{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_40981/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_40981","id":"gutenberg_40981","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40981","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity -- Controversial literature"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE DOUBTS OF INFIDELS, OR, QUERIES RELATIVE TO SCRIPTURAL\nINCONSISTENCIES & CONTRADICTIONS.\n\nSUBMITTED FOR ELUCIDATION TO THE BENCH OF BISHOPS BY A WEAK BUT SINCERE\nCHRISTIAN.\n\nBy Anonymous\n\n\n  .......Metus omnes et inexoraibile fatum\n     Subjecit pedibus, strepitumque Acherontis avari!\n     Illum non populi fasces, non purpura regum\n     Flexit et infidos agitans discordia fratres. Virg.\n\n     Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees! Hypocrites! ye blind\n     guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Matt,\n     xxiii. 23, 24.\n\n     The world is divided into two classes of men...the one have\n     understanding but no religion; the other have religion but\n     no understanding.\n\nLONDON:\n\nPRINTED & PUBLISHED BY R. CARLILE, 55, FLEET STREET.\n\n1819.\n\nTHE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.\n\nTO THE RIGHT REVEREND AND REVEREND THE BISHOPS, CLERGY, AND ALL OTHER\nSUPPORTERS OF THE CHURCH MILITANT HERE ON EARTH.\n\nREVEREND SIRS,\n\nYour late zealous exertion against the infidels, in procuring the Sunday\nBill to be passed, and prosecutions and pillory against infidel writers\nand publishers, must have convinced them that you are in earnest in your\nattempts to propagate and establish our holy faith. An act of parliament\nis an excellent engine for producing that kind of uniformity of\nopinions, which consists in holding the tongue; and, however unfair it\nmay be in common transactions to suppress the arguments on one side\nof any question, yet, in religious matters, even the most cool and\ncharitable must allow, that it is otherwise. When the salvation of\nmen is concerned, every means is justifiable. What right has a man\nto complain, though by virtue of an act of parliament, by pains and\npenalties, fines, imprisonment, and the pillory, he may be sent to\nheaven whether he will or no? It is carrying the notion of liberty too\nfar, to suppose, because we are free-born Englishmen, that we may choose\nour own faith and go to heaven _our own way!_ What would become of the\nright reverend and reverend guides and turnpike-men, if people were\npermitted to avoid the strait gate and go to their journey's end without\npaying?\n\nForeigners are so sensible of this, and the priests of other countries\nare so tenacious of their rights of directing the intellects of the\npeople, that they have invented and deposited in the inner chambers of\nthe holy inquisition, a number of most ingenious machines, which, by\nmeans of whips, cords, pullies, screws, wheels, iron crows, red hot\npincers, and the like, are found to be extremely serviceable in twisting\nand warping opinions to any settled models government may require.\n\nNotwithstanding your Lordships' readiness* \"to oppose error of every\nkind by argument and persuasion,\" it happens unfortunately for us, that\nthese mechanical and persuasive arguments are unknown in _Britain_.\nInstead of that most strong and logical argument, called the torture, we\nare obliged to adopt plain reason, or, at most, when that fails us, the\n_prison, fine, and pillory_. But, it is to be hoped, that the happy time\nis not far off, when the priests of _Britain_ may be able to argue with\nas much force as the spiritual directors of other countries; when the\nClergy may approach the throne, and avow their readiness to stop\nthe mouths of men, without being under the shameful necessity of\ncontradicting themselves, by \"disavowing all violence in the cause of\nreligion.*\"\n\n     * Vide Address of the Convocation presented to his Majesty\n     the 17th of November, 1780.\n\nIn those better days, the Lord Bishop of Chester may overthrow the\narguments of an infidel peer, by declaring them \"unworthy of a Reply;\"\nand the Bishop of St. David may confirm the defeat, by affirming, that\nthe arguments of unbelievers \"deserve no answer;\" for every one will\nthen say, they \"would not\" answer them, not that they \"could not,\" as\nthey impiously affirm at present. But as those glorious times are not\nyet arrived, we must be contented, in the mean while, to proceed in the\nold method of reasoning upon even ground with our adversaries. The\nweak, though _zealous Christian_, who has the honour, to address your\nLordships on the present occasion, has presumed to lay before you a few\nof the Doubts of the Infidels, and he hopes you will answer them to his\nentire satisfaction.* He is happy in reflecting that the late act of\nparliament forbids them to speak; but his satisfaction is infinitely\ngreater when he assures himself, that your Lordships' answer will\nconvince them and make them ashamed even to _write, speak, or think_.\n\n     * Vide the same address.\n\nThus fervently prays your Lordships' unworthy co-operator,\n\nThe Author.\n\n\n     * The following are the chapters, with many others, which\n     contain the most objectionable parts:--\n\n     Genesis, chap. 16, 18, 19, 30, 34, 35, 38, 30.\n     Numbers, 25.\n     Judges, 10, 19.\n     1 Samuel, 25.\n     2 Samuel, 11, 13, 16.\n     Ezekiel, 4, 10, 22, 23.\n     Hosea, 1, 2, 3.\n\n     The following are those chapters which contain instances of\n     cruel and torturous executions, and unrelenting\n     vindictiveness.\n\n     Genesis, chap. 34.\n     Numbers, 31.\n     Joshua, 8,10.\n     Judges, 4, 5, 21.\n     1 Samuel, 15.\n     2 Samuel, 12, 21.\n     1 Kings, 2.\n     2 Kings, 10.\n\n\n\n\nDOUBTS OF INFIDELS,\n\n1. How can _the attributes_ of God be vindicated, in having performed so\ngreat a number of miracles, for a long succession of very distant ages,\nand so few in _latter times?_ If they were performed for the instruction\nof those times only, are they not equally necessary at present for\nus? or, if those ancient miracles were intended likewise for our\ninstruction, are they adequate to the purpose? Can God, who gave us\nreason, act inconsistently with its dictates; and is it rational or\nfair to demand our belief of things, which are in their own nature far\nremoved from common belief, or common sense, and require something\nmore than the usual testimony of history for their support? When Livy\naffirms,* that the Gauls conspired against Hannibal, we admit and\nbelieve the fact; but when in the same chapter he speaks of shields\nsweating blood, of its raining hot stones at Arpi, and the like, we\njustly reject and disbelieve these improbable assertions; neither is any\ncredit given to the account of the wonderful method of curing diseases\nby the touch, said to be possessed by Mr. Greatrix,* though we find it\nin the Philosophical Transactions. The miracles of the Old Testament\nwere all performed in those ages of which we have no credible history;\nwhat reply then can be made to those who affirm, that miracles have\nalways been confined to the early and fabulous times; that all nations\nhave had them, but that they disappeared in proportion as men became\nenlightened, and capable of discovering _imposture_ and _priestcraft_.