprince, or Cyrus, who freed the Jews from the captivity, there were to\nbe seven weeks, or 49 years, which, added to the three weeks already\npast, made the 70 years of Jeremiah. Cyrus is by Isaiah called the\nLord's anointed: \"Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose\nright hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him for Jacob my\nservant's sake.\" Cyrus gave, at that time, liberty to the Jews, as the\nreader may see in Ezra. It is evident, that the word commandment cannot\nmean any express order to build Jerusalem, for the angel says, just\nbefore he reveals the prophecy, \"at the beginning of thy supplications\nthe commandment came forth we know that Daniel began to address prayers\nunto heaven, at a time when there was no order to build the temple, on\nthe contrary, the Jews were in captivity.\n\nThis is the most difficult part of the pretended prophecy, the remainder\nis plain. There shall be 62 weeks till the rebuilding of the wall. The\nwriter alludes here to the building of the first temple under Zerubbabel\nand Jeshua, and then to the rebuilding of the wall, and restoration\nof the temple by Judas Maccabeus, after its profanation by Antiochus\nEpiphanes. The period of this last event is by the prophecy made to\nextend to 63 1/2 weeks, or 444 years. Let us see if chronology confirms\nthis supposition. The temple was destroyed in the 141st year of Nabuch,\nor 4107 of the Julian period; add to this 444 years, or 63 weeks and a\nhalf, and we have the year 4551, or the second year of Judas Maccabeus,\naccording to Josephus; who also informs us, that having conquered his\nenemies, he then built a wall about Sion, which is clearly meant in the\nwords, \"the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous\ntimes,\" 1 Maccab. chap. iv. ver. 60. At that time also \"they builded up\nthe mount Sion with high walls,\" &c. Troublous the times certainly were;\nthe Jews were fighting against the cruelty of Antiochtis Epiphanes. It\nis certain then, that after 343 years, or 69 weeks, the wall should be\nbuilt, and although it was not really completed till about ten years\nafter, it is presumable that the loose historian, or prophet, did\nnot choose to alter the beautiful idea of 70 Weeks. We know how\nsuperstitiously the Jews respected not only the number 7, but all its\ndifferent affections. We are besides informed, in the first book of\nMaccabees, that after the first depredation of Antiochus, the people\nrebuilt the city of David, and made walls and forts; this happened\nsome years before the building of the wall by Judas, and brings the\nprediction nearer to historical accuracy.\n\nThe next part of the prophecy is, \"And after threescore and two weeks\nshall sacrifices cease;\" this means in the course of the week that\nsucceeds the 62. And, no doubt, Antiochus Epiphanes abolished them in\nthe seventh year of his reign, as we read in I Maccab. chap. i. \"And\nthe people of the prince that shall come, shall destroy the city and the\nsanctuary.\" This Antiochus most certainly did, \"and went up (Antiochus)\nagainst Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude, and entered\nproudly into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altars, also he\ntook the hidden treasures, and there was great mourning in Israel,\" 1\nMaccab. J. \"And the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end\nof the war desolations are determined.\" The coming of Antiochus into\nJerusalem is pompously detailed in the first book of Maccabees: the Jews\ncompared a great calamity, or an invading and irresistible army, to\na flood. Let us proceed with the remainder: \"And he shall confirm the\ncovenant with many for a week,\" this alludes to the first seven years\nof the reign of Antiochus, during which he did not interfere with the\nworship of the Jews, although he gave liberty to those who chose to be\nheathens to follow their respective worship: it was in the end of the\nsixth, and in the beginning of his seventh year that he attacked the\nJews, destroyed the temple, plundered it of its riches, and made himself\nthe tyrant of Judea.\n\nThe last part of the passage is as follows: \"And in the half of a week\nhe shall cause the oblation and sacrifice to cease,\" and, I have only to\nobserve, that, from the taking of the city by Antiochus, to the absolute\nforbidding Jewish worship, there elapsed about three years and a half,\nor half a week, for he came to Jerusalem in the 143d year of the kingdom\nof the Greeks, and the erecting of idols was in the year 145; after\nwhich, he continued to persecute the Jews, and promote idolatry, until\nthe year 148. Now Antiothus attacked Jerusalem at the end of his sixth\nyear, to which, if we add two years and three months, we have pretty\nexactly the period of half a week, or three years and a half. The\nexpression, \"the spreading of abominations,\" evidently alludes to what\nis said in Maccabees, chap. i. ver. 34. \"Now the fifteenth day of the\nmonth Casleu, in the 145th year, they (the followers of Antiochus) set\nup the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars\nthroughout the cities of Judah, on every side.