regard to the laws he had been pleased to give them. All that can be said in that case is, that it was a most amazing condescension, and a wonderful grace and goodness, and so it is that he should concern himself with mankind at all. And as this author seems to think it unworthy of the Divine Majesty to concern himself so particularly in the direction and government of that people, so there have been persons that from pretended high thoughts of God, have judged it unworthy of his greatness to concern himself with men or their affairs at all, and thus have been for complimenting him out of his Providence. And others have denied his continual agency and influence in the government of the world, which they suppose to be a great machine first made and put in motion by a divine hand and then left to itself, and to the laws established in the beginning; under pretence that it is unworthy of him continually to interpose in a way of immediate agency: whom this writer zealously opposes, and seems to account little better than atheists.

But he urges it farther as another absurdity in the literal sense of the story: That such was the interest of Moses with God that he could make him do whatsoever he pleased. He often changed his mind when he had resolved to destroy the people, and prevailed with him to go further when he had determined to leave them and go no further; and this, lest the Egyptians should mock the God of Israel, and say that he was not able to conduct them through the wilderness, and give them possession of the land which he had promised them, and for which he had engaged his honour and veracity, for above 400 years before, to do it at this very time. This was the main topical argument which Moses is said to have used with God, and by which he gained his ends in every thing but the main point, which was the conquest of the country, which these Israelites were never able to do till David's days, about 400 years after the promise to Abraham was expired. It is true they conquered and took possession of a small part of the country upon the mountains; but they could not drive the inhabitants out of the plains, because they had chariots of iron, or because God never enabled them as infantry to stand before the Canaanites' horse.' pp. 252, 253.

As to Moses's interest with God, as he calls it, supposing Moses to have been what he really was, an excellent person, a devout fearer and lover and adorer of the Deity; I can see no absurdity in supposing that he had an interest with God, if by that be meant no more than that God had a regard to his humble and earnest supplications. But that he could not make God do whatsoever he pleased, as this writer ridiculously expresseth it, is evident, because we are there expressly told that he could not procure that his own life should be prolonged, so as to enter actually into the promised land, though he earnestly desired it, see Deut. iii. 23-26. In his prayers for the people we may observe a deep humility and profound reverence for the Divine Majesty, a fervent zeal for the glory of God, and for the interest of true religion in the world, and a most affectionate concern and love for the people, whose welfare he

valued more than his own life, or the particular advancement of himself or his family. These were noble and excellent dispositions, and where is the absurdity of supposing that a wise, and holy, and merciful God, had a regard to the supplications he offered for the people, flowing from such excellent dispositions? Certainly the reflections the author here makes are very little consistent with the zeal he elsewhere seems to express for the duty of prayer, since they are really no other than the objections that others advance against prayer in general. When he talks of God's changing his mind, and altering his resolution upon Moses's addressing him, I ask, is it in no case proper to apply to God by prayer, for obtaining blessings for ourselves or others, and for deprecating evils, or averting threatened or deserved judgments? and may it not well be supposed that God hath a regard to prayer as a necessary condition for obtaining these blessings, or averting those evils? And when he hearkens to those prayers, he cannot be justly said to change his mind, or alter his purpose, since he does no other than what he had before determined to do. For he both foresaw those prayers and determined to hear them, and not to confer those blessings, or avert those judgments, if those prayers had not been offered. There is nothing in all this but what every man must acknowledge who stands up for prayer as a duty.

To apply this to the present case: God had determined to punish and abandon the Israelites for their idolatry and wickedness, if Moses should not interpose and intercede by humble and earnest supplications; but at the same time he perfectly knew that Moses would thus interpose, and had determined to grant his humble request in their behalf. And in this view all is perfectly consistent. He knew that his threatening to forsake and punish them for their sins, would give occasion to that good and excellent man to plead with him by earnest prayer, and thereby show his love to the people, and zeal for the divine glory, which prayers he had determined to grant. And there was a manifest propriety in it, that God should not pardon and restore the people but upon Moses's intercession, as this tended to procure a greater affection and veneration for him in their minds, and to engage them to pay a greater regard to the laws he gave them in the name of God.'"

