open and public manner. Those of Moses were delivered to a whole nation, who were to be governed by those laws, in their successive generations. The Christian laws and doctrines were immediately published throughout a considerable part of the then known world, by persons divinely commissioned to that purpose. The facts whereby both the Mosaical and Christian revelation was attested were done in public view, before great numbers of persons; they were of such a nature, and attended with such circumstances, such evidence of their reality, that those that were eyewitnesses of them could not be deceived in them themselves, or doubt of their reality, without renouncing the testimony of all their senses. Upon the credit of these facts, as undeniably true and evident, those laws and doctrines were immediately received by great numbers who had all possible opportunities of knowing whether those facts were true; and many of whom were deeply prejudiced against the laws, &c. so attested. The remembrance of those doctrines and facts was not merely handed down by oral tradition, but they were immediately committed to writing; and these writings were published in that very age, and among the persons that could not but know whether those accounts were true. The writings containing an account of the law of Moses, and the facts whereby it was attested, were published by Moses himself before his own death. Nor were they to be concealed or kept private in a few hands, but by the express appointment of the law itself were to be made known and considered by all the people, who were carefully to instruct their children in the knowledge both of the laws and facts. And accordingly we find that nation, in all their various revolutions, still in possession of those laws, and still preserving a remembrance of those extraordinary facts. And, indeed, there was all possible provision made in the law itself for keeping up the constant remembrance of those facts by several remarkable constitutions, which were designed for this very purpose. Those writings are still regarded, as containing the rule both of their civil and religious policy, from which, even in the times of their greatest degeneracy, they never totally and universally apostatized; and therefore were still looked upon by many among them with veneration, and their sacredness and divine authority acknowledged. And if we examine the writings themselves, they bear all the characters of genuine antiquity, and the original simplicity. Nor have any alterations been made in them in those instances, in which it may be justly supposed the Jews, in succeeding ages, would have altered them, if they durst have attempted to corrupt them at all.

And with respect to the original Christian records, they were immediately dispersed in the very age in which they were first written, that is, in the age in which the laws were published and the facts were done. In that age they were dispersed into many hands in different parts of the world, received with great veneration, read in the public assemblies, soon translated into various languages, ever since constantly appealed to by friends and enemies, by persons

of different sects and parties, and with different views, large portions of them transcribed into the writings of others, and commented upon. A general corruption of them, either in the doctrines or facts, as the case was circumstanced, if it had been attempted, would have been an impossible thing. And it is evident, in fact, that they have not been corrupted, in instances where it might be supposed to have been the interest and inclination of some persons to have corrupted them. Nothing appears in them of the corruption of the following ages. They carry all the marks of genuine purity and simplicity that any writings can possibly have. Upon the whole, there is as much evidence as can reasonably be desired, that these are the very original laws and doctrines, and the original accounts of those facts written in the very age in which those facts were done. And I do not see what can reasonably be expected more; unless we are resolved not to believe, except we ourselves, at this distance, have ocular demonstration of the facts done in past ages; which is to demand a thing absurd and impossible. All this is what I have largely shown in a former treatise, to which I have referred in a book this author has undertaken to answer, p. 39. Yet he thinks fit frequently to represent me as taking the facts for granted, without having offered the least proof. But I know no obligation I am under to repeat the proof in every book, when I had done it largely and fully before, to which no answer has been yet returned. I shall however take some notice, in the next chapter, of what he offers with regard to the law of Moses, and the facts whereby that law was attested. And as to the original records of Christianity, Mr. Chapman has fully shown that they are transmitted to us with unquestionable evidence of their being genuine and uncorrupted in all material points, both as to doctrines and facts. Our author has not thought fit to answer what that learned writer has urged on this head, and yet persists as securely in repeating his general clamours about the uncertainty of human testimony, as if nothing at all had been offered in this case; or as if he himself had clearly confuted it.

CHAPTER IV.

The law of Moses is in itself reasonable and excellent.

This does not render the

The

attestation given it by miracles needless; but strengthens and enforces it. covenant of peculiarity not a vain pretence and national delusion. The argument brought against it from the authority of St. Paul and the nature of the Abrahamic covenant considered. The God of Israel not represented in Scripture as a national, local, tutelar deity. The author's strange way of accounting for some of Moses's miracles. The extravagance of his suppositions shown. The objections against his being the author of the Pentateuch, considered and obviated. The plan Moses

laid down for the conquest of Canaan, not inconsistent with the nature of the promise made to Abraham. Other exceptions of this writer considered.

THE principal design of my former book was to vindicate the Mosaical and Christian revelation against the objections this writer had brought against them. And before I entered on a particular discussion of his objections against the law of Moses, I premised some general considerations concerning the nature and design of that law. It was shown, that its moral precepts were pure and excellent; that its ritual injunctions were appointed for wise reasons; that the whole Mosaic constitution was designed for excellent ends; for preserving the knowledge and worship of the only true God in opposition to all idolatry, and for engaging those to whom it was given to the practice of righteousness; that it was a constitution that answered many wise purposes of Divine Providence, and was made subservient to the general good of mankind. This was in opposition to the odious representation this writer has made of the law of Moses, as if it was the worst constitution in the world. In this last book, which is professedly written in vindication of his former, he has been pleased to pass by what I had offered concerning the excellency of that law, and thinks it sufficient to observe, that by endeavouring to show the reasonableness and excellency of that law, I have entirely overthrown and given up the argument of my first chapter, concerning the proof from miracles. With this observation he begins his second section,' pp. 53, 54. But the weakness of this pretence, and the consistency of the scheme I advanced, has been fully shown.* If I had affirmed that the reasonableness and good tendency of the Mosaic constitution was alone considered a sufficient proof that Moses had it by extraordinary revelation from God, this would have been a contradicting my first chapter, in which I say, that the reasonableness of a doctrine or law will never alone prove that the man that teaches that doctrine, or brings that law, had it by immediate revelation from God.' But to say that, because I assert the reasonableness and excellent design of that law, therefore I cannot consistently lay any stress upon the extraordinary miraculous attestations that were given to that law, as proofs of its divine authority, is a strange way of arguing. On the contrary, this sets the proof from miracles in the strongest light. For, though it might be justly concluded, from the very nature and circumstances of those miracles, that they were such as could never be done, nor would God suffer them to be done in attestation of an imposture; yet, when to this it is farther added, that the main design of that law and constitution was pure and excellent, for promoting the worship of the only true God, and the practice of righteousness, this furnisheth a further demonstration, that those miracles were not wrought by evil beings, and that, consequently, since they undeniably transcended all the power of man, they must have been wrought by God himself, or by good beings