\n\n     * T. Livii, lib. xxii, cap. 1.\n\n\n2. Suppose a book to be published, containing assertions of historical\nfacts long past, which had no collateral testimony of other authors;\nsuppose those facts in general to be improbable and incredible; suppose\nthe book to be anonymous, or, which is worse, ushered into the world\nunder the name of a person who, from the internal evidence of the thing,\ncould not have written it; can it be imagined, that such a book would\nfind credit among people, who have the least pretensions to reason or\ncommon sense? Which, then, is the readiest way of confuting the enemies\nof our holy and only true religion, who do not scruple to affirm, that\nmany books of canonical Scripture are in this predicament? They observe\nthat the books of the Pentateuch bear many strong marks of an author\nlong posterior to Moses; that the book of Numbers** quotes the book of\nthe Wars of the Lord, which, as first written, was most probably the\nbook which Moses wrote; that Moses could not possibly have written\nthe account of his own _death and burial_ in Deuteronomy,**** which\nnevertheless has no mark to distinguish it from the rest of the book.\n\n     * Lowther's Abridgement, Vol. III. p. II. Greatrix published\n     a pamphlet, to which the attestations of Boyle, Wilkins,\n     Cud-worth, and many other great men were affixed. Vide Life\n     of St. Evremont, printed with his works in English, 3 vols.\n     8vo.\n\n     ** Numb. xxi. 14.\n\n     *** Deut. xxxiv.\n\nAnd supposing these and other objections of the like nature to be\nremoved, what must we say in reply to their remark, that the Scripture,\nwhich we believe to be dictated by the inspiration of the unerring\nGod, is frequently** contradictory with regard to facts, and very\noften represents the all-wise Creator*** as angry, repenting, unjust,\narbitrary, &c. and that consequently we must either give up that\ndependence, which we naturally place on his goodness and rectitude,\nor reject those writings which represent him as a demon. Do not your\nLordships apprehend, that, for want of better arguments, we shall be\nunder the necessity of recurring to the _argumentum pillorii_, or of\nadopting some of those _gentle methods_ which were lawfully used for\nthe conversion of heretics in the mild and pious reign of Mary, Queen of\nEngland?\n\n     ** Vide infra.\n\n     *** Genesis vi. 6,7. also Exod. vii. 3. xi. 9,10. and 1 Sam.\n     xv. 35.\n\n\n3. Is the account of the creation and fall of man, in the book of\nGenesis, physical or allegorical? Did God create light before the sun?\nHow could he divide the light from darkness, since darkness is nothing\nbut the mere privation of light? How could time be divided into days,\nbefore the creation of the sun, since a day is the time between sun-rise\nand sun-rise? How could the firmament be created, since there is no\n_firmament_, and the false notion of its existence is no more than an\nimagination of the ancient Grecians?\n\n\n4. The Scriptures were certainly written for the purpose of being\nunderstood, or for no purpose at all. A mystery, that is to say, an\nassertion or theorem, which the human understanding is incapable of\ncomprehending, must likewise be inexpressible in human speech; we\ncannot, therefore, avail ourselves of the short and elegant method of\nclearing and elucidating difficult parts of Scripture, by the use of the\nword mystery, but how shall we, without this _happy resource_, explain\nthe business of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, of a speaking\nserpent, and of a tree of life, which God was obliged to guard by\ncherubim and a flaming sword, lest man should eat of the fruit and\nbecome immortal?\n\n\n5. The serpent was afflicted with the curse of going upon his belly.\nThe scoffers seem to think it no curse at all; for as they take it for\ngranted that he went upon his back before this unfortunate transaction,\nthey apprehended it was doing him a singular piece of service to reverse\nhim, the latter position being evidently the most convenient. They also\ntake notice, that no animal can subsist upon dust, and that whatever the\nindividual serpent in question might have done, the serpents of modern\ntimes are so profane, that they universally reject so dry a food, and,\nby a second act of impiety, emancipate themselves from the consequences\nof the first.\n\n     * Gen. vi.--78.\n\n6. The account of the flood is very embarrassing. It is described as the\neffects of natural agents in the hands of God. It rained; no mention is\nmade of waters created for the purpose. The deluge was universal; all\nthe high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered; and it\nceased, not by the annihilation of the waters, but they were evaporated\nby a wind. Now from whence came the water? The weight of the whole\natmosphere, with all its vapours, is equal to no more than a hollow\nsphere of three or four and thirty feet thickness, environing the whole\nglobe, and consequently the whole of its contents, if condensed into\nwater, could not deluge the earth to the height of an ordinary house.\nIt is to no purpose to break open the fountains of the abyss, or great\ndeep, if any such fountains there are; for gravity would prevent the\nwaters from issuing out; neither can we easily persuade infidels, that\nthe windows of Heaven were opened, while they know it has no windows;\nso that we have but three or four and thirty feet of water to deluge\nthe highest mountains, some of which are more than fifteen thousand feet\nhigh.*\n\n     * The Indian Alps are 20,862 feet above the level of the\n     ocean. Editor.  See Col. Kirkpatrick's History of Nepaul,\n     and Asiatic Researches, Vol. VIII.\n\n\n7. The weak in faith find themselves equally at a loss respecting the\nark. It seems strange to them, that so vast an assemblage of animals\ncould be inclosed in an ark or chest, which had but one window, (which\nwindow was kept shut for more than five months,) without being stifled\nfor want of air: it appears equally remarkable that Noah and his three\nsons could unstow and serve out the daily allowance of provisions and\nwater to the passengers; and if their wives were supposed to help them,\nthe work to be done is still prodigious. The lions and other carnivorous\nanimals must have lived on salt provisions; which, no doubt, they were\nglad of, as seafaring people are not very nice, especially in long\nvoyages.