\" Daniel says, chap.\nxii. ver. 11, speaking of his vision, \"and from the time that the daily\nsacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that: maketh\ndesolate set up, there shall be (that is between the first interdict of\nAntiochus, and the setting up of idols) 1290 days;\" which is a little\nmore than three years and a half. The wonderful prophecy is then\nunriddled, it becomes a contemptible piece of history in an affected\nstyle. I trust the explanation which I have given, after Marsham, will\nappear satisfactory. I challenge Bishop Watson to produce a plausible\nexplanation of the passage according to the sense of the church. It\nmay not be improper to observe, that Clemens Alexandrinus, many of\nthe fathers, Calmet, and other persons of great knowledge, have flatly\ndenied the application of the weeks of Daniel to Jesus. Those who\nespouse your cause lose sight of the context of Daniel, they forget\nchronology, and evince to what a pitch of delusion their minds have\narrived.\n\nThis is the famous prophecy that silenced the Jewish rabbins of Venice;\nit is of a pattern with Daniel's four beasts; the fourth is also a story\nof Antiochus Epiphanes and Judas who slays the beast. Judas is the son\nof man coming in clouds; he is the person of whom the prophets speak,\nand who has most ridiculously been distorted to Jesus Christ. This\nfarrago of prophecies seems to have been the production of Esdras\nor some very late writer; and I am not sure, but the doctrine of the\nPythagorean millennium gave rise to some of the expressions in both\nwriters, about the beasts: they seem to have sprung from the same origin\nwith those of the Apocalypse; and with the four Indian horses, they\ncrept among the Jews, together with many other Chaldean mythological\nideas: the Ancient of Ancients appears in his fiery car as Osiris\ntriumphant, or Chreeshna conquering Chiven; the books are opened before\nhim, as his kingdom is everlasting, like that of Vishnu with the\nVedams. But visions so ridiculous as that of Daniel deserve not our\nconsideration; whatever be their source they are but reveries, and may\nserve to amuse idle people in their ridiculous speculations about the\nworld's end. Like Swedenburgh, men may dream, and interpret their own\ndreams, and like him have the mortification to be laughed at for the\nnon-accomplishment of their predictions. We have had of late another\nDaniel in Mr. Brothers; he too saw beasts, and, what is more, he\nunderstood their meaning; but unfortunately we are not Jews, and he is\ncruelly imprisoned in a madhouse.\n\nI have now followed your animadversions on the objections of Thomas\nPaine upon the Old Testament; and I trust I have shown that you have in\nno degree been a more successful labourer in the cause of Judaism than\nyour predecessors; even your wonderful prophecy of Daniel is converted\ninto a mere historical tale, and the application Jesus Christ makes of\nit to himself is accordingly proved to be ridiculous, the more so, as\nit comes from the Son of God. I have a few more observations to make,\nbefore I leave this book. I cannot pass in silence the gross blunder you\nhave committed, when you refer Mr. Paine to Ferguson for an astronomical\nproof of the miracle of the total darkness at the crucifixion of Jesus.\nAn odd conceit, upon my word! You might know that the event is omitted\nby all the authors of eminence who wrote at that time; that even Pliny\npasses it unnoticed. Lest you should mislead the reader with your\ngroundless assertions, I shall state the matter as it stands in reality.\nYou avoid learned disquisitions to be intelligible, but you ought not\nto have been so deficient of authority, where it is most needed. Besides\nthe gospels, the darkness is not mentioned in any author; but divines\nhave attempted to prove the event from a supposed passage of Phlegon,\nrelated by Eusebius; it is in the following words: \"In the fourth year\nof the two hundred and second Olympiad, there was the greatest eclipse\never seen; it was night at six, and even the stars could be seen.\" This\npassage has long been disregarded by men of knowledge; it alludes to an\neclipse, not to a miraculous darkness. Both Mr. Ferguson and you have\nblundered in chronology and astronomy. It is certain, in the year of\nChrist's crucifixion, according to the common chronology, there could\nhave been no eclipse of the sun visible at that time at Jerusalem;\nFerguson, therefore, concludes it a miracle. But you ought to have\nknown, that the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad, is\nnot the year of the crucifixion in any system of chronology; that there\nwas an eclipse of the sun, in the year mentioned by Phlegon, in the\nmonth of November, which, however, was not central; and you know that\nJesus is said to have died at the time of the full moon in March, or in\nthe beginning of April. Besides, had even such a darkness taken place,\nare you ignorant of the existence of comets, and would not one passing\nbetween the earth and the sun eclipse that luminary? Have not such\nmiracles taken place if we credit historians? The death of Caesar\nwas preceded by wonderful prodigies, and a comet made its appearance\nimmediately after. The supposed miraculous influence of comets, and\ntheir being prophetic signs, was once an article of faith throughout\nall Europe, and the ancient history of every country records many events\nwhich the authors maintain arose from comets.