See pp. 58, 59.

acting under his special direction and influence; and therefore may be justly regarded as sufficient proofs that Moses, in attestation of whose divine mission they were done, was indeed extraordinarily sent of God; and that the scheme of laws he professed to have received from God, did indeed come from God, and was of divine authority.

Our author, after a digression in his rambling way, concerning the spiritual scholastics, &c. in which he says nothing but what has been already fully considered and obviated, proceeds to offer something concerning the 'covenant of peculiarity with the Jews.' I had shown that there was nothing in this constitution that can be proved to be inconsistent with the divine perfections, or to derogate from his universal goodness; and that it was appointed for wise and valuable ends, several of which were mentioned.* But our author here gives us his word for it, that it was all a vain pretence and national delusion, in which their prophets and historians had greatly contributed to support, humour, and encourage the pride, vanity, and superstition of the common people,' pp. 53, 56. Though soon after he is so kind as to excuse the prophets, who might have good reason from the necessity of the case, considering the blindness and obduracy of the people they had to deal with. And though some enthusiasts may call this imposture; yet, where it was necessary for the good of a nation, it must have been justifiable.' It seems that the prophets, according to him, were in the right to encourage and humour the pride, vanity, and superstition of that people, and to support them in a vain notion and delusion. And if any man will presume to call this imposture, he will incur our author's heavy censure, and must be content to pass for an enthusiast. He had talked at the same rate in his former book, that a wise and good man may falsify and deceive without injury, and secure his own private interest for the public good.' It is lawful, it seems, to pretend inspiration, to forge miracles and revelations, whenever it is apprehended that this may be for the good of a nation. This is one instance of our author's application of his rule of moral truth and fitness, and of judging of the fitness of a thing by its connexion with our happiness. There may be a moral truth and fitness even in falsehood, when we apprehend it tends to our own or others' good. Pious frauds are very innocent things, and must not be found fault with any more. There is either no real evil in falsehood and imposture; and if so, I cannot see upon what foundation it can be asserted, what all mankind have hitherto acknowledged, that it is impossible for God to lie;' or, if it be in itself evil, it is sanctified by the goodness of the end, and then I cannot see but the same pretence may justify false oaths and perjuries. In this, it must be owned, our author's morality and fitness of things is widely different from that taught us in Scripture, and particularly by the apostle Paul, who will not allow that a lie is sanctified under pretence that the glory of God is promoted by it,

* See pp. 27, 28, 32.

and pronounces that the damnation of those is just, that teach that we may do evil that good may come of it,' Rom. iii. 7, 8.

But not to insist any longer upon this, he asks, How shall we know or prove that God did enter into a special relation to that people? Must we take their own words, or the proud superstitious imagination of their own people for it?' p. 59.* I answer, that it is proved by the same evidence by which the divine authority of the law of Moses is proved, which was in its very original constitution in the nature of a special covenant with that people; in which God condescended to enter into a particular relation to them, and erected them into a peculiar polity for wise and valuable ends; and consequently it was confirmed by the testimony of God himself, who, as hath been already shown, did, in an extraordinary manner, bear witness to the divine mission of Moses, and to the divine original and authority of the laws he delivered in his name. And I hope, whatever our author thinks the prophets would do, he will hardly pretend that God himself would endeavour to 'humour and encourage the pride, and vanity, and superstition' of that people, by making them believe he intended to enter into a special relation to them, when he did not.

But if we will believe him, he has St. Paul on his side, who has, in a manner demonstratively set this covenant of peculiarity aside, by proving that the covenant of promise, which God made with Abraham, had no peculiar relation to Abraham's natural seed, or to the Jewish nation, but extended equally to all mankind, or to all the sincere worshippers of the one true God, in all nations, and at all times, to the end of the world, pp. 58, 59. The author as his manner is, triumphs upon this, as if it were perfect demonstration. But it is hard to see where the force of this reasoning lies. The apostle sets himself to prove, that Abraham, in whom the Jews boasted as their father, was justified by faith: he believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness, even when he was yet uncircumcised and God promised, that in him, and his seed, should all nations be blessed. This promise related to the blessing that should come upon all nations, through Jesus Christ, who was to come of the seed of Abraham. And, consequently, all true believers, even among the Gentiles, were to have an interest in that blessing, being justified by faith as Abraham was, without the observation of the law of Moses; which came after that promise, and was not designed to repeal or abrogate it. This is the apostle's reasoning, Gal. iii. Rom. iv. And it is strong and cogent against those judaizing teachers, who urged, that it was absolutely necessary, that even the Gentiles should be circumcised, and observe the law, in order to their being justified and saved. But doth it follow from thence, that God never entered into any special relation to the people of Israel at all, nor erected them into a peculiar polity? it is

In this way of talking, as well as in several other things, our author treads in the steps of Dr. Tindal, the absurdity of whose rule of judging of truth or falsehood, by its tendency, has been elsewhere exposed.