law to violate them. If any of them saw and liked a beautiful captive, he was first to take her to his house, and allow her a month to bewail her father and mother, which showed a great deal of tenderness and humanity towards the captive, and at the same time gave space for the heat of his passion to abate; and if his affection to her still continued, he was to marry her, and take her for his wife, or if he did not continue to love her, was to give her her liberty, see Deut. xxi. 10-15. This wise constitution was designed to lay a restraint on their exorbitant lusts, to which soldiers are very prone to give a full loose, especially in a town taken by assault.

6

And lastly, the orders given in that 20th chapter of Deuteronomy, ver. 19, not to destroy the fruit trees' in a siege, because they were man's life,' or useful for sustaining life; and which the Hebrew doctors justly interpret, as extending to all things of the like nature; that is, not to commit needless cruel wastes and devastations in the enemy's land, shows that Moses was far from encouraging such a fierce and savage spirit in the management of their wars as this writer would have us believe.

I would only farther observe, that whereas Moses, after giving these directions as to the management of the war, saith, Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee :' this is not to be understood, as this writer would have it, as if it was designed to encourage them to carry their conquering arms through all the world to the most distant nations. What is meant by the cities very far off' from them, Moses himself explains in the following words: for he immediately adds, Which are not of the cities of these nations.' The latter phrase is evidently designed to be explicatory of the former; and to show whom they were to understand by the cities that were very far off from them, even all that did not properly belong to the devoted nations of the land of Canaan. And it is certain that in Scripture language the words 'far off' do not always denote a great distance, but are sometimes applied to places that were not truly remote. Thus we are told concerning the waters of Jordan when the Israelites passed over, that they rose up on an heap very far from the city Adam that is beside Zaretan,' Josh. iii. 16, though this was not many miles off in the plains of Jordan; compare 1 Kings vii. 46. The inhabitants of Laish are said to be far from the Zidonians,' Judg. xviii. 7, 88, though they were but a day's journey from them, according to Josephus. And any stranger that is not of Israel is represented as of a far country,' and of a far country,' and as coming from a far country,' Deut. xxix. 22, 1 Kings viii. 41, 2 Chron. vi. 32. So that the meaning is plainly this, that they were to conform to the directions he had given them, in all their wars with any other nations but the Canaanites, whom God had devoted to utter destruction.

Having considered what the author objects against the law of Moses from its constitutions of war, and supposed intentions of

universal conquest, I shall not need to say much to that part of his reflections, where he urges it as a proof of the spirit of inhumanity and persecution in that law, that it obliged them absolutely to separate themselves from all idolaters, and to have no alliances with them. He tells us, that by the law even the proselytes of the gate, who were not obliged to be circumcised, yet were obliged absolutely to separate themselves from all idolaters, or people of other religions (so he very candidly interprets it, as if to be idolaters,' and to be people of other religions,' were terms of the same signification); and that this separation was to regard all family intercourse, of eating and drinking together, cohabitation, intermarriages, alliances in war, or any other conjunction of interest, though it should appear never so necessary for mutual defence and self-preservation; and that this strict and rigid separation from all the rest of the world, and abjuring their friendship and alliances as idolaters is so clearly interwoven with all the laws of Moses, that it may be called the fundamental constitution of that state or body politic,' p. 360.

for

It will be easily owned that the Jews were, by their constitution and peculiarities, designed to be kept a separate people, and from confounding themselves with other nations; and this was ordered very wise and valuable ends, some of which have been hinted at already. But the proselytes of the gate' were not bound by those peculiar distinctive rites that kept the Jews separate from other nations; especially those that related to the distinction of meats, and to ceremonial impurities. And whereas he tells us that theproselytes of the gate' were obliged absolutely to separate from all idolaters, even with regard to alliances in war, or any other conjunction of interest, though it should appear never so necessary for mutual defence and self-preservation; this is not true even of the Jews themselves. They were not obliged by any precept of that law never to have any alliances in war, or any other conjunction of interest' with the heathen nations, though it should appear never so necessary for mutual defence and selfpreservation.' The precepts of the law forbidding them to make any covenant or league relating to the nations of Canaan, or the inhabitants of the land, as is evident from all the passages where this is mentioned, see Exod. xxiii. 32, 33, Exod. xxxiv. 12, 15, Deut. vii. 1, 2, to which may be added, Judg. ii. 2. The learned Grotius hath, in a few words, set this matter in a clear light, de Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. ii. cap. 15, sect. 9, where he observes that the Jews are nowhere in the law forbidden to make treaties of commerce with the Pagans, or any other such covenants which tended to the mutual benefit of both parties. He instances in Solomon's league with Hiram, king of Tyre, for which he is so far from being blamed, that it is mentioned as an instance of the 'great wisdom' which the Lord had given him,' 1 Kings v. 12; and before that there had been a great friendship between Hiram and David, ver. 1, as also between king David, and Nahash, king of

the Ammonites; and he was willing also to have kept up the same friendly intercourse with his son, though no man was more zealous against idolatry than that prince, see 2 Sam. x. 2. So far is it from being true which this writer here alleges, that they were to abjure all friendship and alliances with idolaters,' and that they 'were not to maintain any peace or amity with any other nation or people, but on condition of submitting to them as their subjects, slaves, and tributaries,' as he affirms, p. 29; and Grotius there observes, that the Maccabees, who were very strict in observing the law of Moses, entered into a league with the Lacedemonians, and with the Romans, for mutual assistance and defence, and that with the consent of the priests and people, and even offered sacrifices for their prosperity, 1 Mac. viii. and xii. As to marriages with idolaters the case is different. This is a much nearer union than what arises from treaties of commerce, or leagues made for mutual defence. It depends more on a person's own choice and inclination, whereas the other may be necessary in certain conjunctures and circumstances for the public safety. The danger of being perverted to idolatry is much greater in this case than in the other, and of having the children and family bred up to idolatry and false worship, which every good man would be desirous to prevent.