\n\n8. If God set his bow in the clouds, as a token of his covenant with\nmankind after the flood, ought we not to conclude, that he, at\nthat time, established the law of the various refrangibility and\nreflexibility of the rays of light, and consequently, that before the\nflood many optical experiments, which are common with us, would not\nthen have succeeded? For example, a man could not have made a rainbow\nby spouting water out of his mouth; Mr. Dollond's achromatic telescopes\nwould have then been no better than common ones; natural bodies must\nhave appeared all of one colour, &c. &c.\n\n9. What answer must we give to those who are inclined to deny, that an\nall-powerful and just God could make use of the most unjustifiable means\nto attain his great purpose of aggrandizing the posterity of Abraham?\nCould this benevolent and just Being approve of the ungenerous\nadvantage which Jacob took over his faint and hungry brother? Could\nthis omnipotent and upright Spirit adopt no method of distinguishing his\nfavourite Jacob, but that of fraud and lies, by which he deprived the\nsame unsuspecting brother of his father's blessing? Or, in short, how\nshall we justify God for the continual distinction and favour he is said\nto have bestowed on a people, who from their own annals appear to have\nbeen unparalleled for cruelty,* ingratitude, inurbanity, &c.?\n\n     * See the acts of Joshua; also 1 Sam. xv. &c.\n\n\n10. When the unbelievers affirm that a just God could not punish Pharaoh\nfor an hardness of heart of which he himself (God) was evidently the\ncause, we usually answer, that the potter has power over the day to\nfashion it as he lists; but when in reply, they take notice, that if\nthe clay in the hands of the potter were capable of happiness or misery,\naccording to the fashion impressed on it, the potter must be malevolent\nand cruel who can give the preference to inflicting pain instead\nof happiness, then we are obliged to be silent, in hopes that your\nLordships will condescend to supply us with better arguments than any we\nare acquainted with at present.\n\n\n11. Miracles must have been very common in Egypt, since there was a body\nof people whose trade it was to work them. When Aaron's rod was turned\ninto a serpent,* Pharaoh, instead of being surprised at it, as an\nunusual ph\u00e6nomenon, sends for his magicians, who immediately perform\nthe like with their rods. Your Lordships owe us some little explanation\nconcerning this business: we know it is our duty to believe, that\nAaron's miracle was performed by the power of God, but are at a loss to\ndiscover by what power the magicians performed theirs.\n\n\n19. When** Aaron turned the waters of Egypt into blood, their streams,\ntheir rivers, their ponds, and all their pools, together with all the\nwater throughout the land of Egypt, whether in Vessels of wood, or\nvessels of stone, the magicians of Egypt did so likewise with their\nenchantments. Here again our adversaries, who unfortunately have more\ncuriosity than faith, take the liberty to enquire, whether the magicians\nformed water to practise their art upon, since Aaron had already turned\nit into blood?\n\n     * Exod vii. 3, 4. and ix. 9, 10.\n\n     ** Exod. vii. 10.\n\n     *** Exod. vii. 10, &c.\n\n\n13. Pharaoh still continuing inflexible, though successively exposed to\nthe plagues of frogs, lice, and flies;* his cattle, namely, the horses,\nthe asses, the camels, the oxen, and the sheep, were afflicted with a\nvery grievous murrain, and all the cattle of Egypt died, except those\nof the children of Israel.** This producing no good effect with Pharaoh,\nthe whole nation of Egyptians were plagued with boils and blains;***\nnotwithstanding which Pharaoh's heart continued as hard as ever.****\nMoses was therefore sent early in the morning, to advise Pharaoh to\nsend for his cattle, and all that he had in the field, and shelter them\nagainst a terrible hail storm, the approach of which he predicted. They\namong Pharaoh's servants who feared the word of the Lord, saved their\ncattle and servants, by removing them into houses; for the next day\ncame on a storm of thunder, lightning, and hail, which broke the trees,\ndestroyed the herbage, and killed every living creature that was in the\nfield, excepting only that in the land of Goshen, where the children of\nIsrael were, there was no hail. _Divine truths_ are so different from\nthose which carnal minds are used to contemplate, that it must be very\ndifficult by the force of mere human reason to persuade mankind in\ngeneral, that Pharaoh's cattle were in any great danger from the hail\nstorm, since they were all previously dead by the murrain; and some\npeople are so stupid, that they think killing them a second time was\nno punishment at all. There are not wonting some amongst the present\nperverse generation; who are at a loss to conceive how those of\nPharaoh's servants, who feared the word of the Lord, could make their\nCattle flee into houses, since they pretend to maintain, that cattle\nalready dead, whether by the murrain or otherwise, are incapable of\nfleeing. Notwithstanding those people are so obviously in the wrong, yet\nwe depend upon your Lordships, that you will expose their errors in more\nglaring colours than any in which they have yet appeared.\n\n     * Exod. viii.\n\n     ** Exod. ix. 3, 6.\n\n     *** Exod. ix.\n\n     **** Exod. ix. 13, &c.\n\n\n14. Some weak believers are in doubts whether so mean, so ungenerous,\nand so dishonest an act, as borrowing the jewels of the Egyptians*\nwithout any intention of returning them, did not rather originate in\nthat disposition which characterizes the Jews to this day, than in the\ncommand of the just God, who certainly could need no such tricks to\naccomplish his intentions.\n\n\n15. The plague of hail being succeeded by locusts, thick darkness, and\nthe death of all the first-born of Egypt, cattle included, Pharaoh at\nlength permitted the Israelites to depart; but afterwards repenting, he\nwent in pursuit of them** with six hundred chariots and all the horses\nand chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen and his army, and overtook\nthem by the sea, near Baal Zephon. The Red Sea was parted in two to\nafford a passage for the Israelites, the Egyptians followed them, and\nwere punished for their rashness by the return of the waters, which\nswallowed them up. Here again our petulant and unsatisfied opposers\ndemand how Pharaoh could pursue with chariots and horsemen, since his\nhorses were all slain twice over, once by the murrain and once by the\nhail; not to mention that the first born of cattle were slain even a\nthird time. They likewise add, that Egypt, which, to facilitate the\ndispersion of the waters of the overflowing Nile, is intersected by\nnumberless canals, must have always been a very improper country either\nfor cavalry or chariots.