most convincing and illustrious attestations. These things at length brought a terrible destruction upon them. And it becomes us not to be high-minded but fear,' as the apostle Paul advises on this occasion. A conduct like theirs, when once it becomes general among any people, is the surest way to expose them to God's heavy displeasure, and to the most grievous calamities. I cannot but think the natural tendency of the attempts made by this writer, and others of his spirit, is to bring us into this condition; but I hope God will, in his infinite mercy, make their endeavours as vain and ineffectual, as they are wicked and unreasonable.

CHAPTER VIII.

A transition to the author's objections against other parts of the Old Testament. Concerning the two different turns or distinct popular appearances which he pretends the Spirit of Prophecy took in Israel. And first concerning the Urim and Thummim. His account of the original and design of that oracle considered. The attempt he makes to destroy the credit of it, because of the part it had in the war against the Benjamites for the injury done to the Levite and his concubine at Gibeah. That whole transaction particularly considered. His account of the ceasing of that oracle, and the reasons he assigns for it examined. The order of prophets, by his own confession a wise and excellent institution. The strange inconsistent representation he gives of their character and conduct. The way he takes to account for their foretelling future events, shown to be insufficient. Their predictions not merely general and ambiguous, but clear, express, and circumstantial. The difference between the false prophets and the true, considered. No argument to be drawn from the former to the disadvantage of the latter.

HAVING Considered this writer's objections against the law of Moses, our way is clear to proceed to what he hath advanced in his book against other parts of the Old Testament. He sets himself with all his might to ridicule and expose the spirit of prophecy under that dispensation. He undertakes to prove, pp. 265, 267, that the prophets were not infallible, and that they never believed themselves to be so, but were under a necessity to talk as they did,' that is, as he had expressed it just before, to talk in the miraculous supernatural way, and make themselves the infallible oracles of God to the people:' though they knew well enough, that they were not immediately inspired by God, and that he had not sent them at all. And he thinks, or pretends to think, they were not blameable for this. It was only the effect of human prudence. They might falsify and deceive without injury, and secure their own private interest for the public good.' And he intimates that

'a wise and good man' may do so, and that till a man knows the secret of doing this, he knows nothing of human nature, or human life,' pp. 266, 267. Thus I find it is a maxim with our moral philosopher, si populus vult decipi, decipiatur ; and that upon occasion, he could himself act the prophet, and pretend immediate inspiration and revelations from God, if he thought it would answer his end with the people. But the ancient prophets were of a very different spirit, and governed themselves by quite different maxims and principles.

But let us see what proof he brings to show that they were neither extraordinarily inspired by God, nor believed themselves to be so. And first he begins with observing, that the spirit of prophecy in Israel, or the spirit of infallibly declaring the mind and will of God, took two different turns or distinct popular appearances.' From the days of Moses to Samuel, the oracle of Urim and Thummim was established as the last resort in judgment, and then it fell into disgrace, and Samuel instituted the order of prophets.

And first he begs leave to give a brief history of the first and grand device,' as he calls it, the oracle of Urim and Thummim,' p. 267, &c. He insinuates, that the original of it is to be ascribed to the people's having been much amused and surprised with the infallible declarations and decisions of Jupiter Hammon; and then after running out for three or four pages together into his common place of invectives against the Jews, he observes, p. 272, that it is absolutely necessary to the ends of government, that in every society there shall be some dernier resort, or ultimate appeal in judgAnd this last and ultimate appeal in Israel, by the establishment of Moses, was to the oracle of Urim and Thummin. And this last decision was made by the high-priest as by a living oracle, who gave his answer, viva voce, while he sat with the Urim and Thummin in judgment. And while he wore this sitting in judgment, it was presumed that he was both infallible and impeccable, or that his voice and decision was the undoubted organized voice of God. But the voice of this oracle was soon found to be the voice of the priest,' p. 268. And then he proceeds to what he calls a remarkable proof that this oracle was neither infallible nor impeccable,' p. 273.