And accordingly, even the Christian Institution, which is so kind and benevolent, and every where breathes universal charity and good will towards mankind, yet forbids our entering into a conjugal relation with idolaters and unbelievers; see 2 Cor. vi. 14-16. So that this part of the Mosaic constitution is far from proving what our author produces it for, that it was founded on the principles of persecution, and on a want of benevolence to mankind. It is not indeed to be wondered at that this writer finds fault with this, who commends the Gnosticks not only for marrying with idolaters, but for feasting with them in the idol temples, and joining with them in all the outward acts of their idolatrous worship, which he seems to think not only lawful but commendable, provided they still kept from a mental adoration of the idol, pp. 388, 389. It will be easily granted this never was allowed to the Jews, nor is it to those whom he is pleased to call Jewish Christians, that is, to those that are Christians upon the foot of the New Testament, or the religion taught by Christ and his apostles. And however such a conduct may be consistent with this man's moral philosophy, yet how it can be made to consist with common honesty I can

not see.

CHAPTER V.

The author's pretence that the law of Moses encouraged human sacrifices as the highest acts of religion and devotion when offered not to idols but to the true God. Such sacrifices plainly forbidden in the law to be offered to God. His account of Lev. xxvii. 28, 29, considered. The argument he draws from the law for the redemption of the first-born turned against him. The case of Abraham's offering up his son Isaac considered at large. Not done in conformity to the customs of the Canaanites. The true state of the case laid down. Hum n sacrifices not encouraged by this instance, but the contrary. Abraham himself had full assurance that this command came from God. Upon what grounds his having had such a command from God is credible and probable to us. It could not be owing to the illusions of an evil spirit: nor to the force of his own enthusiasm. The author's pretence that this instance destroys the law of nature, and leaves all to mere arbitrary will and pleasure, examined.

THE Moral Philosopher has several other objections against the law of Moses scattered through his book. He would fan have it thought that that law encourages and approves human sacrifices.' The author of Christianity as old as the Creation,' had laboured this point before him, and what he offers on this head hath received a full answer. But these gentlemen are never weary of repeating the same objections with as much confidence as if not the least notice had been ever taken of them before. This writer is pleased to tell us, that, among the free will offerings offered by the Jews under the law, human sacrifices were looked upon as the most efficacious and acceptable to the Lord. And though they were not exacted by law (though if the interpretation he pretends to give of Lev. 28, 29, be just, they were exacted by law), yet they were encouraged and indulged as the riches and donations, and as the testimony of the most perfect religion, and highest degree of love to God. Indeed, such burnt-offerings of their sons and daughters to idols and false gods were represented as the greatest possible abomination; and for the same reason such oblations were regarded as the highest possible acts of religion and devotion, when they were intended and given up as sacrifices of atonement to the true God,' pp. 129, 130.

But certainly, since there are such particular directions given in the law relating to sacrifices, appointing what things were to be offered to God, and in what manner; if human sacrifices, or the offering of their sons and daughters, were there designed to be encouraged as the most valuable oblations, and acts of the most perfect religion,' there would have been directions in the law concerning them. And there not being the least direction there given relating to any such sacrifices, when there are such minute and particular directions in every other kind of oblations, is a manifest

See answer to Christianity as old as the Creation, vol. ii. p. 408, ot seq.

proof that they were never designed to be encouraged and approved by that law, and indeed is equivalent to an express prohibition of them under that constitution. For they were strictly enjoined to keep close to the law in their sacred ceremonies, and not to add thereto or diminish from it, and particularly were not suffered to offer any other sacrifices, or in any other manner than was there expressly appointed. But besides this, there is as plain a prohibition of those human sacrifices as can be desired in the law itself, Deut. xii. 30, 31. In that chapter God forbids his people to worship him in the same manner and with the same rites with which the heathens worshipped their idols. In the beginning of that chapter, after having mentioned their worshipping their gods upon the high mountains' and hills,' and in the groves,' and with graven images,' he adds, ver. 4, Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God; that is, thou shalt not offer sacrifices to him in the high places and groves as they worshipped their idols; but as it follows, ver. 5, 6, Unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, shall ye come, and thither shall ye bring your burnt-offerings,' &c., and then, ver. 30, 31, he forbids their imitating the heathens in offering up human sacrifices to him as they did unto their gods. Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed before thee, and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, how did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord which he hateth, have they done unto their gods: for even their sons and daughters they have burnt in the fire unto their gods.' It is very evident here that God plainly forbids his people, not only to worship their gods, but to imitate them in the manner of their worship. And particularly he mentions their sacrificing of their sons and daughters to their gods, as a thing which was highly abominable in his sight; and that therefore the Israelites should not imitate this detestable practice in his worship. They should not do so unto the Lord their God.' And in the words immediately following in opposition to this, he charges them to observe to do whatsoever he commanded them;' and forbids them to add thereto or diminish from it.' Taking the whole passage together, I think it plainly appears from it, that by the law of Moses God was so far from encouraging the Israelites to offer up human sacrifices to him as the heathens did to their idols, or teaching them to regard it as the highest possible act of devotion when done to the true God, that he could not more strongly express his absolute detestation and abhorrence of it.

There is no necessity, therefore, of examining the author's account of that passage, Lev. xxvii. 28, 29, which cannot admit the interpretation he puts upon it. Indeed the account he gives of it, and of the vows intended in that chapter, is so confused and obscure, that I must confess I do not understand it, and it is of little importance to seek out his meaning. I shall only observe that whereas he speaks of two sorts of vows, general and special;' one

6