\n\n     * Exod. xi.\n\n     ** Exod. xiv.\n\n\n16. God came to Balaam at night and said unto him, \"If the men come\nto call thee, rise up and go with them.\"* Balaam accordingly rose up,\nsaddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. \"But God's anger was\nkindled because he went,\" insomuch that he sent an angel to oppose\nhim, who would certainly have slain him, if the ass he rode on had not\nexhibited a specimen of penetration and prudence, of which the asses of\nmodern times seem to be divested. The infidels here insist, that it is\nbetter to reject the whole story, than to believe that the Supreme Being\ncould be angry with Balaam, merely because he obeyed his command; but\nthe true believers, the sons of the church, who think there would be no\nexercise for our faith, if we were required to admit nothing but\nwhat can be supported by argument, are not at all concerned in this\ndifficulty; the more improbable the doctrine, the greater must be the\nmerit in believing.\n\n     * Numb. xxii. 20, &c.\n\n\n17. \"The Lord was with Judah,** and he drove out the inhabitants of\nthe mountains, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley,\nbecause they had chariots of iron.\" It is difficult to conceive, how\nthe Lord of heaven and earth, who had so often changed the order, and\nsuspended the established laws of nature in favour of his people the\nJews, could not succeed against the inhabitants of a valley, because\nthey had chariots of iron! Or ought we not rather to infer that the book\nin which this passage is found, has nothing of divine inspiration in\nit, but was written by one of the Jews who considered the God of Israel\ntheir protector as a local divinity; who was in some instances more, and\nin others less powerful, than the gods of their enemies. Thus David in\nmany places compares the Lord with other gods \"The Lord is a great God,\nand a great king above all gods,\" &c. and Jephtha says to the king of\nthe children of Ammon, \"Wilt thou not possess that which Chemosh thy God\ngiveth thee, to possess? So whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive out\nfrom before us, them will we possess.\"\n\n     ** Judges i. 19.\n\n\n18. How unjustly are the Spaniards stigmatised for the zeal they\nexhibited in converting the natives of Peru and Mexico to the Christian\nreligion!*** It is true, they ripped up women with child, dashed infants\nto pieces against the rocks, and broiled men to death with slow fires;\nbut as their pious intention was purely that of delivering these\nuninstructed and ignorant people from the more horrible pains of\nfuturity, the truly compassionate can not but approve their conduct.\nHow can we enough admire the mild and humane transaction of hanging up\nthirteen Indians in honour of Christ and the twelve apostles!\n\n     *** See Marmoutel's Preface to the Incas, and the authors\n     there cited.\n\n\nWhile the rest of the world admired the Greeks and Romans, they wisely\nassumed the heroes of sacred story as models for their imitation! Poor\nLas Casas! His weak and effeminate heart bled at the scene of misery!\nHe wanted zeal to join in the pious work, and even wished to leave the\nIndians in possession of certain imaginary blessings which he pretended\nto call \"the rights of humanity!\" But the holy ardour of his associates\nfrustrated his impious attempts; he could do no more than write, yet his\nwritings, so far from producing the effect he intended, only served\nto increase our admiration of those great characters he meant to\nstigmatize. If the comparison might be allowed, we may affirm that the\nSpaniards were inferior to the Jews in this only circumstance, that\nthey had a Las Casas among them. The Jews were obdurate to a man, and\nhardened with holy cruelty. We hear of no tergiversation when Jericho\nwas to be destroyed; \"Man and woman, young and old, ox, sheep, and ass,\nwere put to the edge of the sword.\"* What a philosophical command over\nthe tender passions must Joshua have acquired, to have enabled him\nto smite with the sword,** and utterly destroy the inhabitants of\nAi, Libnah, Lachish, Hebron, Debir, &c. &c. &c. especially*** as the\nhardness of their heart was no fault of theirs, but proceeded from the\nLord! How truly great, how far above the common weakness of humanity,\nappears the man after God's own heart, at the taking of the city of\nRabbah!**** \"He brought forth the people that were therein, and put them\nunder saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made\nthem pass through the brick-kiln!\" O ye greatly inexorable heroes! ye\nJews! ye Spaniards! ye firm and zealous of antient and modern times, if\nany such exist! pity the wretch who admires your virtues, but whose\npen trembles, and whose eye overflows at the recital of your deeds! And\nthou, O mighty and benevolent Power, forgive the heart that, shocked\nat the tortures inflicted on thy creatures, is unwilling to acknowledge\nthee as the author of them!\n\n     * Johua vi. 21.\n\n     ** Joshua x. 10.\n\n     *** Joshua xi. 20.\n\n     **** 2 Sam. xii. 29, 31.\n\n\n19. The most rational men reject the science of magic or witchcraft, as\na silly imposition on the credulity of mankind; but we believers,\nwho have nothing to do with reason, but are guided by the indefinable\nfaculty called _faith_, are perfectly ready to admit it, and deplore the\ninfidelity of that parliament, which repealed the acts by which so many\nof that profession lost their lives.\n\nThe witch of Endor,** and the Jewish law, both prove by divine argument,\nthe existence of such professors, though, like miracles, they have now\nceased to appear. But notwithstanding this, we should be glad of an\nargument or two from you, our spiritual directors, which might establish\nthis important point of doctrine, as well in the minds of reasonable\nmen, as in the minds of men, who, by means of the additional faculty\n_faith_, are above reason.\n\n    ** Sam. xxviii.\n\n\n20. In the last battle of Saul with the Philistines* near Gilboa, Saul\nbeing sorely wounded, requested his armour-bearer to draw his sword, and\nrun him through, but his armour-bearer would not; therefore Saul took\na sword and fell upon it; and when his armour-bearer saw that Saul was\ndead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.** David was\nat this time returned from the pursuit of the Amalekites, when, on the\nthird day after Saul's death, a young man came out of the camp from\nSaul, with his clothes rent, and earth upon his head. He brought the\nnews of Saul's death, the circumstances of which, upon David's enquiry,\nhe reported to be, that coming by chance upon Mount Gilboa, he beheld\nthat Saul leaned on his spear, and that the chariots and horsemen\nfollowed hard after him. Saul looking behind him, called the young man,\nand requested him to slay him: so I stood upon him, said the young man,\nand slew him, because I was sure he could not live after he was fallen;\nand I took the crown that was on his head, and the bracelet that was on\nhis arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord. David rewarded the\nmistaken compassion of this young man, by commanding him to be put to\ndeath.