With regard to the topical argument, as this writer calls it, which Moses made use of in pleading with God for the Israelites; if he had fairly represented it, there would have appeared nothing in it absurd, or unfit for such a man as Moses to make use of, as the case was circumstanced, and for God to have a regard unto. If Moses prayed to God at all to avert deserved judgments from the people, was it not proper for him to use reasons or arguments humbly to enforce his petitions? One would think that this author, who would be thought such an advocate for prayer, and who passes such severe censures on those who ridicule and discard it, should readily grant this. If it be allowable for us to offer up our requests to God, then certainly it must be also allowed to be very proper for us to urge our requests with such reasons or argu

ments as may be fit for reasonable beings to offer to that God who condescends to admit our supplications. Since this tends very much to the exercising and strengthening those good affections and pious dispositions, which it is one great design of the duty of prayer to exercise and improve. Now I cannot see what more proper arguments Moses could have made use of as the case was circumstanced, than what he did. For what arguments can be more fit to be offered to the Supreme Being than those that are drawn from what is becoming his government and excellencies, his wisdom, his faithfulness and truth, his goodness and mercy, and from a regard to the honour of his name, and the interest of true religion in the world? And such as these are the arguments Moses makes use of, as appears from the several passages that relate to this matter, see Exod. xxxii. 9, 14, Numb. xiv. 13-16, Deut. ix. 25-29. Though no doubt his prayers were more at large than is there recorded, and delivered with the greatest humility and earnestness, and it is only a very short abstract and summary of them that is there given us. And the particular argument which this author is pleased to ridicule, was very proper, and of great force, if taken out of his ludicrous and sneering manner of representing it; viz., drawn from the reflections the Egyptians and other idolatrous nations would cast on the only true God, if he destroyed that people whom he had so miraculously delivered, and whom he seemed to have chosen peculiarly to himself; and the occasion they would thence take to harden themselves in their idolatry, and in their opposition to God and his worship; and to charge him with unmercifulness, with breach of promise, or want of power. All this Moses humbly represents in his prayers to God; and God perfectly knew all this before Moses represented it, and had determined to act in a manner becoming his own supreme wisdom and glory. But it was his will that Moses should thus plead with him in order to his showing favour to so guilty people, and averting the judgments he had threatened, and they had deserved. In like manner whenever God hath regard to the humble and earnest prayers of good men, he well knows beforehand all that they can. urge and represent before him, yet he will have these things represented by themselves, as a condition of his doing it for them.

As to what this writer adds, as if God did not after all perform his promise to Abraham and the Israelites, since they were not put in full possession of the promised land till the time of David, 400 years after the time fixed, for that promise was expired; I need not say much to it, since he himself in several passages of his book acknowledges and asserts that this promise was conditional; and that had the conditions been performed by Abraham's family and posterity, no doubt but the grant on God's part had been made good," see p. 259. It is certain that Moses declares to the Israelites in the most solemn manner, calling heaven and earth to witness, that their obtaining the possession of the promised land, and continuing in it depended on their obedience to the divine law, and keeping close to his true worship and service, and that