\n\nYour reflections on prophets I cannot pass unnoticed. You pretend to\nmake a distinction between dreamers, and impostors, and true prophets.\nYou acknowledge the number of soothsayers and fortunetellers among the\nJews; but you maintain that they were altogether distinct from the\ntrue prophets, and appeal to Jeremiah, who puts the Jews on their guard\nagainst false prophets. Does not every quack, every impostor, do the\nsame, and caution the world to beware of counterfeits? You might have\nsaved a great deal of trouble, had you condescended to produce your\nproofs of the genuineness of the writings of the prophets; and then we\nmight enquire concerning the works of these augurs. You pretend that a\nsure mark of the reality of a prophet is his predicting bad things, for\na fortune-teller always prophecies good. Pardon me if I suppose you a\nfollower of Mr. Brothers. For surely the destruction of London was not\na most desirable event. It is in vain you attempt to turn Mr. Paine\ninto ridicule for his definition of a prophet. He most justly calls them\nstrolling-poets, fortune-tellers; being in Judea what the gipsies, the\naugurs, and the astrologers have been in other nations. The Hebrew word\n_Navi_ signifies nothing but an orator, a public speaker, and is by\nthe Jews applied, in a forced way, to soothsayers and diviners. It is\nincontrovertible that they existed among the Jews in colleges, and were\nbrought up to the business. Their chief employment was to write\nthe chronicles of the times. The name prophet is given in the Bible\nindiscriminately with that of holy man. Among the Hebrews, the first\nbook of Kings was called the prophecy of Samuel. Abel is called\nrepeatedly in the New Testament a prophet, (see Matth. chap. xxiii.\nver. 31 and 35, and Luke chap. xi. ver. 50 and 51), although we have no\naccount of his having predicted any. Among the Jews there certainly were\nfortune-tellers, necromancers, and witches, all of which you rank\namong the impostors. But had not the witch of Endor a real power of\nincantation? Did she not most wonderfully raise up the spirit of Samuel?\nOr are we to look upon the story of the witch of Endor in the same\nlight as those of modern witches? That the prophets of the Jews were\nrepeatedly deceived, we cannot have the smallest doubt when 400 of\nthese gentlemen told a downright lie to Ahaz. But you have a very easy\nexpedient in all these cases. When a prophet tells a lie, you may, as\nwas done in this particular case, attribute it to a design of God to\ncheat the person who consults his oracles, just as Jupiter did of old to\nAgamemnon when he sent him the false dream.\n\nYou reproach Thomas Paine for want of candour. He has not, you say,\nexamined the general design of the Old Testament There he would find\nthe benevolence of the God of the Jews, and his infinite goodness in\nselecting them from among the nations, in preserving them from idolatry.\nIf he chose this people he has certainly exposed them to continual\nsufferings, and all for no other purpose than to teach mankind that\nidolatry is the greatest of crimes; that to avoid it, murder, plunder,\nthe crusades, the inquisition, persecution, may all be laudable means\nfor the preservation of the faith of nations. Thus, the cherished\npeople, who were most intimate with their God, committed the most\nenormous crimes, under the pretence of preserving pure their adoration\nof the implacable God Jehovah. Did not all the endeavours of Jehovah to\nrescue nations from idolatry prove fruitless? This despicable creature\nman has been able to effect what mighty Jehovah never accomplished.\nScience is the only antidote against all kinds of superstition. Did\nCicero adore stocks or stones? Or did ever any learned man among the\nheathens humble himself before idols? Has not the principal branch of\nthe church of Christ been notorious idolaters? But what avails all\nthis? Have you proved that the Heathens \"emulated in the transcendent\nflagitiousness of their lives, the impure morals of their gods?