\n\n     * 1 Sam. xxxi.\n\n     ** 2 Sam. i.\n\n\nHow do our adversaries, the infidels, exclaim against the barbarity of\nDavid, when they read this melancholy history! What! say they, is this\nthe mild, the merciful David? Is this the man after God's own heart? Is\nhe not rather the tyrant--the inhuman despot? What effort of holy zeal\ncould stimulate him to murder the young man, who had performed the last\noffices of humanity to Saul; who, in the agonies of death, had himself\nbesought him to put an end to his lingering miseries? Why should this\nidol of the Christians, this man after God's own heart, embrue his hands\nin the blood of the youth, who supposed he had done a charitable office\nto the deserted and expiring monarch, whom this David pretended to\nlament, and who, at the same time, gave such endearing proofs of loyalty\nto him himself, by presenting him with the regal ornaments? But we,\nthe faithful, who can easily explain all scripture mysteries, say, that\nthough David was really one of the greatest of sinners, yet he truly\nrepented him before he died. Our enemies, the unbelievers, say no; that\nit is false, and they quote the very Book of Books* against us for their\nauthority.\n\n     * 1 Kings ii. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.\n\n\nThey say if David ever repented, or was ever truly pious, we shall\ncertainly perceive it, in his behaviour during his last moments, on\nhis death bed. There, say they, it is to be hoped, we shall find him\nforgiving his enemies, and dying in charity with all mankind. This is\nwhat all mankind in general make a point of doing, from the saint to the\nmalefactor. David, therefore, must certainly give us an extraordinary\ninstance of his attention to this important evidence of contrition.\n\nBut what shall we think, say these enemies of our holy religion, when we\nsee this Nero of the Hebrews, this man after God's own heart, this idol\nof the Christians, die in a manner uniform and consistent with the whole\ncourse of his life? What will be our reflections, when we find him, with\nhis last accents, delivering two cruel and inhuman murders in charge to\nhis son Solomon? Murders still farther aggravated by the included crimes\nof ingratitude and perjury! One of them to be executed on his old and\nfaithful general, Joab, who powerfully assisted him on all occasions,\nand who adhered to him in all his extremities; till at the last, when\nhe had justifiable cause of chagrin, but who, notwithstanding, had not\nappeared in actual hostility against him, but only drank a glass of wine\nwith the malcontents. His other charge was against Shimea, who reviled\nDavid at his retreat from Jerusalem, during his son Absalom's rebellion;\nbut who made his submission to him when he returned victorious, and\nwhose pardon David had sealed with a solemn oath. All these commands,\nsay the infidels, were executed in a manner truly worthy the son of such\na father! These, Christians, say our enemies, are the outlines of the\nlife of a Jew, whom, according to the Book of Books, or, more properly\nspeaking, priestcraft, you are not ashamed' to continue extolling as a\nman after _God's own heart!_ What an impiety, say the infidels, to the\nMajesty of Heaven!\n\nWherefore we, the true believers, pray that your Lordships will\nsatisfactorily answer and explain all those doubts and objections\nbrought forward against us by infidel philosophers and writers; and\nif unanswerable, that your Lordships will, with true Christian zeal,\nprocure an act of parliament to be passed, in order to prevent any more\ndoubts whatever being entertained by the enemies of our holy faith and\nreligion, as by law established.\n\nNone but infidels, it is true, would utter impieties like the above;\nbut, alas, 'the infidels of our days have become formidable to the true\nbelievers, by an attention to morality, and the mild and gentle offices\nof pity, and by warning their fellow-citizens to avoid and detest the\ncruelties of religious persecution: how egregiously they mistake! Your\nLordships will rectify their notions, it is to be hoped, in these as\nwell as in other respects.\n\nThey have an argument still more formidable against the truth of the\nforegoing accounts, concerning the death of Saul, which is, that they\nare so very different, that one of them must be false. To this we can\nonly answer, as it becomes the faithful in all such cases of seeming\ncontradiction; namely, that they were both written by the pen of\ninspiration, consequently must both be true, however contradictory or\nabsurd they may seem to mere human reason.\n\n21. David commanded that the children of Judah should be taught the\nuse of the bow: behold, it is written in the Book of Jasher.* Many\ndifficulties arise here about the Book of Jasher. It was extant previous\nto the writing the Book of Joshua,** the author of that book quoting it,\nand by the foregoing text it appears, it was not finished till after\nthe accession of David to the throne of Israel. Now, if Joshua wrote the\naccount of his own transactions, as is generally believed, the author of\nJasher must have lived upwards of four hundred years; and if the Book of\nJoshua was not written till after the time of David, and by an unknown\nauthor, the infidels will affirm, that it comes under the description\nwhich is at the beginning of the second of these questions. And the\nmisfortune is, we do not know how to confute them, but we hope\nyour Lordships will easily remove this, among many Other very great\ndifficulties, now your long dormant seal is at length awakened. Our\nenemies have reproached us with the examples of the primitive church;\nthey observe, that the priests were poor and indefatigable, but are now\npampered and lazy. Fat benefices and lordly bishoprics, they say, cause\na total eclipse of the light of religion, by obtruding, their opake\nsubstances between the eye of the priest and the kingdom of Heaven. But,\nalas, how palpably they mistake!\n\n     * 2 Sara. i. 18.\n\n     ** Josh. x. 13.\n\n\nThe ancient priests were ignorant of their business; they despised\nriches, because they knew no better, or, perhaps, because they could not\nget them. But how are the understandings of men enlightened! how great\nthe wisdom of the modern times! how are the sciences improved! Has it\nnot been for many centuries discovered, that pain and mortification are\nfit companions for the devil, and therefore totally improper for\nsaints? Can a poor wretch, inured to penury and the scourge, be suddenly\nreconciled to happiness and Heaven? Instead of enjoying the manna of the\npromised land, would he not be prescribing himself a fast; and when it\nbecame him to sleep recumbent on his couch of blessedness, would he\nnot envy the damned their whips and scorpions? So difficult it is to\neradicate long confirmed habits. But wherefore dwell on so unprofitable\na subject? The wisdom of our divines has taught them to avoid such\nabsurdities, to detest such errors. They will not lose their relish for\npleasure, for want of practice.