As to his insinuation about the oracle of Jupiter Hammon, he shows his inclination to draw a parallel between the pagan oracles and the spirit of prophecy under the Old Testament dispensation; but he offers no proof for it, and we shall hardly think his own word a sufficient authority. And what he there observes concerning the doubtfulness and ambiguity of the oracular declarations, which always gave them room enough for an evasion; and that the oracle was never particular enough to be tied down to time and circumstance,' p. 268, is no way applicable to the many particular express and circumstantial predictions under the Old Testament. Particularly with regard to the oracle of Urim and Thummin; it is a just observation of the learned Dr. Prideaux, that the name of Urim and Thummin, that is, light and perfection (though this

K

author shows his skill in the original by rendering it truth and righteousness) were given only to denote the clearness and perfection which these oracular answers always carried with them; for these answers were not like the heathen oracles, enigmatical and ambiguous; but always clear and manifest; not such as did ever fall short of perfection, either of fulness in the answer, or certainty in the truth of it.' See Prid. Connect. part I. book 3. And it is certain that the answers of this oracle recorded in Scripture are clear, explicit, and direct to the questions propounded to it.

When our author represents the oracle of Urim and Thummim, as appointed to be the last resort in judgment,' to which, by Moses's establishment, the ultimate appeal in Israel was to be made; and describes the high priest as sitting with the Urim and Thummin in judgment,' and making the last decision;' as if in judicial causes the last resort or appeal lay to this oracle; this is a gross misrepresentation, either through ignorance or design. The Urim and Thummin was not established for deciding causes in judgment, which were decided in another method; but for asking counsel of God, and that not in private affairs, but in affairs relating to the public, to the king, or some chief governor, or the whole people of Israel. Thus Moses saith concerning Joshua (and the Jews very justly interpret it as extending to the succeeding governors) that he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him, after the judgment of Urim before the Lord : at his word shall they go out, and at his word shall they come in, both he and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation,' Numb. xxxvii. 21. Where by their going out,' and coming in,' the Jews understand particularly, the making war according to the import of that phrase in the Scripture language. And this was well suited to the nature of their government as a theocracy. As God had condescended to enter into a special relation to them, as in a peculiar sense their king and governor, so he not only from time to time raised up extraordinary persons to judge and govern them, the appointing of which he reserved to himself out of what tribe he pleased; but by the oracle of Urim and Thummim, he directed how they were to proceed in their most important public affairs. This was an act of great goodness and condescension in God, and an inestimable privilege to the Israelites, the advantage of which they would have enjoyed if they had persisted in their obedience, and kept the covenant.* They would, in that case, never have wanted his gracious direction as far as was necessary to their security and support. Thus it pleased God to indulge that advantage to his chosen people in reality, to which the heathens vainly pretended by their oracles. As to the particular manner in

It did not depend on the high-priest to give answers by the Urim and Thummim whenever he pleased; it depended wholly on the will of God, who might, in token of his just displeasure against them for their sins, see fit to withhold bis direction by this oracle, either from the chief rulers or the people, though they applied to him for that purpose. An instance of which we have in Saul, who could obtain no answer from God by Urim, though he earnestly desired it.

which this oracle was delivered, I shall not enter into a disquisition, which hath sufficiently employed the learned: the reader may see a short and judicious account of it in Dr. Prideaux in the place above cited.

6

But however that be, this writer pronounces, that it is certain, this oracle was neither infallible nor impeccable:' of which he tells us a 'remarkable proof happened under the high priesthood of Phineas, the grandson of Aaron.' And then he goes on to tell the story after his own way concerning the injury done to the Levite and his concubine at Gibeah; upon which the whole tribe of Benjamin, by the decision of the oracle, was doomed to destruction and that this was done without the least truth, natural honour, or common justice, is evident from the story itself.' And after having represented the fact in such a manner as he thought would best answer his design, he observes, that nothing was done in this whole affair but under the counsel and direction of Phineas, the high priest, who was then the living oracle of God in Israel.' And that this makes it evident that the oracle was neither infallible nor impeccable so far from it, that he encouraged and prompted the people to the most bloody and cruel outrage, that had ever been known or heard of: and an injury done to a single Levite was thought fit to be revenged by cutting off a whole tribe, root and branch, without any regard to natural justice, or the least bowels of mercy and compassion. And that from this time the oracle fell into disgrace, and we hear no more of it for above three hundred years,' see pp. 273-281. This story serves the author for more purposes than one. As he produces it here to destroy the credit of the oracle of Urim and Thummim; so he had mentioned it before, pp. 140, 141, as containing a plain proof that 'Levi was a tribe exempted from the jurisdiction of the law, and protected against it and that there was no law for priests and Levites at that time.' Where also he represents that whole transaction as a scene of wickedness, injustice, and priestcraft.'