\" You\nassert it; but unluckily it is one of the many unsupported and assumed\npropositions in your pamphlet. Did nations necessarily imitate the\nconduct of their gods, I would tremble at being among the followers\nof the bloody Jehovah. The heathens were certainly dreamers in their\nadoration of the planets; we are taught by science, that these bodies\nresemble our earth in the general laws that govern them. It was natural\nfor rude men to gaze at the sublimity of the stupendous fabric, the\nrefulgency of the sun; the blessings derived from his genial influence\ncould not be contemplated without admiration by the amazed and fearful\nsavage. Idolatry is ridiculous: but have you proved that Jehovah\ndeserves more to be revered than the Great Whole of nature, whether\ncalled Pan, or otherwise disguised in emblems, than the harmony of the\nplanets designed by symbols, the generative powers by Venus, or the\nvivifying light emanating from the bright orb of Apollo? Confess at\nleast, that the allegorical adoration of nature could only deceive\nthe multitude who were kept in ignorance by their priests. If you are\ncandid, you must acknowledge, that the Polytheists were tolerant, that\nthe Atheists or Deists lectured close, to the temple. They did not\nexterminate nations, establish inquisitions, murder unbelievers as the\nJews, and the Christians; although, as you observe, they received the\ngift of God through Jesus Christ, and were made alive by the covenant of\ngrace.\n\nIn what consists the superiority of the Jewish or Christian notions\nof God? Jehovah is a being incomprehensible; he is a jealous and a\nrevengeful God, he hardens men's hearts, and sacrifices whole nations to\na particular people, who, in their turn, are sacrificed for the boasted\nscheme of general good, which is never the nearer being accomplished.\nHe must be adored and revered, and yet he does not make himself known\nto man. He does not even show himself face to face to any but Moses.\nYou pay no great compliment to his omnipotence, when you observe, that\n\"probably he could not give to such a being as man a full manifestation\nof the end for which he designs him, nor of the means requisite for that\nend;\"--and, \"that it may not be possible for the Father of the universe\nto explain to us, infants in apprehension, the goodness and the wisdom\nof his dealings with the sons of man.\" Jehovah, in short, equally the\noffspring of fancy with the Heathen Jupiter, is as cruel as Moloch,\nand, like other productions of the brain, an invisible phantom, to which\npriests give the passions of a tyrant; and, in their desire that he\nshould reign alone, that men should not worship other deities, his\nministers have preached up this God, and the multitude, eager to admire\nwhat they cannot comprehend, have followed the mandates of the pretended\ninterpreters of his will. Still, however, the greatest number of\nignorant men are, and will ever be, idolaters; in vain their spiritual\nguides preach up incomprehensible and ideal beings in an unintelligible\njargon; man will always seek to satisfy his senses. Even the immediate\npresence of Jehovah, and his horrid massacres, could not prevent the\nfavourite nation from following other gods. Even the inspired, the wise,\nthe royal Solomon forsook \"the God of Israel, holy, just, and good,\" for\n\"the impure rabble of heathen Baalim.\"\n\nAccording to your nations, according to the doctrines of the Jewish and\nthe Christian churches, the sole aim of God has been to be exclusively\nadored, and jealousy is his prominent feature. It is not in the pursuit\nof knowledge, or in the practice of morality that he delights. The\nprecepts of social virtue occasionally scattered through the Old, as\nwell as the New Testament, can make little impression when contrasted\nwith the vindictive cruelty of the Deity. The Jewish Jehovah requires\nnothing of his followers but their compliance in executing his bloody\ncommands against nations whom he calls impious, because he has not\nrevealed himself to them. The man after his own heart, is the murderer\nof thousands of innocent people. Christ orders his followers to despise\nthe reason he has given them, to avoid pleasure, to hate the world,\nand to love pain, to pray, and to spend their lives in continual\nmortification, and in gazing over unintelligible mysteries to acquire\nhis kingdom. If they fail to believe in him, whether from ignorance or\nfrom conviction, he punishes them with eternal damnation, or as _Saint_\nAthanasius emphatically expresses it in his celebrated creed, \"Whosoever\nbelieveth in these things shall be saved; and whosoever believeth not\nshall be damned.\"\n\n\n\n\nLETTER VII.\n\nI now bring under review a few passages from _Holy Writ_, which I leave\nto your Lordship to explain, and which scoffers pretend to say are\nundeniable proofs of the stupidity of the Jews, and gross ideas they\nhad of God. I shall follow the order of the books without attempting an\narrangement.\n\nGenesis, chap. iii. ver. 1. \"Now the serpent was more subtle than any\nbeast of the field which the Lord had made; and he said unto the woman,\nyea hath God said,\" &c.\n\nThis Mr. Serpent would make a fine figure in \u00c6sop's fables. They say it\nmeans the Devil, but how does that appear?\n\nIn ver. 22. and 23. \"And behold the Lord said, the man is become one of\nus, (i. e. one of us Gods), to know good and evil, And now lest he put\nforth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for\never; therefore, the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to\ntill the ground from whence he was taken.