\n\n\n29. David, by the instigation of the Lord, numbered the people-of\nIsrael and Judah;* but afterwards, being probably ignorant by whose\ninstigation he had acted, he repented of the deed. This repentance\ndid not excuse him in the sight of the Lord, who offered him to chuse\neither, \"seven years\" famine, three months defeat before his enemies, or\nthree days pestilence.\n\nDavid chose the latter, and seventy thousand men died. This memorable\nevent has not escaped the inspired penman of the Book of Chronicles,**\nwho affirms, \"that Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked\nDavid to number them;\" but God was displeased with this thing, and\ntherefore smote Israel. David repenting, was offered from God his\nchoice, either \"three years famine, three months destruction before\nhis enemies, or three days pestilence the latter of which he chose, and\nthere died of Israel seventy thousand men.\n\nOur too curious and inquisitive opposers, who are unwilling to believe\n\"cunningly devised fables,\"*** enquire how it could be a crime in David\nto number the people, especially as it was by the instigation of the\nLord. They beg to be informed, whether the Lord, and Satan, be one and\nthe same person; and if not, which of the two was the instigator of\nthis unhappy, business, and likewise which of the two \"infallible\" and\n\"inspired\" writers tells the lie? Lastly, they cannot conceive how the\nseven years famine in the Book of Samuel is dwindled into three in the\nChronicles. To all these questions we answer, that it was sufficient to\nmake this action of David's criminal, that the Lord disliked it after it\nwas done; and as to its being done by his instigation, we must observe,\nthat it is no uncommon thing for the Lord to be angry with his servants\nfor obeying his commands.\n\n     * 2 Sam. xxiv.\n\n     **1 Chron. xxi.\n\n     ***  2 Pet. i. 10.\n\n\n23. The instance of Balaam is a case in point.* Hence we infer, that,\nin the commands of the Lord, there is always a clause implied or\nunderstood, which leaves it to the discretion of the faithful to act as\nthey think proper. It is true, that this position leads immediately to\nthe doctrines of the Jesuits, which have been so universally abhorred:\nbut why need we regard the abhorrence of the world, while we are\nconvinced that our tenets are scriptural? With regard to the affairs\nof Satan and the Lord, we leave it to your Lordships' management; but\ncannot help observing with derision, the futility of the objections\nrespecting the three and seven years' famine. They have little skill\nin divine arithmetic, if this affords them any embarrassment. They know\nnothing of the sublime logic by which divines prove three to be one, and\none to be three. For example, if it were affirmed that Eldon is a Lord,\nCastlereagh is a Lord, and Sidmouth is a Lord, and yet they are not\nthree Lords, but one Lord, this would be termed absolute and ridiculous\nnonsense, notwithstanding their close Ministerial union. But in holy\nmatters it is quite otherwise,** as might easily be elucidated\nby instances too sacred to be commented upon by any unconsecrated\nindividual.\n\n     * Qu. 16.\n\n     ** See an excellent specimen of this in the Creed commonly\n     ascribed to St. Athanasius.\n\n\n94. Another instance of the imperfection of the art of arithmetic, as it\nis erroneously taught in our schools, appears in its affording no rule\nby which the two genealogies of Jesus Christ may be reconciled to each\nother. Matthew reckons twenty-seven generations from David to Christ.\nLuke reckons forty-two; and the names totally disagree. Matthew traces\nthe descent from Solomon, and Luke from Nathan, both sons of David.\nAccording to our feeble notions, twenty-seven cannot be equal to\nforty-two, neither can Nathan, &c. be imagined to be Solomon, &c. The\ninfidels suppose, that the two evangelists, rather than the church\nshould be without the genealogy of its founder, chose to invent them;\nbut we good Christians, who know that both writers were infallible and\ninspired, are ready to reject the clearest axioms of mere human science,\nand allow that, in sacred matters, the greater number may be equal to\nthe less. These cavillers and infidels also demand how these genealogies\nof Joseph prove, that Jesus was the son of David, when it is avowed that\nJoseph was not his father? But they do not consider, that a married man\nis obliged to father all the children his wife may produce; and if this\nanswer does not satisfy them, they must at all events confess, that\nJoseph was father-in-law to Jesus, by being married to his mother;\nconsequently Jesus was son (in-law) to Joseph, Q. E. D. As there is no\nanswering for the perverseness of men, there may perhaps be some, whom\neven this demonstration will not satisfy. To these we offer an argument\ndiscovered by the truly profound Mr. Pascal.* He justly observes, that\nwhen two witnesses disagree in the circumstances of a fact, we ought to\nbelieve them so much the more readily on that account, as it shews that\nthey did not contrive the story in concert. This remark, it is to be\nhoped, will likewise put an end to the absurd custom which prevails in\nour courts of justice, of discrediting evidences, which, contradict each\nother, such contradictions being in reality a mark of truth, \"_a ceux\nqui prennent bien les choses_.\"\n\n     * Les \"faiblesses\" les plus apparentes sont des \"forces\" \u00e0\n     ceux qui prennent bien les choses, Par example les deux\n     geneo logies de St. Matthieu, et de St. Luc, il est visible,\n     que cela n'a paset\u00e8 fait de concept. Voyes remarques sur les\n     Pensees de Pastal Ed. Geneve, 1773.\n\n\n25. It is mouch to be wished, that some of our spiritual directors, who\nhave leisure time and large incomes, would be at the pains to rectify\nand adjust to the standard of holy writ, the many errors and omissions\nof profane historians.\n\nWhen Christ was baptized by John, the heavens were, opened, and a\nvoice was heard, declaring his divine origin. Such a prodigy must have\nawakened the attention of all Judea; yet we find the historians totally\nsilent on the matter. It is strange, that the horrid massacre of\nthe children by the command of Herod should be totally unnoticed by\nJosephus, and even by the evangelists, Mark, Luke, and John.