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.

To

otherwise they themselves should perish out of the land, see Deut. iv. 25, 26, &c., and many other passages to the same purpose. 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

him, and was under no temptation to disguise his sentiments to him, as our author insinuates he was frequently obliged to do on other occasions. And he there commends Timothy, for that from a child he had known the Holy Scriptures; and declares that they were able to make him wise unto salvation. Where by the holy Scriptures he incontestably refers to the writings of the Old Testament, viz. those of Moses and the prophets, which were the only Scriptures Timothy could have been acquainted with from his childhood. And he adds, that all Scripture (or the whole Scripture) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.' No declaration can possibly be plainer for the divine authority and inspiration of Moses and the prophets, whose writings he manifestly understands by what he there calls the Scripture. And indeed nothing is more usual with this apostle in all his epistles, than when he brings passages out of the law of Moses to call it the Scripture, and cite it as of divine authority; see Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17; Gal. iii. 8, iv. 30; 1 Tim. v. 8. And having occasion to mention a particular command of the law of Moses, and which seemed to be of a civil nature, he supposes that God gave that command, 1 Cor. ix. 9. He mentions it as the signal advantage of the Jews above the Gentiles, that unto them were committed the oracles of God,' Rom. iii. 1, 2. And of those oracles the law of Moses was certainly regarded as a principal part, Acts vii. 38. And again, that to them, viz. the Jews,' pertained the covenant, and the giving of the law, and the service of God,' Rom. ix. 4, where he evidently refers to the Levitical Service and worship. In the whole epistle to the Hebrews, where it is his great design to show the supreme excellency of the evangelical dispensation above the Mosaical, he all along evidently supposes the law of Moses, and the manner of worship and divine service there prescribed, to have been originally from God, and of divine appointment. He expressly saith, that 'Christ Jesus was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house,' Heb. iii. 2, 5. Where it is undeniably evident, that he supposes that God sent and appointed Moses as truly as he did Jesus Christ, and that Moses was faithful, and kept close to what God had appointed. With respect particularly to the Levitical priesthood, he supposes this to have been of divine institution, and that Aaron was called of God to be high priest, and did not take this honour unto himself, Heb. v. 4, and viii. 5, he saith, the priests under the law serve to the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle; for see, (saith he) that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.' Where he expressly represents Moses as receiving orders from God by divine revelation relating to the sanctuary and priesthood. And when he set himself to prove Heb. viii., that the first covenant, that is, the Mosaical economy was abolished, he still supposes at the same time, that it had God for its author, as well as the second more excellent and perfect dispensation that was to

succeed it. And this also appears from the quotation he produced from the prophet Jeremiah to prove it; Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt,' Heb. viii. 8, 9, 10; see also Heb. ix-20. Where it is plainly implied and asserted that God was the author of the first covenant, made with the children of Israel by the hand of Moses.

From all this I think it is evident as the plainest words can make it, that the apostle Paul still represents the Mosaical law, and particularly that part of it relating to the priesthood and ceremonies to have been originally a divine institution. And indeed in this belief he only followed the sentiments of his great Lord and Master Jesus Christ, who in all his discourses to the people and to his own disciples, whenever he hath occasion to mention the law of Moses, always speaks of it in a manner that shows he regarded it as originally of divine appointment. He declares in the most express manner that he came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil them;' that is, he came not to deny and subvert their divine authority, but to fulfil the true and proper design and end of them; to confirm and perfect the moral precepts, to fulfil and give the substance of the types and ceremonies, which the apostle tells us were the shadow of good things to come, but the body is of Christ,' and to accomplish the predictions there contained. And he declares that 'till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle should not pass away from the law till all be fulfilled, Matt. v. 17, 18; Luke xvi. 17. And I do not know whether any words could more strongly assert its divine original, and that no part of it should fail of its just accomplishment. He severely reproves the Pharisees for teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,' and making 'void the law of God by their traditions;' and by the law of God he understands the commandments given by Moses, which he there calls the commandments of God, and the word of God, in opposition to human inventions and traditions, Mark xii. 3, 9, 13. In the remarkable parable of the rich man and Lazarus, he refers them to the law of Moses and the prophets, as exhibiting a sufficient signification of the divine will, and that if they did not hear, that is, believe and obey them, neither would they be persuaded though one rose from the dead,' Luke xvi. 29-31. He tells the Sadducees, that they erred, not knowing the Scriptures, and the power of God,' and he explains what he means by the Scriptures, by referring to the book of Moses, Mark xii. 24-26. And lastly, after his resurrection, when beginning at Moses and the prophets, he expounded to his disciples in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself,' Luke xxiv. 39. And again, when he said to them, 'These are the words which I spake unto you, whilst I was with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me,' ver. 44,

E