\"\n\nThis shows strongly that boasted attribute of God, Jealousy. Is it\nconsistent with a Deity to punish this pair, and all their progeny, for\ntheir attempt to know good from evil? We here find that the priests have\nmade God expressly after their own image. God's selfishness prevented\nmen from eating of the other tree, which would make him live for ever.\n_Queritur,_ then, at what period of the world did the soul of man become\nimmortal? Was it not till Jesus Christ came? And was this tree a type of\nhim, as the bread and wine are at this day? It appears also, that it was\nnot one, but two trees, that were prohibited!\n\nIb. chap. xxxii. ver. 24. \"And Jacob was left alone, and there wrestled\na man with him, until the breaking of the day; (this shows the antiquity\nand high authority of sparring); and when he saw that he prevailed not\nagainst him, he touched the hollow of his thigh (Mendoza like): and the\nhollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And\nhe said, let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let\nthee go, unless thou bless me. And he said unto him, what is thy name?\nAnd he said, Jacob. And he said, thy name shall be called no more Jacob,\nbut Israel; (which, in Chaldee signifies seeing God); for as a prince\nhast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. (Or, as the\nVulgate more correctly translates, for if thou hast been to oppose the\nLord, how much more shall thou prevail against men). And Jacob called\nthe name of the place Penial: for I have seen God face to face.\" This\npassage requires no comment.\n\nExodus, chap. iii. ver. 4. \"And when the Lord saw that he (Moses) turned\naside to see, God called unto him out of the bush, and said, Moses,\nMoses. And he said, here am I.\" This is a pretty play at bo-peep.\n\nIb. ver. 14. \"And God said unto Moses, I am that I am; and he said, thus\nshalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you.\"\n\nDivines hold this passage to be a great instance of sublimity!!!\n\nIb. ver. 21. \"And I will give this people favour in the sight of the\nEgyptians, and it shall come to pass, that when ye go away, ye shall\nnot go empty, but every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, jewels of\nsilver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your\nsons, and your daughters, and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.\"\n\nHere the Jews made God after their own image; and the dealings of that\nnation in silver, gold, and clothes, at this day, show that they have\nnot forgotten their God. It is not easy for divines to reconcile this\nwith God's other precept in the eighth commandment.\n\nIb. chap. iv. ver. 24. \"And it came to pass by the way in the inn, (by\nthe way, were there inns then in Egypt?) that the Lord met him (Moses)\nand sought to kill him!!! Then Zepporah took a sharp stone, and cut off\nthe foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet.\"\n\nThis business of the circumcision is brought in rather by the head and\nthe shoulders, and the cause of it is not quite clear; but it is very\nevident that the Lord could not kill Moses.\n\nIb. chap. xxxii. ver. 27. \"And he (Moses learning that the Jews had made\na golden calf), said unto them, (the sons of Levi, i.e. the priests,)\nthus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side,\nand go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every\nman his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his\nneighbour; and the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses,\nand there fell of the people that day about three thousand.\"\n\nIb. chap. xxxiii. ver. 9. \"And it came to pass, as Moses entered into\nthe tabernacle, the pillar descended, and stood at the door of the\ntabernacle, and the Lord (who was in the pillar) talked with Moses.\"\n\nIn this manner modern goddesses stop their carriages at shop-keepers'\ndoors at this day.\n\nIb. ver. 90. \"And he (God) said, thou canst not see my face, for there\nshall no man see me and live.\" God must here have forgotten his dialogue\nwith Adam and Eve, his wrestling with Jacob, and conversations with\nMoses. In Numbers, chap. xii. ver. 6 and 8, he says, \"Hear now my words:\nIf there be a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will make myself known\nto him in a vision, and will speak to him in a dream,\" but, \"with thee\n(Moses) will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark\nspeeches, and the similitude of the Lord shall you behold.\"\n\nIb. chap. xxi. ver..5. \"And the people spoke against God, and against\nMoses, wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the\nwilderness, for there is no bread, neither is there any water, and our\nsoul loatheth this light bread.\" No wonder the Jews tired of living upon\nmanna without water, but the Lord taught them not to grumble. \"And the\nLord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, and\nmuch people of Israel died.\" When God was tired of making his serpents\nbite the poor devils, he said unto Moses, \"Make thee, a fiery serpent,\nand set it upon a pole, and it shall come to pass, that every one that\nis bitten when he looketh upon it shall live.