* Matthew\nalone mentions it; but his authority is fully sufficient to justify\nan interpolation (like many others) into the text of the other three\nevangelists, who are defective in that particular.\n\n     * If such an act of cruelty had been committed, it could not\n     by any contrivance have been concealed, and Josephus, the\n     inveterate enemy of Herod, and many of the most impartial\n     historians of the Romans, living at that period, would have\n     taken care to record such a public act of barbarity on the\n     part of Herod.\n\n     Editor.\n\n\nIt is well known with what success the primitive Christians began the\nholy work of interpolating, suppressing, forging, and altering profane\nhistories; but as we believe their piety always prevented their meddling\nwith the sacred text, notwithstanding the arguments of infidels, who\nattempt to prove the contrary, these holy frauds have been found of\ninfinite service in establishing the cause of Christianity. Why do we\nforbear to pursue their great and laudable example? The modesty or the\nmistaken candour of these antients* have allowed them to interpolate\nno more than one paragraph concerning Jesus into the text of Josephus.\nWould it not shew our superior zeal, and be of infinite service to\nposterity, if some divine of the present age would incorporate the whole\nnarrative of Matthew into the same text? But, alas, the sneers of our\nadversaries, the unbelievers, have prevailed too much, and good works,\nlike these, are now no more!\n\n26. About eighteen centuries ago, (according to the prophecy of Christ\nand his apostle Paul,** the sun was darkened, the moon ceased to give\nlight, and the stars fell from heaven; the sign of the Son of Man was\nseen, the Lord himself descended from heaven with a shout, the trumpets\nof the archangels were heard, the dead in Christ arose, St. Paul and\nothers of the elect, who were then living, were caught up in the clouds,\nwent to meet the Lord in the air, and have been with him ever since. It\nis truly astonishing, that a phenomenon so awful as the destruction of\nthe system of nature should have made no interruption in the state of\nnations and affairs at that time, that all the historians should omit to\nrecord so dreadful an event, nay, that they should survive it; and that\nthe primitive fathers should forbear to mention a circumstance which was\nso well calculated to establish the Christian religion, and confute\nall the arguments of the Jews, heathens, and unbelievers. When your\nLordships set about the great work of rectifying antient histories,\nyou will doubtless be careful to insert an account of this tremendous\noccurrence; for Christians can have no doubt but that it really\nhappened, since it was so directly foretold both in time and\ncircumstances, by Christ and his apostle Paul.\n\n     * Josephus, de Antiq. Jud. lib. xviii. cap. 4.\n\n     ** Matt. xvi. 27, 28.--Matt. xxiv. 29, 34.--Mark xiii. 24,\n     31.--Lukexxi. 25, 33.--1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.\n\n\n27. The oracles of Delphos were obscure and capable of various\ninterpretations, but the prophecies of sacred writ are all so clear and\nobvious, they shine so bright by their own native lustre, that no one\nhas ever pretended to doubt their divine origin, except those infidels\nwho are unfortunately blinded by the too great suffusion of light, which\nthe Scriptures so continually emit. If the gift of curing the blind\nbe not entirely lost among the apostles of the present day, it must be\nChristian charity to describe the symptoms of their disorder, that your\nLordships may attempt the cure. These unfortunate people observe, that\nGod said to Adam concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil,*\n\"In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die;\" he\ntransgressed, and, nevertheless, lived at least eight hundred years\nafterwards. They observe, that the great evangelical prophet Isaiah,*\ncould foresee the downfall of Babylon by Cyrus, but could not tell\nthe name of the Messiah, though his coming was an event of infinitely\ngreater consequence; nay, they even charge him with a blunder, if\nwe admit the opinion, that Christ was intended by the names,\nMahershalal-hash-baz and Immanuel,** since he was never called by them.\nBut they impiously solve this, difficulty, by affirming, that Isaiah\nmight take the advantage of writing his prophecy concerning Cyrus after\nthe events took place, but could not avail himself of the same pious\ncunning in the affair of the Messiah. And, in fact, we, the true\nbelievers, are in great want of evidence to overthrow their supposition.\nThey demand, if the prophecies be so evident and clear, so different\nfrom those of the Heathens, how happened it that the whole Jewish\nnation, then living, together with the angel Gabriel, should mistake,\nand suppose the kingdom of the Messiah to be temporal; and that it\nshould not be discovered that his kingdom was not of this world, until\nhis enemies, the unbelievers, had prevailed and sent him out of it? They\nask, whether those inspired writers who prophesied concerning things of\nno consequence, as the thirty pieces of silver, and the casting lots for\nhis garments, could not, with equal certainty, have predicted the more\nimportant circumstances of his death and resurrection? In short, they\nbeg to be shewn a single prophecy concerning which divines are agreed,\nand desire to know why, in the days of gospel light, the great prophecy\nof John the Divine should be more obscure and enigmatical than any which\nwas written during the typical and shadowy dispensation of Moses? All\nwhich absurd questions your Lordships will, no doubt, answer, overthrow,\nand expose in the most palpable manner, to the great joy of us weak\nChristians.\n\n     * Isaiah xiv. and xlv.\n\n     **  Iaiah\n\n     *** Luke i. 32.\n\n\n28. How came it to pass, say our enemies, the cavillers and unbelievers,\nthat Jesus, the Son of God, should curse a fig-tree* for being without\nfruit in March; was he, by whom the world was made,** ignorant that it\nwas not the season for figs? They likewise demand, whether it was by\ndesign or mistake that he affirmed*** that wheat does not produce\nfruit unless it first die? If Scripture was not meant to instruct\nphilosophers, yet why should it mislead them? But though these infidels\nmay please to assert, that wheat in our days is governed by laws\ndirectly contrary to these, as all naturalists indeed acknowledge,\nyet who can affirm that it was so eighteen hundred years ago? On the\ncontrary, since these things are recorded in the sacred writings, we\nought to submit and believe that the system of Nature is changed from\nwhat it was in ancient times. This event probably came to pass when\nthe sun was darkened, and the stars fell from Heaven, as mentioned in a\nformer question.\n\n     * Matt. xxi. 18. Mark xi. 13, 20.