The Divine Authority of the Old and New Testament Asserted Against the ... - John Leland - Google Books

Books

them

up to all manner of wickedness, ignorance, superstition, and false worship, and to leave them exposed to be practised upon by artful and designing men, against all which a thorough acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures, and a firm adherence to them as the great rule of faith and practice, is the most effectual preservative.

I can scarce form to myself an idea of a revelation whose doctrines and precepts have a more manifest tendency to promote the honour of God and the good of mankind, or that is more remote from the views of worldly ambition, avarice, and sensuality; in a word, that carries in it greater internal characters of goodness and purity, or is attended with more illustrious external attestations of a divine original. Nor are the difficulties that attend it greater than may well be expected, supposing a revelation really given to mankind. Several of these difficulties are obviated in the following book, and if what is here offered may be of service to the interests of real religion and important truth, I shall not repent the pains I have been at under much bodily weakness to serve so glorious

a cause.

CONTENTS.

Page

The Moral Philosopher's concessions concerning the usefulness of Divine Reve-

lation in the present corrupt state of mankind. He leaves no way of knowing

when such a Revelation is really given. His pretence that moral truth and fit-

ness, as appearing to our understandings, is the only proof or evidence of divine

Truth, or of any doctrine as coming from God, examined. That not only the

persons to whom the Revelation is originally and immediately made, but others

also, may have a sufficient assurance of its being a revelation from God, so as to

make it reasonable for them to receive it as of divine authority. And par-

ticularly that miracles may be so circumstanced as to furnish a sufficient proof

of a person's divine mission, and of the divine original and authority of doctrines

and laws attested and confirmed by those miracles. The Author's exceptions

against this considered. And what he offers to show that a Divine Revelation

cannot be conveyed to us by human testimony, so as to be a matter of divine faith,

An Entrance on the Author's Objections against the Old Testament. The strange

Representation he makes of the Law of Moses. Some general considerations

concerning the Nature and Design of that Law. Its moral Precepts pure and

excellent. Its ritual Injunctions appointed for wise Reasons. The Nature of

its Sanctions considered. Reasons of God's erecting the People of Israel into a

peculiar Polity. Nothing absurd in this Constitution. It was designed in a

Subserviency to the general Good. The miraculous Facts whereby that Law

was confirmed, not poetical Embellishments, but real Facts. The Author's

Reasons to prove that those Facts could not be understood in a literal Historical

Sense shown to be vain and insufficient.

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 that 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.

The author's objections against the Law of Moses from the internal constitution

of that law, considered. His pretence that that law extended only to the outward

practice and behaviour of men in Society, and that the obligation of it with re-

spect to civil and social virtue extended no farther than to the members of that

Society, and that they were put into a state of war with all the rest of the world.

It is shown that that law required an inward purity of heart and affections. The

great tenderness and humanity that appears in its precepts. It required a kind

and benevolent conduct,-not only towards those of their own Society, but towards

strangers. That constitution not founded in the principles of persecution. It

tolerated all that worshipped the one true God, though not conforming to their

peculiar rites and usages. The punishing idolatry with death in the common-

wealth of Israel accounted for. No obligation by that law to extirpate idolatry,

and destroy idolaters in all other countries by fire and sword. His pretence that

Moses directed the Israelites to extend their conquests through all nations, and

that their constitution and plan of a government was contrived for it, examined.

The contrary to this shown. The military laws, Deut. xx. explained. Whether

that law absolutely prohibited all alliances with idolaters.

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 Abra-

ham'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. Human

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 enthu-

siasm. 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's account of the original of sacrifices and of the priesthood,

and of Joseph's first establishing an independent priesthood in Egypt. The

representation he makes of the Mosaical priesthood, considered. The priests had

not the government of the nation vested in them by that constitution, nor were

they exempted from the jurisdiction of the law, nor had an interest separate from

and inconsistent with the state. Concerning the church revenues established by

the law of Moses. The particular manner of providing for the maintenance of

the priests and Levites accounted for. The author's pretence, that it was an

insufferable burden and impoverishment to the people, and the cause of their fre-

quent revoltings to idolatry, examined. Some observations concerning the sacri-

fices prescribed under the Mosaical economy. The author's objections against

them considered. No sacrifices were to be offered in cases where civil penalties

were expressly appointed by law, and why. The atoning virtue of the sacrifices

supposed to consist in the sprinkling of the blood. This shown not to be a

priestly cheat, but appointed for wise reasons.

His pretence that the law of Moses made no distinction between morals and rituals,

and never urged things as in themselves fit and reasonable; and that the stories

of the miracles recorded there were the cause of the Jews' obduracy and impen.

itency throughout all their generations. His bitter invectives against the Jews,

and the strange representation he makes of that people, with a view to cast a

reproach upon their law. It is shown, that by the advantage of their law, they

far exceeded all other nations in the knowledge of religion, and that they were

famed for wisdom even among the heathens. The proper use that should be

made of the accounts given us of their faults, and of the punishments inflicted

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 concu-

bine at Gibeah. The 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 cir-

cumstantial. The difference between the false prophets and the true, considered.

No argument to be drawn from the former to the disadvantage of the latter.