\" This is below all the\ntricks of necromancers.\n\nIb. chap. xxv. \"And the people began to commit whoredom with the\ndaughters of Moab. And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor: and the\nanger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. And the Lord said unto\nMoses, take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the\nLord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned\naway from Israel. And Moses said unto the judges, slay every one of\nthese men who were joined unto Baal-peor. And behold one of the children\nof Israel came, and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman, in\nthe sight of Moses, &c. And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son\nof Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose from among the congregation, and\ntook a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the\ntent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the\nwoman through her belly, so the plague was stopped from the children of\nIsrael, and these that died in the plague were 24,000.\" As a reward for\nthis, the Lord gave Phinehas the everlasting priesthood, \"because he was\nzealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.\"\n\nIb. chap. xxvi. Dathan, Korah, and Abirim strove against Moses and\nAaron, and the earth swallowed them up, and the fire devoured 250 men.\n\nlb. chap. xxxi. ver. 16, there was a plague among the congregation of\nthe Lord, on account of the tres pass against the Lord, when he ordered\nthus, \"Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill\nevery woman that hath known man by lying with him; but all the\nwomen children that hath not known man by lying with him, keep for\nyourselves.\" For the observation on this passage, I refer my reader to\nBishop Watson, and the former part of this work.\n\nThe following ought to be the fate of all idolatrous people, and has\nbeen happily practised in the discoveries made by most European\nnations. Deuteronomy chap. xiii. ver. 13. \"Thou shalt surely smite\nthe inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it\nutterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge\nof the sword.\"\n\nJoshua, chap. vi. v. 21. \"And they utterly de-, stroyed all that was\nin the city, (Jericho), both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and\nsheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. And they burnt the city with\nfire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the\nvessels of brass, and of iron, they put it into the treasury of the\nhouse of the Lord.\"\n\nChap. x. Joshua being attacked by five kings, and they having taken\nshelter in a cave, he caused great stones to be rolled to the mouth of\nthe cave, till he followed and destroyed the people, then he ordered the\nfive kings to be brought out from the cave, \"And it came to pass, that\nwhen they brought out those five kings unto Joshua, that Joshua called\nfor all the men in Israel, and said unto the men of war, come near, put\nyour feet upon the necks of these kings, and they came near, and put\ntheir feet upon the necks of them. And afterwards Joshua smote them,\nand slew them, Joshua took Makdekah, and smote it with the edge of the\nsword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the\nsouls that were therein; he let none remain.\" And so he did in all to\n31 kings, as related in this and the following chapters, and all this\nby the express command of God, who made the sun and the moon both stand\nstill to witness these unprovoked atrocities. But this was just; God\nhaving given that country to his chosen people the Jews, as in latter\ntimes his vicegerent the Pope gave America to the Portuguese and\nSpaniards, who, Joshua-like, exterminated the kings and people, because\nthey were not Christians. This, as you say, serves the general scheme of\nGod's benevolence towards mankind.\n\nJudges, chap.i. ver. 4. And the Lord having delivered the Canaanites and\nthe Perizzites into the hands of Judah, \"They slew of them in Bezek 1000\nmen. But Adonibezek fled, and they pursued after him, and caught him,\nand cut off his thumbs, and his great toes.\" lb. ver. 19- \"And the Lord\nwas with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain, but\n_could not_ drive out the inhabitants of the valley!\" Why? \"Because they\nhad chariots of iron.\" Chap. iv. recounts the manner in which Deborah\nand Barak delivered Israel from Jabin and Si-aera. Ver. 21. Then Jael,\nHebber's wife, (to whose tent Sisera had fled), \"took a nail of the tent,\nand a hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail\ninto his temples, and fastened it into the ground, (_a goodly nail_),\nfor he was fast asleep and weary, so he died.\" Chap. 5, contains the\n_beautiful_ song of Deborah and Barak, which I particularly request my\nreader to peruse, as a finished piece of scripture praise of good words.