46

DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

otherwise they themselves should perish out of the land, see Deut. iv. 25, 26, &c., and many other passages to the same purpose. To which it may be added, that it is most expressly again and again declared and foretold, that God would not drive out the Canaanites from before them all at once, but by little and little,' see Exod. xxiii. 29-31, Deut. vii. 22, 23, which was most literally and punctually fulfilled. It is scarce worth while to take notice of his little sneers, though often repeated by the late writers on that side, concerning God's not being able to drive out the inhabitants of the vallies, because they had chariots of iron. The passage referred to is Judges i. 19: And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.' All that can be fairly gathered from this passage, is this, that the tribe of Judah attacked the inhabitants of the mountains, and God prospered and gave them success; but they suffered themselves to be affrighted and disheartened by the iron chariots of the Canaanites that dwelt in the valleys, and therefore durst not venture to attack them. And this their diffidence and distrust, and not the strength of the Canaanites, was the true cause of their not being able to subdue them. When the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh expressed the same apprehensions, Joshua reproves them for their fears, and assures them that if they did not suffer themselves to be discouraged they should drive out the Canaanites, though they were strong, and had iron chariots,' Josh. xvii. 16, 18. And certain it is, that the reason why the men of Judah could not drive out the Canaanites, was not, as this writer is pleased ludicrously to represent it, because the Lord never enabled the Israelites as infantry to stand before the Canaanites' horse.' For Joshua attacked and destroyed a mighty host of the Canaanites, though they had horses and chariots very many,' Josh. xi. 4, 7, 8, 9, and afterwards we find Sisera and his numerous army, with 300 chariots of iron, was entirely defeated by a small number of Israelites under Barak, Judges iv. 3, 7, 15.

This is all that this writer is pleased to offer to show that Moses's history when taken in the literal sense is more absurd and romantic than Homer, or Esop's Fables, or Ovid's Metamorphoses. But though he has discovered a very strong inclination to prove this, nothing can be more miserable than the attempts he has made this way. For any thing that he offers to the contrary, Moses's history still holds good; and the miraculous extraordinary facts were really done as recorded; and if they were, they yield an invincible attestation to the truth and divinity of the laws thus attested and confirmed, and manifestly show them to have proceeded from God. And it cannot without the highest absurdity be supposed, that such glorious exhibitions of the divine power and majesty should ever have been given in favour of an imposture.

I shall next proceed to consider what our author offers against the divine original of the law of Moses from the authority of St. Paul, and the pretended opposition and inconsistency between that law and the New Testament.

47

CHAPTER III.

The Author's Arguments against the law of Moses from the Authority of St. Paul considered. Our Saviour Jesus Christ, and the Apostle Paul, strongly assert and confirm the divine original of the Law of Moses. The diminishing and degrading manner in which that Apostle seems sometimes to speak of that Law, accounted for. The Instances the Author produces to show that there was no end of the Law but what the Apostle expressly contradicts, examined. The attempt he makes to prove that there was no such Typical or Mystical Sense of the Law as St. Paul supposes in his Arguings with the Jews. No Absurdity, but a Beauty and Harmony in supposing that what is obscurely hinted at in the Law is more clearly revealed in the Gospel.

THIS author proposes the question to be debated, whether the positive and ceremonial law of Moses, commonly called the Levitical Law, or the law concerning their priesthood, was originally a divine institution or revelation from God, to be afterwards nullified, abolished, and set aside by another revelation; or whether it was a mere piece of carnal worldly policy.' This latter part of the question is what he undertakes to maintain, and which is more extraordinary, he declares, that if he cannot make it appear that St. Paul, when he comes to be rightly understood, is plainly on his side, he will give up the argument.' p. 23.

He manages this in a great many words with some digressions from p. 24 to p. 80; but though he seems in putting the question to confine it to the part of the law of Moses that relates to the priesthood, yet it is plain he intends it against the divine original of the whole law; and his arguments, if they prove any thing, prove that it was wholly a political institution; and that no part of it came by immediate revelation from God. And it is evident either the whole law was by immediate revelation from God, or no part of it was so, since Moses equally professed to receive the whole from God; and the many extraordinary miraculous attestations that were given to it, if they confirmed that law at all, extended equally to the confirmation of the whole.

Before I enter on the particular consideration of what this writer offers on this head, I shall first show that the apostle Paul did himself believe, and all along in the plainest manner suppose and assert, that the law of Moses was originally a divine institution or revelation from God. And no words can be more strong and full to this purpose than that remarkable passage, 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. He is there writing to his beloved Timothy a little before his own death, whom this author represents as the only teacher in that age, who heartily joined with the apostle Paul as his faithful helper and fellow-labourer, p. 72. And was of the same opinion with him in the controversy concerning the law of Moses, in opposition to the Christian Jews. The apostle might therefore use freedom with