\n\n     ** John i. 3.\n\n     *** John xii. 24. |\n\n     **** Quest. 26.\n\n\n29. Your Lordships, no doubt, will readily explain and settle the\nmysterious disagreement between John the Baptist and Jesus Christ.* John\nbeing asked if he was Elias, answered, I am not; but Jesus** affirms,\nthe contrary. As few even of the Christians have faith enough to believe\nthat John was and was not Elias at the same time, a word or two of\nexplanation would afford them infinite satisfaction. Commentators in\ndivinity can do miracles in the way of explaining; but, unfortunately\nfor us, all other miracles have long ceased, though at no time so much\nwanted as at present.\n\n\n30. Out of forty Gospels we receive four as canonical; the rest are the\nfruitful produce of that spirit of forgery which the Christian world has\nalways been celebrated for. Their piety was indefatigable in burning\nthe books of the heretics and unbelievers, and the same piety was not\nsparing in furnishing apocryphal books. It is for the salvation of\nmankind that Christianity should prevail; and how can its propagation\nbe advanced, and its dominion confirmed, more than by preventing\nthe arguments against it from being exposed to view? Some may indeed\npretend, that this mode of proceeding is tyrannical, and destructive of\nthe rights of mankind; but we, the faithful, insist that it is zealous\nand politic. How can a man be said to be injured, even if we allow\nthat he is cheated, since he is cheated into salvation, though perhaps\nagainst his will? Yet it will be doing a singular service to us\nweaker Christians, if your Lordships will point out by what particular\nemanation of the Holy Spirit the Church was enabled to select the divine\nout of such a number of apocryphal writings.\n\n     * John i. 21.\n\n     ** Matt. xi. 14.\n\n\nOur enemies, the infidels, say, that time has obliterated the primitive\ndisputes on this subject, and that the sanction of custom has confirmed\nthe authority of the four Gospels, which, so far from external and\nhistorical, have not even the internal evidence of truth. They observe,\nthat the gospel of Mark, though evidently an abridgement of that of\nMatthew, yet differs from it in many very material particulars; that the\ngrand circumstance of the conspiracy by which Christ lost his life,\nis told differently and discordantly by all the four. They express the\nhighest astonishment that the sending of Jesus to Herod by Pilate should\nbe related by Luke, and that the other three Evangelists should not only\nomit that occurrence, but relate the proceedings in this affair so as\nentirely to exclude the possibility of its insertion. They think it also\nimpossible that an earthquake should rend rocks, and that many saints\nshould arise from the dead, and go into the holy city, as Matthew\nrelates; and yet that these great events should not only have escaped\ncontemporary historians, but even the other three Evangelists. And to\nthis they add, that it is particularly strange and amazing that John,\nwho was present at the crucifixion,* should not only forbear to\nmention any one of the terrible appearances recorded in Matthew on that\noccasion, but that even the darkness of three hours' duration, which\nmust have made the most lasting impression on every individual in Judea,\nshould also be by him totally unnoticed.\n\n     * Such as we behold even in the present enlightened day by\n     that great prophetess, Joanna Southcott, and her followers!\n     who are now deceiving the people of this kingdom with her\n     prophecies. Edit.\n\n\n31. The malevolence and incredulity of our adversaries, the unbelievers,\nare visible in nothing so much as the criticisms they make on the\nresurrection. They complain, and with some degree of reason, that\nthis most miraculous and important event, instead of possessing that\nextraordinary and uncommonly clear evidence, which its incredible nature\nrequires, bears, on the contrary, every mark of a forgery. Instead of\nChrist's re-appearing to all the world, that the world might believe,\nhe is said to have appeared to his disciples, who were the only men on\nearth whose evidence could be exceptionable in the case; men who already\nengaged in the attempt of forming a sect or party,* could by no means\nbe disinterested in their report; the only men on earth who could be\nsuspected of forgery in the present instance. These are the men, say\nour enemies, who were to preach Jesus Christ to the world, and to\nfind arguments to support the fact, which Christ might have\n_uncontrovertibly_ established by appearing again in public. But the\ngeneration was unworthy of that condescension, we reply, which they\nwickedly paraphrase thus: \"God, who desireth: not the death of a sinner,\nleft them in their sins, that they might die--God, who spared not his\nbeloved Son, but gave him to the bitterness of death, that _sinners\nmight be saved_, chose, nevertheless, to deprive all mankind of the\nproper _evidence of the resurrection_, because the Jews of that age were\n_sinners!_\" Mercy is the character of the first act, but how shall we\ncharacterize the latter? Is the God of the _Christians_ inconsistent\nwith himself? Did the great and merciful Being act thus? Did he inspire\nfour men to write accounts of the _resurrection_,* which disagree with\neach other in almost every circumstance? Does his divine truth bear the\nresemblance of forgery and invention, that we may shew our faith and\nreliance on him, by making a sacrifice of our reason; and believing\nby an act, not of the understanding but of the will? But why, O thou\nSupreme Governor! why hast thou given us reason, if reason be the\naccursed thing which we ought to cast from us? Or rather, is not reason\nthe first and only revelation from thee; and are not those enthusiasts\naccursed, who, promulgating vile systems unworthy of thee, find their\nbase purposes are not to be accomplished, till they have first deprived\nus of thy best gift?\n\n     * See the concluding chapters of the four Evangelists.\n\n\nThese, my Lords, are the reflections of infidels and unbelievers;\nreflections which our truly Christian zeal and detestation would have\nprevented us from repeating, if we had not been supported by a pleasing\nanticipation of the glorious and satisfactory manner in which they will\nbe answered, explained, and overthrown by your Lordships, to the entire\nsatisfaction and conviction of us weak Christians. Not by persecution,\npains, penalties, fines and imprisonment, otherwise the unbelievers\nwill then sneeringly say, that your Lordships are incapable of answering\nthem, or, what is more unfortunate, that they are really unanswerable.\n\n\nFINIS.","title":"The Doubts of Infidels: Or, Queries Relative to Scriptural Inconsistencies & Contradictions","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":9162}