Some general reflections on the attempt the author makes, to show that the prophets

were the great disturbers of their country, and that they were of persecuting prin-

ciples, enemies to toleration and liberty of conscience. It is shown that they were

the truest friends to their country, and that if their counsels had been hearkened to,

its ruin would have been prevented. His invective against the prophet Samuel,

whom he represents as the founder of the prophetic order. His pretence that

he kept Saul twenty years out of the exercise of the royal power, after he was

chosen king. The account he gives of Samuel's quarrel against Saul for deposing

him from the high-priesthood, and of the several plots laid by him for the destruc-

tion of that prince, especially in the affair of the Amalekites, considered. In what

sense it is said that it repented God that he had made Saul king. That this was not

a pretence of Samuel to cast his own follies and want of foresight upon the Al-

mighty. David's character considered and vindicated. His behaviour towards

Saul shown to be noble and generous. Notwithstanding the faults he was guilty

of, in his general conduct he was an excellent person. Concerning his dancing

before the ark. The author's base representation of it. Lord S- -y's account

of it, and of the saltant naked spirit of prophecy considered.

The author's farther invective against the prophets considered. His account of

their pretended conspiracy against Solomon. The rending the kingdom of the

ten tribes from the house of David, not owing to the intrigues of the prophets,

but to the just judgments of God. The prophets not the authors of the several

civil wars and revolutions in the kingdom of Israel. The favourable account he

gives of Ahab and Jezebel and the other idolatrous princes, as friends to toleration

and liberty of conscience. The falsehood of this shown. His attempt to vindicate

the persecution raised against the true prophets of the Lord. Concerning Elijah's

character and conduct, and particularly concerning his causing Baal's prophets

to be put to death at Mount Carmel. The case of Elisha's anointing Jehu to be

king of Israel, with a commission to destroy the royal house of Ahab considered;

as also his management with Hazael. The charge this writer brings against the

prophets fomenting the wars between the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and

at length occasioning the ruin of both, shown to be false and inconsistent,

His charge against the prophets that lived before the Assyrian captivity, that they

declaimed only against idolatry, and not against the other vices and immoralities

ofthe people. The falsehood of this shown. The excellent scheme of religion

and morals taught by the ancient prophets. His pretence that the whole nation

of the Jews, from the time of Moses to Ezra, were Sadducees or deistical Mate-

rialists; and that they received the first notions of a future state from the Persian

magi, examined. His account of the change introduced into the Jewish religion

at that time shown to be groundless and absurd. A future state implied in the

law, and all along believed among the people, and clearly intimated in the writings

of the prophets. This proved from several passages.

A transition to the Moral Philosopher's objections against the New Testament.

Though he pretends a very high respect for our blessed Saviour, yet he insinu-

ates several reflections upon his conduct and character. Those reflections shown

to be groundless and unjust. Our Lord did not comply with the prejudices of

the people in any thing contrary to truth, or to the honour of God. He was far

from assuming to be a temporal prince, yet he all along claimed to be the Mes-

siah promised and foretold by the prophets. The author's pretence that he re-

nounced that character at his death, shown to be false. The Messiah spoken of

by the prophets, was not merely to be a national Deliverer of the Jews, nor were

the benefits of his kingdom to be confined to that nation only, but to be extended

to the Gentiles. This shown from the prophecies themselves. The attestation

given to Christ's divine mission, by the prophecies of the Old Testament, con-

sidered and vindicated.

The author's charge against the apostles, examined. His pretence that they them-

selves were far from claiming infallibility, considered. It is shown that they did

profess to be under the unerring guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in

publishing the gospel of Jesus; and that they gave sufficient proofs to convince

the world of their divine mission. The attestations given to Christianity and to

the doctrines taught by the apostles, by the extraordinary gifts and powers of

the Holy Ghost, considered and vindicated, against our author's exceptions.

His pretence that those gifts of the Holy Ghost might be used like natural facul-

ties and talents, according to the pleasure of the persons who were endowed with

them, either for the promoting truth or error; and that the false teachers, as

well as the true, had those extraordinary gifts and powers, and made use of

them in confirmation of their false doctrines, examined at large.

The gospel taught by the apostles was 'the same. The author's account of the

Jewish gospel, preached by them, false and groundless. The pretended differ-

ence between St. Paul and the other apostles, concerning the obligation of the

law of Moses on the Jewish converts, examined. None of the apostles urged the

observation of that law, as necessary to justification and acceptance with God,

under the gospel; though they all judged it lawful to observe the Mosaic rites

for a season. The wisdom and consistency of this their conduct. and the entire

harmony between St. Paul and the other apostles in this matter, shown. The

pretended difference between them relating to the law of proselytism to be urged

on the Gentile converts. The decree of the Apostolical Council at Jerusalem,

considered: and the reasons and grounds of that decree inquired into. No proof

that the apostle Paul disapproved or counteracted that decree. The conduct of

that apostle at his trial, justified.

The author's pretence that the apocalypse is most properly the Christian revelation,

and that it is there that we are principally to look for the doctrines of Christi-

anity, considered. There is nothing in that book to countenance the worship of

angels, invocation of saints, or prayers for the dead. Salvation is not there

confined to the Jews only. His account of the fifth monarchy which he pretends

is foretold in that book, shown to be false and absurd. The attempt he makes

against the whole canon of the New Testament, under pretence that it was cor-

rupted and interpolated by the Jews, and that Christ's own disciples reported

doctrines and facts according to their own false notions and prejudices, examined

The Moral Philosopher sets up for rectifying the errors of Christians with regard to

some of the particular doctrines of Christianity. His objections against the doc-

« Previous Continue »