\nChap. xxi. relates, that the Israelites having sworn not to give their\ndaughters to the Benjamites, and the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead not\nhaving come up to Minzeh, \"the congregation sent 19,000 men of the\nvaliantest, and commanded them, saying, go and smite the inhabitants\nof Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the\nchildren: utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by\nman;\" but, having found 400 young virgins that had known no man by lying\nwith any male,\" they gave them to the sons of Benjamin, \"and yet so they\nsufficed them not.\" So as they had sworn not to give them wives of their\nown daughters, \"therefore, they commanded the children of Benjamin,\nsaying, go and lie in wait in the vineyards, and see, and behold, if the\ndaughters of Shiloch come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of\nthe vineyards, and catch you every man his wife.\"\n\nFirst Samuel, chap. vi. The ark of the Lord having been among the\nPhilistines seven months, they, unwilling to send it back empty, asked\nthe priests and diviners, what they should send in it as a trespass\noffering? \"they answered, five golden emerods, and five golden\nmice,---and ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel,--and make a new\ncart, and take two milch kine, and take the ark of the Lord and lay it\non the cart;\" and they did so, \"and they of Beth-shemesh lifted up\ntheir eyes, and saw the ark, and rejoiced to see it,--and the men of\nBeth-shemesh offered burnt-offerings, and sacrificed sacrifices the same\nday unto the Lord,--and he smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they\nhad looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty\nthousand and threescore and ten men.\" Gracious God! Blessed Jews!\n\nSecond Samuel, chap. xxiv. ver. 1. \"And the anger of the Lord was\nkindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, go\nnumber Israel and Judah.\" (In first Chronicles, chap. xxi. ver. 1, it\nstated, \"and Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number\nIsrael.\") And having thus instigated David to do what is good policy in\na king, God, of his infinite mercy, said unto David by his prophet Grad,\nDavid's seer, (an officer of the household in those days), \"I offer thee\nthree things: shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land, or\nwilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, or that there be three\ndays pestilence in thy land?\" And David having chosen the latter, \"the\nLord sent a pestilence upon Israel, and there died of the people 70,000\nmen but the Lord is ever merciful, for, \"when the angel stretched out\nhis hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord _repented_ him of the\nevil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, it is enough,\nstay thou thine hand,\" _Delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi_.\n\n1 Kings, chap. ii. David being upon his death-bed, having made peace\nwith God, and purified his heart, called Solomon to him and gave him his\nlast charge. As to Joab, the son of Zeruiah, he said, \"do according\nto thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in\npeace,--and behold thou hast with thee Shimei the son of Gera, which\ncursed me, but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I sware to him\nby the Lord, saying, I will not put thee to death by the sword; now,\ntherefore, (_proceeds the man after God's own heart_), hold him not\nguiltless; for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to\ndo unto him, but his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood.\"\nSolomon having succeeded his father, the first act of his reign was to\nput to death his brother Adonijah.\n\n1 Kings, chap. xi. ver. 4, \"Solomon's heart was not perfect with the\nLord his God, as was the heart of David his father, for it came to pass,\nthat, when he was old, his wives turned his heart after other gods.\" But\nwhy go through such barbarous details? All along we find imprecations\nagainst those who despise the prophets, and praises lavished upon\nmurderers, traitors, and assassins. This is the people \"selected by the\nwisdom of God, that they might witness to the whole world in successive\nages his existence and attributes, that they might be an instrument\nof subverting idolatry, of declaring the name of the God of Israel\nthroughout the whole earth a people, who are to us witnesses of\nthe existence, and of the moral government of God.\"--This is the Old\nTestament, which you presume to say afforded matter for the laws of\nSolon, and a foundation for the philosophy of Plato,--which has been\nadmired and venerated for its piety, its sublimity, its veracity, by all\nwho _are able to read and understand it!!!_ This is the God who maketh\nthe sun to rise on the evil and on the good, who is all perfection,\nall wise, and all powerful, and whose mercy is above all his other\nattributes.\"\n\nTHE END.","title":"Watson Refuted: Being an Answer to the Apology for the Bible, in a Series of Letters to the Bishop Of Llandaff","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":30607}