I shall particularly examine the author's account of this matter, by which it will appear how little he is to be trusted in his accounts of things, who can allow himself such a scope in misrepresentation in a story so well known. He discovers from first to last not a disposition to find out the truth, or represent the fact fairly as it was, but a most violent inclination, first, to make it look as black as pospossible, and then to lay the whole blame of it upon the oracle. And where he does not find the story for his purpose, to make it so.

The poor injured Levite has incurred his displeasure; for what reason I know not, except because he was a Levite. He calls him once and again the drunken Levite,' p. 141, and p. 280, though there is not word of his drunkenness in the whole story. He insinuates indeed, that the Levite got drunk at his father-in-law's, particularly the day he came away. His father-in-law desired him to stay and comfort his heart :' but it happens that the text only tells that they tarried till noon, and did eat both of them,' Judg. xix. 8. If it had been said, they drank both of them, it might

have passed with this author for a strong proof, thongh I believe it will be allowed that people may drink together without being drunk. He observes also that we are told, that the Levite and the old Ephraimite that entertained him at his house, 'cheered their hearts, and made merry together,' as if he thought it impossible for persons to cheer their hearts, and to refresh and entertain themselves and their friends without being drunk. But these things are easily distinguishable in themselves, whatever they are to this author. Another proof of his good will to the Levite, is his calling his concubine 'his whore;' though every body that is at all versed in these matters, knows that a concubine was a real wife, but without a dowry. And in the present case, the Levite is several times called her husband, and her father is called his father-inlaw and this the author very well knew, for in relating the story he calls them so himself. And yet he has it over and over again, 'a certain Levite with his eloped concubine or whore; the Levite's concubine or rather whore; a drunken Levite and his whore,' pp. 273, 276, 278, 280.

:

As to the Levite's wife or concubine, he saith, p. 275, that it 'is plain from the story itself, that before her elopement she had been a common whore.' It appears indeed from the story according to our translation, Judg. xix. 2, that she had proved unfaithful to his bed, but nothing is said to fix upon her the character of a 'common whore.' This is supplied by the author's own imagination. But the word which our translators render' she played the whore against him,' is in the Septuagint rendered, ¿πoρɛún àπ' avrou,' she went away from him, or forsook him; and some copies have it, wpyiên aur, she was angry at him. And Grotius observes that the Hebrew word there made use of, which properly signifies to play the whore, may also be used to signify an alienation of mind or affection. Jonathan cited by Vatablus has it, cum sprevisset eum; and to the same purpose Kimchi cited by Lud. De Dieu, despexit eum ; she despised him: And some judicious commentators conclude from the readiness he showed to be reconciled, and his 'speaking soft comfortable words to her,' or as the Hebrew phrase is, speaking to her heart,' ver. 3, that she was not guilty of adultery. For then it is probable he would not have so solicitously sought for a reconciliation, nor would it have been lawful for him to do so. And indeed, her going to her father's house (for it does not appear that she was turned out, but that she went away of herself) and continuing there four months, looks more like a family quarrel upon some other account, than like the act of a common whore, who in all probability would have shunned her father's house as well as ber husband's; and could not well have expected a refuge or entertainment there. Another attempt our author makes to disguise the story is, that he would fain insinuate, that the Levite and his concubine had raised the mob of Gibeah against them by their ill and lewd behaviour. How this drunken Levite and his whore behaved themselves, with what decency and civility on their coming into the city, is not said: but this is plain, that they had raised a